scientists would know about it

Live Free Or Die #conspiracy allnewspipeline.com


With the reopening of CERN's 'large hadron collider' in March of 2015, two leading and well respected scientists, theoretical physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking and Astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, have recently issued independent warnings that, when looked at through the eyes of the supernatural war taking place right now upon our planet Earth between the forces of good and evil, send us a clear message: "This is it!". The reopening of CERN will bring together scientists playing with unknown forces, attempting to re-create the 'big bang', as shared in the 1st video below, the moment of the creation of the universe.

Dr. Stephen Hawking recently warned that the reactivation in March of CERN's large hadron collider could pose grave dangers to our planet...the ultimate reality check we are warned. Hawking has come straight out and said the 'God particle' found by CERN "could destroy the universe" leaving time and space collapsed as shared in the 2nd video. Is CERN the most dangerous thing in the cosmos that could lead to the ultimate destruction of the Earth and the entire universe? Recent developments prove to us the scientific community is no longer able to explain 'reality' without looking at the 'supernatural'. Will we soon learn CERN is really the 'ultimate stargate' and one of the gate-keepers most closely guarded secrets? Will this be the way man attempts to break the ultimate 'God barrier', an attempt to encounter demi-God's in an all-out rush towards the destruction of all creation? We understand they won't be releasing the secrets until they're prepared to release them.

Does CERN headquarter's symbol of Shiva, dancing the cosmic dance of death and destruction, signal the TRUE purpose of CERN's existence? A look at the 'Shiva' (the Hindu God of Destruction) symbology surrounding CERN's headquarters gives us the beginning of what we need to know. "The men who would play God, in searching for the God particle, are truly going to find more than they bargained for as they open the gates of hell" we are warned by Stephen Quayle, "they will find inter-dimensional beings who have a taste for human flesh and humanities destruction. Most scientists, in lacking an understanding of the 'supernatural entities' that are going to confront them, are way beyond their ability to comprehend, let alone control, the forces of Pandora's box that will be released."

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

Evolution cannot explain where mankind's sin-nature entered the alleged evolutionary process. Evolutionists teach that men and animals evolved from the same biological life source. If this were true, then why don't animals have sin natures? Why don't animals have a moral conscious? Why don't animals built alters and worship in churches? All people of every nation throughout history have sought God. Even the Wiccan witches have hundreds of pagan gods which they worship. History records primitive cultures sacrificing their children to alligators in worship of their pagan gods. The FACT that mankind by nature NEEDS a supreme power over him is proof that there is a GOD. Where did mankind develop this desperate need for a supreme power to rule over him? How can the evolutionists reconcile man's sinful nature and need for God with evolution? It's clear that evolution cannot this phenomena.

Evolution, even if it were true, does not explain where man's ability to commit evil. How could a simple one-cell living organism "evolve" into an intelligent human being who commits horrible acts of evil? The Bible tells us that sin entered into the world through the sin of Adam... "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned" (Romans 5:12). Now that makes a lot more sense to me than the bogus theory of evolution which offers NO EXPLANATION for man's wickedness. The Bible addresses man's sinfulness and remedy in Christ Jesus. The unsaved world prefers to ignore the reality of sin; yet all their "experts" cannot explain why people do what they do. The Word of God plainly gives us the answer; but the world rejects it because of their love for sin (John 3:20). When John Wayne Gacy was executed (15-years after sodomizing and murdering 33 young boys in Illinois), scientists dissected his brain to search for abnormalities. They found a normal brain. If they had even a basic understanding of the Bible, they would have known that the problem was in his heart... "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?" Mankind is inherently evil and rotten to the core.

James Lopez #fundie forum.freehovind.com

In my world religions class at scottsdale community college in AZ, even the textbooks admit that although some scientists believe that man was here hundreds of thousands of years to millions of years ago, the earliest evidence for man goes back only about 6 thousand years ago. Even this is just guessing or averaging the time frame. Also if man were here 3 million years ago like some scientists at Rutger's university say, then there would be trillions times trillions times trillions of people in the world not to mention an affinity amount of human fossil skeletons. We'd be walking on human bones every inch of the world, except that there would'nt be any where to walk because there'd be living people on every inch of the world too. As for the oldest civilizations, The Mexicans government knows that the Mayans oldest ancestors are The Toltec Indians. The Toltecs reported in thier writings that the world was only around 1700 years old before a world wide flood about 4,000 years ago. The exact dates they added up are only a seventeen year difference to the Hebrew calendar. For the exact dates see Hovind's seminars. As for the whale having feet or legs, you are referring to vestigial body parts. Dr. Hovind debunks this theory in one of his seminars. The whale actually needs those certain hip bones to produce baby whales. Scientists that teach this evolutionary theory about the whale are either ignorant about whale anatomy or lying. Watch Dr. Hovind's seminars and debate DVDs. People are finding out the truth. Now that science is "evolving" they are proving evolution wrong as well as the old age of the earth theory.

