Similar posts

Starbuddy #fundie help.com

Atheism is the assumption that there is no god…hence a belief….without rational or scientific evidence… hence a religion

["Starbuddy, so you’re saying that religion is believing something without rational or scientific evidence?"]

No, not at all…I am saying that atheism is a belief without scientific or rational evidence.

Samuel James #fundie patheos.com

[From a "article" about how Christians should be debating with their Atheist friends]

3) Only supernatural theism provides a rational justification of scientific work.

The wording of this point is very important. If we left out the word “rational,” then the statement would actually be false and quite easy to shoot down. You don’t need supernatural theism to be curious, or to want to explore the natural world. But you do need supernatural theism to have a rational justification of science. What does the word rational mean there? It means that scientific inquiry done on the assumption that there is no higher intelligence than evolved human intelligence is making a value judgment that it has no right to make.

Why is knowledge better than ignorance? The atheist would respond that ignorance has less survival value than truth; after all, if you believe wrong things or do not know enough about your environment, you’re less likely to survive and flourish. But this explanation only applies to a very small amount of scientific knowledge. There is little survival value in knowing, for example, the complicated workings of time–space theory, or the genus of certain insects, or the distance of Jupiter from Mars. All of these facts are pursued by scientists as being intrinsically valuable, yet they offer very little information that can help guarantee a species’ continued existence on the planet.

The real explanation is that scientists pursue these facts because there is intrinsic value in knowing what is true about the world, regardless of how much help it gives us. Human beings believe that knowing is better than ignorance because they believe that truth is better than falsity, and light is better than darkness. But where does such a conclusion come from? It does not come from scientific principles. Science itself offers no self-evident account for why it should be pursued. You cannot study science hard enough to understand why you should study science at all. To study science presupposes a valuing of truth that must be experienced outside of scientific study. It is only rational to pursue scientific knowledge that doesn’t offer immediate survival value if there is some external, transcendent value in knowing truth. Theism offers an explanation for why knowing truth is valuable. Scientific atheism does not.

4) Only supernatural theism gives us assurance that real scientific knowledge is possible.

Philosopher Alvin Plantinga is famous for articulating what he calls the “evolutionary argument against naturalism.” The argument is
Alvin Plantinga

Alvin Plantinga

complicated in detail but simple in premise. Plantinga begins by putting two facts alongside each other that nearly all atheists agree on. First, the theory of evolution is true, and humans have descended from lower life forms over time. Secondly, humans are rational beings in a higher degree and superior way to lesser evolved creatures. Plantinga then points our attention towards a tension between these two facts. If human beings are a more evolved species of primate, then our cognitive faculties (ie, the parts of our body and mind that allow us to be rational creatures) have evolved out of lesser cognitive faculties. But, Plantinga says, if God does not exist, then the only factors that affected human evolution are time and chance. Based on time and chance alone, why should we be confident that our rational minds–which are merely the sum of lesser evolved minds plus time and chance–are actually rational at all? What basis do we have to believe our own conclusions? How do we know we are actually capable of knowing truth more than a primate? If the only players in our existence are lesser creatures, time, and chance, how do we know we are even highly evolved at all?

This astute observation was echoed by Thomas Nagel in his recent book Mind and Cosmos. Nagel, an agnostic philosopher from New York University, argues that human comprehension of the universe cannot be explained merely by atheistic evolutionary processes. It makes no sense to assume that humans can really make sense of their world on a conceptual level if human consciousness arose out of the very world it responds to. Nagel agrees with Plantinga that atheistic naturalism cannot explain why human beings can be rational creatures and do rational things that should be trusted.

Scientific knowledge is only possible if things unprovable by science are actually true. If Carl Sagan is correct and the material universe is all there was, is, and ever will be, then science itself is nothing more than a shot in the dark. If, however, human beings are the products of an infinitely greater Mind, then we have justification for believing that true and false are realities and not merely the shadow puppets of our ancestors.

novanleon #fundie reddit.com

@oxford_karma

I agree totally with you. Moral relativism is ridiculous. There comes a point where you have to draw a line and say somethings are good and somethings are bad. Having sex with 10 year old girls is wrong no matter where you are (I can't believe that I actually have to argue the point). People, keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.

Are you Atheist? Are you rational? On what grounds do you make your moral claims? Intellectually speaking, what's the difference between having sex with someone who is 18, 16, 14, 12 or 10 years old? Why is one 100% morally acceptable while another is 100% morally objectionable? Why is the magic line drawn at 18 and not 16? Why 16 and not 14? Et cetera.

If your basis for moral judgement is zeitgeist, then you've given away the argument.


@oxford_karma

first, I can't believe that I'm being asked to justify my belief that child rape is wrong, but if you really want to do this, I will take the break. Physical: a ten year old is not physically mature enough to sustain a sexual relationship. Duh. Maturity: a ten year old is not emotionally or mentally mature enough to be "married," you dumb-fuck. This includes brain development. Sociologically: a society like this treats women as property, not people. This has a negative effect on human rights (which I guess is too "western" for your silly ass) and promotes victimization and oppession on a wide scale. If that is too abstract for your brain, then we can play this as a consumer problem where market forces are effected by widespread disenfranchisement. Could you imagine her bachelorette party? Fucking barbie themed for age appropriateness. Oh, and I love the "are you atheist" opening. Very self-righteous of you

You completely missed the point of my questions. Anyone can say that X is wrong, but why? In our culture we view marriage to a 10 year old as rape, but in their culture it's normal. Why is our moral perspective superior? Likewise, many in their culture may argue that abortion is murder and to let a murderer keep his life is unjust. Why is our morality superior in this case?

In order to claim our culture's moral values are superior you'd better have a strong, objective standard of morality to measure things by. Morality is either relative or absolute. If it's absolute, how and why? If it's relative, you've already lost the argument for your culture's moral superiority.

People have been giving their sons and daughters in marriage at that age for thousands of years. Any perceived negative consequences that you have are unique to modern Western culture. Your entire concept of marriage is different than theirs. There's a high probability that this girls mother, grandmother, sisters, cousins and female companions all had similar marriages. To them, it's normal. It's just the way things are. You're projecting your own Western values onto them and judging them when you have absolutely no idea what it's like to be born and raised in such a culture.

@cool_drank

Do you think a 10 year old has the same mental capacity as an 18 year old? What does being an atheist have to do with moral claims?

If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?

@cool_drank

If you're religious then your basis for moral claims is religious belief. If you're a rational atheist then you have to be able to support your claims with reason.

So why is a 18 year old suddenly capable of a healthy marital relationship when a 16/14/12/10 year old isn't? What is an acceptable age to you? Where do you draw the line? Given our society's rampant divorce and generally screwed up relationships, what exactly are the mental requirements of a healthy marital relationship? What makes you think our culture has it right? Given that their culture has been doing this for thousands of years, where is the evidence proving your position?


Your reaction is a purely emotional one. I'm just illustrating the hypocrisy in taking a moral stance on this issue without being able to back it up.

Morality is either absolute or relative. If it's relative, then you have no argument. If it's absolute, then you need to explain how and why. Religious people claim morality is absolute and back it up with a "higher power" or some other foundational principle. I'm trying to get you to explain what foundational principle your "absolute morality" is based on.

Also, you still haven't answered any of my questions. At what age does this introduction to "rational thought" occur?

In Jewish culture going back thousands of years, you were an adult when you reached the age of 12, and betrothals and marriages at this age weren't unusual. Up to nearly a hundred years ago, most Western countries set the age of consent between 10-13 years old. In modern Spain the age of consent is 13. In several countries in Europe and most of South America sets the age of consent at 14. In several countries, including North Korea set it at 15. The most common age of consent for most countries is 16. In the USA it varies between 16 and 18 depending on the state. Some countries set the age of consent at puberty instead of a specific age.

Which countries would you accuse of supporting pedophilia? Why are your moral values superior to that of millions, if not billions, of people around the world? I'm just looking for you to provide some underlying foundational principle for your (rather bold) position that doesn't depend on feigning shock and painting me (or anyone else) as a pedophile supporter.

Hemant menta #fundie patheos.com

Science is at war with religion. The conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages, a period in which the church vigorously asserted dogma and persecuted anyone who questioned its authority, including scientific pioneers such as Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno. Fortunately the Enlightenment came along in the eighteenth century and validated methods of acquiring knowledge through evidence and testing. These methods freed scientists to pursue truth without fear of recrimination from the church. Thus the scientific revolution was born. Yet the war between religion and science continues to this day.

If you believe this rendition of history, there’s a good chance you’ve been reading a public school textbook or the New Atheists. The idea that science and religion are at odds is a popular myth in our culture, perpetuated by news headlines like “God vs. Science” in Time magazine. Of the perceived conflict, Christopher Hitchens writes, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins writes, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Although it is widely believed that science and Christianity are at odds, the opposite is actually true. There is no inherent conflict between Christianity and science. We don’t mean to suggest that religious antagonism to science has never existed. It has and does. But the history of science shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. “Once upon a time, back in the second half of the nineteenth century,” says Alister McGrath, “it was certainly possible to believe that science and religion were permanently at war… This is now seen as a hopelessly outmoded historical stereotype that scholarship has totally discredited.”

The scientific enterprise as a sustained and organized movement emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science emerged in Europe, a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian world- view. Why? Because Christianity provided the philosophical foundation as well as the spiritual and practical motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview — with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand his creation — laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.


God’s Universe


Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543), Robert Boyle (1627–1691), Isaac Newton (1642–1727), Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), Louis Pasteur (1822–1895), Francis Bacon (1561–1626), and Max Planck (1858–1947). Many of these pioneers intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries God meant for us to explore. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. His favorite argument for design related to the solar system: “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”


Christopher Hitchens discounts the religious convictions of these scientific pioneers, claiming that belief in God was the only option for a scientist of the time. But this puts Hitchens in a curious dilemma. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes, like atrocities committed in the name of God, discredit them? This is a double standard. One cannot deny religious believers credit on the basis of “everyone was religious” and also assign blame on the same foundation. To make the case that “religion poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore evidence to the contrary. And he is more than willing to do so.


Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists are now a rarity: “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find through the twentieth century.” However, in the same year that Dawkins published The God Delusion (2006), three leading scientists released books favorable to theism. Harvard astronomer Owen Gingerich released God’s Universe, arguing that an individual can be both a scientist and a believer in intelligent design. Internationally renowned physicist Paul Davies published Goldilocks Enigma, in which he argued that intelligent life is the reason our universe exists. Francis Collins, former head of the Human Genome Project, published The Language of God, in which he presents scientific and philosophical evidence for God. Incidentally, President Barack Obama appointed Francis Collins as the director of the National Institutes for Health, one of the world’s foremost medical research centers.


Naming scientists whose Christian worldview motivated their work doesn’t settle the issue of how science and religion relate. Entire books have been written on how science and religion intersect. But we do hope you see that many early scientific pioneers, as well as cutting-edge scientists today, derived their motivation for scientific research from the belief that God created the world for us to investigate and enjoy. These scientists did not view Christianity as incompatible with science.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

(commenting on story "Atheist Activist Group Takes Issue With Alabama Police Department's Mix of God with Government"):

Oboehner:
Shows the hypocrisy of one religion claiming rights over another, nothing more.

Zampogna:
Atheism is a religion just like baldness is a hair color.

Oboehner:
Baldness is a scalp condition like atheism is a religion.

Zampogna:
Yes, bald men suffer from male pattern scalp condition. One of your analogies is bound not to fall on its face if you keep trying.

Oboehner:
The hair color analogy is blocking the fall as it face-planted the moment it hit cyberspace.

Zampogna:
Atheism is the absence of religion. I know what you're attempting, to turn all rational and scientific beliefs into matters of faith. And they aren't. And even if they were, they at least attempt to make attempts to understand by studying and not just saying Goddidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Oboehner:
Yeah right, the "we really don't care one way or the other" activist group, LOL
I know what you're attempting, to turn matters of faith into scientific beliefs . And they aren't. At least attempt to understand by studying and not just saying anexplodingdotdidit. As you are clearly doing but lack the honesty to admit.

Zampogna:
These ARE scientific beliefs, and you're trying to level the playing field by putting them on the same level as your ancient holy book. They couldn't be more different. Your holy book gets absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever and just demands you believe it. That's you. Science tests and re-tests and examines and studies over and over. That's my group. And I'm proud to be part of it.

Oboehner:
My "Holy Book" is an admitted matter of faith, it is not taught at taxpayer expense in government schools. Science can "test and re-test" all they want, if the belief and the flawed system they use never changes... You can be proud of whatever you like, that doesn't make it science, or even one bit true - you have only blind faith.

Hindu Nationalists #fundie sciencemag.org

Hindu nationalists claim that ancient Indians had airplanes, stem cell technology, and the internet
By Sanjay KumarFeb. 13, 2019 , 10:55 AM

New Delhi—The most widely discussed talk at the Indian Science Congress, a government-funded annual jamboree held in Jalandhar in January, wasn't about space exploration or information technology, areas in which India has made rapid progress. Instead, the talk celebrated a story in the Hindu epic Mahabharata about a woman who gave birth to 100 children, citing it as evidence that India's ancient Hindu civilization had developed advanced reproductive technologies. Just as surprising as the claim was the distinguished pedigree of the scientist who made it: chemist G. Nageshwar Rao, vice-chancellor of Andhra University in Visakhapatnam. "Stem cell research was done in this country thousands of years ago," Rao said.

His talk was widely met with ridicule. But Rao is hardly the only Indian scientist to make such claims. In recent years, "experts" have said ancient Indians had spacecraft, the internet, and nuclear weapons—long before Western science came on the scene.

Such claims and other forms of pseudoscience rooted in Hindu nationalism have been on the rise since Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014. They're not just an embarrassment, some researchers say, but a threat to science and education that stifles critical thinking and could hamper India's development. "Modi has initiated what may be called ‘Project Assault on Scientific Rationality,’" says Gauhar Raza, former chief scientist at the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) here, a conglomerate of almost 40 national labs. "A religio-mythical culture is being propagated in the country's scientific institutions aggressively."

Some blame the rapid rise at least in part on Vijnana Bharati (VIBHA), the science wing of Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), a massive conservative movement that aims to turn India into a Hindu nation and is the ideological parent of Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party. VIBHA aims to educate the masses about science and technology and harness research to stimulate India's development, but it also promotes "Swadeshi" (indigenous) science and tries to connect modern science to traditional knowledge and Hindu spirituality.

VIBHA receives generous government funding and is active in 23 of India's 29 states, organizing huge science fairs and other events; it has 20,000 so-called "team members" to spread its ideas and 100,000 volunteers—including many in the highest echelons of Indian science.

VIBHA's advisory board includes Vijay Kumar Saraswat, former head of Indian defense research and now chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University here. The former chairs of India's Space Commission and its Atomic Energy Commission are VIBHA "patrons." Structural biologist Shekhar Mande, director-general of CSIR, is VIBHA's vice president.

Saraswat—who says he firmly believes in the power of gemstones to influence wellbeing and destiny—is proud of the achievements of ancient Hindu science: "We should rediscover Indian systems which existed thousands of years back," he says. Mande shares that pride. "We are a race which is not inferior to any other race in the world," he says. "Great things have happened in this part of the world." Mande insists that VIBHA is not antiscientific, however: "We want to tell people you have to be rational in your life and not believe in irrational myths." He does not see a rise of pseudoscience in the past 4 years—"We have always had that"—and says part of the problem is that the press is now paying more attention to the occasional bizarre claim. "If journalists don't report it, actually that would be perfect," he says.

But others say there is little doubt that pseudoscience is on the rise—even at the highest levels of government. Modi, who was an RSS pracharak, or propagandist, for 12 years, claimed in 2014 that the transplantation of the elephant head of the god Ganesha to a human—a tale told in ancient epics—was a great achievement of Indian surgery millennia ago, and has made claims about stem cells similar to Rao's. At last year's Indian Science Congress, science minister Harsh Vardhan, a medical doctor and RSS member, said, incorrectly, that physicist Stephen Hawking had stated that the Vedas include theories superior to Albert Einstein's equation E=mc2. "It's one thing for a crackpot to say something like that, but it's a very bad example for people in authority to do so. It is deplorable," Venki Ramakrishnan, the Indian-born president of the Royal Society in London and a 2009 Nobel laureate in chemistry, tells Science. (Vardhan has declined to explain his statement so far and did not respond to an interview request from Science.)

Critics say pseudoscience is creeping into science funding and education. In 2017, Vardhan decided to fund research at the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology here to validate claims that panchagavya, a concoction that includes cow urine and dung, is a remedy for a wide array of ailments—a notion many scientists dismiss. And in January 2018, higher education minister Satya Pal Singh dismissed Charles Darwin's evolution theory and threatened to remove it from school and college curricula. "Nobody, including our ancestors, in written or oral [texts], has said that they ever saw an ape turning into a human being," Singh said.

Those remarks triggered a storm of protest; in a rare display of unity, India's three premier science academies said removing evolution from school curricula, or diluting it with "non-scientific explanations or myths," would be "a retrograde step." In other instances, too, scientists are pushing back against the growing tide of pseudoscience. But doing so can be dangerous. In the past 5 years, four prominent fighters against superstition and pseudoscientific ideas and practices have been murdered, including Narendra Dabholkar, a physician, and M. M. Kalburgi, former vice-chancellor of Kannada University in Hampi. Ongoing police investigations have linked their killers to Hindu fundamentalist organizations.

Some Indian scientists may be susceptible to nonscientific beliefs because they view science as a 9-to-5 job, says Ashok Sahni, a renowned paleontologist and emeritus professor at Panjab University in Chandigarh. "Their religious beliefs don't dovetail with science," he says, and outside working hours those beliefs may hold sway. A tradition of deference to teachers and older persons may also play a role, he adds. "Freedom to question authority, to question writings, that's [an] intrinsic part of science," Ramakrishnan adds. Rather than focusing on the past, India should focus on its scientific future, he says—and drastically hike its research funding.

The grip of Hindu nationalism on Indian society is about to be tested. Two dozen opposition parties have joined forces against Modi for elections that will be held before the end of May. A loss by Modi would bring "some change," says Prabir Purkayastha, vice president of the All India People's Science Network in Madurai, a liberal science advocacy movement with some 400,000 members across the country that opposes VIBHA's ideology. But the tide of pseudoscience may not retreat quickly, he says. "I don't think this battle is going to die down soon, because institutions have been weakened and infected."

Buho #fundie christianforums.com

[On the merits of science in schools]

Are you saying to substitute our young-earth origins with untrue theories in school just because the theories are scientific and give upcoming scientists a stable ground to practice scientific methods on? Shouldn't students be taught truth over science?

Micah #fundie jasonlisle.com

Evolution is unscientific for many reasons.
1: There is no evidence for it.
2: It fails to provide any rational basis for things necessary for science. For example, there is no basis to believe in uniformity in nature from an evolutionary perspective. Why does the universe behave in a consistent way that we are able to predict? You may say that the universe always has behaved consistently so it always will, but this is just assuming what you are trying to prove. Evolution cannot provide a rational reason to believe in unchanging laws of nature, it can neither account for the reason that like conditions will produce like results, why, in an ever changing universe do certain laws feel compelled to stay the same. If these laws weren’t consistent then we could never do any scientific experiment, and yet, evolution cannot provide any basis for why we should believe these laws will stay the same. It may sound like im repeating myself a lot here but thats because this is a very important point. Evolution cannot provide any basis for science whatsoever.
3: It contradicts the Bible, which does provide a rational basis for believing in uniformity. The Bible states that the universe is upheld by the power of God, and God never changes, so we can expect that certain laws will never change either. Therefore the Christian has a rational basis for doing science, the Evolutionist, has none.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libby Klein-Rapier #fundie facebook.com

To bad people are so brainwashed you can't even see. They got you so deep you can't even question it. Flat earth is gaining momentum because the people questioning are getting scientific answers using their scientific math and physics. The answers just don't jive with what science has told us. That's why people are taking it further. Why not learn and question??? Isn't that what were supposed to be doing???

Life's to short to believe everything someone says. Even if their teachers, professor's, and scientists. Science isn't written in gold. It changes constantly. Shit relativity is just a theory not a law. There's so many discrepancies that when you investigate flat earth it becomes clear. People aren't guessing their doing the math. Anyone can do their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. The fact that science isn't addressing the questions in the flat earth community is disturbing and makes one even question further for being ignored. So I say continue your quest for the truth.

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.

Ernie Drogt #fundie quora.com

It is important to know that Atheist hide behind Ad hoc hypothesis. Every thing they know is an adjustment of the equation to keep their failures current with the mind set of the public. This is also called the Axis of Evil. The bible is not really a scientific book, but it explains scientific beliefs ever so slightly. Which drives scientists mad. Mad enough for them to do Ad hoc. One cannot explain matter without intelligent design. You cannot make the leap into evolution without it. Which is why the missing link cannot be found. That takes a creator to do so. Bread a dog with a cat it cant be done. But some how it is done from ape to man. If its so easy as scientists claim then it should have been done over and over again. Try it and it is said you end up having AIDS. Laughable i know. I don't even know if that theory is true or not, but it had a good run….. its really not about faith but the bible really does explain our existence quite well. And science is only there to distort it. In order to understand i would suggest that people explore our quantum reality rather then mediocre science.

<table>

The Bible Science Then Science Now
The Earth is a sphere – Isaiah 40:22 The Earth is a flat disc The Earth is a sphere
Innumerable Stars – Jeremiah 33:22 only 1100 stars Innumerable Stars
Air Has Weight – Job 28:25 Air is weightless Air Has Weight
Each star is different – 1 Corinthians 15:41 All stars were the same Each star is different
Light moves – Job 38:19-20 Light was fixed in place Light moves
Free float of Earth in space – Job 26:7 Earth sat on a large animal Free float of Earth in space
Winds blow in cyclones – Ecclesiastes 1:6 Winds blew straight Winds blow in cyclones
Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains – 2 Samuel 22:16; Jonah 2:6 The ocean floor was flat Ocean floor contains deep valleys and mountains
Blood is the source of life and health – Leviticus 17:11 Sick people must be bled Blood is the source of life and health
Creation made of invisible elements – Hebrews 11:3 Science is mostly ignorant on the subject Creation made of invisible elements(Atoms)
Ocean contains springs – Job 38:16 Ocean fed only by rivers and rain Ocean contains springs

Jack777 #fundie theologyweb.com

Rationalist Manifesto

<p>I find this sad. It expresses well what is wrong in the world, in politics, in much we are now blind to. The basis for rationality is God and His Word, God and His Revelation to us. Were the lie that the Bible is at variance with rationality not so key in keeping people blind to God it would be humorous. Someone asked me to explain something in "rational" terms for the benefit of scientists. I find most scientists and other educated fools, to be just that. I wonder how "reporters" can be so stupid, how come Barbara Boxer even finds people to talk to her. I think this is the reason....How ironic...rational???

<p>"A Rationalist is one who finds reliance on reason as the basis for establishment of religious truth; one who holds the view that reason and experience rather than the nonrational are the fundamental criteria in the solution of problems. Our focus is to educate on issues of importance; to encourage men, women, and children to think for themselves; To eliminate the need for religious protection; and most importantly, to point the lost toward logic which is our only hope for eternal salvation. "

Jake Wilson #fundie researchgate.net

It wasn’t my intention to trigger these otherworldly discussions, but it is inevitably the outcome of removing God from the equation when talking about the Exodus. I think we have soon covered all major religions and spiritual revelations though I am still waiting for the flying monks of Tibet. I fully agree that all of these are false beliefs, but Scripture is on an entirely different level. 

Listing Scripture among these examples in order to discredit its validity and producing the non-existing contradiction between biblical faith and true science, is therefore not a good technique, and any intelligent person, whether atheist or otherwise, will immediately see this (there are much more effective ways to discredit the biblical record). Also, I won’t debase myself by listing famous scientists who were drunkards; as said, I will leave these methods of argumentation to the more experienced ones. 

A commoner like me will scarcely put trust in people who see ignoring causality as the only rational approach. The rational basis for my assertions is creation by God, the irrational basis for your assertions is the expansion of a little black dot (or maybe it was green – correct me if I’m wrong, Eugene). The big bang is a non-demonstrable belief whereas divine creation is a demonstrable fact. 

As said, I like science, and there has been mind-boggling progress alone over the last decade let alone since the 17th century. However, regarding the origins, structure, and age of the universe and of the earth, there has been regress, and the established so-called scientific paradigm is – I am sorry to say – wrong (no matter how scientifically sound the components of these fallacies might be). 

As for theology, I am probably not up to scratch with the general consensus of modern Biblical scholarship, but if it implies the non-existence of God, then I beg to differ.

Biblical Unitarian #fundie biblicalunitarian.com

No one was ever an eye-witness to the fables of mythology, which were kept alive by the naïve credulity of devotees of pagan religions. Nor was the coming of any mythological figure accurately prophesied centuries before in a coherent body of prophetic literature. The Christian faith, therefore, stands alone among all the world’s belief systems, which, with the exception of Judaism, are based on unverifiable mythologies. Even the secular “religion” of Evolutionism is based upon a grandiose myth—that the minutely ordered cosmos arose spontaneously by chance from chaos, gradually increased in complexity by a series of small, random mutations, and eventually produced the minds of Charles Darwin and Carl Sagan, who were “smart” enough to conceive of and rationalize such a preposterous fable. [17] In contrast, Christians are expected to ground their faith on a rational, scriptural and historically verifiable foundation, so that their testimony cannot be discredited by later discoveries.

Jeffrey Guhin #fundie newscientist.com

"Scientism” is the belief that all we need to solve the world’s problems is – you guessed it – science. People sometimes use the phrase “rational thinking”, but it amounts to the same thing. If only people would drop religion and all their other prejudices, we could use logic to fix everything.

Last week, US astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson offered up the perfect example of scientism when he proposed the country of Rationalia, in which “all policy shall be based on the weight of evidence”.

Tyson is a very smart man, but this is not a smart idea. It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence. Of course, imagining a society in which everyone behaves logically sounds appealing. But employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing.

There has always been a hope, especially as elites became less religious, that science would do more than simply provide a means for learning about the world around us. Science should also teach us how to live, pointing us towards the salvation that religion once promised. You can see this in any of the secular utopianisms of the 20th century, whether it’s the Third Reich, scientific Marxism, or the “modernisation thesis” of Western capitalism.

...

First, experts usually don’t know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that – through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true – mislead us and misinterpret information.

Rationality is subjective. All humans experience such biases; the real problem is when we forget that scientists and experts are human too, and approach evidence and reasoned deliberation with the same prior commitments and unspoken assumptions as anyone else. Scientists: they’re just like us.

And second, science has no business telling people how to live. It’s striking how easily we forget the evil that following “science” can do. So many times throughout history, humans have thought they were behaving in logical and rational ways, only to realise that such acts have yielded morally heinous policies that were only enacted because reasonable people were swayed by “evidence”.

Phrenology – the determination of someone’s character through the shape and size of their cranium – was cutting-edge science. (Unsurprisingly, the upper class had great head ratios.) Eugenics was science, as was social Darwinism and the worst justifications of the Soviet and Nazi regimes.

Scientific racism was data-driven too, and incredibly well-respected. Scientists in the 19th century felt quite justified in claiming that “the weight of evidence” supported African slavery, white supremacy and the concerted effort to limit the reproduction of the “lesser” races.

It wasn’t so long ago that psychiatrists considered homosexuality unhealthy and abhorrent. There is at least one prominent, eminently rational psychiatrist who hasn’t come around on transgenders. And many scientists decided that women were biologically incapable of the same kind of rationality you find in men, a scientific sexism reborn in contemporary evolutionary psychology.

...

In fact, creationism has a lot more in common with scientism than people such as Tyson or Richard Dawkins would ever admit. Like Tyson, creationists begin with certain prior commitments (“evolution cannot be true”, for example, substitutes for “science cannot be wrong”) and build an impressively consistent argument upon them. Just about everyone is guilty of some form of “motivated reasoning”: we begin with certain priors, and then find a way to get the evidence to do what we want.

The past mistakes of science should make us sceptical that it could be used to build a utopia. But, the scientists might say, science is most important for its ability to self-correct. Psychiatry has come around on homosexuality, for example. This may be true, yet it presents the precise reason why attempting to act only accounting for the “weight of evidence” is so flawed.

Ken Ham & Dr. Andrew Snelling #fundie answersingenesis.org

Dinosaur Footprint Wall in Bolivia

A recent article highlighted the Cal Orcko archaeological site in Bolivia. This site in South America has numerous, well-preserved dinosaur footprints (originally listed as over 5,000), and another 5,000 tracks were discovered in 2015. Some of the dinosaurs that left these footprints were Ankylosaurs, Titanosaurs, Carnotaurus, and a juvenile Tyrannosaurus rex.

These fossilized dinosaur footprints were originally discovered in 1985, but local mining of the limestone in the area has brought many more prints to light, starting in 1994. The area is now an official Bolivian paleontological site and an application has been submitted to designate it as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

But even more interesting is that the footprints are not on flat ground but rather on an almost vertical wall; and the vast majority seem to be moving in one direction (downhill as the geography now stands). Now this is a region that has had lots of tectonic activity in the recent past, so this was probably flat ground at the time the dinosaurs were making the tracks.

Of course what makes this intriguing from a biblical creation and Flood geology perspective is that the tracks are preserved so well, and that we see a diverse grouping of what were considered to be both herbivores and carnivores. We also have tracks from juvenile dinosaurs—some alone and others side by side with adults of the same species. A couple of quotes about the Cal Orcko archaeological site from the Guardian website really stood out:

That ankylosaur was running. It sank its four toes into the ground, rather than its heel. . . .

The creatures' feet sank into the soft shoreline in warm damp weather, leaving marks that were solidified by later periods of drought. Wet weather then returned, sealing the prints below mud and sediment. The wet-dry pattern was repeated seven times, preserving multiple layers of prints. The cherry on the cake was added when tectonic activity pushed the flat ground up to a brilliant viewing angle—as if nature was aware of its tourism potential.

So we have running dinosaurs and what appears to be alternating periods of water covering the sand flats and then receding for a short time, only to cover the area once again. This sounds a lot like an area where dinosaurs may have been fleeing rising floodwaters, which brought the sediment to quickly cover and preserve the footprints the fleeing dinosaurs left behind.

Dr. Andrew Snelling, geologist and AiG’s director of research, had this to say:

All claims about the environment in which these dinosaurs lived and how they left their footprints are mere speculation (i.e., based on historical science, not observational science), because no scientists were there at the time to observe and report to us what happened. So it is hardly an observed fact that this was a lake. But what we do observe is that these footprints were made in a sandy limestone, and that in that same limestone are the fossilized remains of snails, bivalves, fish, turtles and crocodiles.1 Furthermore, we know from observations that animals and footprints are not fossilized in lime sand that slowly accumulates and is exposed even for a brief period to bacteria, and the sun, wind and waves. Rapid accumulation and rapid burial are required. And lime sand is usually produced by turbulent ocean waters. Yet dinosaurs are land-dwellers. Thus these fossils of water-dwelling animals and fossilized dinosaur footprints found in this sandy limestone are consistent with the Flood cataclysm, when the rising ocean waters swept rapidly over the land in oscillating surges, repeatedly engulfing fleeing land animals as it buried their footprints with water-dwelling animals. These fossilized dinosaur footprints testify to these dinosaur herbivores and carnivores being more interested in fleeing en masse in one direction to escape the destructive waters than their next meal.

Yet again we see evidence of the Flood that God sent as a judgment for mankind’s wickedness (Genesis 6:17) and of the Ark that He had Noah build—a reminder to us today of another Ark of salvation, Jesus Christ. These fossilized footprints stand as a reminder that observational science always confirms the Bible.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

Footnotes

See Martin Lockley et al., “Titanosaurid Trackways from the Upper Cretaceous of Bolivia: Evidence for Large Manus, Wide-Gauge Locomotion and Gregarious Behaviour,” Cretaceous Research 23, no. 3 (June 2002): 383–400, doi:10.1006/cres.2002.1006.

looksmaxxingcurry & apoptosiscel #sexist reddit.com

(looksmaxxingcurry)
I was banned from r/asktransgender for asking why its bad to reject a trans person but why it isn't bad to reject a man who isn't a certain height

The hypocrisy is unreal. Fucking hell. I hate the double standards. God, the one thing that comforts me is that those hypocritical losers end up with a high murder and suicide rate compared to other demographics.

They want to dismiss "patriarchal preferences" but when it comes to dismissing their own "patriarchal preferences", they ban you for it.

You expect mentally ill people to give you reasonable and well thought off answers?

I expected some common ground (being rejected for what they think is "genetic" and men being rejected for something that is literally genetic"). too much to ask for

Trannies are gross mutilated creatures. They need psychological help but instead they get doctors who indulge them in their solutions in return for lots of good ol’ $$$

Doctors are unethical as fuck. I dont trust therapists for this reason too. They are just in it for the money. The only good therapist is a loving girlfriend or boyfriend

(apoptosiscel)
One of the removed comments in the thread was

I personally don't think theres anything wrong with not wanting to date trans people. This might be controversial to say but I only date guy with money who are taller then me

even trannies can be that picky? it’s so fucking overrrr

.
.
.

I found this yesterday

https://www.them.us/story/cis-trans-dating

Romantic relationships are one of the most important sources of social support for adults. The fact that most cis people would not consider trans people as potential dating partners is yet another serious risk factor for increased psychological and physical health problems among the trans population.

How does this not apply to incels too?

edwitness #fundie disqus.com


(In response to this story on Christian News Network which incorrectly labels a synapsid as a mammal: https://christiannews.net/2018/12/04/discovery-of-giant-synapsid-fossil-in-poland-throws-a-wrench-in-evolutionary-expectations-for-triassic-layers/ )

edwitness:
"Note that these ancestors of mammals possesed both mammalian and reptilian characteristics and confirm evolution. These creatures were not mammals."
This is a worldview statement. Not a scientific one.
Because for those whose worldview includes a Creator, this evidence does not speak of evolution. But instead proves they have a common designer. The Creator who made all that has been made who is introduced to us in Genesis.

Richard Forrest:
Nonsense. It's a scientific one which has nothing to do with "worldview".
It's a statement made in the light of the evidence.

edwitness:
Wrong. As shown the evidence only reveals to us that the animal lived. The rest of the beliefs the evolutionist comes to are from his worldview. Not the scientific method.

Richard Forrest:
The evidence also shows that it's a synapsid and not a mammal. It also shows that it lived in the Triassic period. That is what has been established by applying to the scientific method to the evidence.
You don't get to redefine what is and what is not science because the findings of science contradict your shoddy religious dogma. That is downright dishonest.

edwitness:
What is dishonest is saying that the scientific method is whatever you need it to be to make what is not evidence for your worldview become evidence. The scientific method is observable and repeatable. Without that it's just speculation. And in your case it is speculation built on a designer-less worldview.

Richard Forrest:
I'm sure that others will see the irony here. You are asserting that saying the scientific method is whatever you need it to be is dishonest, and in the same post attempting to redefine the scientific method because it contradicts your religious dogma.
Get an education. There are numerous sources out there which explain the scientific method in detail. Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined.
You are making yourself look both ridiculous and dishonest. If you are so deluded that you think that such an exhibition will convince anyone to join your cause, I pity you.

edwitness:
"Creationist sources are not reliable when it comes to how science is defined."
Really? They went to the same schools and received the same degrees in science that all the evolutionists went to. They know science as well, and I would contend better, than evolutionists. In fact, most of them at one time believed in evolution. But, because the evidence was not there to support it, as all the evolution scientists I gave the quotes from admitted, they rejected the lie that is evolution for the truth that the Creator God made all that has been made. Just as the evidence supports.
The irony here is that you reject the scientific method because it does not support your worldview. While claiming that while I am appealing to the scientific method, that is for our conclusions to be both observable and repeatable, I am doing this.
Unless you can observe evolution and repeat it through testing it can not be considered scientific. Which means it is a belief system built on a worldview that rejects the notion of a designer.

Richard Forrest:
Well, as we have observed evolution - using the term in the sense for which it was coined by the people who coined it - ?in action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory, it qualifies as science even by your incorrect definition.
As for creationists knowing science better than "evolutionists", if that were the case why do they lie about science - as Purdom has done in the article in referring to the Triassic synapsid as a mammal? Or do you not care if creationists lie provided they tell you what you want to hear.
Oh, and by the way: very, very few creationists have any qualifications in evolutionary biology, and the very small number who do reject the science on the basis of their religious beliefs. not the evidence.
Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence. None of the supposed evidence for a designer stands up to empirical scrutiny.

edwitness:
"Well, as we have observed evolution..."
But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution. No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen.
"Science does not reject the notion of a designer. It does not accept assertions not supported by evidence."
Real science is observable. Therefore evolution can not be considered Science. So it is evolution, and not science, that rejects the evidence that points to a designer. The Creator, Jesus Christ.
For example, no one doubts the monument at Mt. Rushmore is the work of an intelligent designer, yet much greater design and laws in the universe are overlooked, or disregarded, by people who believe that evolution produced everything in existence, with no intelligence or design behind it.
This makes no sense.
History tells us Gutzon Borglum was the designer of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial; the Bible tells us God is the Designer of the universe, and man was made (designed) in his image (Genesis 1:26).

Richard Forrest:
"But, that's just it. No one has ever observed evolution."
Well, the scientists who study the subject can refer to numerous observed instance of evolution in action. What do you know that they don't?
"No one has ever seen a lizard lay an egg and a bird fly out. Just as no one has ever observed a cat over millions of years change into a dog. Because it does not happen."
Quite so, and if it did it would utterly falsify evolutionary theory. I suggest that you educate yourself in the subject to that you don't make a fool of yourself by displaying such utter ignorance of what you are writing about.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that.
So maybe it is you that needs to research your religion so you can see just how foolish it is. And how foolish you are to believe it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium, one of the novel ideas evolutionists have come to because they are constantly trying to put fingers in the dike as new archeaological finds refute old thinking, states just that."
You are once again demonstrating only utter ignorance! Try reading Gould's account of the theory he formulated with Eldridge rather than relying on creationist sources. Oh and by the way: it's palaeontologists who work on the fossil record, not archaeologists.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and do some research into the nature of evolution. Not that you will, because your religious beliefs are so fragile that you need to maintain ignorance.

edwitness:
Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated. If you are going to be dishonest about your own beliefs then what is the point of continuing this conversation? The goal posts are set. It is for you to show evidence for the touchdown you believe your scientists have made. And for me to show you how they have not.
My job is easy. Because all the evidence supports it.

Richard Forrest:
"Punctuated equilibrium means exactly what I have stated."
Not according to Gould and Eldridge who formulated the theory. You can find their original paper on the internet. Try reading it. If you do - and I can confidently say that you won't - you'll find that the creationist sources from which you gleaned your caricature of that theory are at best ignorant, at worst lying. But of course you won't because your religious dogma demands ignorance of its adherents.
As for research into the nature of evolution: I have carried out original research and published in scientific journals. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that I know more about the subject than you do.

David Anderson #fundie david.dw-perspective.org.uk

As I thumbed my way through the pages of "The God Delusion", a question dropped into my head. Does Richard Dawkins really exist?

Being a scientific and rational person, I decided that I wasn't going to just accept any old theory on this question. If Richard Dawkins exists, then I would need to be shown the proper evidence for it. Others can have their own superstitious beliefs, based on who-knows-what, but I would only be convinced by empirical science. If there is a Dawkins, why hasn't he shown himself to me?

Harun Yahya #fundie us3.harunyahya.com

Terrorists have a philosophy. That philosophy is dialectical materialism, and it is fundamentally grounded in Darwinism. That philosophy will persist and continue to nourish the scourge of terrorism so long as Darwinism is not eradicated and no end is therefore put to Marxism and materialism. It is therefore essential that this philosophy be completely eradicated and people be educated against its foundation, Darwinism.

It is a grave error to condemn terror and lose victims to it on the one hand but for Darwinism to be taught in schools on the other. Darwinist education serves no other purpose than to reinforce communist terror. Being aware, but remaining insensitive to the fact that Darwinism constitutes the origin of communist ideology means remaining insensitive to terrorism itself. Nothing can come from condemning terrorism while Darwinism is still being taught in schools.

Darwinist ideology is based on an outdated theory that has been spilling blood and deceiving humanity through hoaxes and lies for some 150 years. All young people in schools must be taught and shown that this untrue theory built on lies is based on hoaxes and deceit. They must be told that the ideology of dialectical materialism and its supposed scientific basis, Darwinism, are false beliefs. Only then can realistic and effective measures against global terrorism be taken. Only then can those preventive measures be permanent and have permanent results. No other tactics can ever put an end to this scourge. In order for terrorism to be brought to an end its vital arteries must be completely severed and its intellectual infrastructure brought down.

xoài phạm #moonbat everydayfeminism.com

3 Reasons It’s Irrational to Demand ‘Rationalism’ in Social Justice Activism

The scenario is always the same: I say we should abolish prisons, police, and the American settler state — someone tells me I’m irrational. I say we need decolonization of the land — someone tells me I’m not being realistic.

Whenever I hear this, I stop and think about the world we’d live in if previous European colonizers were berated with the same rhetoric about rationalism as we abolitionists are today.

Would it have been enough to stop them in their tracks?

What if someone had told them that the creation of the American nation-state of settler-colonizers who displace and murder the Indigenous inhabitants — and the development of the white supremacist, anti-Black, capitalist, cisheteropatriarchy — was a project too hefty to accomplish?

What if those imperialism-driven Europeans, all passionate and roused about Manifest Destiny, were encouraged to stop and reconsider whether their violent plans were rational?

We might possibly have a world that isn’t filled to the brim with oppression.

There may not have been the centuries-long (and still ongoing) ravaging of every continent and the development of anti-Black chattel slavery.

We many never have had the tentacles of the white supremacist patriarchy spanning the entire globe, regulating gender along a binary and fostering rape culture.

We may never have had carceral forms of justice that render certain people disposable.

And the Earth’s lands, skies, and water definitely wouldn’t be irrevocably devastated.

But it makes sense why many of those who are committed to social justice subscribe to the same language of rationalism as their oppressors. Marginalized folks are taught from infancy that they need to behave in a respectable manner to be treated with decency. We face so much violence, to the point where the violence becomes the norm and our resistance is what feels extreme.

We’re painted as aggressors even when we are consistently the victims. The media treats Black victims worse than white killers. People see trans and gender non-conforming people in bathrooms as threats rather than as targets of abuse.

When we are told repeatedly that everything we do is an attack, we internalize the idea that we need to quiet ourselves, to take up less space. And so we begin to limit ourselves to tactics of resistance that are easy to digest — and we create those limits under the guise of being rational.

Not only is this urge to be rational holding us back, it unintentionally validates the logic of white supremacy as natural and positions the desire to fight oppression as excessive and outrageous.

For those of us who are trying to burn the colonial project to the ground and build a new world, we have to stop placing limits on ourselves in a world that is already at our throats.

Abolitionists, those who are invested in abolishing police, prisons, the settler colonial nation-state, cannot afford to be held back by what is deemed rational. In fact, rationalism has no place in abolitionism.

This is not to say that there are many roles to be filled among those who resist, none of which should be placed in a hierarchy of value. People come from different places of knowledge, ability, and history which makes each person equipped to participate (if they so choose) based on their unique position in society.

But when those who are the loudest, the most disruptive — the ones who want to destroy America and all of the oppression it has brought into the world — are being silenced even by others in social justice groups, that is unacceptable.

Pushing the boundaries of how we can shape our resistance beyond what’s rational is urgent and necessary.

And here are three reasons why.

1. Being Rational Has No Inherent Value

When I talk about abolition, whether that be of prisons, immigrant detainment centers, the police, or the government, I am instantly derailed by strangers and even friends. They tell me that it isn’t rational.

They say this as if everyone seeks to be rational, as if prisons, themselves — which have grown more than 400 percent since 1970 and which has predominantly impacted communities of color, especially Black and Indigenous communities — are rational. As if being rational has indisputable value.

At first, I took their reactions to heart. I thought maybe being rational really is necessary if I wanted to achieve my goals of eradicating oppression.

If I’m not rational, then I must not be thinking correctly, which makes me incompetent and unqualified to even have political opinions.

Or so I thought.

The truth is, this constant emphasis on rationalism is a load of toxic garbage (and this is me being gentle with my words). It reeks of the rancid odor that develops when we squeeze our vast imaginations into tiny boxes labeled “pragmatic,” “rational,” and “reasonable.” Being rational can often mean being willing to accept some aspects of oppression and watering down my politics.

In fact, by American standards, my very existence is irrational. For many, I simply do not exist as a queer, Vietnamese femme who is neither a man or a woman. Living in my body, wading through my truths, is not a rational act. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Based on my experiences as a marginalized person, being rational just means going easy on my oppressors.

The narrow bit of room that rationalism gave me wasn’t enough for me to envision new possibilities for my gender, to escape the confines of impending manhood. It wasn’t enough for me to understand my personhood as infinitely more complicated than the models of personhood fed to me by white cis people.

From my vantage point, rationalism — or whatever you want to name it — did more harm than good.

Some of us place so much value on being rational that we’re unable to recognize that when someone tells you to be rational, they may just be telling you that their ideas weigh more than yours.

The rhetoric of rationalism can be used as a seemingly benign disguise for social control.

2. Rationalism Is a Tool Made to Hurt Us

In the context of anti-oppression work, limiting ourselves to rational thinking means that we’re choosing to use the tools that make sense to our oppressors, which are usually tools made to hurt us.

Rationalism means we’re working within the framework of a system that was built to harm us in the first place.

And that, for me, is completely irrational — and it’s violent and oppressive to expect that of anyone who suffers from the exploitation and abuse of this system.

But to take it a step further, rationalism is subjective.

For those who are most impacted by the prison industrial complex — Black and Indigenous folks, trans and gender non-conforming folks, people with disabilities, those who are undocumented, and those who sit at the intersection of multiple identities, among others — abolitionist politics are entirely rational.

When your life and the well-being of your family, chosen and otherwise, is under attack by the prison system, for instance, abolition is common sense. Investing in prisons only makes sense for corporations, for governments, for oppressors whose power is fueled by the abuse and deaths of marginalized people.

In a world truly committed to justice, nothing would be more rational than abolitionism.

Yet, social justice liberals who spew negative rhetoric about rationalism tend to be against abolition, instead preferring reformist politics over anything deemed too “radical.” Why are we trying to be steady and gentle with systems of oppression while the systems get to inflict violence among large masses of people?

When we limit ourselves in our dreams and our goals, the oppressor has less work to do.

When we restrict ourselves in the name of being rational, we create barriers for ourselves — we place the world we want to live in farther from reach.

Since what’s rational is subjective, it is thus indefinable. The only reason why rationalism is believed to have inherent value is because it echoes the oppressor’s way of thinking.

When oppressors have the power to decide what’s rational, they get to commit irrational acts and claim them as rational justifications for oppression.

Take colonialism as an example: Colonizers enjoy claiming that those they’ve colonized are less civilized, despite the fact that colonized peoples often come from older and more complex civilizations than those of the colonizer.