TheJaphyRider #fundie youtube.com

Atheist's are arrogant because in order to say that there is no God they would have? to know everything about the universe. Yet they don't. How's that origin of life thing coming along for you? Still have FAITH that life came from some ancient warm pond? Did you know that when Darwin made the hypothesis about the warm pond that scientists couldn't figure out why life sprang forth from rotting meat? They didn't know how maggots came to be so it seemed entirely plausible. Atheists have religion....it's called mankind. They have faith that mankind will figure everything out. Good thing man has never been wrong before. You can keep your faith in capricious scientists.......I'll keep mine in Jesus Christ! Maranatha

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


There's no proof that homosexuality is inborn. All of the studies often used to prove that homosexuality is inborn are fallacious. Why? Well, let’s begin with LeVay’s brain study. When looking at the methodology of the LeVay study, one of the key problems is that the study has never been reproduced. Another problem is that out of nineteen homosexual subjects used in the study, all had died of complications of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). AIDS has been shown to decrease testosterone levels, so it should be expected that those who suffered from that condition would have smaller INAH. Furthermore, in a scientific environment where controls and standards are a necessity, LeVay did not possess a complete medical history of the individuals included in his study. He therefore was forced to assume the sexual orientation of the non-AIDS victims as being heterosexual, when some may not have been. Also, there’s brain plasticity which is a fact acknowledged by most scientists. Given that we know today that the brain exhibits plasticity, one must ask if the act of living a homosexual lifestyle itself might be responsible for the difference LeVay noted? Another study often used by gay activists as a proof that homosexuals are ‘born’ that way is Bailey and Pillard’s Study. In this one there isn’t much to explain as the whole fallacy of the study can be proven with this one statement: If there was in fact a “gay gene” or “a gay combination per se” then all of the identical twins should have reported a homosexual orientation. This observation suggests that there is no genetic component but rather social component in homosexuality. In fact, more adoptive brothers shared homosexuality than non-twin biological brothers. If there was a genetic factor in homosexuality, this result would be counter to the expected trend. The other fallacious study we will be covering here is Dr. Alan Sanders’ study of x-male chromosome. Dr. Alan Sander’s study fails for this one reason: the results exhibited on the gay men were never compared to that of heterosexual males. Another thing as to why homosexuality cannot be inborn from an evolutionary standpoint is that: Being gay is a disadvantage as if gay people where everywhere this race would not produce offspring. Besides, there's no proof that homosexuality is caused by hormonal misbalances such as low testosterone, such claims are naught but mere hypothesis and thus, invalid. In fact, low testosterone has been associated with low sex drive and infertility so, there really isn't any ground for such hypothesis. So even if it did exist at one point it would be dissolved within a few generations. Things will evolve or die, since we are still here chances are it evolved away if it even existed. As you can see there's no study that even suggests that homosexuality is inborn.