And non-binary people are told their whole identities are irrational, even though non-binary people have existed much longer than the American settler state.

When the state gets to decide what’s normal enough to be rational, they get to decide who becomes the reviled Other – the groups that are subjected to targeted abuse.

Moving beyond the logical confines of our oppressors is necessary for us to envision a world free from the systems that kill us.

3. We Are Enough Without Rationalism

As Assata Shakur has said, “No one is going to give you the education you need to overthrow them.”

We should be constantly interrogating why being rational has been presumed to hold inherent value, and we should be asking ourselves where we got that idea in the first place. The institutions that taught us what we know should be placed under suspicion.

For many of us, schools are where many people are conditioned to become either complicit or complacent to systems of oppression. In fact, one could argue that institutions of education are not to make the people more empowered, but to stomp out their autonomy and make them more likely to invest in their downfall.

And before school, we are socialized into being obedient through the ways that oppression influences the way we raise children and build interpersonal relationships.

This is exactly why people believe that police and prisons equal safety, when that is not the case.

People have been conditioned to believe that prisons will keep their communities safe, when carceral state is the very thing hurting them. And more police does not mean more safety, especially when the police get to murder people with impunity. What does it mean when we feel an inclination to trust the institutions that are killing us?

The extent to which we’ve been led to love and trust our oppressors is so deep that we’re entrusting ourselves to our murderers.

The longer we postpone abolition based on “logical” arguments, the longer we’re denied basic autonomy. It’s a fallacy to believe that we’ll be given a more opportune time to abolish prisons and decolonize, because the role of the state is to never provide that opportunity.

When we frame abolition and decolonization as “long-term” goals, we operate under the belief that these goals can only happen in the distant future. We need to instead reframe abolition and decolonization as urgent, immediate goals.

If we look back at history, we would recognize that there are tons of examples of movements that may have been deemed irrational but ended up succeeding, the Montgomery Bus Boycott being one of them.

Many people know the Rosa Parks from learning about the boycott but don’t recognize how radical is was for around 42,000 Black Americans to boycott the public transit system for over a year.

Their goal was to ensure that Black people had the same treatment under the public transit system as whites and they never compromised their goals, even as transportation was denied to them over the course of a year. Without transportation, Black lives were completely disrupted. They had to either walk (for those who had that physical ability), or they had to find other forms of transportation.

As a result, they found a new way of operating — they relied on one another.

Black taxi drivers lowered their prices dramatically, Black people with cars began supplying rides to those without cars, and churches bought cars and station wagons to help those who didn’t have access to a vehicle. They organized carpools and collectively established on pickup and dropoff locations.

That was how Black community members developed their own autonomous, sustained transportation system for thousands upon thousands of people that didn’t involve the American settler colonial government.

How rational do you think that was?

They of course encountered backlash and horrific violence throughout the boycott. Leaders were arrested and laws were created to justify their imprisonment. Homes, churches, and cars were riddled with bombs and bullets from snipers even after the boycott ended.

It’s important to recognize that there are people who face so much violence in their lives that they simply don’t want to subject themselves to the violence that comes along with protesting oppression. It’s important to understand that some people are so marginalized and have so much trauma that they may not have the capacity or desire to engage in ways that may trigger unwanted memories and emotions.

And the conditions of those of us who are farthest in the margins are another reason why these abolitionist goals are so necessary.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott didn’t intend to abolish the nation-state, but it had goals that were unheard of and it created its own system of transportation that allowed Black people to take care of each other without the state. The boycott is a model of possibilities. And there are many others.

There are possibilities that we haven’t dreamed of yet because we are too invested in resisting in a rational way.

Sure, there are ways to hold space for both the smaller policy changes and the large-scale structural changes. But when we choose to tell ourselves that destroying a violent system is too big of a task for right now, we willingly give up both our time and our power.

Every minute under the carceral, colonial project is inconceivable violence. We too often place abolition as something only possible in a far-off future, which means we’re allowing the right-now to be stolen.

The only logical time for abolition and decolonization is now.

Rather than spending time and energy worrying about whether our movements are rational, can we direct that time and energy towards recognizing our brilliance?

***

When we invest in ourselves, in our own power, we have no need for the oppressor and their rational politics. We can be strategic without holding ourselves back. We already have the tools we need in us to win.

We are already lovers, healers, artists, creators, and so much more.

We have the power to think far beyond the education we’ve been given, beyond the carceral state, beyond the gender binary, beyond capitalist relationships, beyond the colonial project.

We are dreaming up ourselves, each other, and the world we want to live in. We can’t let rationalism steal our dreams.

And we have to trust and love ourselves enough to make those dreams a reality.

letthereaderunderstand #fundie abovetopsecret.com

Why can you set a sphere on the level ground and not have it start rolling? For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The earth is moving, why does a sphere which is not biased to "lay on a side", not start rolling the opposite direction the earth is moving?

If the curve of the earth lies at around 25 miles, why can we see things that are hundreds of miles away through a telescope?

Why did the meaning of Gravity change from "weight" to something that doesn't exist?

Why do objects get smaller as they move away from you?

Why do rainbows bend like a dome?

Why can't you feel the earth rotating, but you can feel the earth quake?

Why does lava come up from the core if the core is what is holding everything down?

...I walk on flat ground, I float on flat water, I sleep flat, I write on flat pieces of paper, I build out of flat pieces of wood, I press my cloths flat and I read time on a flat clock.

Only 3 dimensions exist, Length (flat), width (flat) and breadth (flat) all which exist as one together called Time. I can say this having experienced the three in one as can everyone else.

Vern S. Poythress #fundie frame-poythress.org

The polytheistic religion of Greeks said that there were many gods. There were as many divine plans and as many purposes as there were gods. Since the gods interacted in a chaotic fashion, people had no guarantee that the world would show any stable order. Greek religion discouraged any hope for a scientific exploration of a rational order.

Modern science arose in the context of Christian monotheism, which displaced the Greek gods and gave confidence to prospective scientists by means of three fundamental principles:

One rational God rules all things (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 33:6), and so we can expect universal order.
God made man in his image (Genesis 1:26-27), and so man is naturally in tune with God’s mind and has hope of grasping the order that God had given.
The world that God made is not divine, and hence is open for human investigation.

In fact, God’s word is the foundation for scientific law. According to Genesis 1, God by speaking specified the regular order for the sun and moon and stars, and the regular pattern for the growth and reproduction of plants (Genesis 1:11, 14-15). What scientists call scientific law is in fact their guess about God’s law, God’s specification, “let it be so.” Scientists in their investigation are in fact investigating the mind of God and thinking his thoughts after him–albeit on their limited, human level.

Early scientists like Copernicus and Isaac Newton understood that they stood before God’s workmanship.

Got Questions Ministries #fundie gotquestions.org

In short, the difference between belief in God and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is this:

Belief in God is rational and supported by good reasons, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrational and not supported by any good reasons. Bobby Henderson simply begs the question (commits a logical fallacy) when he says that there are no good reasons for belief in God. Despite his claim to the contrary, Christianity is a rationally defensible religion. There are difficult questions that we must ask ourselves as Christians, but the fact that there are difficult questions is not grounds for dismissing Christianity. As believers, our pursuit of answers to our own deep-seated spiritual questions draws us further into the intellectual richness of the Christian faith.

Jim Fetzer #conspiracy veteranstoday.com

As Stuart observes, “When did fact become myth? Is Jewish ownership of large sections of the media a myth? Are AIPAC and the US government’s subservience to Israel a myth? Is repeated interference in Church affairs by Jewish groups a myth?” In logic, this is called “begging the question” by taking for granted (assuming or presupposing) a proposition when its truth requires establishment on independent grounds. This is a stance that is loaded with presuppositions and assumptions that are intended to insure that Israel and Zionism are afforded formal, official protection, when the fact of the matter is that there are good reasons to question many elements of the accounts we have been given about the Holocaust, for example, where the power exerted by the Israeli lobby are largely fueled by Wester guilt over offenses that appear to be highly exaggerated if not complete fabrications.

slimshady #conspiracy #crackpot #sexist incels.co

Are Scientists giving off fake Science to Blue pill people?

When I took Science to study. I always had doubts on many scientific theories. I always have respect for scientists of the previous era. Now I learn Psycology and I think old Psycologists made much more sense than Modern Psycologists. While modern scientists are losing debates to flat earthers and Modern Psycology seems so bluepilling.


I watched an episode of a show named Brain games in which they were comparing male and female brains. I think I watched 2 episodes of this kind. In one episodes it was a tie and in the other episode female brains won. They were proving this by science and Evolutionary biology and made some male and female volunteers do some tasks.

Even in the real world it is propgated that female brains are equal to male brains eventhough male brains are bigger. Also females are painted as having more "sense" and maturity by some people. This all is utter Bullshit. Name me one task where females are better than males. In every task and profession that exists on this planet males are just better.

Even in things having no physical requirements. Even in professions traditionally dominated by females like Cooking, Males perform better. But for some reason these "scientific" people have to shove propaganda into our throats.

Many of the modern Scientists don't even follow the Scientific method to come to their conclusions. They just want their results and conclusions to be comforming their pre assumptions. I don't know how many times during my blue pilled days that "science" was giving me more blue pills. Some of them maybe just made up science but I remember some real scientists giving blue pilling ideas about relationships and social structures.

The Beast of Revelation #fundie amazon.com

In reality, the proof of God's existence is so abundant and obvious as to be undeniable by any rational person. The world in which we live clearly would not exist except for an omnipotent God.

The only reason why atheists believe that God does not exist is that they want to believe that. Their belief is not based on evidence that God does not exist, nor is it based on a lack of evidence that He does exist; their belief has no basis. It has only motivation. The atheist has psychological motivations for believing that God does not exist.

All of the reasons that atheists claim to have for their atheism are really just rationalizations. They had a desire to believe that God does not exist; when they finally found arguments that could allow them to deceive themselves into believing that he does not exist, they did so. The people became atheists after engaging in self-deception.

All of their arguments are really self-delusion.

Atheism is very common among homosexual men; this single fact proves that psychology, not evidence, is the cause of atheism. One can not rationally argue that homosexual men have more evidence that God does not exist. Thus, atheism must be the result of psychological motivation.

Of course, in addition to homosexuality, paranoia and fear of authority result in atheism.

God's existence is manifest and evident. The proof of God's existence is far too plentiful to be denied by any normal person. Therefore, only an individual who has an abnormal psychology can possibly be an atheist.

These are all established facts about psychology. No rational person ever disputes them.

Navaros #fundie imdb.com


How about:

atheist beliefs in darwinism.
atheist beliefs in murdering babies.
atheist beliefs in murdering the severely handicapped by slow starvation and dehydration (i.e. Terri Schiavo).
atheists beliefs in stalking and theft (most atheists who are on IMDB do these things)
atheist beliefs in hating, silencing and personally attacking anyone who opposes their viewpoints.
atheist beliefs in space aliens.
atheist beliefs that george carlin is funny and brilliant.
atheist beliefs that bill maher is brilliant.
atheist beliefs that penn and teller are brilliant.
atheist beliefs in supporting almost every immoral cause that exists.

Almost every atheist, if not every atheist, believes in those things.

It's like the poster said, atheists share tons of common beliefs, many of which are extreme, especially the pro-murder beliefs that atheists have.

Dr. Ilija Lakicevic, Res. Prof. #crackpot #magick #dunning-kruger #moonbat teslastyle101.com

AWARENESS
PART I: TRUTH ABOUT HUMAN BEING AND UNIVERSAL LAWS OF CREATION
The time we are living in is the time of TRUTH and huge CHANGES which will bring inevitable our planet together with our civilization into 5th dimension where ONLY BALANCE is allowed. There will be NO FEAR or any other lower energy frequencies there. Our planet, beloved mother Shan, is approaching faster and faster to our sun, while our universe is approaching to the maximum of expansion where there will be NO TIME interval during which ALL laws necessary for the creative maintenance of physical matter and all materializing processes become suspended – there will be NO electricity. What is actually happening requires all of biological life to convey its meaning.

During this NON TIME interval there will emergence of the Planetary Being now taking definite form. This Planetary Being is actually “who we are”. We will be born!

To those of the human race who have turned themselves in to the will of God, the coming interval of non-time will literally expand into eternity. Others, not so finely tuned to the forces that will be released at that time, will feel great surges of energy, lasting for an indeterminate period. Some few will experience an intense fear and many shall die.

We human beings are CONSCIOUSNESS living in the cosmic vacuum tube of invisibility and projecting holographic-ally our creative DESIRES from that vacuum condition which are electrically recorded into desired (material) forms. We are NOT ENERGY, but we call in energy to manifest with it. There are universal laws which we use to inspire energy and to manifest with it in order to simulate all un-measurable QUAILITIES of the eternal universe at rest with measurable QUANTITIES of the transient universe of motion.

The basic universal laws are law of BALANCE and low of CONTINUITY. CAUSE is eternally balanced, while EFFECT is eternally changing to simulate balance through its unlimited forms. Since the CAUSE is infinite and eternal, which God Is, the EFFECT is also infinite and eternal, what means CONTINUITY.

The ONLY reason we are coming here is to learn the ONLY lesson how to BALANCE cause and effect. Only when there is RHYTHMIC BALANCED INTERCHNAGE between cause and effect the Law of Love is fulfilled.

The secret of Creation lies in the compression of HUGE VOLUME of space into SMALL VOLUME of matter and in eternal repetition of this circle.

PART II: NEW ENERGY WITH AWARENESS AND ITS UNLIMITED POTENTIALS

After the fall of Atlantis we have decided to experience LIMITED potentials and create with energy in the OLD way with FEAR, FORCE, POWER and EFFORTING. The old way of creation with energy is HARD, COMPLICATED, INEFFICCINET and EXPENSIVE. That is all how creation with electricity is.

Then, on August 17th, 1987 WE have decided to experience UNLIMITED potentials and create in NEW way with DESIRE, COM-PASSION, LOVE, JOY and POWER-LESS. The new way of creation with energy is EASY, SIMPLE, EFFICIENT and CHEAP.

Old wisdom is dying – it has had its place on a dense Earth, but on a vibrant Earth in the next dimension there is a completely new Science. There is the science of Love and Consciousness, and the science of Balance, the science of Integration, and the science of Unity. Those realms of science need to be studied by the scientists so that they may be able to control matter and its density, and make it less dense.

For unto all who will learn, will this knowledge be given. First we must have the intent, the desire to fit into the Crystalline Age. The Crystalline Age is one of instant communication, instant participation, instant wisdom, material needs met instantly.

New energy unit, Dodeca, is an amazing tool which responds to Love, thoughts and intents.

One Dodeca unit is comprised of 12 internal, proton-like sub-units that work in harmony, one with the other.

Dodeca unit is stand-alone energy with awareness.

This new energy with awareness is free all over Earth.

Dodecas come from the sun and they are here to stay.

Dodeca energy comes directly from the atmosphere; electricity does not.

No More Power Black-Outs – No More Power Grids!!!

Love&Joy

I AM ILIJA

noname #fundie cbh.gospelcom.net

A belief in science is a belief that cannot be scientifically proven. ... For me, what sets Christianity apart is its foundation: a God whose character provides a standard for morality and who loves the world enough to defeat death in order to establish a basis for our eternal salvation. :D

Chris Delamo #fundie redpillphilosophy.com

[From "The Case for Running Over Protesters Who Block Highways"]

Your morning commute is bad enough as it is: groggy-eyed, gridlock traffic, and a full day of work looming above you like your dickhead boss likes to do. But for some reason, today, the bumper-to-bumper pace of cars seems particularly…slow.

You crane your head out the window, strain your eyes into the horizon of automotive metal, and—WHAT THE FUCK!!? Just poking above the rows of cars, lined up side-by-side, are…people—standing—blocking traffic to a complete stand-still.

Morning Commuter, Meet #BlackLivesMatter:

Nothing epitomizes the irony of the modern American “activist/protester” like the juxtaposition between these privileged college kids “fighting for justice” and the hard-working adults busting their asses trying to get to work to feed their kids.

Years of being pampered and spoiled by their parents have taught these idealistic morons 2 things: 1) that they’re invincible, and 2) that the world revolves around them.

This level of self-centered narcissism masquerading as “altruistic” concern for #BlackLives or #MikeBrown or whatever dumb-fuckin-hashtag is created next to give these purposeless youths some kind of direction—these pitiful shitheads claim to be considerate of others while engaging in the most inconsiderate, obnoxious, fly-buzzing-in-your-ear-annoying behavior you could imagine.

[...]

It was another day of work for Tyree, a middle-aged black man from California who was driving to his job at Ross. But along the way, he found himself at a complete stand-still as a group of protesters lined up across the highway and blocked traffic.

They were with #BlackLivesMatter, a cult of black supremacists who pretend to be victims of some obscure, mostly non-existent thing they call “white supremacy” in order to covertly push their racist agenda. But Tyree Landrum wasn’t having it.

In a courageous act that likely got him labeled a “coon” or “Uncle Tom” by his more ignorant counterparts, Tyree stepped out of his car, rushed up to the protesters, and got all up in their faces.

[...]

Unsurprisingly, Tyree’s forceful pleas were met with pretty much nothing more than looks of bewilderment from the protesters who, in a semi-delusional haze, simply stared at him as if his words were valid, yet did not matter—the hallmark of privileged Millennial “activists” (“Sure, what you said is true, but what about my feelings?”)

#BlackLivesMatterButFactsDoNot

And so it is with great urgency that I coin a new term in this age of delusionally-dangerous liberal “activism”: “Highway-Terrorists.”

Highway-Terrorist:

/'hi?wa 'ter?r?st/

[noun]:

“a delusional individual who shuts down highways or other critical transportation infrastructure to promote a dubious and/or fallacious cause that results in the endangerment of innocent people.”

Now, upon first look, using the word “terrorist” to describe these naive college students/activists may seem extreme, but a closer examination reveals the inherent, widespread danger these highway protests pose to thousands—even tens of thousands—of innocent people.

The Dangers of Highway-Terrorism

1. Unemployment–>Poverty–>Starvation–>Death

We need only look at the aforementioned case of Tyree Landrum to realize the vast economic damage that highway-terrorists can inflict upon local communities.

[...]

2. Disrupting Paramedic/Firefighter Rescue Efforts

Highways are designed to ensure the flow of traffic at higher speeds than regular streets, which is one reason paramedics and firefighters will often utilize these routes when responding to emergencies.

However, when highway-terrorists block freeways, ambulances are faced with an unnecessary life or death delay. In the world of EMTs and rescue operations, every second counts.

[...]

3. Women Giving Birth

It is not uncommon for women to go through labor—or straight-up give birth—while in a car and being driven (or driving) to the hospital.

[...]

The Case For Running Over Highway-Terrorists

And so we come to it: the big question: are innocent motorists morally justified in running over highway-terrorists?

Fundamentally, the justification for such an act comes down to the simple principle of self-defense: when you are being aggressed against by violent, barbaric people who may very well take your life or that of another person, are you justified in fighting back?

Well, unless you like victim-blaming, the answer should be an obvious “yes”.

So, we’ve established that you have a right to defend yourself against aggressors, now the next question is: are highway-terrorists “aggressors”?

Well, the three aforementioned points describing how deliberately delaying traffic can lead to injuries/loss of life for countless innocent people should answer the question: OF COURSE highway-terrorists are aggressors: they are deliberately choosing to engage in behavior that can lead to innocent lives being lost or harmed. Do not let the big posters and synchronized chants for “justice” distract you from the vicious, underlying reality: these people are terrorists who orchestrate elaborate, coordinated, premeditated strikes that have quite a high chance of injuring or killing innocent people.

So let’s follow the logic: you have a right to defend yourself against aggressors. Highway-terrorists are aggressors. Thus, you have a right to defend yourself against highway-terrorists.

But now, what exactly constitutes “self-defense” in this case? The most obvious suggestion would be putting the pedal to the metal and plowing your 2-ton vehicle right into the dead center of those naive (yet dangerous) “activists”, shattering their idealistic (yet dangerous) fantasies in the span of a few tire revolutions.

Kind of like this:
[IMG]http://gifs.gifbin.com/022011/1298914487_car-plows-through-cyclists.gif[/IMG]

Now, this of course is a very EXTREME thing to do, something which would only be justified in the most EXTREME situations. You need to use discretion: the degree to which you exert self-defense should, to a degree, be proportional to the aggression inflicted upon you by a highway-terrorist. I don’t believe doing what you saw in the above GIF is pretty much ever justified, unless, for example, you’re a pregnant woman who gave birth in your car and your baby needs immediate medical attention in order to survive. Now, if you’re thinking, “but how is it justified to run over and potentially kill 5 highway-terrorists just to save 1 newborn life?” Well, this is what I call the “self-defense inflation tax.” It basically means that, when defending yourself, you are justified in inflicting approximately 3 times as much damage as the initial aggression inflicted upon you. These are just added costs for being the one who started it, and it’s completely sensible.

So yes, in the most extreme situations, like trying to get your newborn to the hospital, I believe plowing through highway-terrorists is completely justified.

[...]

Conclusion

In all, I conclude that, at the least, every single motorist is morally justified in slowly driving their cars forward—first as a warning to highway-terrorists, then gradually increasing the speed, gently nudging them out of the way.

If any of the more extremist ones choose to increase their aggression by hanging on to the car, punching your window, or kicking your door, you are thus now justified in increasing your self-defense, maybe with some more speed, or a sudden swerve to shake off the moron hanging on to your side-view mirror.

Ultimately, dealing with highway-terrorists is a very serious matter, one which requires your discretion based on your personal situation. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Happy Travels!

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

New York Times: A Dinosaur With a Beak and Feathers Unearthed in China

By KENNETH CHANG

Today's rebuttal focuses on the Darwin's deluded dogma of "Evolution" TM -- specifically as it is said to relate to a new dinosaur unearthed in China. Before we begin to analyze a few select excerpts, let's us remind "youse guys" of what you probably learned in 8th grade, but may or may not have forgotten -- namely, the classic textbook definition of the "Scientific Method."

From the Oxford Dictionary:

Scientific Method: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Scientific Method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

The key word is "the O Word" -- OBSERVATION. Darwin's deluded devotees can scream "SCIENCE!" in your face all they want; but if a theorized phenomenon - or iron-clad-after-the-fact forensic evidence of said phenomenon - are not OBSERVABLE, then it does not meet the standards of the Scientific Method. N.O. = N.S. (Not Observable = Not Science) Learn it. Love it. Live it.--- End of discussion. --- Got it? Good.

The "O Word" is more than just synonymous with science, it IS science; and no amount of fancy math equations, artistic renderings,computer models and academic bullying can ever substitute for it.

Now that 8th Grade Science class is complete, let's "observe" what Kenneth Chang's article is claiming.

Kenneth Chang: It had feathers and a beak.

Rebuttal: How do you know for certain that this creature had feathers? Only bone and beak fragments were discovered in the rock. A platypus has a beak but no feathers. The scientists are assuming feathers, not OBSERVING.

Kenneth Chang: It was the size of a donkey, and it did not fly. It was not a bird, but a dinosaur that was a close relative of birds.

Rebuttal: How do you know that this skeletal remnant this some odd-looking creature was "a close relative of birds?" Did anyone actually OBSERVE the transition of the alleged common ancestor into this feathered and beaked dinosaur on one branch; and birds on another branch? (Answer: No) To assume so merely on the basis of a few common characteristics amounts to reckless inference based upon wild conjecture.

Kenneth Chang: In a paper published on Thursday ... a team of scientists described a fossil of Tongtianlong Limosus, a new species in a strange group of dinosaurs that lived during the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct.

Rebuttal: How is it possible to chronicle events of "the final 15 million years before dinosaurs became extinct" when there was no one around to OBSERVE and document the the life and times of Tongtianlong Limosus? (Answer: It is not possible) Do these "theoretical scientists" have some sort of magic time-machine that allows them to go back and forth through the ages?

Kenneth Chang: Oviraptorosaurs are not direct ancestors of birds, but share a common theropod dinosaur ancestor with the lineage that later evolved to birds.

Rebuttal: Again, we must ask: who OBSERVED this common-ancestor to bird & dinosaur progression? (Answer: nobody)

Kenneth Chang: The features, ... for display to potential mates... "They were like advertising billboards," Dr. (Stephen) Brusatte said.

Rebuttal: So, not only does the magic crystal ball of "theoretical science" tell us that the poor beaked bloke who got stuck in the mud had "feathers" -- but we may also recklessly infer that the feathers were used to attract bird chicks. But why should we infer such a thing when only peacocks (as far as we know) showoff their plumage to attract female? Eagles don't. Pigeons don't. Ostriches don't. How does this ass-clown "Dr. Brusatte" know that our muddy Chinese friend engaged in such aviary exhibitionism?

Kenneth Chang: Some features like the feathers come from the common ancestor, ...

Rebuttal: A classic logical fallacy that is often, no, always made by Darwin's deluded devotees is the prior assumption that "Evolution" TM is an established fact. All subsequent data is then interpreted to fit the pre-determined conclusion, rather than the other way around. They therefore assume that if this creature has a characteristic that is very similar to that creature, the two species must have had a "common ancestor" TM. This is like saying that an Italian sports car and a school bus must have a "common ancestor" TM because both have wheels and a transmission.

Kenneth Chang: The common ancestor had teeth, though, not beaks.

Rebuttal: And exactly how the frickety-frack do you know that? So, not only are we to believe that these "scientists" have established the existence of a "common ancestor" TM without any OBSERVABLE evidence as such; but now they claim to be able to tell us what physical characteristics that said "common ancestor" TM has or didn't have. And, not only is the transition from the "common ancestor" TM not OBSERVABLE, the fossil of what is alleged to be the "common ancestor" TM is also not OBSERVABLE.

Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes could teach these academic egg-heads a lesson in logic and sound reasoning.

Kenneth Chang: For oviraptorosaurs, the beaks were “convergent evolution,” when similar features evolve independently among different groups of animals.

Rebuttal: "Convergent Evolution," eh? Sounds like some seriously heavy "science" there. (palm to face, sighing, shaking head) --- Again, not OBSERVABLE --- Just new bullshit to prop up the old.

Kenneth Chang: One of the unknowns is what Tongtianlong and other oviraptorosaurs were eating.

Rebuttal: Aw heck! Let's just say they ate Peanut Butter & Jelly sandwiches. Why not? Everything else is made up.

Kenneth Chang: The six oviraptorosaur species discovered so far are also very different from each other, and the scientists argue that this shows rapid evolution of these dinosaurs.

Rebuttal: No, it just shows that breeds of the same species (a gene pool) can vary greatly. Just look at the differences in size, shape, fur and temperament among French Poodles, Golden Retrievers, Pit Bulls, Great Danes, German Shepherds and Chihuahuas.

Kenneth Chang: That runs counter to the assertion of some paleontologists that dinosaurs were already in decline long before they became extinct 66 million years ago, most likely from the global devastation following a large asteroid impact.

Rebuttal: How do these eggheads come up with this number of "66 million years ago" as the precise date of dino-extinction? (nice little Satanic touch with the 6-6 there) Did anyone OBSERVE the passage of "66 million" years of time? (Answer: No) -- Did anyone OBSERVE the killer asteroid, or even the hole that it would have left behind? (Answer: No)

Kenneth Chang: “One of the interesting things about these specimens that are coming out of southern China is that they show this diversity of body forms.”

Rebuttal: Yeah. So what? Dogs, cats, humans etc. also vary in body forms. And has it occurred to you geniuses that at least part of the reason for the variance could just be due to the fact that some of the fossilized specimens may have been small cubs; others were medium-sized adolescents, and still others were full grown adults?

Kenneth Chang: She was less certain about whether the rate of evolution is as fast .... because the scientists lack precise dating of the layer of rock hundreds of yards thick where the fossils have been found. “You don’t know if it’s a million years or 10 million years,”

Rebuttal: This nonsense about measuring time by correlating it to rock thickness assumes a steady rate of silt/sediment accumulation. In reality, a catastrophic flood can deposit as much sediment in a few days as normal conditions can over the course of many centuries. This magical method of time-keeping -- a work-around to circumvent the Scientific Method -- is again totally unscientific because there is no way to go back in time and OBSERVE if the wet-sediment-to-rock-time formula is accurate.

Furthermore, the bones would have dried up, turned to dust and blown away long before centuries of sediment accumulation and hardening could completely encase and petrify them. Try dumping your Thanksgiving Day turkey bones in a nearby wooded area are see how long they last before nature's elements and insects cause them to disintegrate and disappear -- months or a few years at the most!

How's the old funeral ditty go? "Ashes to ashes. Dust to dust."

Intact bones found inside of rock layers are evidence of a catastrophic, fast-acting, silt-depositing event such as a flood, volcano, landslide, tsunami, suddenly rising sea level or something else. Might that be how our Chinese "feathered" friend suddenly got stuck in the mud -- a mud which later hardened as it was soon buried under additional layers of silt?

1- Dog breeds differ greatly among themselves too. It doesn't prove that poodles "evolved" into dalmatians!
2- The "science" of rock dating is deeply flawed to begin with. Dating fossils from the erroneously-aged rocks then leads to circular reasoning.
3- Darwin's scam is thoroughly and humorously exposed in "God vs Darwin" by M S King. (here)

This cooked-up commie crap would actually be funny, were it not for the fact that millions of young malleable minds are being corrupted by the "theoretical scientists." For that reason, these diploma-decorated dorks need to be driven out of Academia and into the lunatic asylums by the thousands.

Dragonflame #racist stormfront.org

RAPIST RABBIS OUT! but please, sterilize them first. legally and democratically. humanely - infinitely more humanely than how they mistreat the weak and vulnerable. Consider jewed South Africa, where a woman is more likely to be raped than to ever learn to read. Sterilize the rapist rabbis and get them away from our little girls - just get it done!

jews say that's all an authoritarian sentiment. actually, it is profoundly anti-authoritarian to seek to drain the swamps that lead to rape. The best available means to do so are: 1) scientific population policy and 2) scientific eugenics. Aryan society where population policy ensures that Aryans maintain a strong majority, dangerous incompatibles are kept OUT and allowed true freedom to live where they evolved - in their respective biospheres, and defectives prone to rape are humanely sterilized? Result: minimal to no rape. In Jewish-run multiculti society - the more Jews and the more Afro-Asiatics, etc., are imported to be egged on to commit rape by racist, sexist, supremacist Jews? Result, more and more rape; far more rape.

Rape is authoritarian if anything is. Cravenly refusing to oppose rape with everything you've got out of fear of being called "racist" or an "antisemite" is to be an authoritarian follower of the most cowardly sort!

Even when he's not committing physical rape, the supremacist jew is a spiritual rapist.

[...]

"Antisemitism" is largely rational. Jews claim to be chosen by god to rule the world -- is THAT rational? -- yet rationally, empirically, and scientifically, they consistently behave in profoundly evil ways. Therefore, it is rational to form a hypothesis that they are of their father the Devil - the demonic seed of the most brutal patriarchy of all, the one patriarchy that jewish and jew-approved "feminists" NEVER criticize, or even name out loud - the Elders of Zion. They are the Devil's seed, insofar as such an archetype or entity or demonic intelligence exists - more precisely, a desert demon who claims to be the Creator, yet has never created anything worthwhile, as he wanders about to swindle old women and rape children. All while blaming his victims for being "hateful antisemites!" Does anyone else have a better theory? Okay then.

Charles Eisenstein #quack charleseisenstein.org

Because a miracle is (by this definition) impossible from where we stand today, we cannot force the universe to produce one. It is beyond our understanding of cause and effect. We can, however, give the experience of miracle to another person. To the extent we stand in a new story, we all have the power to be miracle-workers. Like Chris, we all have the power to perform acts that violate the old Story of the World.

A miracle is an invitation to a larger reality. Maybe I am more stubborn than most, but it typically takes repeated miracles for me to accept the invitation they hold. The perceptions of separation—for example, linear causality and rational self-interest—are embedded deep within my cells, for I am a product of that age.

At age twenty-one I arrived in Taiwan, uncomfortable in my own culture, in which I felt like an alien, but wedded still to many aspects of its defining stories. True, thanks to my somewhat leftist political upbringing I was cognizant of the bankruptcy of the mythology of progress and economic globalism, but I accepted without question the Scientific Method as the royal road to truth, and believed that science as an institution had arrived at a fairly complete general understanding of how the universe worked. I was, after all, a Yale graduate, trained in mathematics and analytic philosophy. It wasn’t long, though, before my story of the world came under assault. I had experiences with Chinese medicine and qigong that were impervious to my best efforts to explain away. I had a powerful LSD trip that melted what I’d called “reality” into an ocean of mind. I soaked up the Buddhist and Taoist thought that suffused the island, and heard countless stories of ghosts, Taoist shamans, and other weirdness from respectable people that I could dismiss only with a strenuous effort of interpretation. (Maybe they are trying to impress the foreigner. Maybe they are ignorant and superstitious, given to seeing what isn’t there.) I found myself increasingly uncomfortable with the cultural and personal arrogance I had to assume in order to preserve my worldview. To dismiss an entire culture’s perceptions of the world in favor of the dogma of objectivity and reductionism seemed akin to the very same economic and cultural imperialism that I was already aware of. Here was a kind of conceptual imperialism, to see an entire culture through a lens of anthropology or through a narrative of cognitive development that, in both cases, was heavily freighted with the power relations that rule our world.

At the same time, I encountered books that suggested that the Western worldview was crumbling from within. Of particular impact was the work of the Nobel laureate Ilya Prigogine and the physicist David Bohm, two of the twentieth century’s greatest scientists, who upended my understanding of causality and my assumption, which I’d never thought to question on scientific grounds, that the universe is devoid of an inherent order or intelligence. This liberated me from the trap of dualism: to see the phenomena I’d become aware of in Taiwan as the exercise of some separate, nonmaterial realm of spirit; to conclude that science has its domain, and spirituality another. But now I could see that materiality was much more than we had made of it; that potentially, it could include all the phenomena we associate with spirit, and that this could happen, not by reducing, dismissing, or explaining away the “spiritual,” but, on the contrary, only by expanding the material far, far beyond what any scientist was comfortable with.

We are afraid of anything that disrupts our Story of the World, anything that challenges the rules and boundaries of the real. We are afraid of miracles, yet we crave them as well. It is our greatest desire and our greatest fear. When the story we live in is young, the fear is stronger than the desire. A young story has a strong immune system. It can dispose of conflicting data points with ease. I see a dangji (a Taiwanese shaman) in a shaking trance, carrying a burning hot brazier in his bare hands—well, it must not really be as hot as it looks. A taxi driver tells me of the time he picked up an odd woman in a wedding dress and drove her to a street number that didn’t exist, and when he turned to ask her she had disappeared from the cab—well, he was probably drunk that night, or maybe he was trying to impress the gullible foreigner. I sprain my ankle so severely I cannot walk, and am taken to a one-room cement clinic, where the doctor, smoking a cigarette, digs his thumbs into the swollen, inflamed flesh for five minutes of torture, puts some paste on it, wraps it up, and sends me home, and the ankle is completely better the next day—well, it must not have really been that bad, it must not have actually been swollen to double its size like I thought, and in any case it would have gotten better anyway. I visit a qigong master, who taps me on a few spots on my body to “clear my meridians,” and I start pouring sweat within seconds and walk out half an hour later feeling like a million bucks—well, I was probably hot going in there, and didn’t notice that the room was extra hot, and as for the intense tingling I felt when he showed us what projecting qi was, I must have been imagining it. The hundreds of people studying with that man—they must be dupes, bamboozled by his slick talk into believing an impossibility, probably psychologically dependent on the bogus spiritual teachings he peddles. I don’t even need to know what those are or examine whether they are bogus or not—they must be, because otherwise my world falls apart. The same goes for all the claims and lifelong careers of hundreds of thousands of homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists, chiropractors, energy healers, and all the others who practice modalities for which there is “no scientific evidence”—controlled, double-blind studies in peer-reviewed journals. If there were any merit to their ideas, surely the unbiased institutions of science would recognize it by now. Those practitioners have been deceiving themselves, selectively remembering only those cases where the patient got better—and some inevitably will get better even with no treatment at all. They are misguided, self-deceiving, poor observers of reality. Unlike me, and the people I agree with. We are the ones who base our beliefs on evidence and logic.

You can see how robust a Story of the World can be, and how comprehensive. Ultimately, our beliefs about what is and is not scientifically acceptable implicate our trust in existing social structures and authorities. The accusations of naiveté, of mental derangement, of being out of touch with reality, and the emotional energy behind those accusations, stem from a feeling of threat. The threat is real. What is being threatened is the fabric of the world as we have known it. Ultimately, the same fear is behind the mental calisthenics of environmental skeptics or central bankers or anyone else who ignores the increasingly obvious signs that our system is doomed, and that the beliefs we took for granted, the institutions that seemed so permanent, the truisms that seemed so reliable, and the habits of life that seemed so practical are serving us no longer.

Mike Adams #fundie naturalnews.com

Yet more evidence emerges that our universe is a grand simulation created by an intelligent designer

(NaturalNews) There's a lot of buzz in the news about a new scientific study that statistically supports the idea that our known universe is actually a grand computer simulation. This is mainstream science, and the idea isn't a whacky as you might first suppose. I've actually written about this several times in articles about consciousness and the nature of reality. This news, by the way, also supports the idea of a Creator who brought this universe -- and everything in it -- into existence by design.

A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation.

Here's what it means in layman's terms
Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically.

Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware.

Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen.

Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right?

Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe."

The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.

For the record, my personal belief is that the Creator set all the physical constants in the universe and then initiated the so-called "Big Bang" and let things play out from there. I do not believe our Creator "tinkers" with the universe at a micro level on a day-to-day basis. But I do believe there very well may have been individuals throughout history who found ways to "bend the rules" of the Matrix ever so slightly and thereby perform the very kind of miracles we see described in ancient texts.

"The structure of the underlying lattice"
The authors of this new paper describe their conclusion as following: "The numerical simulation scenario could reveal itself in the distributions of the highest energy cosmic rays exhibiting a degree of rotational symmetry breaking that reflects the structure of the underlying lattice."

This "underlying lattice" is what I'm describing as a "resolution" of our physical simulation.

There's other evidence of this, too: Plank's Constant, for example, is by itself yet more evidence that the physical universe in which we live is quantized to a particular resolution. In fact, even light behaves in a quantized manner, which is why "light packets" are called quanta.

Our universe, it turns out, is digital, not analog. Heck, even your DNA is digital, not analog. You are a digitized physical being imbued with a non-material consciousness that transcends this physical simulation. Realizing this is a lot like taking the red pill in The Matrix and being shown that the universe you thought was real is actually just a grand computer simulation.

Of course, once you grasp that we are living in a grand simulation, the next obvious question is: Who built it?

Intelligent Design
One obvious answer is that we built it! Not "we" the humans here on Earth, but rather the "we" which is a highly advanced civilization of seemingly supernatural beings with incomprehensibly powerful technology. We collectively built the simulation, the theory goes, and then agreed to selectively insert our consciousness into the simulation in order to have a "human life experience" on this planet. But that's only one possibility from all this.

Another possible answer is that HE built it. Who is He? He is God, our Creator. He is a consciousness with literal God-like powers who is omnipresent and all-powerful. He created our universe (i.e. designed and then launched the simulation) while providing a mechanism for free will consciousness to "wake up" inside the simulation in the bodies of newly-born beings. Upon death in the simulation, your consciousness leaves the simulation and returns to its source, which is the actual reality that transcends this one. This is possibly why people who have survived near-death experiences consistently report their experience as being a "hyper reality" that feels like it is "a thousand times more real than life on Earth."

For the record, I have always believed in a supernatural Creator of our universe; our God. I also believe -- and have good evidence -- that God is an all-loving being and that the overriding purpose of our existence in this universe is to express our free will and thereby have a self-aware experience which advances our knowledge of who we are. More details on this below...

What would be the purpose of intelligently designing a grand computer simulation?
If our universe was consciously created, then it must have been created for a purpose. In his book Proof of Heaven, near-death survivor Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurosurgeon, describes the purpose in great detail on page 48 of his book:

Through the Orb, [God] told me that there is not one universe but many -- in fact, more than I could conceive -- but that love lay at the center of them all. Evil was present in all the other universes as well, but only in the tiniest trace amounts. Evil was necessary because without it free will was impossible, and without free will there could be no growth -- no forward movement, no chance for us to become what God longed for us to be. Horrible and all-powerful as evil sometimes seemed to be in a world like ours, in the larger picture love was overwhelmingly dominant, and it would ultimately be triumphant.

The primary purpose of life in this realm, it seems, is to experience personal growth and learn how to overcome Evil. This explains why we all seem to be surrounded by so much evil on a day-to-day basis. We are drowning in evil precisely because our souls chose to be here and learn how to defeat it.

At the end of our Earthly lives, we are then judged on our performance. As I wrote in a previous article:

Upon our death, we are judged by a higher power, and that judgment takes into account our performance in these areas. Did we achieve a measure of self-awareness? Did we work to overcome evil? Did we express love and compassion and help uplift others with knowledge and awareness?

As you've probably already figured out, the vast majority of humans fail these tests. They die as bitter, selfish, substance-addicted, greed-driven minions of evil who mistakenly thought they were winning the game of life while, in reality, they were losing the far more important test of the Creator.

Looking around at our fellow human beings, you can't help but agree with my assessment that nearly everyone is failing the test. If we are here to overcome and resist evil, very few people are scoring very many points at all.

Having your consciousness attached to a human experience in this world seems to be the universal equivalent of "being thrown in the deep end" of Good vs. Evil. Making matters even more difficult, none of us is granted any sort of memory of why we are here and what we're supposed to do. We simply wake up as a newborn, and we have to figure things out for ourselves -- a challenge that often takes a lifetime. In fact, the achievement of "enlightenment" in a human lifetime is quite a remarkable feat by any measure.

What this means for your life
So what does all this mean in terms of the way you live your life here on Earth? If you believe the universe really is a grand simulation created by a higher power, then it forces you to rethink your philosophy on the purpose of life.

Some might say this is the perfect excuse to resort to selfish hedonism and turn your entire life into one vast entertainment parade. But that seems to be the wrong conclusion from all this, precisely because it ignores the importance of personal growth. I do not believe our universe is a childish playground; I believe it is a serious test of spiritual strength. You may or may not agree with all my points, but here's my philosophy on what to do with this realization:

#1) Don't chase material things that aren't even real in the first place. You are living in a simulation that's as un-real as an old 8-bit Atari computer game. Your focus on trying to collect money and wealth in this world is about as foolish as trying to collect gold coins in a role-playing computer game.

#2) Live your life to WIN the simulation. "Winning" means persistently working to defeat evil, demonstrate love and help awaken others. Rack up your "karma" points, so to speak. Because that's how you will be judged once your earthly life comes to an end.

#3) Know that your behavior is being watched, recorded and judged. There are ultimately no secrets. You will, in time, face judgment on all your actions, and it's even possible that an entire civilization of advanced Creators will review your actions with you. (This is what is often described by those who survive NDEs.) Your actions in this simulation are recorded on your soul for eternity, so make them count. Don't do anything your soul would feel ashamed of.

#4) Know that death is not final. What matters far more than staying alive on this planet is living your life with principle. Your decisions (ethics) survive your human life! I would rather die defending principles of love and enlightenment than compromise those principles to save my own skin in this simulation. Life is fleeting, but the record of your morals and behavior lasts forever. If all this starts to sound a little Biblical, that's because the Bible is, I believe, based in part on information provided to us by the Creator of our grand simulation.

#5) Realize that your consciousness is eternal and you almost certainly "agreed" to come here and experience this life as a spiritual test. With that in mind, do your best to achieve success within the test by demonstrating behavior based in high spiritual principles.

Why I'm not afraid to tell the truth
Once you grasp all this, you realize why I am not afraid to speak my mind and report the truth here on Natural News. People often ask me, "Aren't you afraid of being killed?" While I do take tactical precautions to avoid being prematurely removed from this simulation, I simultaneously realize that there is ultimately nothing to be afraid of in this simulated world.

What's to be afraid of, really? Most of the people who claim to have power in this world will be reduced to Hellish minions after their death. If you look at truly evil people in this world, you realize that those people have already doomed their souls in the real world beyond this one. They will suffer from the Hell they have brought upon themselves by living lives of deception. We who tell the truth are spiritual giants compared to those who gain false power through deception.

That's why never selling out is an absolutely must if you hope to pass the spiritual test of life. If you sell out to corporate interests or an evil agenda that suppresses freedom or health, you quite literally sell out your own soul far beyond this one lifetime. The phrase "eternal damnation" comes to mind...

On the issue of gun rights, by the way, all this helps explain why self defense is a divine right. We all deserve the right to prevent our souls from being prematurely removed from the simulation (i.e. being killed). Guns are simply tools that can help us defend our physical bodies so that our spiritual bodies can continue with their intended experiences in this reality. This is why those of high spirituality have traditionally carried swords and other weapons of self defense. Even Jesus recommend people carry swords for protection, even as they pursue spiritual awakening.

A gun defends the body so that the spirit can do its work, in other words. But that's only true if the use of gun is reserved for self defense only. To use a gun to commit unjustified violence against innocents is obviously a terrible sin and a catastrophic spiritual failure.

Conclusion: Has science proven the existence of God?
If all this science is true, it would mean that science has proven the existence of a Creator (as well as intelligent design).

This is certainly not the intention of science, as much of modern-day science seems to be dead-set against the idea of intelligent design. Yet even if the entire universe can be traced back to the Big Bang and Inflation Theory (with Inflatons) there is still the lingering question of "Who or what initiated the Big Bang?"

If you really look deeply into the laws of physics, by the way, you will discover that the so-called universal constants that drive the underlying mechanics and energies of our universe have been intricately fine-tuned precisely to give rise to a universe that can support biological life. Change one of these constants just slightly and stars don't form. Change another constant and the universe flings itself apart before life can form on any planets. These are at least six physical constants that appear to have been delicately tuned, selected or somehow "set" sort of like a universal control panel with properties and parameters.

There's an interesting book on this subject by science writer Paul Davies, by the way. It's called The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? I've read most of it and recommend the book to other seekers who are looking for the deepest answers about the nature of reality and how it all came to be.

If you're interested in my own views on all this, read my article on The Higgs boson "God particle".

You may also enjoy reading my other website called www.DivinityNow.com where I post articles on consciousness, cosmology and philosophy.

(Submitter's notes: Emphasis original. The article is actually only about what we may expect to find if we are living in a a relatively primitive simulation. Here is a video debunking Adams.)

Society of Flat Earth Debunkers #conspiracy themillenniumreport.com

The Flat Earthers Are Being Sent Into Every Real Truth Movement To Disrupt And Destroy Them, Especially The Planet X Groups

by Society of Flat Earth Debunkers

If ever there was a PSYOP designed to distract, divert and misdirect, the thoroughly insane Flat Earth Theory (FET) is the one. Never in the history of black operations have the co-conspirators been so fierce and fanatical in their mission to deceive and dupe.