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

Nowadays, there’s this myth that homosexuality is not harmful and an equal to heterosexual relationships; however, this couldn’t be further away from the truth. Homosexuality is a very harmful practice that results in many illnesses, it’s kind of like smoking a misbehavior that feels good but destroys your body. How can this be true? How can homosexuality be harmful when so many LGBT are such wonderful people? Well, let’s begin with how gays have shortened lifespan. Yes, homosexuals have shortens lifespan and this isn’t just my word as there are studies to back my claims. It isn't just the 1997 study that pointed to this grim truth, according to the article you attached, the 1997 study is fallacious because the lifespan of gays should have improved over time thus, so it shouldn’t be valid today. However, other recent studies have reported similar findings. Such studies include an study done by Paul Cameron and Kirk Cameron of the Family Research Institute and who held a poster session and presented the study at March, 2007 Eastern Psychological Association convention in Philadelphia. The facts of the Cameron's studies were these: the lifespan of homosexuals is 20 years lower than that of straights. They found that in the Canadian database, a decline in homosexuality was evident by the fourth decade of life. Those who identified themselves as homosexual constituted a relatively stable fraction of adults only for those aged into their mid-40s (e.g., one of every 47-48 adults). Thereafter, their proportion dropped regularly, down to one of every 234 adults in old age (65+), resulting in an overall estimate of 1.4% of adults who ‘were. In both the table and abstract done by the Cameron a precipitous decline in the homosexual population following middle age was noted. Taking a look at the statistics and studies regarding homosexuals, both old and new, it becomes evident what’s the real reason as to the reduction in homosexuals’ lifespan. Unlike what most pro-gay activist like to claims this reduced lifespans is not due to discrimination or stigmatization because these studies were conducted in countries were homosexuals are not persecuted, there's very little disapproval of homosexuality, and were homosexuals even enjoy special rights. The reason for this statistics is the nature of homosexual sex itself is harmful, and many of the harmful acts committed in such relationships are not committed by straights as often as by homosexuals. Like Diggs said the anus is not made for penetration and anal sex is extremely harmful for both homosexuals and straights. However, straights have the option to indulge in traditional sexual intercourse which is way safer than those homosexual practices. There's no such thing as safe homosexual sex for all the practices involved in their so called making 'love' ritual have been proven to be dangerous practices that often result in many illnesses. The use of a condom reduces the chances of HIV; however, it does not eliminate the risk especially during anal sex practiced mostly by homosexuals as 1 in 27 condoms will break during anogenital homosexual sex. Also, there’s no scientific evidence that condoms prevent the transmission of Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Herpes simplex virus. The prevention of the these three STDs has not been absolutely quantified, because no one is suggesting that a person known to have one of these treatable infections have regular intercourse with an unaffected partner. Though, health professionals assume the usage of condoms reduces the risks of getting these diseases; however, as to what extent condoms prevent these diseases are unknown. Back to anal sex, this kind of sex is extremely dangerous and harmful. The use of artificial lubricants doesn’t make this practice any safer, in one study involving nearly 900 men and women in Baltimore and Los Angeles, the researchers found that those who used lubricants were three times more likely to have rectal sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Even after controlling for gender, HIV status, city, condom use, and number of sex partners in the past month, the association between lubricant use before receptive rectal intercourse and rectal STIs remained strong. Another study that subjected popular over-the-counter and mail-order lubricants to rigorous laboratory tests discovered that many of the products were toxic to cells and rectal tissue. Thus, lubricants don’t really make anal sex safer if anything it makes anal sex more dangerous. Anal sexual intercourse as Mr.Diggs noted does increase fecal incontinence as shown in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2009–2010) done by Alayne D Markland and others which included 2,100 male participants. Anal sex is also known to increase anal cancer and it’s no surprise taking into account anal sex is done mostly by homosexuals that, gay and bisexual men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. Other physical problems associated with anal sex are: hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma, retained foreign bodies. Oral sex practiced amongst heterosexuals and homosexuals but particularly among homosexuals is dangerous as well. Fisting is far more dangerous than anal intercourse; results of fisting can include infections, inflammation and enhanced susceptibility to STDs. Rimming a practice done by most homosexuals which increases the risk for Hepatitis A or B, gonorrhea, syphilis, and herpes/genital warts, though low, the risks are still there especially when most people perform unprotected oral sex. Another illness that is very prevalent among homosexual communities is Shigella, it can be transmitted through person-to-person contact, oral-anal sex, or sucking or licking of the anus (anilingus or "rimming"), may be especially risky.Many shigellosis outbreaks among MSM have been reported in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, and Europe since 1999. Frottage, when done naked or simply if the infected skin of a partaker rubs against the uninfected skin of the partner, can result in STDs transmitted by skin-to-skin contact which include: Herpes, HPV, genital warts, mononucleosis, Molluscum Contagiosum, and syphilis. Also, another risk of frottage is clothing rubbing on a lesion as it can irritate it risking either a secondary infection or a disease spreading through self-inoculation. Tribadism includes the risks of frottage as well. There is almost no published research addressing the question of whether fingering is transmits STDs or not. However, common sense says it should be extremely low but still, fingering is not risk free from STDs. The usage of latex condoms does not completely eliminate the risks of STDs during mutual masturbation and other forms of sexual contacts as it is not 100% effective and there’s also the risk of developing latex allergies. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that while men with same-sex attraction make up only 2 percent of the total population, they accounted for 63% of all newly-diagnosed HIV/AIDS cases in 2010. Despite what gay activist would like to believe, HIV among msm seems to be increasing as in 2014, gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 83% of HIV diagnoses among males and 67% of all diagnoses (CDC). When into account that gays are about 1.6% or 2.3% (counting bisexuals) of the population, according to a recent survey done by the National Health Statistics Reports (2014), it can be concluded by using basic math that being gay drastically increases your chances of getting many illnesses. In 2014, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men accounted for 82.9% of all male syphilis cases and 61.2% of all syphilis cases in the US. In your article it was claimed that over time Homosexual’s ailments would become less common but it seems the opposite is happening as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention(2014) noted that the number of cases of Chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis is increasing among men and particularly the msm populace. A study done by Damien Stark(2007) resulted in indicating that MSM were more likely to have multiple parasites in their stool compared to non-MSM (43.5% versus 8%; P < 0.001). In a sexual health survey of MSM in Vancouver, 18% of men had been diagnosed with genital warts, 62% were infected with a strain of HPV, and screening for anal cancer detected abnormalities in 64% of HIV-positive men and 34% of HIV-negative men (suggesting anal cancer may be present). What’s more, it seems most homosexuals infected with HIV are unaware of their infection! A CDC study found that in 2008 one in five (19%) MSM in 21 major US cities were infected with HIV, and nearly half (44%) were unaware of their infection. Another study conducted by Marc Martí-Pastor,Patricia García de Olalla, and others (2015) concluded that an increase in cases of STIs was observed in 2015, most of which affected mainly msm. The Marc and Patricia’s study revealed that 66.8 % of the HIV cases were men who had sex with men (MSM), 45.5 % of the gonorrhea cases were MSM.74.2 % of the syphilis cases were MSM and 95.3 % of the LGV cases are MSM. Homosexuality increases the risk to HPV as shown by the statistics presented in the journal Cancer (2004): 60% of gay men without HIV, 90% of gay men with, have human papilloma virus infection in their anal canal. A study conducted n 2002 by Susanne L. Dibble and others concluded that lesbians are at a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. HPV (human papillomavirus) is common in WSW as HPV can be transmitted through skin to skin contact. A study published by the Gay and Lesbian Association concluded that lesbians have higher rates of breast cancer. The lesbians that chose not to do the screenings do them for the same reasons straights chose not to. Since oral-genital sex is a frequent practice of women who have sex with women, genital herpes transmission with both HSV-1 and HSV-2 can occur. A National survey from 2001-2006, reported that 30% of women who reported having same-sex sexual contact in the past year, had positive blood tests for HSV-2. This finding is contrasted with women who report no same-sex sexual contact, among whom 24% had positive blood tests for HSV-2. Other diseases abundant in homosexuals include: Hepatites A, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Proctitis, HSV, BV, HEP B, Giardia lamblia, Amebiasis, and mental disorders. The tendency of gay men to acquire many of these plethora of diseases, contrary to what most gay activists suggest, isn’t due to discrimination as public acceptance of gay/lesbian relations as morally acceptable grew slowly but steadily from 38% in 2002 to 56% in 2011 and is now holding at the majority level; the problems with the American LGBT community aren’t also due to lack of knowledge about ‘safe’ homosexual sex practices as since 2013 in The Real Education For Healthy Youth Act, an act that promotes homsosexual sex education by providing federal fund solely to programs that educate about ‘safe’ homosexual sex partners, has been in place. Also, there have been numerous LGBT education programs receiving federal funding before and many school districts teaching about safe homosexual sex education that date back prior the 2013. On the web there’s also a plethora of websites that cover safe gay sex available to homosexuals of any age, when you write the word ‘safe gay sex’ on Google you will get 36,100,000 results many of which cover on ‘safe’ gay sex practices with tips. So, it can be concluded that the many illnesses present on the homosexual community are more due to the harmful nature of the homosexual lifestyle and homosexuality per se rather than due to discrimination or lack of homosexual sex education. Homosexuality is asexual behavior, not a characteristic like a skin color, and when looking at all this statistics we can determine that homosexuality is a harmful sexual behavior such as smoking is a harmful behavior.

3# Children of gays parents do as well as those of straights

Children raised by homosexual parents don’t fare as well. Studies that indicate that children from homosexual households fare as well as those with heterosexual parents are fallacious. Such studies usually have relied on samples that are small and not representative of the population, and they frequently have been conducted by openly homosexual researchers who have an ideological bias on the question being studied. In addition, these studies usually make comparisons with children raised by divorced or single parents--rather than with children raised by their married, biological mother and father. They have also used selective recruiting instead of using random samples. And usually the reports are given by the parents instead of the kids themselves. Studies that prove kids under the care of same sex parents don’t fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents include: Regnerus(2012), Allen(2013), and Sullins(2015). Most of these studies have random samples with numbers that are representative of the children raised in same sex households.

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

there's evidence that shows intervention to change ones' sexualities are actually pretty successful.Robert Spitzer conducted a study on 200 self-selected individuals (143 males, 57 females) in an effort to see if participants could change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual (2003, 32:403-417). He reported some minimal change from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted at least five years (p. 403). Spitzer observed:

The majority of participants gave reports of change from a predominantly or exclusively homosexual orientation before therapy to a predominantly or exclusively heterosexual orientation in the past year (p. 403).
In summarizing his findings, Spitzer declared: “Thus, there is evidence that change in sexual orientation following some form of reparative therapy does occur in some gay men and lesbians.” He thus concluded: “This study provides evidence that some gay men and lesbians are able to also change the core features of sexual orientation” (p. 415).
Six years earlier, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) released the results of a two-year study stating:
Before treatment, 68 percent of the respondents perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, with another 22 percent stating that they were more homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13 percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely heterosexual (see Nicolosi, 2000, 86:1071).

The study also reported:
Although 83 percent of respondents indicated that they entered therapy primarily because of homosexuality, 99 percent of those who participated in the survey said they now believe treatment to change homosexuality can be effective and valuable (p. 1071).

These data are consistent with the ongoing research project of Rob Goetze, who has identified 84 articles or books that contain some relevance to the possibility of sexual orientation change (2004). Of the data reported, 31 of the 84 studies showed a quantitative outcome of individuals able to change sexual orientation. These studies are not mere speculation as they have numbers to back up their results. These studies are more than enough proof that homosexuality can be changed.

#faggots #gay #homosexuality #homosexuals #lesbian #religion #statistics #yaoi #yuri #antigay #boyslove #homophobe #homophobia #lgbt #misconception #myths #science #study #truths #boys_love
Once again God is right and humans are wrong.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

After the Battle of Stalingrad, British secret agent Benito Mussolini warned fellow spy Adolf Hitler that the war was lost. What kept Hitler in the fight was the prospect of a super-weapon that would snatch victory from the jaws of defeat at the 11th hour.

After "Kissin' Cousins" Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, the most exciting book for the British Empire was published in 1875. It was entitled Physics of the Ether by Samuel Tolver Preston. Unlike fake "scientist" Albert Einstein, Preston believed in the existence of the ether.

Most of the "British" scientific discoveries actually originated in India as that country was raped economically and intellectually. An ancient Sanskrit text called the Mahabharata mentions nuclear war, and when the 2nd atomic bomb exploded at Los Alamos, New Mexico, Robert Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita:

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. (Bhagavad Gita, chapter 11, verse 32).

The knowledge of the wicked, highly advanced antediluvian civilization was preserved in the Great Pyramid at Giza, and most of the so-called "legends" of the pre-Flood world originated in that country.

Physics of the Ether by Samuel Tolver Preston was published in London in 1875.

It showed the extraordinary relationship between matter, time, and energy.

It was the most explosive discovery since gunpowder cannon.

To the military establishment in the British Empire it held out the possibility of a super weapon to destroy Britannia's 3 main rivals: France, Russia and the United States....It also held out the possibility of ending the so-called Great Schism....

[...]

In 1933, Churchill ordered cousin Alolf Hitler to start "persecuting" the fake "Jewish" physicists in order to get them to leave Germany and work under him at Oxford University:

[...]

When Churchill was appointed Prime Minister in 1940, he appointed Lindemann "the Prof" as the British government's leading scientific adviser, with David Bensusan-Butt as his private secretary. Lindemann attended meetings of the War Cabinet, accompanied the prime minister on conferences abroad, and sent him an average of one missive a day. He saw Churchill almost daily for the duration of the war and wielded more influence than any other civilian adviser. He would hold this office again for the first two years of Churchill's peacetime administration

[...]

After the "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor, Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall placed general Leslie Groves in charge of the Manhattan Project. The code name "Manhattan Project" was given to this top secret project to develop an atomic bomb as quickly as possible.

The massive project was as top secret at the German atomic bomb project.

In 1941, President Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair!!

Henry L. Stimson and general George Marshall virtually ran the government for the President.

In September 1942, Marshall placed general Leslie Groves in complete charge of the Manhattan Project.

Groves was a virtual "military dictator" with absolute power to confiscate any land that he believed was necessary for the building of the bomb:

Groves created the organizational structure and the lines of command of the Manhattan Project with himself at the top as commanding general. Normally he would have reported to General Reybold, the chief of engineers, but the lines of authority instead ran directly to Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall. (Norris, Racing for the Bomb, p. 188).

Groves wasted no time in getting the massive top secret project off the ground.

General Eugene Reybold was Chief of Engineers who directed the Army Corps of Engineers in the largest construction projects in the nation's history.

Groves built a massive uranium separation plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Hanford, Washington state.

Groves was so secretive that even his own wife did not know about the Manhattan Project!!