Just what is that covert mission? To effectively blow up every internet chat room, forum and blog that has many meaningful discussion about Planet X, formerly known as the 10th Planet. Planet X is the real megillah that everyone has been tying to hide for decades. Simply put, its profound ramifications are so far-reaching and highly consequential that TPTB cannot risk the people catching on. Hence, along comes the Flat Earth Theory to change the conversation into absolute and utter gibberish.

Anyone who knows how COINTELPRO really works will tell you that these Flat Earthers have been carefully cultivated in some serious mind-control programming experiments. Whenever they encounter any resistance to their utterly absurd FET hallucinations, they literally go ballistic. However, they do so with great purpose and calculation. Their studied responses are quite manipulative, just as their triggered reactions are practically inhuman.

Just go to one of the big chat rooms and hang out in one that has made the Flat Earth Theory the topic of discussion. Watch the intensity on the side of the Flat Earthers, especially the way that they deceptively advance their daft arguments. It’s almost as though these folks (probably droids) have been fabricated in some laboratory somewhere in Andromeda. Their thought process is not human, and the practiced sophistry that they routinely employ in downright otherworldly as in AI gone awry in an evil Grey lab in Area 51.

BOTTOM LINE:
There is no good reason to confront a Flat Earther—Anywhere, Anytime or Anyway. They have proven themselves to be incapable of exercising their faculty of human reason. Likewise, they completely lack any common sense and the ability to utilize basic logic. The Flat Earthers were somehow brainwashed in such a way that they can spontaneously suspend the use of their intellect. Most of them lack the capacity to even discern between a simple right and wrong answer to a question which is obviously black and white. For real, these dunces can’t even answer “Yes” or “No” when asked if the sky — RIGHT NOW — is blue or green, when it is a perfectly deep blue sky. Yes, they have completely left the reservation of rationality and reason. They’re either permanently “Out To Lunch”, forever “AWOL”, and “There’s Nobody Home”. We’re talking the complete absence of even an iota of intellectual integrity. Do you now get the picture? (-: Actually, it ought to be )-:

The bottom line, then, is NOT to waste your time with the Flat Earthers. Their primary function is to waste your time … mightily! As well as to distract you from much more important things that are going on everywhere, all the time. During these times, when things are moving VERY fast, no one on the planet has a second to waste. So why spend a moment in debate with a veritable idiocracy of Flat Earth nonsense?!?!

If you really knew that this whole Flat Earth PSYOP was a full-blown DARPA-conceived, CIA-directed, NSA-monitored, DIA-driven black operation, would you continue to given them any energy whatsoever? Well, now you know. Perhaps some folks enjoy the journey into the realm of the extremely deranged; however, be aware that these Flat Earthers know exactly what they’re doing and that you may find yourself trapped off in a fictitious space-time continuum of puerile phantasmagoria and mentally challenged pseudo-entertainment. BEWARE, and be aware, of where they might be taking you.

DISCLAIMER:
The Society of Flat Earth Debunkers (SFED) perfectly understands that NASA does not tell the truth about anything ever, unless they must. The SFED also knows that there are many scientific laws and maxims, theories and hypotheses which are falling apart by the day. We put no stock in the many falsehoods and propagated by the scientific establishment. However, that doesn’t mean that doesn’t mean that everything that comes out of NASA is bunk. After all, they did know enough to launch a space shuttle every now and then. More importantly, the Russians would have given up the International Space Station years ago if all NASA science and technology was falsely concocted. Would you send up your cosmonauts if the math was all wrong?

DHK #fundie baptistboard.com

What rational reason do you have for a basis of your belief. The Bible is full of prophecies; that is true. Not one of them has ever failed. There is no contradiction in the Bible."

"Yes Satan does have his children still on earth. All who do not know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour are children of the devil.

Bob Blaylock #fundie christiannews.net

[Bob Blaylock continues his crusade against anti-discrimination laws.]

Bob Blaylock:
The First Amendment explicitly protects freedom of religion and expression (including nonexpression), and strongly implies freedoms of thought, conscience, and association.

Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, but it doesn't specify where the line gets drawn when that right conflicts with other rights.

Bob Blaylock:
Forcing a baker, or any other businessman, to give support to a sick, immoral homosexual mockery of a wedding, in violation of his own religious and moral values, as a condition of being allowed to make a living, blatantly violates the First Amendment.

Ambulance Chaser:
No it doesn't. The Supreme Court ruled in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States that the First Amendment didn't forbid the government from passing laws that forced public accommodations to serve a specified class of clientele.

Bob Blaylock:
There is no right to another person's labor. Nothing in the Constitution implies or hints at any such right.

There is no legitimate basis on which to conclude that a nonexistent right, nowhere stated, implied, nor even hinted at in the Constitution, can take precedence over a genuine right, explicitly stated or strongly implied in the Constitution.

Ambulance Chaser:
The "legitimate basis" is that the Supreme Court ruled it. You can disagree with the ruling all you want but it's there and it's law, and your disagreement is irrelevant to American jurisprudence.

Bob Blaylock:
The Supreme Court does not have the authority—no matter how many times it has gotten away with illegally usurping it—to override the Constitution. No part of the Constitution can legitimately be overridden or overturned by anything short of a Constitutional Amendment

TheKingofRhye:
They don't "override" the Constitution, they interpret it.

Bob Blaylock:
Calling a thing by a different name doesn't change what it is.

When the courts “interpret” the Constitution to mean something contrary to what it clearly says, then they are overriding it, and engaging in open corruption and malfeasance.

Ambulance Chaser:
I don't understand what kind of system you think we run. Do you think that Supreme Court rulings are only valid conditionally? Who gets to determine when rulings are valid or not? Any random person? Is our system just anarchy?

Bob Blaylock:
The Constitution is the highest law, and all public servants, in all levels of government, are under a sworn duty to uphold, obey, and defend it. Any act of any public servant, which violates the Constitution, is invalid and illegal. This certainly includes the acts of corrupt judges who “interpret” the Constitution contrary to what it clearly says.

There is a problem, of course, when those who we charge with the duty of upholding the law choose, instead, to pervert and violate it.

Ambulance Chaser:
Still not answering my question, just soapboxing.

Bob Blaylock:
It's unclear what answer you are expecting, or what answer would satisfy you. The Constitution is the highest law; and you seem bent on arguing that it is subordinate to the wills of corrupt judges who would “interpret” it away from its clear meaning. You are simply wrong in that position.

Ambulance Chaser:
No, I'm asking you who makes the final decision about what the Constitution means. You keep saying that the judges are corrupt. Who decides that? You? Who determines when judges' rulings can be ignored because they're "corrupt?"

Bob Johnson:
Certainly some interpretation is required. What does “press” in the 1st Amendment or “his” in the 6th Amendment mean? However, in this case, it seems that what is clear to you is not the same as what is clear to several courts with scores of judges over several decades.

Bob Blaylock:
To a very limited degree, yes, some legitimate interpretation is called for. But then we have plenty of instances where the Constitution is absolutely clear on a matter, and we have courts trying to twist it to mean something other than what it says. Consider the Second Amendment. We have courts, up to and including the Supreme Court, issuing rulings about when and where and how the government may infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment already clarified that. Government is forbidden from infringing this right at all. Period. Yet the courts and other parts of government absolutely refuse to obey this part of the Constitution.

The First Amendment is clear about religious freedom, freedom of expression, and freedom of association. And yet our government violates these rights, in order to uphold fake “rights” that are nowhere even hinted at in the Constitution. This is not “interpretation”; it is corruption and malfeasance.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

I want to publicly thank popular atheist, Jaclyn Glenn, for the exposure she has given to "Evolution Vs. God." Her first review received over 650,000 views.

No doubt most of those who watched were atheists. God only knows how many backslid because of her disastrous effort at damage-control.

The first review didn't work so she tried again, and this one has had over 190,000 views.

Watch Jaclyn go into panic-mode as the sacred cow of Darwinian evolution is shown to have no scientific basis.

This is because it's not me that couldn't find evidence for the belief. It was four leading evolutionary scientists (from USC and UCLA) that are floundering. So her frustration is understandable.

If you watch, be ready for her potty-mouth (see Proverbs 11:22).

Random fundie #fundie religiouswatch.com

[Jesus fuck. Now it's happening over here as well.]

A protest was organised in response to part of a display on evolution being censored following a complaint to Abington Park Museum in Northampton .

A passage in a display on Charles Darwin at the Northampton Borough Council-run museum was covered up after a complaint from a Christian nutter. The move has now sparked the Northampton Socialist Forum to decide on protest action.

As reported in the Chronicle & Echo on Thursday, four lines of text were obscured. The information in the display explained how Charles Darwin used fossils to formulate his theory of evolution, which the forum said was established scientific fact.

Patrick Markey, of the forum, said: People are entitled to have all sorts of ideas, but no right to impose them on others. This is a public museum and should respect rational scientific thought, not the ideas of some religious fundamentalists.

The National Secular Society has written to the borough council. President Terry Sanderson said: There is a global push by the so-called 'creationist movement' to undermine the theory of evolution. It is incumbent on all educators to resist this attempt to deny evidence and, in the process, retard science and progress.

Visitors to the museum are entitled to a better explanation of Darwin's world-shaping idea than the bowdlerised version you have on display at present.

Councillor Brendan Glynane, the cabinet member for museums said: There was absolutely no attempt at censorship. The text contains a factual error which could cause confusion. We have now uncovered the display board and are in the process of getting a new board produced.

The council says the revised wording will read: He used the same layers of fossils to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to adapt to the rigours of its environment – the struggle for survival, through the natural selection, leading to the survival of the fittest.

Dale Pond #crackpot svpvril.com

Q1) Is there any way you could provide me with more essential data such as equations or texts related to the theoretical developments of SVP, etc.? I find the historical text very time consuming and would prefer to get down to the nitty-gritty.

A1) A comprehensive compilation of SVP can be seen here. To know the mans history is to know his life and work. To know his life and work is to know his discoveries, philosophy and science. Keely worked with sound, vibration and music as applied to and through mechanics, Mind, philosophy, spirituality, chemistry, physics, etc. The basis of everything that there is is vibration. "All force is vibration..." Cayce (900-422) "So is matter." Cayce (1861-16) The study (for many centuries) of sound and vibration has been carefully and extensively organized into what has become the scientific basis of music. A careful and in-depth study of the arithmetic of music will reveal a great deal of the foundation "math" of the Keely legacy now called Sympathetic Vibratory Physics. All forces are vibratory and therefore the principles that govern music govern them as well.

This study into the scientific basis of music will be the beginning of "getting down to the nitty-gritty."

The second part of the question has to do with the EFFECTS of sound and vibration on "things" and processes. SVP holds that Mind (Will, Love & Spirituality) is the initiatory cause of all phenomena and it was this force Keely worked to harness. These phenomena fall into several areas of research. These being: acoustics, heat, light, etc. or the various categorizations of vibrations in their actions and reactions on, with and through "things." A great deal of SVP is scattered throughout several fields of science. This makes it difficult for the ordinarily trained person to grasp all the points required to develop a working knowledge. For this work it is far better to have a general knowledge in many fields rather than an in depth knowledge in one field - in fact it is essential.

The third issue is about the substance of SVP - the Forty Laws of Sympathetic Vibratory Physics. Please review these for greater detail.

Mike Adams #conspiracy naturalnews.com

RED ALERT: Fascist Google begins PURGE of pro-Trump websites as prelude to massive false flag or coup attempt

...

Now, Natural News has learned that the take down of NaturalNews.com is just the opening salvo of a massive free speech purge from Google to silence pro-Trump voices across the ‘net. After my announcement yesterday that described Google’s outrageous censorship of Natural News, I have been contacted by several other site owners who say they were also taken offline at about the same time.

The following graphic from IsMyWebsitePenalized.com shows that 470 websites have been penalized or banned by Google in the last month:

No doubt many of those 470 sites deserved to be taken down due to malicious code or malware infections, but as the following screen shot from the Google Search Console reveals, there are no security issues affecting the Natural News website:

Instead, Natural News has been banned via a “human decision” that has no justification whatsoever and was issued without warning or recourse. In effect, somebody at Google flat out decided they didn’t like Natural News content, and they flipped a switch to “memory hole” the entire website in an instant, much like detonating high explosives to take down building 7, come to think of it.

This is on top of the economic sabotage committed against InfoWars on Tuesday, where the Google-influenced advertising company AdRoll cut off InfoWars’ ads without warning, costing InfoWars a reported $3 million in annual revenues.

Two days before that, Breitbart News was targeted with a malicious take down of Milo Yiannopoulos, thanks to video leaks coordinated by George Soros-linked front groups.

A prelude to a massive false flag or coup attempt against President Trump?

Why would Google go to such great lengths to engage in outright censorship and economic sabotage against two of the largest independent media publishers in the world, in back-to-back censorship action that almost screams “urgency!”?

The answer is obvious. Something big is about to be initiated against Trump, and the largest pro-Trump voices are being systematically silenced, one by one, to make sure no independent media can counter the official narrative that will be pushed by the fake news media (CNN, WashPo, NYT, etc.)

This is fascism on display as corporations are now carrying out the bidding of the deep state that’s planning to cause mass mayhem or death in order to remove Trump from power before he can go public with the truth about the pedophilia links to prominent D.C. politicians.

Dr. Tommy Mitchell #fundie google.com.au

Why Is the World Broken?

“Something is terribly wrong with this world. Where’s God in all of this?” If you’ve ever heard these questions, or wondered them yourself, then this article is for you.

It is hard to deny that the world we live in is broken. Terribly broken. We are constantly bombarded with news of senseless shootings and terrorist attacks. Wars continue without end. Natural disasters such as tornadoes, earthquakes, and floods claim many lives each year. Despite our wonderful modern medical technology, thousands and thousands of people die every year of cancer, stroke, diabetes, or some severe infection.

Beyond this, we see greed, poverty, abuse, jealously, racism, and seemingly every possible manifestation of man’s inhumanity to his fellow man. It’s an ugly picture. This world is broken and can’t seem to find its way.

So where is the all-knowing, loving Creator God in the midst of all this pain and suffering?

Denying God

Many people think death and suffering are reasons to deny the very existence of God. They contend that a good God would not, could not, allow all these horrible things to continue. If He exists, if He is indeed a good God, would He not want to stop all these things? Therefore, they reason, God cannot exist. Sometimes they hedge their bets by adding that if He does exist, He cannot be a good God because He continually allows bad things to happen to good people.

Ultimately, though, this is faulty logic. Let’s think it through.

How Did We Get Here?

If God does not exist, how do we explain the physical world around us? If there is no God who created the universe, then where did everything come from? The world’s simple answer is that everything came from nothing. Matter just popped into existence from nowhere. Then over billions of years molecules randomly collided, resulting in the formation of planets and stars and galaxies.

From this lifeless matter sprang life. The first simple cell just assembled itself. Then through random mutation and natural selection (survival of the fittest), life forms became more and more complex until ultimately man came into being. This is called evolution.

No God. Nothing but chemicals banging together over millions of years.

The Basis of Morality

In a universe that is merely the result of random chemical reactions over millions of years, there would be no “god” to whom we are accountable. But in such a universe, a universe without an ultimate moral authority, how are right and wrong, good and bad, determined? In the final analysis, how are moral judgments made? Who decides? The answer is, everybody decides for himself or herself what is right and wrong.

Charles Darwin understood this. In his autobiography, Darwin wrote, “A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for the rule of his life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” So in a universe without God, morality is up for grabs. Everybody gets to set his or her own moral standards.

Good People and a Broken World

When people deny the existence of God because of all the death and suffering they see, they have a problem. Even if evolution were true, the world is still broken. So if you can’t blame God, then whom do you blame?

You see, most people think they themselves are good, or at least better or more deserving than the many bad people they see around them. Therefore, they reason, it is unfair that bad things happen to them. Often they also say it is unfair that bad things happen to others they think are good or innocent.

However, without God, these same people have no basis for determining good and bad other than their own opinion. Further, it is inconsistent to claim that people are basically good and then complain about the death and suffering humans inflict on each other. After all, wouldn’t that mean that good people are suffering at the hands of other basically good people?

God Is Unfair?

People are generally quick to make God a scapegoat. He gets the blame for everything from cancer to murder to tsunamis. If the suffering we see is evidence that God is cruel or unfair, then why isn’t the good we see equally evidence that God is loving and just? After all, we see lots of good in the world. Children are rescued from burning buildings, people donate organs to strangers, food banks feed the homeless, volunteers work in nursing homes, and the list goes on.

It seems people never take the blame. Just the credit.

Okay, So What Is the Problem?

Yes, it is obvious that there is suffering in the world, but God is not to blame. Whose fault is it then? Quite simply, it is our fault. The world is broken because of our sin. Most people fail to factor this into the equation.

Roosh #fundie rooshv.com

As recently as three years ago I started noticing the flaws of evolution from self-examining my behavior and those of my hypersexual male peers, because you don’t pick up a book titled “Darwinian Fairytales” unless you already harbored serious doubts about the theory. I must admit that I made a mistake to use evolution as a reason to whore around with women when it was clear as day that I did not aim to reproduce. The behavior I did enact for so long can best be explained as entertainment seeking, relieving a lack of purpose in life, and wanting to feel masculine, but there was nothing evolutionary about it, and it has not at all increased my reproductive success than had I been an introverted 22-year-old and told my father to arrange a marriage for me with a girl from his Iranian hometown.

With this review I don’t aim to completely throw evolution under the bus, for it does apply quite nicely to other organisms, and natural selection has surely applied to humans during certain periods of their history, but it should not and can not be used to describe current human behavior, including your own, because any set of conditions that put humans through an evolutionary grinder are no longer present in modern civilization. Doing otherwise would be deception on a large scale, and I won’t deceive myself further by using it, even if it reduces scientific backing for some of my ideas.

Without using evolution as a tool, there is a big question that must be answered: where does traditional sex roles—and behavior—come from? Or more precisely: what are the correct sex roles for humans? The answer to the second is easier than the first. The correct sex roles are what has sustained human populations and society in the past and what will sustain human populations and society in the future. Biology need not be taken into account.

A careful study of history can clearly show what happens when men step outside of their traditional roles and what happens when women step outside of theirs, something spending ten minutes on Tumblr can verify. What are the sex roles and proper behavior of humans that allow a sustainable and mentally healthy population without ushering in the policies that would lead to a cultural collapse? The answer is the sex roles we already are familiar with, ones that have been known since Biblical times.

It’s a natural human urge to understand the “why” of how life came about, a question that was no doubt asked by the first man. The problem in answering with evolution is that—besides it being wrong—it locks your mind into a narrow perspective. Thinking that all humans act in genetic self interest clouds all your thoughts on human behavior and prevents you from seeing obvious contradictions and hidden truths. Because you have firm faith in evolution, you are not even allowing your mind to consider another viewpoint.

Say you encounter an article that says the following: “Men who go off to war have more children than men who don’t.” Evolution would describe this by saying that women want to reproduce with men who are most fit and strong and better able to defend the tribe. But let’s flip it and say “Men who don’t go off to war have more children than men who do.” Evolution can describe this too! It can say, “A superior reproductive strategy is to stay with the fertile women and reproduce with them during the time the alpha males are away.” Even the simplest of minds can find an explanation once it already knows the final result it’s aiming for.

If evolution can be used to explain both sides of the coin, which is often does, it’s not a scientific theory but a rationalization theory that justifies any and all human behavior as somehow fitting the theory. In other words, the theory is like playdough that can fit in any situation, and this is even done in the red pill portion of the manopshere to take any behavior a man or woman does and somehow justify it in terms of evolution, even if it’s based on people acting on the willful mission to not reproduce. What’s convenient for evolutionists is that none of their assertions can be proven, meaning that evolution is not more than one step above astrology in terms of describing or predicting human behavior. It’s gibberish.

Darwin’s theory came at the right time of history. The monarchy was overthrown and scientific rationalism dominated the day. The missing piece to complete the Enlightenment was a way to kill god, and Darwin came forth with a brilliant theory that did the job. The only problem is that it’s not true for humans, at least not in the way for other forms of life on earth.

There must be something else motivating and driving human beings that can’t be explained by current science, and so therefore the science we have is unable to provide a definitive and consistent account of our origin story along with our behavior. This means that if you are using evolution to structure, organize, or explain your own life, you are living a falsehood—a soothing falsehood but a falsehood nonetheless.

I must state that it’s not a comfortable position for me to neither believe in god or human evolution, for I have no working model for my own existence. It’s a weird place because my brain, for some reason, craves an origin story for where it came from. It’s searching, hunting, for something that explains how it got here, but I will be patient in this search, because I find it liberating and free that I no longer have to frame every human action through the lens of “survive and reproduce” and “all humans act in self-interest to spread their genes.”

Now that I have done this, it’s much easier to see how reproduction is not an important or essential human behavior and that evolution is nothing more than a severely flawed theory for explaining human beings.

nate #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Atheist... How can you explain this...?
Now, since atheist are all about evidence, you believe in ghost/demons, right?

How can you explain how ghost/demons can be thrown out by using Gods word???

If you do not believe in ghost/demons, or your going to put a dumb-***-thinking its funny answer, don't answer this.

Andrew9651 #fundie youtube.com

Also...just cuz the "scientific community" believes evolution doesnt make it true; the majority have been proven wrong many times...

[What "majority" was proven wrong many times?You mean when scientific theories were updated and improved, the way biblical science never is?]

The science of bleeding; the communists in the Soviet Union a century ago; the belief the world was? flat; the belief the earth was the center of the universe.....all majorities proven wrong and there are so many more.
"If it ain't broke, dont fix it." There are many "laws" in science that have been proven to be steadfast and accurate every time it is tested (i.e. gravity, laws of thermodynamics)....therefore, if biblical science has never been proven wrong...why would it need improved?

Heartbrokenbrad #fundie flyleaffans.com

[ "So your saying if a baby is born with four fingers we should cut one of the fathers fingers off?" this is about when a man hits a pregnant woman in the stomach ]

no. you punish the man that hurt the mother. if it happens to be the father then yes.see God cares about all life and the idea here is that the punishment should fit the crime.

why do you think women are "unclean" while in their period? because the unfertilized egg was a potential life and thus it is the same as a baby that died. the hebrew word used for that kind of "uncleaness" is the same word used for corps contamination. a man is also "unclean" if he has any kind of unatural discharges.because the sperm was a potential life.

I think it's funny the semantics that so called "scientists" use today.they say "it isn't a live baby, it's a fetus". they don't mention that the word fetus means little baby.[..]

thats their whole reasoning as to why it's ok to kill babies. "because it isn't really alive so you aren't actually killing." the problem is that a "fetus" meats all 4 of the critirea necessary to be considered alive. so according to science a fetus is alive.

Dave C #fundie answers.yahoo.com

I was raised and educated as a Christian. I thoroughly understood and believed in Creation. But, when I became disillusioned regarding religion and God (because of other intense suffering in my life and no empiric evidence that any supposed "God" even cared), I actually took the time (years!) to study out the claims of the Theory of Evolution as an alternative answer to how we got here (because, we are not god and couldn't have just always been here -- we had to have a beginning).

What I found, though (and already having a background in Medical and Computer Science), is that the Theory of Evolution is based upon a multitude of unscientific assertions with absolutely no basis in scientific fact. Meaning, it is not science to assume that just because something is observable today, that it must have been just as equally observable back before there was anybody to observe it. It is also not science to assume that just because an event or process is unobservable, that any old speculation as to how such an event or process might have occurred must be the only possible answer on the issue.

In point of fact, all of the honest big names supporting the Theory of Evolution admit that most of the proposed answers in the theory are actually statistically impossible; but that they must, nevertheless, be the only possible answer because the alternative (i.e., God) is just as "impossible" (to them). Talk about great (deluded) faith! So, I finally dismissed the Theory of Evolution on the basis of the total lack of scientific facts to support it. In the end, I also found that God is willing to show Himself to those whom are able to admit that they don't have all the answers and are willing to surrender to His Will.

victorianpunk #fundie city-data.com

Atheism has it's merits I admit, but Rationalism?

Rationalism is a crutch for weak minded people who are too big a punch of cowards to create their own reality and hence, they lazily submit to a reality that has been made for them instead of having the courage and making the effort to forge a reality of their own. Do enjoy waddling in your own emptiness and meaningless quest for meaning in a world that you simply accept, much like a pig waddles in it's own filth.

You mindlessly accept and never question the Dogma of the Scientific method, empirical evidence and all other forms of Rationalists BS and never look within, to the Heart.

Laughable, utterly laughable and pathetic.....and no,I am not attacking your Atheism, I am simply attacking your Rationalism and the fundamentalists viewpoint you obviously carry that Rationalism works best for EVERYBODY when perhaps it only works best for YOU. You seem to want to impose your own philosophy on the world and expect everyone else to conform with Logic, Reason, and a whole host of other nonsensical anti-human buzz words.

CH #fundie heartiste.wordpress.com

The White Shitlib Ego is ravenous. It’s why shitlibs would rather oversee the destruction of White Civilization than admit their Equalism religious beliefs are based on falsehoods.

The Confederate statues being torn down across the South are just the latest battle fronts opened up by shitlibs who obey the credo that a good offense is the best defense. As the shitlib religion sits on a very shaky foundation that the Maul-Right is currently rupturing with seismic waves of realtalk, it behooves shitlibs to press their hate machine forward, into enemy territory, for to give even one inch of ground to heretics would mean the eventual reversal and defeat of every belief that shitlibs hold dear and former social, philosophical, and political grounds they occupied. And shitlibs know this, because it is the art of rhetorical war that they have practiced and perfected for decades against cuckservatives, solidifying and entrenching the Left’s march through the institutions.

The lesson: never give the Left an inch. They’ll take a parsec. Confederate statues today, books authored by White men tomorrow, until it finally reaches end game: second class status for all Whites outside of a few Acela elites who sufficiently grovel at the altar of anti-Whitism.

The human shitlib ego is the most powerful force in the cosmos. And never have the fortifications guarding that ego been under relentless attack like it is now. Shitlibs can sense it. The deluge is coming for them. Equalism is dead. The race and sex gaps won’t disappear any time soon. This is why leftoids are flirting with insanity; their interventions to solve the Gaps have been one failure after another, so they’ll need to adopt increasingly extreme anti-White postures to explain the persistence of the Gaps.

Hence the humiliation porn fix driving shitlibs to tear down symbols of White Southern heritage. This isn’t about honoring heroes of the Confederacy or showing the Confederate flag (which in point of fact was never a social crisis in America until shitlibs made it one in the past few years); it’s about shitlibs needing to dig deeper into the fever swamps of anti-White hatred to explain away race and sex gaps that make mockery of shitlibs’ guiding principle: the equalist belief that all humans, under the hood, are the same in aptitude, behavior, and moral worth, and that only White racism prevents the flowering of their Equalist paradise.

Make no mistake, the Left’s Confederate statue cultural sanitization project is JUST THE BEGINNING. Soon, it’ll be “the mere presence of Whites is keeping the black man down” and shitlibs will have their hamster rationalized justification for, say enforcing anti-White employment quotas.

As a Gab follower wrote in response to the preventable Manchester terror attack,

" shitlibs are so emotionally invested in their beliefs, they would rather be martyred by their invaders than admit they’re wrong, which would force them to change their sense of identity."

The shitlib ego is impenetrable, even by muslim nail bombs. Shitlibs will never give up on their Equalism religion; they’ll have to be forced out of power and shamed into hiding.

The follow-up question would be: why are shitlibs so invested in their obviously false belief in the equalism of humanity and protective of their egos? My answer gets to the reason I wrote this post: it could be genetic (shitlibs have inherited disfigured brain architecture) or it could be that social atomization, cultural balkanization, and mass society (SCALE) have reduced the scope of identity to ideology alone.

In sum, shitlibs cling to their outmoded and frankly dumb Equalism ideology because globohomoist forces of complexity and organic community destruction have created a social atmosphere where ideology is the only communal touchstone left for them to feel like they’re part of a group larger than themselves.

Related: The Chinese are even getting in on the act of mocking self-annihilating White shitlibs. They’ve come up with a word to describe them: baizuo, which means “white left”. Soon, the whole world will laugh at White shitlibs, and then and only then will their egos finally be defeated, and then there won’t be another White Left rule for a thousand years.

Alan Keyes #fundie wnd.com


The elitists’ push to legalize, and forbid disapproval of, homosexual relations is the most telling evidence of their hostility toward America’s way of life. It is also the key, in principle, to their thus far successful strategy to overthrow America’s historically exceptional government of, by, and for the people; and to restore unchallenged rule by and for the advantage of, the most powerful elitist clique.

The latest case in point is the ruling of U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern regarding same-sex marriage, overturning the amendment by which Oklahomans restricted the State’s recognition of marriage to heterosexual couples. Though the decision contained nothing new, both its content and the manner in which it was argued by both sides illustrate the deadly legal chicanery by which the elitist faction means to dissolve the moral, legal and institutional basis for just government, i.e., government aimed at securing the God-endowed unalienable rights of the people.

Nowhere in his judgment does Judge Kern refer to this fundamental purpose of government. This omission is the key to understanding the deadly legalistic deception his decision carries on. So is the fact that he pretends to talk about rights, but ignores the special natural prerogative that gives rise to the institution of marriage.

He pretends to see no rational basis for restricting the legal recognition of marriage to couples that are, in principle, capable of natural procreation. (In principle, means, of course, with respect to their God-endowed nature as human beings, not their incidental circumstances or intentions.) Yet the unalienable right of marriage depends on the special prerogative (natural command or rule of the Creator) of procreation. Members of a same-sex couple cannot humanly procreate with one another in the natural way. So they have no basis on which to claim the right rationally connected with the special prerogative of procreation.

Judge Kern purports to discuss natural procreation, but he omits to discuss its connection with natural right. But he also omits to discuss the fact that the whole people of the United States have a vital interest in the meaning and significance of such actions and activities as human beings are moved by their nature (i.e., the way the Creator made us) to undertake.

But where there is no respect for the authority of the Creator, there is no concept or claim of unalienable right. Where there is no concept or claim of unalienable right, legitimate government is not inherently required to respect it. Where government is not inherently required to respect antecedent, unalienable rights, there is no limit, in rational principle, to the use and abuse of the powers of government.

Satyapal Singh #fundie theguardian.com

Indian education minister dismisses theory of evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Stove #fundie web.maths.unsw.edu.au

Any serious answers to these questions would be instructive, but I do not really expect to receive any such answer. The evidence for the inferior intellectual capacity of women is so obvious and overwhelming, that anyone who can lightly set it aside must be defective in their attitude to evidence; and our contemporary equality-theorists are in fact (as I have hinted several times), religious rather than rational in their attitude to evidence. As providing some further indication of this, the following thought-experiment may be of use. Suppose that the historical evidence had been the exact reverse of what it has usually been: that is, suppose that the intellectual performance of men had been uniformly inferior, under the widest variety of circumstances, to that of women. Rational people would in that case be as confident of the superior intellectual capacity of women as they now are of the reverse. But would those people who are at present equality-theorists be as confident then as they are now of the equal intellectual capacity of the two sexes? To ask this question is to answer it. The fact is, our egalitarians treat evidence on a basis of heads-I-win-tails-you-Iose; indeed, to say so is "putting it mild," at that.

NightNinja76 #fundie community.livejournal.com

(Question: For those of you who are atheist:
You don't believe in "god" or dogma, I think that's pretty well established; but what if your child eventually adopted a form of spirituality or religion?
What would your reaction be and how would you deal with and/ or nurture this?)

I would challenge his beliefs as frequently as possible. If he couldn't rationally defend them, our relationship would probably dissolve.

Faith is pretty much the opposite of reason. Becoming religious is pretty much a guarantee that I will no longer be speaking to my child.

If he has a rational foundation for that belief he won't be discarded.

If my child has faith, he is obviously defective, and I will have no use for him.

If I had raised an adult who had baseless fantasies about gods, unicorns, and afterlives, I would not continue a relationship with him, effectively purging my progeny from my life.


(fundie atheist?)

Jim35 #fundie freerepublic.com

Yep. When dealing with some evolutionist fanatics, especially the strongly anti-Christian faction, you are expected to prove every assertion, no matter how obvious, while they sit back watch. If you tell them the sun rises in the east, they ask for a specific scientific, peer-reviewed, published article, with a list of the writer's credentials. Then they make some sneering comment referring to your belief in a flat Earth.

zero1 #fundie answers.yahoo.com

any real scientist is a Christian. there is plenty of scientific evidence which substantiates Creation and Christianity.

in fact, I've offered to debate any Evolutionist in America to a public debate before a live audience and complete with major present present. they never want to debate me because they know that the baloney they try to sell has no basis in scientific fact.

but, just like Joseph Goebbels said "if you tell a lie long enough, soon enough most people will believe it to be true." so the evolutionists keep pushing their agenda even though it is without any real scientific evidenc

NormalPerson #fundie rr-bb.com

There is a simple nonviolent solution to the Palestinian terrorism problem. Consider the following question: Can terrorists or potential terrorists be fit parents? Think about it. Think about all the ramifications of the obvious NO answer.

So here is what should be done.

1) Every year, all noncitizen residents of Israel, including those on the controlled territories, undergo a psychotest. This is nothing new, many Israelis do that routinely when applying for a job. Only this psychotest will test for one's propensity to commit terrorist acts.

2) Naturally, any person found to have a propensity to commit terrorist acts cannot be a fit parent. So the only humane step the Israeli government can take is to save the children of (potential) terrorists and remove them families that teach them to become suicide bombers.

3) The saved children should then be raised as loyal Israeli citizens. Of course, they will be a heavy financial burden on the Israeli society, but isn't a lasting peace and security worth a little bit of expense and effort?

4) My Israeli friends tell me that there is a special subject in their schools called "Moledet", which means "Homeland". That is the subject the saved children will need to learn first and foremost and excel in it.

The only losers here are terrorist child abusers. Everybody else wins. No amount of pressure, however strong, should stop the Israeli government from saving the children of the (potential) terrorists, because it is on the highest moral ground here. This strategy must be implemented urgently. You may have seen a recent news story about a Palestinian family violently hanging their own child on a mere suspicion of helping Israelis. Thou shalt not kill. We must save Palestinian children from terrorist upbringing before they, too, become suicide bombers and cause more death and destruction.

What do you think? Respond if you support it.

Fred Butler #fundie fredsbibletalk.com

And then fourthly, Chaz must not be aware of some of the more "anti-intellectual" comments coming from his side of the aisle. The way he carries on, you would think scientists are these humble individuals who honestly follow the evidence where ever it leads. Because the hard, scientific "evidence" supposedly points away from any idea of God and always disproves the Bible, there is no choice on the part of the serious minded intellectual but to separate religion from science; to place them into two compartments where never they shall interact. Hence, in order to be intellectual, you have to lay aside a belief in the Bible or your scientific endeavors will be ruined. Is that how these so-called intellectual really think? Consider some of my more favorite candid quotes from atheistic "scientists:"

Professor D.M.S. Watson, once a leading biologists and writer:

"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

Science writer Boyce Rensberger,

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position." [Rensberger, How the World Works, p. 17-18]

Then an all time favorite, Richard Lewontin, a fellow Marxist anarchist like Chaz, wrote in a 1997 The New York Review article,

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Does it sound as though these scientists are being intellectual? Intellectual implies using the rational faculties of the mind. Is it rational to believe in something utterly absurd like non-living inanimate material gave rise to complex biological life just because the only option is to recognize a creator? Sure, the Church has had its share of superstitious beliefs over the years, to which those purveyors of superstition should be faulted and rebuked, but Marxist, anarchist atheists also have their superstitions that are equally anti-intellectual.

Patrick Lee and Robert P. George #fundie thepublicdiscourse.com

This is "scientific" proof that the soul exists.
It's very complicated, I don't understand what they think they're saying.
It looks like circular reasoning and presuppositionalism well blended together.

They start with dark ages philosophy, note that this philosophy has no place for modern science
thus proving modern science supports dark ages philosophy. Or something.
The article is too long to post, go to the link for the full explanation.

Here are some examples. The full article is more complete but not any more coherent.

Nor has neuroscience helped “all but kill off” the concept of a soul. It could do so only if it showed how thought could be reduced to neuro-processes. But many have pointed out the insuperable difficulties for such a reduction. Any argument advanced to support such a feat would logically undermine itself. For the point of the reduction would be to show that one’s thoughts are fully explained by the interactions of electrochemical processes operating according to physical, not necessarily logical, laws. But if one’s thought—including the reductionist’s argument itself—rests on such non-rational causes, it is undermined, since beliefs that are determined by non-rational causes, rather than reasons, are thereby made suspect. If my thoughts are merely the result of the electrochemical processes in my brain, then they are non-rational.

The proposed reduction of thought to neurochemical processes could succeed, however, only if the actions of the neural components, operating according to physical laws, determine the reasoning processes—that is, determine which conclusions one draws in an argument. On a reductive view of mental events, the premises (or the acts of accepting the premises) have the causal powers they do only in virtue of their physical properties, and so the logical laws—the relations among contents of thought just as such—will be utterly irrelevant. Thus, if thoughts are just neuro-processes, governed by physical laws, then the laws of logic are dispensable, and the physical antecedents of a thought (such as a conclusion) determine it regardless of the contents of those antecedents. But this renders the argument by which one defends the attempted reduction unworthy of acceptance. Thus, thought cannot be adequately explained by neuroscience alone.

Thus, some properties and causal powers of organisms belong to them as wholes rather than merely resulting from the sum of the properties and causal powers of their components, and so organisms are substantial entities rather than mere aggregates. But as complex substances, each organism must have a principle of unity making its components a single whole. This principle cannot itself be a concrete component; the resulting unity would not be a single substantial entity composed of parts, but one entity acting on others—an accidental whole, a mere aggregate. Nor can the source of unity be merely a relation accruing to those components, which remain what they are but acquire ordered relations to others. What is required is a factor that unifies the materials in order to make them one being, one substance, and makes the parts be what they are because of their place within that whole. It must be a principle of organization that is logically prior to and not merely the result of the causal properties of the parts. Such a principle is precisely what the Aristotelian tradition called a “substantial form.” In a living being, such a form is a soul.

One can of course rightly affirm many things without affirming the existence of a soul, but some of these affirmations cannot be made sense of without affirming a soul. One can agree that human beings are both animals and persons without first appealing to the notion of the soul—and one could even be derisive of that concept at the same time. But one can give no intelligible account of those affirmations of our nature as personal animals without the concept of a soul—as that term has traditionally been used and understood.

Moreover, while organisms are irreducible to the laws and properties of the chemicals and particles composing them, likewise the human person (as Sir Roger rightly suggests) is irreducible to the laws and properties of organisms. Human thoughts and choices cannot be fully explained by biological laws and properties: the dimensions of logic and morality are distinct and irreducible types of reality.

Jason Lisle #fundie google.com.au

Among the belief systems of the world, evolutionism can be classified as an endangered species. Though it has many followers, it is not a “healthy” belief that can survive on its own. Other belief systems survive because they are supported or confirmed by scientific evidence and rational thinking. Not so with evolution. It survives only because it enjoys special protection under the law, which is afforded only to endangered species that cannot compete without such help.

Dr. Ronald W. Satz #conspiracy reciprocalsystem.guru

Do you have serious doubts about “modern physics”? Do you question the Big Bang, black holes, worm holes, the nuclear theory of the atom, Quantum Mechanics, neutron stars, quarks, degenerate matter, dark matter, dark energy, strings, curved space, the hydrogen-to-helium conversion process in stars? Do you question QED, virtual particles, and the “Standard Model” of particle physics? And do you doubt the existence of the “Higgs Boson” and gravitational waves and gravitons?

You’ve come to the right place! The Reciprocal System replaces all of the above with a completely unified, rational, general theory of the universe! Yes, the Reciprocal System is a “Theory of Everything!” It is a fully integrated axiomatic system and is fully quantitative and mathematical: the Postulates are inductively derived from observation and experiment; the theorems are deductively derived from the Postulates. Therefore, the Reciprocal System supersedes all other theories– All physical quantities in the Reciprocal System are expressed solely in Space-Time terms! See for yourself!

The Reciprocal System is verified scientific knowledge; for the proof, see the Database! Scientific “Establishment”: You may keep trying to ignore the Reciprocal System, but the truth will eventually out….

Various incels #crackpot #racist incels.co

EARTH is flat: votes: 30 41.1%

EARTH is spherical: votes 43 58.9%

BabyFuck McGirlsex: Are there any Flat Earthcels here? What do you fine supreme gentlemen of culture think - is the earth flat or not?

50IQcel: the earth is flat. jewish scientists are trying trick you.

Monk of Failure: it’s rectangular, ngl.

chadalwayswins: it doesn’t matter. it’s over

Robotical: The world is cubed.

Hungarocel: Cope. It’s shaped like the star of David.

Dominic Bnonn Tennant #fundie bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz

Man’s major problem since the fall is that his notion of what is good and what is evil is fundamentally broken. Indeed, this is what it means to be a sinner: we judge what is good by what we want, and also (by extension) by what other people want. Good and evil for us are centered on ourselves. Because sinners reject God, man’s flourishing is the only and ultimate good we can conceive.

This attitude is repaired to some extent when God regenerates us; when he changes our dispositions to “aim” toward him, rather than toward ourselves. We come to realize that the standard of goodness we’ve been aiming at is too low. Far too low. We learn that there is none righteous—not one!—and that from our youth, every inclination of our hearts is only evil continually (Romans 3:10; Genesis 8:21; 6:5). This is what Jesus saves us from.

But old habits die hard. We continue to instinctively judge actions by how they affect us and other people. That’s our natural shortcut for telling what is right and what is wrong. We have to work hard to overcome it; we have to learn to change our instincts; to judge actions by how they relate to God. It is a steep learning curve to come to grips with Paul’s statement in Romans 14:23 that whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. That nice atheist helping the old lady across the road? Yeap, that’s sin. It’s not as bad a sin as Ted Bundy raping and murdering young women—but it isn’t done with the intent of honoring God, and so no matter how well it affects other people, it is done in rejection of goodness itself (God). So it is sin.

The trouble is, because as sinners we are naturally predisposed to reject God’s authority and goodness and substitute them with our own, we should actually expect to feel loathing—or at least unease—about how God deals with people. (Isn’t this why the doctrine of hell is so unpopular?)

As Christians, we should be careful to test our kneejerk reactions against the standard of God himself. But when it comes to election, we quickly see that our initial feeling of how unfair God would be to save only some people is 180 degrees to how we should feel:

/!\God would be quite unfair to save anyone.

Our intuition that God should save all people rather than just some is based in our false but natural feeling that all people deserve saving. Even after we are converted and know better, we still tend to think of people as basically good when of course they are the opposite. But once we look at human beings from God’s perspective instead of our own, we realize that he ought to punish us all in hell forever. He ought not let a single one of us into heaven. That’s why it’s called the “gospel of grace”: grace is undeserved favor.

In other words, not a single person ever has any claim whatsoever on God’s salvation. If God decides to give it to some people, he is being gratuitously kind to them. He is not giving them what they deserve. Commensurately, his failing to be gratuitously kind to other people is not a defect or imperfection on his part. He has utterly no obligation to those he didn’t pick for salvation—because they have utterly no basis to expect his favor. He is not unfair to give them what they deserve—hell—he is, in fact, perfectly fair.

Election and God’s end-game

I noted in the previous part of this series that God’s purpose in creation—his end-game if you will—is to glorify himself. And I argued that God’s glory is simply his revealed perfection. With this in mind, it is actually easy to see why God does not damn everyone, and why he does not save everyone either:

(>) God’s undeserved love and mercy is part of his perfection
(>)God’s holy wrath and judgment is part of his perfection

If God wishes to reveal his perfection fully, he must reveal his undeserved mercy and his holy judgment. Which means he must elect some sinners to salvation, and damn others to hell. It is only a man-centered moral calculus that finds this offensive. When we cast it in light of God’s revealed perfection, election is literally a glorious doctrine.

Steven L Anderson #fundie sanderson1611.blogspot.com

In my fire alarm business, I am constantly testing batteries and measuring their voltage. When a battery is completely dead, there is no potential difference between the positive and negative poles, and a multimeter will read 0 volts. This equilibrium produces no energy, and the battery is therefore worthless.

Magnetism operates on similar principles. There is a force of attraction between unlike poles and a force of repulsion between like poles.

The difference between north and south produces the attraction.

What does any of this have to do with marriage?
The difference between men and women is what causes the attraction between them. When a man and woman get married, this attraction is very strong. There is very powerful electricity in their relationship. Often, however, the newness wears off over time, and the attraction can become very weak. The battery goes dead so to speak. Why is that?

When a battery goes dead, it is because there is equilibrium between the positive and negative leads. Just as electrical energy is fueled by the difference between "positive" and "negative," and magnetic energy thrives on the difference between "north" and "south," so the male/female energy is powered by the difference between "masculine" and "feminine."

As our society destroys the differences between male and female, and especially husband and wife, the attraction becomes less and less, and the voltage of our marriages is reduced. That is why our sinful world views married life as being "boring" and "unexciting." In order to have an exciting love life, they must keep switching to a different partner. It is possible, on the other hand, to have a very exciting married life and be very strongly physically attracted to your spouse as long as the difference between the masculine and the feminine is maintained.

Modern American culture teaches us that there should be equality between a man and a woman in marriage. This is the biggest turn off in the world for both parties. If there is equality, then there will be much less attraction between the man and his wife. When there is a big difference between husband and wife, they will be much more attracted to one another. If the husband is completely in charge, and the wife is completely submissive and subject to him (as the Bible commands), then they will have a very "high voltage" love life. Equality = a dead battery.

As men in America become more and more feminine, and women become more and more masculine, the difference between a man and his wife is dramatically reduced. Husbands and wives become more and more apathetic about their physical relationship with each other. This leads to people looking outside of their marriage for the spark and excitement they are lacking at home. If, on the other hand, the husband is firmly in power, being the head of household, sole breadwinner, and acting/dressing in a manly fashion, and the wife is very submissive to her husband, a homemaker, cooking and cleaning, wearing skirts/dresses, long hair, etc., the voltage of the relationship will be cranked up, and husband and wife will find themselves very strongly attracted to one another. Greater potential difference = stronger electromotive force.

The world will not accept this obvious, basic, scientific truth because it is not politically correct. Even though atheists claim to be scientific, they ignore all the empirical evidence and insist on male/female equality. Unfortunately many Christians are buying into similar philosophies in their home life and are consequently missing out on a truly electrified marriage.

Eric Hovind #fundie facebook.com

Mike Argon: How about starting where you should start, without assuming anything, saying I do not know, then looking at the evidence? You know, like rational people do?

Eric Hovind: It is impossible to start with no assumptions. In order to even begin I have to assume rational thought, I have to assume consistent and universal laws of science, and so many other things. That's why it's important to have the right starting point. One that can account for rational thought. Atheism and naturalism or evolution can not ground the very concept of rational thought.