Groves was very familiar with the Bible and his motto for the Manhattan Project was: "don't let the left hand know what the right hand is doing" (Matthew 6:3). That verse is not about SPYING but about doing your GOOD DEEDS in secret.

[...]

General Groves invited 20 British scientists to top secret Los Alamos!!

The code name for the British atomic bomb project was "Tube Alloys." The Manhattan Project and Tube Alloys amalgamated after the Quebec Conference in August 1943.

A third site was constructed in Los Alamos, New Mexico, and that is where the real brainwork was performed and the bombs were finally assembled.

At Los Alamos, New Mexico, a team of U.S. and British scientists worked feverishly to develop an atomic bomb.

Frédéric Joliot-Curie–one of the top French nuclear physicists–was not invited to Los Alamos!!

General Groves appointed J. Robert Oppenheimer supervisor of the Los Alamos scientists.

Over 20 British scientists worked at Los Alamos and they had access to every aspect of the development of the Bomb. Not one French scientist was invited, even though Pierre and Marie Curie discovered radium in 1898. They were also the first to coin the word radioactivity.

James Chadwick was in charge of the British mission at Los Alamos.

William Penney was another of the British physicists who worked at Los Alamos.

All of the British scientists kept Frederick Lindemann fully informed of the progress of the Bomb.

Here is a brief report from a history of the Los Alamos atomic bomb project:

Depending on how one counts, the British Mission to Los Alamos included approximately two dozen scientists. In alphabetical order, they were: Egon Bherscher, James Chadwick, Anthony P. French, Otto R. Frisch, Klaus Fuchs, James Hughes, Derrik J. Littler, William G. Marley, Donald G. Marshall, Philip B. Moon, Rudolf E. Peierls, William G. Penney, George Placzek, Michael J. Poole, Joseph Rotblat, Harold Sheard, Tony H.R. Skyrme, Ernest W. Titterton, and James L. Tuck. (Szasz, British Scientists and the Manhattan Project, p. XIX).

Without a doubt they ALL reported to their boss Frederick Lindemann in London.

Los Alamos was run like a maximum security prison . . . everybody was watched closely on and off the site . . . except for the British delegation!!

The British were proud of the fact that their spy, general Groves, was running the billion dollar Manhattan Project!!

Groves appointed an army captain named Ralph Carlisle Smith to head security as Los Alamos. All of the U.S. scientists, even Oppenheimer, were monitored closely when they left the site:

The American scientists were not watched on-site, but many of them were followed off-site. The reverse was true for the British. Smith covered all their on-site activities, but nobody followed them once they left the Hill. This anomaly would later bear strange fruit in the espionage of Klaus Fuchs. (Szasz, British Scientists and the Manhattan Project, p.27).

It was very easy for Chadwick and his scientists to pass all the secrets of the atomic bomb to Frederick Lindemann via their spying base in Canada. The Russians later obtained a copy of Hitler's bomb when they liberated Czechoslovakia . . . and not from fall guy Klaus Fuchs.

Fake "Jew" Edward Teller worked feverishly to provide Hitler with a doomsday weapon.

Along with Egon Bherscher and William Penney he worked on producing a hydrogen bomb called the "Super."

This fiendish weapon is basically a nuke within a nuke as the bomb is triggered by a nuclear explosion.

The hydrogen bomb is the most fiendishly destructive weapon ever devised by fallen man. We can thank our Great JEHOVAH that none have been used in combat YET!!

[...]

Mother Russia saved Christian civilization from Hitler's atomic bomb!!

The great Tsar Nicholas II saved the world from a British-German victory in World War I. Likewise, the rapid Russian advance into Germany saved the world from Hitler's atomic bomb.

The Nazis made a frantic effort to destroy the underground atomic factory as the Russians approached. General Groves, under the Alsos Mission, had ordered many German factories in the East to be bombed in order to prevent them falling into the hands of the Russians. You can't destroy an underground factory by bombing.

Prague was finally liberated by the Russians on May 9, 1945.

It was the handwriting on the wall for Hitler's atomic bomb program.

Large parts of the factory were still intact because the Russians had the bomb 4 years later!!

The problem that the Nazis and the Los Alamos scientists faced in 1945 was the SIZE of the bomb. The bomb tested at Port Chicago was huge and had to be delivered via ship. If the war had lasted another 6 months, advances in miniaturization might have reduced the bomb to half the size.

The first atomic bombs were huge and Hitler had the same problems of delivery via aircraft or rocket.

"Little Boy" weighed almost 10,000 lbs (4,500 kg) and "Fat Boy" (named after "Greasy" Groves) weighed in at 10,300 lbs (4,670 kg). We don't know what progress the Nazis had made on miniaturization . . . but it must have been substantial.

It is doubtful that President Roosevelt even knew the full extent of the Manhattan Project. It is also very doubtful that he would have authorized its use. That was the reason why the President died suddenly from poisoning on April 12, 1945.

Instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it could have been Moscow, St. Petersburg, Paris, and Belgrade that was devastated by nuclear weapons.

With the all out effort by Nazi Germany, plus the information gained from Los Alamos, only the Day of Judgment will reveal how many atomic and hydrogen bombs Hitler was preparing to drop on his enemies.

The Russian advance into Germany and Czechoslovakia was rapid, because Russians did not care about casualties . . . as long as they were victorious. If the war had lasted another 6 months, Hitler might have had an arsenal of nuclear weapons . . . and the world would be faced with the nightmare of the British Empire and the Nazis ruling the world.

The Nazis were not successful in destroying all the evidence of their atomic bomb program because Russia had the bomb by August 1949.

Thank you Mother Russia for saving Christian Civilization from the British Empire in both world wars....The SORE LOSERS never give up so all true Christians should pray daily for that GREAT and UNIQUE nation!!

The Manhattan Project was a dress rehersal for the Mickey Mouse moon landing!!

Over 150,000 people were involved in the coast to coast Manhattan Project, yet very few really knew what it was all about

[...]

Over 400,000 people worked on the Mickey Mouse moon landing and most of them were clueless about the real objective of the project.

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.

onehuman #conspiracy abovetopsecret.com

So, I got to thinking while I was at work just driving around about this Mandela Effect that seems to all of the sudden be a bit of a hot topic. A curiosity at least. People seem to think it may be involving some sort of time line changes. At least that is one theory being put forth.

While I don't think things such as company logos are really proof, though I must admit some I do remember being the "original" way, I still believe they can just be a case of simple company updates or new and improved changes they think will look better.

On the other hand we have many people including myself remembering certain people having died only to find out nope, they just died today kind of thing. Oddly enough Mandela himself is one of these people.

I don't feel I have to go in any great depth about all this. Anyone that is reading this to begin with I'm sure is well aware of what the Mandela effect is all about.

Which leads me to what I got to wondering about and hence here we are in Skunk Works.

What if we have figured out the time travel thing. Perhaps we are still in our infant stages of it. Maybe even a little more advance than We know. What if some of the practice or test jumps had little boo boos occur. Just enough to cause little ripples that we on our side are beginning to notice. We just don't realize what it is we are noticing for what it really is so we just call it the Mandela Effect.

Any syfi fans that have watched any kind of time travel movies, or any scientist that has studied it will be the first to know how coming into contact with one wrong thing on a jump can basically cause something like the Butterfly Effect over time. At some point in the discovery of time travel somebody has to test it. I doubt it would be perfected on the very first try.

I don't think it is much of a reach to believe some government is working on this, and I'm sure we would be the last to know about it if they have figured it out. Then again maybe the answer to that has been staring right in the face for awhile now. Easy enough to laugh at the Mandela Effect as it is UFO believers , or Conspiracy Theorists.

Mike G. #fundie noanswersingenesis.org.au

[concerning his his 5 year old son]

... I was not real sure if my son was grasping any of the information ... . Well, tonight at bedtime I realized that he has been getting a healthy dose of the truth... . He asked me why the scientists want to deceive people by telling lies about creation and dinosaurs. When I explained that if they admitted to the fact of God creating everything that [sic] they would have to face their own sin, my son thought about it for a second and then said, "Daddy I know what I am going to do when I get older and can read by myself ... I am going to go to the library and get all of the science books and erase all the lies in them." Needless to say I wept and thanked God for my son. ...

Navaros #fundie forum.dune2k.com

Akriku: the problem with your babbling in the original post is that evidence itself is subjective

tell me: you believe in carbon-dating? if a scientist says that a rock is 50 million years old and he has "proven" that by carbon-dating, would you believe him? would you believe he has proved it?

if so - then you are believing him based on FAITH in the idea of carbon-dating. you do not KNOW that the rock is as old as he claims it is. but based on faith in an idea - that is what determines whether or not you accept something as valid "evidence" or not

this principle is not limited to the example i've used. for almost anything that you state which contradicts religious texts - i could PROVE to you how your statement has NOT been proven with evidence - but rather is based on faith and speculation on your part.

Michael Snyder #crackpot #fundie #dunning-kruger basedunderground.com

Giant Skulls Discovered: They Refuse to Believe the Truth Even When It Is Right in Front of Their Eyes

Truth is often stranger than fiction, and some people will never accept the truth no matter how much evidence you show them. In this article, I am going to discuss two brand new discoveries that are radically shaking up how scientists view human history. Many of the experts are having a really tough time explaining these new discoveries, because they seem to directly contradict long established narratives that have been taught as “truth” to young students for decades. Unfortunately, we live at a time when narratives have become more important than facts, and scientific authorities have shown that they will go to great lengths to ensure that their most important narratives are carefully preserved.

Last week, news that a “new species of ancient human” had been identified in China made headlines all over the globe. According to CBS News, the fossilized skull that has created such a fuss is “gigantic”…
[…]
In order to support a “gigantic fossilized skull”, a body that is also “gigantic” in size would be required.
[…]

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Harbin cranium is its massive size, which, at 9 inches long and more than 6 inches wide, is significantly larger than the modern human skull.

[…]
Needless to say, we already know that giants once lived in that part of the world. In fact, one particularly famous giant that lived in the region was named “Goliath”.

But scientists will never admit the truth, because they have trained us to regard those stories as “myths”. So they will never, ever make any connection between the discoveries that they are making and Genesis chapter 6…

Cameron Ramirez #fundie facebook.com

lol tell me of one scientist that knows exactly what happend back then that you should give oh SO MUCH respect to them, uhhhhhooo NOOOOoo..... ohhh noo.... I said that they just come up with hunches.... oooohhh noooo.... mind-bogglingly stupid and ignorant posts, dude I love ya bro, tell me how an explosion would occur with no oxygen. Acutally dont, this is so rediculous, dude we are the generation when Christ is going to come back for us and when he does your going to remember this message I sent you and your gunna reap what you sow, just flat out facts. DUDE i love you bro, no joke, the best thing is helping and seeing a lost sheep come back to the herd with the Shepherd. Duddde Remeber this and when the time goes, I hope you will have changed your life and way of thinking. I'll pray FOR YOU!!

LoneWolf1984 #fundie lonewolf1984.deviantart.com

I'd bet that you don't believe in the Bible Code. I don't believe in the Bible Code too until I'd find my Birthday, Birthmonth and birth Year and my name in the Bible Code.
But I'd hear it from the Bible Coders said that tribulation starts in the 2012. I'll be in Heaven. You would probably be dead or get the mark of the beast on you right hand or your forehead.