Dr. Ted Baehr #fundie movieguide.org

Contrary to what many skeptics and radicals like Garofalo feel (they seldom ever think), Christianity is actually the most intelligent, rational religion or belief system one can possibly hold. And, prayer is a rational acknowledgement of the limited existence of human beings on this earth and the ever-present power and glory of the Divine Architect who created us all in His image.

Furthermore, throughout history, Christians have been among the most intelligent, kindest, and even most scientific, people who ever lived.

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.

cosmodave69 #fundie youtube.com

How dumb are Flat Earthers?
Better question is how dumb is everybody else?
Answer:Daytime moon proves flat earth...Cause you cant show me our world is a globe without NASA But I can show you our world is flat much faster When the sun is high up in the sky you can clearly see the moon proving NASAs greatest lie...that is how dumb everyone else is....btw...if that sounds like a song its because it is...keep hating!!!Globalists?

testing123 #fundie fstdt.com

Those arguing against creation may not even be conscious of their most basic presupposition, one which excludes God a priori, namely naturalism/materialism (everything came from matter, there is no supernatural, no prior creative intelligence).2 The following two real-life examples highlight some problems with that assumption:

A young man approached me at a seminar and stated,‘Well, I still believe in the big bang, and that we arrived here by chance random processes. I don’t believe in God.’ I answered him,‘Well, then obviously your brain, and your thought processes, are also the product of randomness. So you don’t know whether it evolved the right way, or even what right would mean in that context. Young man, you don’t know if you’re making correct statements or even whether you’re asking me the right questions.’

The young man looked at me and blurted out,‘What was that book you recommended?’ He finally realized that his belief undercut its own foundations —such ‘reasoning’ destroys the very basis for reason.

Henry Johnson and Joe Taylor #fundie omniology.com

image

image

BOTH OF THESE GRAPHIC ILLUSTRATIONS, IN NO WAY, REPRESENTS "EMPIRICAL ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS." NO ASTROPHYSICIST, PROFESSIONAL OR AMATEUR, LIVING OR DEAD, HAS EVER OBSERVED EITHER OF THESE, PURELY FICTIONAL, ABSTRACTIONS TO, IN ANY WAY, BE FACTUALLY CORRECT!

THE FACT IS, THESE ILLUSTRATIONS ARE SIMPLY THE PRODUCT OF "METAPHYSICAL EVOLUTIONARY (IMAGOLUTIONARY) COSMOLOGY."
THE ONLY "EMPIRICAL SCIENCE" AVAILABLE TO COSMOLOGISTS IS THE OBSERVATION OF THE LIMITLESS VARIETY OF RELATIVELY STABLE GALAXIES AND EXPLODING STARS.

THESE "IMAGOLUTIONARY" CONCEPTS OF COSMOLOGY (ABOVE) ARE ACHIEVED BY "ARBITRARILY ORGANIZING, EXAGGERATING AND ILLUSTRATING" WHAT IS OBSERVED
INTO THE ORDER OF WHAT IS BELIEVED!

TO HUMANIZE THE BIBLICAL VERSE,
Eph. 2:8&9;
"BY SUBTERFUGE YOU BELIEVE THESE CONCEPTS TO BE FACT;
AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES, IT IS THE IMAGINATION OF METAPHYSICISTS;
NOT AS A RESULT OF EMPIRICAL PROOF, IN WHICH NONE OF THEM CAN FACTUALLY BOAST."

IF THE READER HASN'T NOTICED, THE California Institute of Omniology IS A BIT EXASPERATED WITH THE LACK OF TRUE THEORETICAL INTEGRITY, ALONG WITH THE INTOLERANCE OF ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE TODAY.

TRUE THEORETICAL INTEGRITY IS WHEN A THEORIST, SCIENTIST, TEACHER OR VIDEO HOST "ALWAYS" PREFACES THEIRS, OR ANOTHER'S, UNPROVEN OR UNVERIFIED CONCEPT WITH: ACCORDING TO MY THEORY ..., THIS THEORY ..., THE THEORY OF ..., etc.!

WHEN ANYONE, INADVERTENTLY OR INTENTIONALLY, EXCLUDES THIS THEORETICAL PREFACE, THAT CONCEPT, BY DEFINITION, TRANSCENDS EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC PARAMETERS'.
IT THEN BECOMES A METAPHYSICAL / PHILOSOPHICAL / RELIGIOUS CONCEPT OR BELIEF.

NOW THE California Institute of Omniology HAS NO PROBLEM WITH USING METAPHYSICAL WORLD VIEWS AS A BASIS FOR EMPIRICAL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.
WHERE WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM IS WHEN ONLY ONE WORLD VIEW ( EVOLUTION ) IS PERMITTED TO BE THEORETICALLY INVESTIGATED AND ANOTHER ( CREATION ) IS NOT!

TRUE ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN SCIENCE, THE UNRESTRICTED EXPRESSION AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPETING THEORIES, IS THE ONLY PROTECTION SOCIETY HAS AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR WORLD VIEW BECOMING A METAPHYSICAL, STATE SANCTIONED RELIGION.

SADLY, THIS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED WITH THE METAPHYSICAL CONCEPT OF
MACRO-EVOLUTION. ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS HAVE BECOME INSTITUTIONS OF RELIGIOUS PROPAGANDISM. THEY ARE MAUSOLEUMS FULL OF ACADEMIC ZOMBIES, WITHOUT "FREE WILL" YET ANIMATED BY MACRO-EVOLUTIONARY BIGOTRY!

KEEPING WITH THIS RELIGIOUS TONE IN SCIENCE TODAY,
THE California Institute of Omniology IS CALLING ON ACADEMICIANS AND STUDENTS ALIKE TO "REPENT" AND COME OUT FROM AMONG THE ACADEMICALLY DEAD, AND BE BAPTIZED INTO THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF LIFE. AMEN!

David J. Stewart #fundie jesus-is-savior.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunter Lewis #conspiracy mises.org

CDC, PHARMA, And Mainstream Media On The Same Team

Unfortunately this team seems to be covering up a possible risk to children, especially black children.

For years, some parents of autistic children have claimed a link between their children’s condition and vaccines. One vaccine in particular has been mentioned: the MMR (Mumps, Measles, and Rubella).

The Center for Disease Control of the United States has consistently denied any MMR/autism connection. In congressional testimony and elsewhere, it has cited a 2004 study of its own published in Pediatrics.

Now one of the authors of that study, William W. Thompson, a senior scientist employed by the CDC, has admitted that critical data from the study was suppressed. Thompson released the following statement through his lawyer: “ I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism.”

It’s Hard to Believe in Vaccines Contaminated by Crony Capitalism

The larger problem here is that the government either develops a new vaccine itself and licenses it to a private company or subsidizes the development by a private company. It then receives payments for testing the product as well as possible licensing fees if the product is approved. The same government promotes the vaccine to the states and often ensures that it is mandated for school children.

This system is obviously fraught with conflicts of interest. The party that develops the vaccine should not do the approving. The approving agency should not receive payments depending on approval. This situation would not be hard to fix if government would embrace a few obvious and much needed reforms.

It would help us get the reforms if the mainstream media would come out of its foxhole and report on the problems. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, NPR, and other mainstream outlets have refused to touch the CDC researcher’s startling admission. Why? A possible explanation is that the mainstream media today is completely dependent financially on drug company advertising. And it is drug companies that make vaccines.

The Recent Cover Up

So how serious was the cover-up of data relating to black children described by the CDC’s Dr. Thompson? How much increased risk for autism was associated with the vaccine?

One scientist, Dr. Brian Hooker, sought the complete study data for a decade and finally got it with the help of Congress. He reported that the raw data suggested a 340% increase in autism among African-American males vaccinated at the recommended age. Others have already challenged this number, and it is still unclear exactly what the newly revealed data will show.

“Dr. Thompson told Dr. Hooker over the phone: “It’s the lowest part of my career, that I went along with that paper.” Thompson revealed that he did not know Dr. Hooker was recording the conversation but did not deny making the statement.

We must also keep in mind that the controversy so far is about the age of vaccination. Children vaccinated before 36 months are being compared to children vaccinated a little later. What is really needed is a study of children given the MMR and other vaccines versus children who have not received the shot at all. For whatever reasons, the government has not done this.

The CDC has instead claimed that the case against vaccines in general is closed. Quite apart from Dr. Thompson’s startling new testimony, there have been reasons to doubt this. For example, a review of the literature in Immunotoxicoloy by the respected researcher Helen Ratajczak has raised many questions. Dr. Thompson agrees that there are still questions that need answering.

“I will do everything I can to assist any unbiased and objective scientists inside or outside the CDC to analyze data collected by the CDC or other public organizations for the purpose of understanding whether vaccines are associated with an increased risk of autism. There are still more questions than answers, and I appreciate that so many families are looking for answers from the scientific community.’ “

At least one observer has compared the CDC’s refusal to publish pertinent and potentially alarming data related to the health of black newborns to the Tuskegee Experiment.

In that infamous case, black males were cold-bloodedly denied treatment for syphilis without their knowledge in order to study what would happen to them.

The controversy over the 2004 paper has also given rise to new charges. One of them is that the CDC knows of potential harm to newborns from flu shots administered to pregnant women, but won’t publish the data or review its recommendation of the shot. These allegations are too new to assess and like the MMR controversy should be studied by objective scientists, if they can be found.

Worries about the CDC have also circulated for years about its handling of the HPV vaccine for genital warts. This vaccine, developed by government scientists and licensed to Merck, is intended to prevent cervical cancer. The head of the CDC, Julie Gerberding, who gave it to Merck, is now president of Merck’s vaccine division.

Dave Armstrong #fundie ncregister.com

Atheists Seem to Have Almost a Childlike Faith in the Omnipotence of Atoms.

The natural “laws” that we observe somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes).

Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist/materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer.

The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone.

Indeed, this is a faith of a non-rational, almost childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists.

Atheistic belief is [see my explanatory “disclaimer” at the end] a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish.

The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality.

One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.”

Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to silence any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). We may entitle this belief Temporalism.

Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent.

Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism.

Yet in Atomism, each person is a god, too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing.

Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (devout, faithful Atomist need to realize that others of different faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever imaginative – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the “unnecessary” addition of mere explanation.

“Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are.

Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck, awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is regarded as senseless and “intrusive.”

We can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan!

Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads online, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.

In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity, if nothing else.

Like much of modern philosophy, however, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe that self-contradictory beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.

Note: the above article is an exercise of what is known in logic and philosophical discourse as reductio ad absurdum: illustrating the absurd by being absurd, and taking things to their logical conclusions. It is humorous, satirical, and also an example of the argumentative technique of “turning the tables.” But the underlying point I am trying to make is assuredly dead serious.

Mike Robinson #fundie goddoesexistuknowit.blogspot.com

One cannot have science without God. The God of the Bible is the precondition for science. Science uses induction, empirical testing, the laws of logic, and morality. One cannot account for any of those dynamics without God and His revelation. Obviously, an atheist can use science, but he can never account for it without God. What worldview can furnish the a priori necessities and rational tools for analysis and science? Christian theism can deliver the ground for the a priori immutable universals utilized in science; in principle, materialistic atheism cannot furnish the aforementioned ground. What is needed to have science is a first principle that has the ontological endowment to not only ground scientific knowledge, but to account for it and its preconditions. Atheism lacks an immutable and immovable foundation. The loss of the immovable point of reference, in principle, leaves the ungodly bereft of a resource necessary to construct the scientific and analytical enterprise.


Without God, one cannot hoist the necessary universal operational features of scientific knowledge. The Christian worldview supplies the fixed ontic platform, God, as the sufficient truth condition that can justify induction, attribute, truth, immutable universals, and the uniformity of the physical world. But materialistic atheism lacks such a fixed ontic platform. Consequently, it fails to provide the sufficient ground required to justify science and research. When anyone attempts to escape the truth that God exists, he falls in a trap he cannot escape.

sehatonka #conspiracy dailykos.com

Traditional Chinese Medicine is certainly no pseudoscience. It is approved by the World Health Organization and used by 1/3 of the world’s population. Scholarly treatises both present and for many centuries past plus continuing excellent research results published in many medical journals in both mainland and Taiwan back this up. The elegance and sophistication of it’s herbal medicine in unparrelled in the world today.

Since this is supposed to be a liberal and progressive web, I am surprised at some of the judgemental and inaccuracte comments above. As a longtime practioner (also long time Democrat) of this esteemed medical art I take umbrage at this. Many of my patients and myself had run the gamet of western medicine to no avail before finding relief and healing in this ancient yet modern medicine. We are living testaments to the power of nature based healing modalities.

Rhino horn (pinyin is "xi jiao”) is not used for “boners”. A tiny amount can save a life when the body temperature is so high the blood literally erupts from the body. The deadly new North American disease of Hanta Virus is a good example. Now days water buffalo horn is substituted albeit in much larger amounts. Among the uses of Bear bile (pinyin is "xiong dan”) is to alleviate acute febrile disease severe symptoms such as convulsions, delirium, and conjunctiva. It can also be used topically for red hot skin lesions and alleviating pain and swelling. For the most part Cattle gallstones and bile are presently substituted and recommended due to the endangered status and poor treatment of many bear species. More detailed information and research results on these two and hundreds more natural Chinese medicines can be found in the text and reference book “Chinese Herbal Medine Materia Medica” by Dan Bensky & Andrew Gamble.

Animal farming for a medicinal product in what may well be considered despicable conditions is also used done for western pharmaceutical grade estrogen. Mares have been and may still be harnessed and kept in stressfull positions to harvest female urine which is processed to form oral estrogen for human consumption. In my previous profession as a rancher I personally visited one of these farms. Tis no way to treat a horse, one of human’s best animal friends.

The diary writer may not be expressing his/her thoughts in a technical form, but please do not dismiss the information or this great medicine as anti science. Please do not believe and repeat the misinformation and inaccuracies concerning TCM herbal medicine.

Carico #fundie ravingatheist.com

From now on, I will only respond to people who have facts or rational explanations for their beliefs. But there are too many people here who have no rational refutation so they replace that with attacks, insults, and anger. I'd be angry too if i could not offer rational refutations. So I understand your anger. But anger is not rational so until you can replace it with rational refutations, then replying to irrational people is a waste of my time.

[A later post in the same thread]

Human reasoning is irrational, my friend.

watcher22 #fundie bibleforums.org

Its funny how creationist are supposedly the ones who don't have any scientific support for their beliefs yet the evolutionist are the ones that lay down like whipped dogs when someone throws the gauntlet down at their feet.

But of course they have their lame cowardly "to easy to waste my time with" excuse just like they have their "fossilization too rare" and "punctual evolution" excuses.

Ben Shapiro #fundie breitbart.com

[Regarding a decision to force a school to let a transgender student change in the girls' locker room]

The student is not female. But never mind that: the subjective opinion of a mentally ill person now governs a student body of some 12,000.

So here, in a nutshell, is the government’s new policy with regard to sex and sexuality among youngsters:

If you’re a boy who shows a picture of your penis to a girl in your class, you have likely violated both federal child pornography laws as well as local sexual harassment laws. If this happens consistently in your school, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re a boy who says he’s a girl, the girl must be placed in position to see your penis and testicles. If the school does not allow this, the school has violated Title IX.
If you’re an adult who sexually touches a child with the consent of the child, you have committed a crime, since children are incapable of consent.
If you’re an adult who gives a child hormone therapy or surgery to prevent normal development of the genitals, with the consent of the child, you are a hero.

If this all makes sense to you, you should be working for the federal Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education.

This is what happens when a society loses its moral moorings. In its quest to destroy God, the left unhitched its wagon from eternal truths and, instead, decided to substitute its own idea of utopia. To reach that utopia – freedom from social expectations and standards – objectivity itself had to be destroyed, so as to avoid blame. Objective truth lost all meaning; only subjectivity mattered. Science became the enemy, since it establishes provable truths; it had to be quashed and quelled. Language became the enemy, since definitions exclude people and things not covered by those definitions; it had to be perverted and hijacked.

And so we now live through the looking glass, waiting for the next philosophically incoherent ruling from our masters of time and space. Or mistresses. Or whatever.

Perry Marshall #fundie #crackpot amazon.com

(Description of the book "Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock Between Darwin and Design". Emphasis original.)

Creation Evolution Debate: 150 Years Later, it Still Rages. Both Sides Are Half-Right. And Both Are Wrong.

Meet the opponents:

In one corner - Proponents of Intelligent Design like William Dembski, Stephen Meyer, and Michael Behe. Many defy scientific consensus, maintaining evolution is a fraud. They challenge decades of data in biology, chemistry, genetics and paleontology.

In the other corner - Devout Neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Jerry Coyne, who insist evolution happens "willy nilly." Strangely, they sidestep the latest science, glossing over crucial questions and fascinating details.?? But what if both sides are half-right?

What if both sides are missing vital details, clinging on to outdated views, theories, and interpretations?

There is a third way. Evolution 2.0 is the first book to lay out the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis in plain English. This new paradigm is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology right now.

Evolution 2.0 reveals experiments which prove that, while evolution is not a hoax, neither are changes random nor accidental. They are targeted, adaptive, and aware.

You will discover:

-Nearly every cell in your body can edit its own DNA, combating random destructive copying errors, charting a path for its transformation (page 82)

-Genes - far from being set in stone - actually change and adapt to the environment.

-How germs re-engineer their genetic destiny in real time by borrowing DNA from other organisms (page 94) (it's why your doctor tells you to never stop taking antibiotics halfway through your prescribed course)

-How bacteria communicate, organize themselves into armies, then stage coordinated attacks on your immune system (page 110)

-Brand new species in 18 months, sometimes 24 hours - Through two empirically proven, reliable systems of natural genetic engineering (page 146)

-How and when cells generate new information and genes that did not exist before (page 150)

-Why DNA, which is digital instructions for building proteins, is not merely like code but is code, the same way as the software on your smartphone is (page 38)

-How cells switch genes on and off in response to the environment, activating new traits that get passed from parents to kids (page 115)

If creationism seemed leave out important potentials, here you'll find missing clues.

You will discover fascinating real-time evolutionary lab experiments by an eminent scientist in the 1940s, whose work was recognized in 1983 by a Nobel prize & US postage stamp, but then... is still rarely mentioned in school science curricula.

High priests of scientific establishment actively oppose research that threatens antiquated theories, labeling results in scientific publications a "media fiasco".

This book explores 70+ years of under-reported evolutionary science. Evolution 2.0 chronicles bestselling author Perry Marshall's 10-year journey of in-depth research. As an Electrical Engineer, author of an Ethernet book and world-renowned business consultant, Mr. Marshall connects the dots in a new refreshing way. He tackles hard questions about evolution with precision, making it clear when information is proven with hard data and when it can only be inferred.

This book will open your eyes and transform your thinking about life, evolution, and creationism. You'll gain a deeper appreciation for our place in the universe. You'll the see the world around you as you've never seen it before: adaptive, efficient, and incredibly elegant.

$3 Million Technology Prize: Origin of Information is one of the central problems in modern biology. No one knows where the genetic code came from; no one knows how the first cell developed. To solve this, the author has organized a Private Equity Investment group, Natural Code LLC. They are offering a prize, reminiscent of the X-Prize, for a natural process that produces coded information. The prize amount is $3 million USD as of November 2016. Details in Chapter 23 and Appendix 4.

circusbuoy #racist #conspiracy circusbuoy.wordpress.com

Flat Earthers are really Israeli Zionist paid trolls

Wednesday, 27 January 2016
Exclusive: Flat Earthers are really Israeli Zionist paid trolls.
Have you ever come across a troll on the net who sounds so stupid and dumb that ridicules everything you believe in? well, you my friend have met one of the Israeli Zionist paid trolls, Paid to make your online life a living hell.
Since 9/11 online trolling against the 9/11 truther world has risen massively but it ain’t just the 9//11 truther world they troll against anymore its basically anyone who dares question government, police, CIA, Mi5, Mi6, false flags, Israel or Mossad.
They are losing the battle though as more and more people are waking up to false flags such as 9/11, Sandy Hook etc and more people are waking up to Israel’s war crimes and the Zionist hold they have on our planet.

So imagine you were one of them Mossad agents knowing you are losing the internet battle and the “conspiracy theorists” they used to ridicule on Zionist controlled media are winning what would be the best thing to do? How could you win back the sheeple and fast?
FLAT EARTH

That’s right come up with a conspiracy theory so ridiculous and promote it massively in the conspiracy world online that people will start to believe it.
They pick on the vulnerable first them type of conspiracy theorists who literally believe anything because they are new to the conspiracy world and it’s exciting who will then share it with their friends who are new to the conspiracy world and there you have it bang its out there!

The next thing to do is get the mainstream media on to it but get the mainstream to talk about it in little bits just get it out there so the sheeple can start picking up on it and laughing at the conspiracy sheeple who have fallen for this lie.

Then what is better than CELEBRITIES talking about it especially Illuminati MK-Ultra celebrities like Tila Tequila and B.o.B who can push it out there through Twitter and Facebook.

Then we are left with the real truthers who really do question things like me and you (the flat earthers would have stopped reading by now) how can they deal with real thinkers like me and you well they go back to square one INTERNET TROLLING.

It’s like they all read from a script, they all same the same things:

“OMG you don’t believe in the flat earth you must be a shill”
“shill boy”
“You ain’t intelligent enough to know the world is flat”
“you obviously haven’t done any research because you would know it’s flat”
“once you see the evidence you can’t go back it’s right there in your face”

Then in come the insults and name calling but it won’t stop there it goes on and on and on and on for as long as they can till you end up blocking them because it’s like arguing with a 10-year-old.

It drains you arguing with them as they bully you till you can’t go on.

Don’t even bother arguing with them they are paid trolls and you are wasting your time they are out to ridicule the real truther world and slowly but surely it is working as people are falling for the “flat earth theory” or being bullied out of facebook groups for simply questioning things.

IHeartRedditGESTAPO #racist #conspiracy reddit.com

It's all anti-white and the non-military strategy to conquer the USA, and it's quite successful so far. It's the inevitable outcome from letting savages into your home and not expecting precisely what could have been expected.

It's gonna be funny that day when white liberals wake up and say "hey, that wasn't supposed to happen to me. I'm a virtuous white cuck." and brownie will say "fuck off white devil. We took what your forefathers built, and now it's ours. Go dig your own mass grave or live in the white refugee camp like they do in South Africa today"

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

As I was going through my news feed a couple of weeks ago I came across a status shared about the recent statements from Jacob Rees-Mogg on ITV’s show Good Morning Britain.

For those who may not know, Jacob Rees-Mogg is a British Politician who was first elected as the MP for North East Somerset in the 2010 General Election. Mogg is a member of the Conservative party, and also happens to be a Catholic. That last note is important for the story here … as it comes up in quite a key way.

Mogg has been touted as some as a possible candidate of Prime Ministership. However, he has recently come against some flack due to his apparent extreme views.

But what exactly are those extreme views?

To answer the raised question, let’s first take a look at Mogg had to say on Good Morning Britain.

If you watched the clip in its entirety, you will sharp see that Morgan and his co-host Susanna Reid hone in on two issues. Those issues being same-sex marriage and abortion.

Mogg said on the subject of same-sex marriage that he sides with the teaching of the Catholic Church. On the subject of abortion, he said that it is wrong and indefensible.

It is these two subjects that have been touted as “extreme views”. This kind of argumentation is unfortunately common in the media today if you do not agree with what pop culture determines as being good and appropriate you’re “extreme” or a “bigot”. Is this really correct? Absolutely not! In reality, it’s a bit of a joke.

To further unpack this controversy let’s take a look at the words of Iain Rowan in his short statement on the subject for iNews.

Iain Rowan on Jacob Rees Mogg
In his iNews article, Rowan says the following about Mogg’s views:

“Jacob Rees-Mogg justifies his opposition to gay marriage and abortion even in cases of rape on the basis of his firmly held Christian beliefs. Fine. One can admire people with principles based on profound belief. So where is his opposition to welfare cuts on the grounds that Jesus went out of his way to demonstrate his compassion for the poor and the lame, the lepers and the prostitutes? When Jesus says “blessed are the peacemakers”, how does that fit with Rees-Mogg’s record of consistently voting for military intervention? Where are his statements on debates about executive pay, reminding other MPs that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? I’m confused: I thought being a committed Christian meant following the teachings and actions of Jesus, rather than standing at the pick-and-mix counter in a sweet shop, only choosing the fizzy snakes.”

Now let’s take this statement for what it is. It is an accusation of an inconsistent faith. Now I don’t know where Rowan stands in terms of the Christian faith, however, if we’re honest, nine times out of ten the accusers of inconsistency are inconsistent themselves. We’ll address that soon.

The key things that Rowan points out are found in Mogg’s voting record (which can be found here). Those things being his voting history on welfare cuts, military intervention, and executive pay. When you watch the video from Good Morning Britain you should notice instantly that these questions were never raised, and I honestly doubt that they were even considered. Why? Probably because Mogg’s voting history on those issues would be much more reasonable to a sizeable portion of the public. In terms of those issues, do you know which of these were party votes? Honestly, I don’t. If they weren’t party votes, then there are questions we can ask about why Moggs would vote in the way he has on these issues. But we will ultimately have to ask the question is the reason why he voted in the way he did consistent with the Christian faith, and in this case, with the teachings of the Catholic church?

The reality is that us as readers, and for me as a writer, we do not know the reasons as to why Mogg has voted the way he has. So we are not in a position to make an accurate conclusion as to whether he is being consistent with the teachings of the Bible and the Catholic church here. But that leads us onto a bigger question.

Are We Ever as Consistent as We Should Be?
The issue at hand here is consistency. Let’s put Mogg’s stance on same-sex marriage and abortion to the side. If we’re honest these raised issues are a smokescreen from the media in what seems to be a growing agenda to get Christians out of politics (remember Tim Farron?). The issue at its core is consistency.

So, let’s ask ourselves the question, are we ever as consistent as we should be?

The answer for most of us if we’re brutally honest with ourselves, is a resounding no! Or maybe that’s just me.

I myself am far from perfect, I wrestle with scripture all the time. I struggle with pride, all too often thinking I’m much more important than I am (I’m usually humbled very quickly). I struggle with unbelief, I often ask questions that lead me to wonder whether Christianity is ultimately true (that is also very quickly done away with). I could go on. But the point here is that I’m not as consistent as I should be, and without sounding harsh, you’re probably not either.

So why is Mogg’s consistency the issue here? Is it because he’s being inconsistent, or is it because many want him to be inconsistent if it appeases the cultural expectations. Honestly, I suspect it may be the latter. Inconsistency only seems to be an issue currently if it’s inconsistent with the expectations of pop culture. See if Mogg was as vocal about issues surrounding nuclear defence and money as he is about abortion and same-sex marriage, this story wouldn’t even be hitting the news. The issue that people seem to have with Mogg is that he is against what people want him to be for. It’s a case of inconsistency when he doesn’t vote the way that those objecting to him want him to vote.

So let’s consider this as we close off this short article. Why is Mogg being targeted here? Is it because he won’t be a good Prime Minister, that he’s not fit to run this country? No! It’s because he does not side with what the media thinks he should side with, and what the members of the public have bought when they’ve been told what to think. That’s it! It really is as simple as that.

So before you dive onto the bandwagon and write off Mogg as a potential Prime Minister. Think about why you’re being asked to do so, and ask yourself whether this is right or not. The answer may surprise you.

John C. Wright #fundie cnx.com

Why are you willing to tolerate sexual perversion but not racism? In a world with no standards, what makes a malfunction of love higher on your standard than a malfunction of hate? Is an irrational lust and longing to mimic the mating act with a sex with which one cannot mate, at its root, any more or less disconnected to reality than an irrational fear and hatred of a Negro? How do we know race-hate is not genetic? Look at how scorned and put-upon racists are! Can we spare them no cheap Leftist pity? Why don't we simply call racism an alternate anti-ethnic orientation, similar to hetero-toleration, but different?

I know I will hear no rational argument to defend the Leftist position. They do not deal with rational answers. They have one and only one weapon in their arsenal: ad hominem. They will not answer, but they will sneer. I suppose a person who gave a tinker's damn about peer pressure or public opinion would fear to be sneered upon by these professional sneerers. For those professional sneerers ready to ignore my words and to condemn me as a "homophobe" let me just ask, why Oh why is it that no one has ever condemned me (or anyone of mine) as a "sunderophobe" -- even though I condemn divorce more severly than I condemn sodomy, or as an "adulterophobe" -- since I don't approve of cheating on your wife either; or as a "pseudophobe" -- since I don't approve of President Clinton.

Why is this one vice singled out for awe and reverence and glorification? Why is it that the lack of self control in sexual matters, where self control is paramount, is held to be immaculate and beyond reproach, whereas the lack of self-control when it comes to something trivial smoking tobacco is scorned?

Truth #fundie topix.com

The Proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything..........

I am not saying that professed unbelievers do not prove things....... The argument is that you must borrow from the Christian worldview, and a God who makes universal, immaterial, unchanging laws possible in order to prove anything........

In logic, this type of proof is called 'transcendental logic,' or 'the impossibility of the contrary,' where God is the basis for any rational thought........ Only the Christian worldview can logically support rationality........

Truth #conspiracy 12160.info

Well, you sound like a gang of right-wingers. Up until the last minute, all I've heard from you and your people was that the Illuminati were commies, or were behind the commies. Now you say they're behind fascism and behind the current government in Washington, too." Hagbard laughed. "We came on like right-wing paranoids, at first, to see how you'd react. It was a test." "And?" "You passed. You didn't believe us— that was obvious— but you kept your eyes and ears open and were willing to listen. If you were a right-winger, we would have done our pro- communist rap. The idea is to find out if a new man or woman will listen, really listen, or just shut their minds at the first really shocking idea." "I'm listening, but not uncritically. For instance, if the Illuminati control America already, what's the purpose of the assassinations?" "Their grip on Washington is still pretty precarious. They've been able to socialize the economy. But if they showed their hand now and went totalitarian all the way, there would be a revolution. Middle- readers would rise up with right-wingers, and left- libertarians, and the Illuminati aren't powerful enough to withstand that kind of massive revolution. But they can rule by fraud, and by fraud eventually acquire access to the tools they need to finish the job of killing off the Constitution." "What sort of tools?" "More stringent security measures. Universal electronic surveillance. No -knock laws. Stop and frisk laws. Government inspection of first-class mail. Automatic fingerprinting, photographing, blood tests, and urinalysis of any person arrested before he is charged with a crime. A law making it unlawful to resist even unlawful arrest. Laws establishing detention camps for potential subversives. Gun control laws. Restrictions on travel. The assassinations, you see, establish the need for such laws in the public mind. Instead of realizing that there is a conspiracy, conducted by a handful of men, the people reason— or are manipulated into reasoning— that the entire populace must have its freedom restricted in order to protect the leaders. The people agree that they themselves can't be trusted. Targets for assassination will be mavericks of left or right who are either not part of the Illuminati conspiracy or have been marked as unreliable. The Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King, for example, were capable of mobilizing a somewhat libertarian left-right-black-white populist movement. But the assassinations that have occurred so far are nothing compared to what will take place. The next wave will be carried out by the Mafia, who will be paid in Illuminati gold." "Not Moscow gold," said George with a smile. ?"The puppets in the Kremlin have no idea that they and the puppets in the White House are working for the same people. The Illuminati control all sorts of organizations and national governments without any of them being aware that others are also controlled. Each group thinks it is competing with the others, while actually each is playing its part in the Illuminati plan. Even the Morituri— the six-person affinity groups which splintered from the SDS Weathermen, because the Weathermen seemed too cautious— are under the control of the Illuminati. They think they're working to bring down the government, but actually they are strengthening its hand. The Black Panthers are also infiltrated. Everything is infiltrated. At present rate, within the next few years the Illuminati will have the American people under tighter surveillance than Hitler had the Germans. And the beauty of it is, the majority of the Americans will have been so frightened by Illuminati-backed terrorist incidents that they will beg to be controlled as a masochist begs for the whip."

Pogue Mahone #fundie fray.slate.com

Relax! You're an athiest! The cock only crows three times when you renounce Jesus, not when you renounce your non-belief. Remember, a Christian has to answer to God at the end of the day. You don't have to answer to anyone! Isn't that why most of you folks rationalize yourselves into being nonbelievers in the first place?

infrahuman #fundie wnd.com

To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. – Voltaire

Now let’s see: there's the global warming hoax, the Obama as President hoax, the Black Victimization Hoax, the current Pope as Catholic hoax - I’m beginning to believe that we've been sold a bill of goods about homosexuality not being a psychological disorder. The psychopaths perpetrating the aforementioned hoaxes are the same group who determined that gay was normal, and are now promoting pedophilia as normative. I am enraged at how our culture has allowed a cadre of out-of-control "minority" groups to suppress free speech and literally get away with
murder. The paragraph below represents a small portion of Anonymous commentary, that included numerous source citations and was obviously written by a psychiatrist.

“The American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from its DSM-II manual. In 1973, not based on any ‘new’ scientific data but as a result of pressure from militant, boots-on-ground homosexual activists. Homosexuality is considered "normal" because of a single study, from 1957, using a sample of just 30 gays and comparing them to ONLY 30 straight men, that showed that there was, "No scientific basis for inferring a predisposition to *psychopathology* or other *maladjustment* as intrinsic to homosexuality or
bisexuality." We now know better, but the professionals are afraid to do anything and speak out. Note that this single study did not ask about sexual issues, did not deal with emotional development or psychological inquiries. The "tell us a story" tests determined that gays are mentally normal and healthy, based on a study of 30 gays. The tests? The Rorschach test, in which people describe what they see in abstract ink blots, the Thematic Apperception Test [TAT] and the Make-A-Picture-Story Test [MAPS]. No information about how these 30 dudes were chosen, or if they were chosen at random, or from what population they were derived. Were they all college educated or business professionals? Were they all middle-aged or older? These would have skewed the results very dramatically.”

The elevation and promotion of sexual deviancy represents one more tool in the Obama/Progressive Agenda in the U.S and the Global/progressive Agenda (Agenda 21) worldwide to eviscerate the cultures of sovereign nations, collapse their economies and transform the world into a totalitarian toilet run by an elitist oligarchy.

Check out the Common Core curriculum (now in over 100 countries) on sexuality. Your kids are being sexualized in grammar school and will ‘know’ that all sex at any age is good.

“Let me control the textbooks and I will control the State” – Adolf Hitler.

Greg Paulson #racist webcache.googleusercontent.com

Yes, I am a white racialist, and I admire North Korea. Let me explain.

North Korea is not communist, plain and simple. Juche, the official state ideology of North Korea, can be roughly translated as “spirit of self-reliance.” Kim Jong Il, the Supreme Leader of North Korea, said the basis of Juche is the idea that “man is the master of everything and decides everything” [1]. Juche can also be understood as “always putting Korean things first.”[2] This is obviously more nationalist than communist. In 2009 North Korea officially stopped using the term communism to describe itself and removed it from the constitution. Additionally, they inserted the term “Songun” into the constitution, which emphasizes the powerful position of the North Korean military in the government, and posits that it is model for society to emulate.

The most common criticism of North Korea is that it spends a huge amount on its military while its people starve. The US government estimates that North Korea spends roughly a quarter of its GNP on the military.[3] This puts North Korea at the top of the list for proportional military spending. What people don’t seem to understand is that North Korea’s radical autarkist ideology—in other words, its refusal to bow to the international financial order (putting Korea first)—absolutely requires that national defense be put first. Without a powerful military North Korea could not exist. So yes, North Korea accepts what little aid it can get and has struggled to adequately feed some portions of its population, but that is the price of independence for them, and they are willing to pay it—and for that alone the North Koreans get my respect. Whatever you can say about the North Koreans, you cannot say they are weak. Their will is strong, and they seem willing to die to maintain their independence.

Another misconception is that North Korea is a puppet state somehow controlled by China. Although historically China had great influence on North Korea, the relationship has been strained in recent decades, and North Korea has made it clear that it is no puppet state. China continues to be North Korea’s sole ally because of lucrative trade,[4] historic friendship, and the fact that North Korea, were it desperate enough, could be very problematic for China. There is no doubt that China enjoys some influence, but North Korea remains a firmly independent nation. If this isn’t made clear enough by their ultra-nationalism, their ethnocentrism surely drives it home.

According to B. R. Myers, the North Korean ideology maintains that “the Korean people are too pure-blooded, and so too virtuous to survive in this evil world without a great parental leader.”[5] He also asserts that in addition to feeling that foreign races are inferior, the North Korean government “occasionally criticizes the Jews’ influence on world affairs.”[6] Following in the footsteps of hyper-nationalist movements of the past, the North Korean government has established the belief that its people are uniquely intelligent, strong-willed, and superior in many ways to foreign races. The Japanese (their close racial cousins), had very similar beliefs before being defeated in the Second World War. Myers actually believes the Koreans adopted their racial beliefs from the “fascist Japanese” during Japan’s occupation of Korea. Regardless of their claims of superiority, or from whom they might have borrowed it, the average North Korean IQ of 105 is one of the highest in the world.[7] South Korea is reported to have an average IQ one point higher, at 106, which is almost certainly due to the population having greater access to resources. Keep in mind the severe sanctions North Korea is operating under.

While I don’t agree with the extent of the state-control of the economy in North Korea (i.e. controlling consumption), I certainly have no loyalty to the capitalist system, which I see as racially corrosive, among other things. And let us not forget the whole reason the United States got involved in the Korean civil war was to defend (or impose) capitalism and by extension the ruling international financial order.

Essentially I admire North Korea because it is in direct opposition to the hostile ruling elite in the West and the globalist destruction of distinct peoples and nations. North Korea is the only ethno-nationalist state opposing the current world order, and as long as it exists, it will stand as an example (and a possible future ally) for ethnic and racial nationalists everywhere, especially those of us in the West who see the only hope for our people in the destruction of the current world order.

J. Lee Grady #fundie fireinmybones.com

2009 is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, so you can be sure the scientific community will bombard us this year with more “proof” of this sketchy theory. The mainstream media and academia insist that evolution is pure fact. Anyone who dares to challenge it is considered a religious idiot.

What people don’t realize is that Darwinism, besides being laughably lacking in scientific basis, has roots in spiritualism. Welsh naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace shared many of Darwin’s beliefs and encouraged him to publish his book. Wallace believed in spirit guides, participated in séances and was intrigued by all things paranormal. He promoted the “science” of evolution because it supported his anti-God views. Is it any wonder, then, that this doctrine he and Darwin propagated has been used to undermine Christianity ever since?

The world does not want to believe in a Creator because if He is real, then He has ultimate authority over His creation. On the flip side, man has no moral responsibility if he crawled out of a primordial soup, grew fins, then legs, and then became a talking ape. Evolution is not really about science at all—it is about rebellion against God’s rule over us.

Schnefferpepper #fundie dailywire.com

They have their own kind of evangelism going on. They consistently celebrate the rise of atheism with the misguided belief that Atheism = Rationality.

It is assumed that once everyone is Atheist and "Rational" then society will be perfect. Been poking around and they are open if not excited for religious tests for public servants and preventing "indoctrination" that religious parents would do by teaching their kids about their faith.

Mark Mywords #fundie youtube.com

(Authors note; This is a comment of an argument I had with this fundie. My full name is mentioned in the comment, but I filled it in with "---")

It is Flat Earth Trolls like "-------------" and "BEPA" and all his/her other aliases that prove that the conspiracy to destroy the spread of the Flat Earth...both Biblically and Scientifically true.

Stop listening to false teachers claiming that the "debunked" the Flat Earth. They are either unlearned in the subject, or outright false teachers, knowing that what they teach is wrong. Please stop thanking such teachers, as Joel Richardson, they keep you in error. You may as well believe in Evolution if you believe in the Ball. They come from the same source.?

South Dakota Senate #fundie rawstory.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Max Roscoe #fundie returnofkings.com

10 Things My Dog Taught Me About Women

I discovered ROK around the same time I became the owner of a puppy, and there are many parallels I have noticed while I am out with my dog about women and relationships. Here are a few observations:

1. Always be the master, not the slave

While I allow my dog the occasional freedom of running off-leash, at all times it is clear that I am his master, and he has certain boundaries. He knows he must stay within eyesight of me at all times. No barking or aggressive behavior towards others will be allowed.

He is constantly looking back to me for approval that what he is doing is allowed. With women, it is important to maintain frame at all times. If you are successful with establishing yourself as the dominant partner in the relationship (you make the calls, you decide the dates), then your woman will be far less likely to attempt reversing the roles and become dominating and vindictive.

2. A well trained partner will cause fewer problems

I enrolled my dog in a six-week training course, where we learned basic commands. More than the simple act of learning that the English pronunciation of “sit” means to place the rear end on the ground, however, is the importance that the dog learns that you are the master and you have certain expectations.

A well trained dog will know when it misbehaves, and will sense the disappointment or anger of its owner when it breaks the rules. Likewise, a woman should be trained to behave properly. Since Western civilization has abdicated its role in training members of both sexes how to behave politely and what proper roles are, men must take up this duty on our own.

If you firmly but politely lay out your expectations for your partner (no flaky behavior, I appreciate you cooking meals for me that we can enjoy together, you are to dress feminine but not slutty when we are in public, etc.), in my experience, the woman enjoys doing her part, the same way we enjoy our masculine role.

3. Slight corrections are needed from time to time

My dog knows how to walk on a leash, next to me, without dragging me all over the place. However, smells, sights of other dogs, and outside stimulus often get the better of him and he will wander too far away. A gentle tug on his leash and a verbal correction will quickly bring him back in line. Paying attention to the small details and “nipping it in the bud” before he’s off the sidewalk will bring him back to my side.

Likewise, it is far easier to maintain a happy relationship by addressing small missteps as they occur, before letting them blossom into major problems. Tell her to hit the gym when she’s gotten a bit out of shape, but don’t wait until she’s gained 20 pounds. Give her a limit on how much alcohol she can drink. Tell her she must inform you who she is going out with and where.

As we know, women are essentially large children, and like a teen who will gradually test the limits of his boundaries, a woman will push the rules to see how much she can get away with. Treat her like a father would his child, and let her know she is not to behave this way in the future. She will not only stop the harmful actions, but come to respect you even more.

4. Positive reinforcement works

The best way to train a dog is by offering treats, and giving strong, enthusiastic, loving verbal reinforcement when it does what is expected. The dog is happy that it is making its owner happy, and any owner can see this. Likewise, a woman’s instinctual nurturing side will blossom and she will be happy when she is pleasing her man. Kind of the inverse of happy wife, happy life.

The wife is happy because she is pleasing her husband, and she enjoys fulfilling her role in the relationship, the same way we naturally enjoy the rewards of hard work, the satisfaction of fixing things, and kind actions which bring a smile to the face of a woman who earns and has our affections.

5. Pay attention to details

The next time you see a dog, look closely. Does it have well groomed hair, or a matted, dirty, coat full of debris? Does it have a face of enthusiasm and happiness, or is it aggressive and violent? Does it playfully engage its owner and strangers, or is it skittish and anti-social? Does it respond well to its owner?

Likewise, there are visual clues that let us know the quality of women we are approaching. Does she groom herself well, with long, feminine hair, trimmed and painted nails, and conservative clothing? Does she smile? Does she interact socially with others, or is she glued to her smart phone screen and unable to hold a real conversation?

Does she have clear, radiant skin, or is her body mutilated with shrapnel and graffiti? Some women, and some dogs, simply are too far gone, and should be avoided, due to their unpleasant past.

6. The laws of Nature are supreme

Even a bad dog owner who has taught his dog no discipline, and has no control over his pet, cannot get around the fact that the dog relies on the owner for food, shelter, and water. The dog is subservient to its owner, and even in the worst of owners, this fact of nature cannot be reversed.

Likewise, a woman is naturally and normally the submissive partner to the man. No amount of short haircuts, business suits, you-go-girling or education can reverse the natural role than women play in the world. Women are different from men, and men are the more physically powerful, mentally strong, and emotionally caring of the two sexes. The unhappiness feminism has wrought on society is due to its attempt to subvert the natural order of things.

7. Dogs will test boundaries

My dog greets me every day when I come home by enthusiastically running to greet me in the yard, smiling, and begging to play, much the way a traditional father from the 1950s would be greeted by his family when he returned home from work. His time is a rare commodity, and the family was excited to talk to him, and to be in his presence.

Occasionally when I arrive, my dog will fail to rush out to meet me, and will just sit in the porch, wagging his tail, waiting for me to approach. When this happens, I will stop, and wait until he runs out to greet me, as I am accustomed, before walking any further. Likewise, with a woman, when she slowly stops the nice little extra things you appreciated, cleaning your bed after sex, making you a snack, whatever it is, you must immediately address and reinstate before things slip further.

8. Dogs don’t understand you

You can talk in a kind voice to a dog, and he will understand your loving happiness, and reciprocate, but beyond that, dogs are incapable of understanding you, interpreting your thoughts, empathizing, or using logic.

Likewise, it is a waste of time to get into deep discussions with women, expect them to rationalize or understand things, or even to truly empathize or love a man. This may upset you, but it is true. While a dog or woman can respect and honor you, and make you feel good, they cannot truly understand you, or love you the way you love them.

9. They appreciate small treats

A tiny reward can go a long way. The item itself is of less importance than the meaning behind it. Dogs respond well to a new toy or special treat like a bone for learning a new trick, or behaving especially well.

Likewise, when your woman deserves it, or just because you are happy with how she is treating you, feel free to give her a small token of appreciation. Cook a special meal she likes. Take her out to a movie. Have a picnic with her. Make her feel special. When you are rewarding good behavior, you are encouraging it to continue.

10. Dogs are accessories meant to bring happiness

A dog is an optional thing a guy can bring into his life if he wants something to occupy his time, and reward him emotionally. The same should be true with women. Never enter into a relationship simply because “you’re single” or due to outside pressure from family. Never stay in a relationship that is not productive or meeting your needs.

Having a dog is a hobby, one that requires a little work every day to maintain, but should always be pleasurable to the owner. Having a significant other is the same. If the woman is not doing things for you that make you happy, move on. If she is unresponsive to the basic training that a dog would adopt, then she is failing at a very fundamental level, and you would like be much happier with a pet than a nagging girlfriend.

Conclusion

Finally, remember that while having an obedient one by your side is rewarding and comforting, there are thousands and thousands of them available, so never become too attached to one.

However, when speaking of dogs, they are incredibly loyal, protective, and offer unconditional love, and will in some ways be more consistent, reliable, and rewarding than a woman. It’s often said that sexbots will be the end of the modern feminist. Dogs provide most of the positive benefits of women except sex, and owning one can benefit a man greatly.

They are also a great yardstick of comparison. If your woman is not making you happier than your dog, it’s time to next her.

David J. Stewart #conspiracy jesusisprecious.org

Charles Darwin Was a Luciferian-Worshipping Occultist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Lisle #fundie jasonlisle.com

If God were not logical, and if the Bible really did have any inconsistencies, then what would be the basis for saying that inconsistency is wrong? The law of non-contradiction is epistemologically rooted in the self-consistent nature of God. There is no rational basis for it otherwise. Thus, to accuse something of being wrong on the basis of inconsistency is to assume the truth of the Christian worldview