Anti-Christ is coming soon. Just a friendly Warning.

--
If you are an WWE Fan. You got the Insult disease but it's also know as the World Wrestling Entertainment Plague.
The Scientists found out the Symptoms of having the Insult disease. You will become a zombie and pay 40 bucks to watch the worse PPV.

Unknown author #fundie darwinconspiracy.com

Most of the time, scientists are not liars and are genuinely trying to discover and understand the laws of the universe. But whenever scientists are confronted with anything that has to do with God or evolution, then scientists on the whole always lie to us and they are brazen about it.

For example, until 1956, scientists falsely claimed that humans and apes had the same number of chromosomes and therefore humans evolved from apes. But the fact is, humans actually have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Apes, gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, etc. all have more chromosomes than humans.

During the first half of the 20th century, that fact would have seriously weakened “ape into human evolution theory” because there is no way to explain how apes, with 24 pairs of chromosomes, could have evolved into humans with 23 pairs of chromosomes. We all know that if we lose a pair of chromosomes, we cannot reproduce.

During the first half of the 20th century, there was a ferocious war between evolution theory and creationism and Darwin’s supporters were extremely hard pressed to “find the missing link.” Darwinians could not find the missing link so they simply fabricated one by faking the Piltdown Man skull.
Darwinians also were determined to hide any evidence that contradicted their beloved evolution theory. That is why atheist scientists simply concocted a lie and told us apes and humans both have 24 pairs of chromosomes.

An atheist scientist named Theophilus Painter took the lead and published a paper in 1921 claiming humans have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Other atheist scientists “confirmed” this in other scientific papers. It was not until 1956 that the fraud came to an end because evolution theory had gained enough support to not need to be buttressed by the 24 chromosome lie. The “apes and humans have the same number of chromosome lie” had done its damage to the truth - Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung all pointed to the “24 chromosome lie” as a reason for them to ban the teaching of creationism from German, Russian and Chinese schools.

We bet you did not know that atheists claimed that “apes and humans have the same number of chromosomes.”

It is worthy to note that even now, scientists are prevaricating about this matter and they insist they did not lie to us about humans having 24 pairs of chromosomes. Instead they tell us they made an “understandable mistake” and it was very difficult to accurately count all the way up to 24 pairs of chromosomes.

It is absurd for atheists to assert that the counting of just 23 pairs of chromosomes was so difficult that none of them could do it correctly for over 30 years. Guess what? They had no trouble counting the much larger number of chromosomes for other animals, such as dogs who have 39 pairs.

Watergaia #fundie youtube.com

(In a discussion about the bible saying bats are birds)

"yes, i would probably say that a whale is a fish. dolphins are also fish, i mean duh...? they look like fish, kinda like sharks, and sharks are fish, as far as i know."

"everything is made of the 4 elements. fish are mostly water element, whales are a combination of water and air."

(quote non-creationist) The ancestors of whales and dolphins was a land-living walking creature which slowly returned to the sea.(end quote)

"lol, what a fairytale... a land? animal turns into a fish."

(quote non-creationist) Just because something looks like something else does not make it the same.(end quote)

"it depends on how you choose to define things. if scientists definitions were good, religious people would not disagree with them."

ThrowItUp #fundie imdb.com

Most scientists never even taken a class on evolution. And there are many more scientists who have actually taken time to investigate the validity of the theory have discovered it is bunk.
The truth is most scientists don't want the creation explanation because of the implications so they force feed the evolution fairy tale to people despite the evidence that goes against. For examples, more and more scientists have come out to say that Darwin's Tree of Life is false; random mutations (coupled with natural selection) decreases genomic information instead of increases; the fossil record shows special creation rather than evolution etc.

Evolution is the biggest lie people have fallen for. If I didn't know better I would think Satan is behind the lie to cast doubt on special creation. "No, no you who is more complex than all the machines and computers in the world combined evolved from a single cell which accidently formed billions of years ago." The world falls for it hook, line, and sinker. Satan didn't have to have the Bible burned or only in the hands of few evil men as in the era when the evil Catholic Church had control, he will just have people doubt it by propagating a bogus theory. Hardly anyone would know it's bogus because people are too lazy to research all the facts themselves.

Steve Rudd #fundie bible.ca

"I would like to teach you in 5 minutes everything you will ever need to know about being a psychologist. [ . . . ] I would also like to teach you about the therapeutic counseling technic called (WWJD)"

This young woman was a Christian who knew her Bible well. She raised her hand and asked the professor to address the class.

[ . . . ]

"Just as you know how to speak without knowing the names of the grammatical rules, so too, you already know how to counsel without learning the names of the 12 therapeutic counseling techniques. [ . . . ] Everyone already knows how to counsel, even if they have never learned the fancy scientistic words and phrases that dissect a complete process into partitioned, distinct little irrelevant pigeon holes."

Agitated, the professor interrupts, "care to give an example for the class"?

"Sure" she says, "Yesterday I had a 30 minute "Cognitive-Behavioral therapy session" with my five year old son.... when I sent him to the time out chair."

Her girlfriend in the audience raises her hand and asks, "You mean Cognitive-Behavioral therapy is when we were disciplined by our parents as children?"

"Yes" she answers. "But you won't learn that till 4th year."

"In fact", she continues, "I routinely combine Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) with Freudian Free Association Therapy (FFAT), when I rattled the wooden spoons in the kitchen drawer as a warning to my disobedient tot. When he hears the sound, he automatically "associates" his last spanking with a wooden spoon and immediately stops the bad behaviour. Wow! Who would have ever thought all young mothers were smart enough to combine these techniques only taught in post graduate psychotherapy courses?"

Peter Dolinski #fundie theontarion.on.ca

Re: Faith Vs Atheism by Adam Morris, p 5, Ontarion April 10, 2008

I was pleasantly surprised by the respect that Adam Morris shows in his letter towards those with whom he does not share the same point of view in the ongoing debate of creationism vs evolution. I would like to bring some points to the debate I hope readers will find interesting.

There is a lot of purely scientific material that while not proving a creationist view strongly questions or refutes the concept of Darwinian evolution. Sadly as in the days of Galileo anything that challenges the day's dogma gets dismissed. There is no surer way to get vilified or lose funding than to challenge evolution. And no need to mention God once.

I could list here dime and a dozen questions that have been never answered properly, including those two, one of which got me an earful from a respected evolutionist.

1) How could an animal reprogram its DNA to switch from gills to lungs with all that it entails knowing well that a gradual shift is impossible?

2) Who was T-rex's ancestor?

To terminate a current observation. With the extinction or near extinction of a specie today, be it animal or plant, scientists deplore the fact that along the subject so will its genetic information go the way of ... the dinosaurs. Information that might be pertinent to fight some disease or weather some climates. Hmm... If evolution, creation, no pun intended, of new genetic information, was true then would it matter less... To question is to progress.

Peter Dolinski

unknown #fundie genesispark.com

The dietary laws of the Old Testament carefully prescribed what creatures could be eaten by the Israelite nation. Leviticus 11:13-19 gives a list of various birds and bats. Bats are not classified as “fowl” in the modern delineation but were for the Hebrews. Then we have a special command in verse 20: ”All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.” What are these unclean fowl that go on all fours? Some commentators point out that the Hebrew word here for “fowl” [`owph] simply means “flying things” and they suggest that this verse references insects. But the six-legged insects are dealt with in their own section in verses 21-23. Could the fowl on all fours be penguins? Penguins use their wings to fly through the water and to get up on land, but then they walk on just two feet.

Joe Taylor suggests another group of animals that fit the bill nicely: pterosaurs (Taylor, Joe, Giants Against Evolution, 2012, p. 113.). Today’s scientists classify the pterosaurs among the reptiles rather than the birds. But the Pterodactyloid pterosaurs, with their headcrests and short tails, would likely have been lumped in with the fowl by the ancient Hebrews. (It seems that a species of long-tailed Rhamphorhynchoid pterosaurs was known as a flying serpent to the Hebrews.) We know from fossil trackways that many of these Pterodactyloid pterosaurs scurried around on all fours. Obviously it is just a possible theory, but there may well have been living pterosaurs still thriving in the region of the Middle East during the times of the Exodus.

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

Yeah, research like the fraudulent "gay gene". The old "science" label, the most effective propaganda tool in use today.

"There has been no single gene identified as a basis for sexuality - either homo or hetero. If you would like links to various research efforts that have been, and are currently being, done on determining the basis for sexuality, i'd be happy to provide them."

I didn't say there was, just a fraudulent claim there was by some sodomite "scientist" desperate for acceptance.
Had enough propaganda on the subject in psychology class."

Goodness knows people make claims all the time that are not backed by actual science. The one you mentioned is an example, as is the claim by some that sexuality has been proven to have no genetic basis. Those claims, however, do not change the fact that the basis for sexuality is unknown. What 'propaganda on the subject' did you receive in psychology class?"

Ex-gays have the genetic thing covered. There was perfectly good science before gays had it removed.
Psychology class: "Here is a CT scan of a hetero male, here is one of a gay male, see the difference? That proves they were born that way." No, there could be many explanations for the difference, perhaps one guy had a head ache, maybe addictive personality shows up differently, maybe...

The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan #ufo #conspiracy #fundie finalcall.com

- The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan announced that he has arrived at the conclusion of his weekly online lecture series titled “The Time and What Must Be Done” however, he would continue to discuss the reality of what are called Unidentified Flying Objects, including The Great Wheel, also called The Mother Plane.
In his broadcast, which aired February 1 at www.noi.org, he took viewers into the layers of intrigue and covert strategies involved in keeping the knowledge and technology of such an aircraft secret.

Referencing The Honorable Elijah Muhammad’s book “Our Saviour Has Arrived” the Minister cited the portion titled “The Hidden Truth” in which Mr. Muhammad wrote:

“Hiding the truth is a very serious thing to do. It causes harm and disappointment and causes one to be misled. It causes loss of property and life. It causes the loss of friendship, beloved ones, and loss of confidence and trust.”

The U.S. government and its top scientists have known about the presence of The Great Wheel since the 1940’s, when they raided the home of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and confiscated his and Master Fard Muhammad’s writings about and drawings of The Wheel. The government has been hiding this knowledge not only from the common American people, but they’ve also classified it as “Above Top Secret” keeping it hidden from even the nation’s presidents, said the Minister.

“Knowing that their term would only be four years or eight years, they forbade the presidents to know this, fearing that after they left office, they might inform the American people of what they knew,” he said.

Additionally, billions are spent confusing the American people in order to conceal the truth. When people come forward to talk about what they’ve witnessed or experienced, they are ridiculed, mocked and in some cases, intimidated and threatened into silence.

“Members of the government would visit those who said that they saw or knew, and frightened them, that if they ever told what they saw or what they knew, the consequences could be, they would be discredited or even put to death!” said Min. Farrakhan.

The shadow government controlled by the global elite is doing everything within their power to keep the truth about these aircraft secret. This includes intelligence activities carried out through the implementation of “Black Budget Operations.” They are able to use this power and influence to avoid scrutiny, engaging in covert actions to achieve their objectives. Virtually nullifying the U.S. Constitution, they trust no one.

The Minister said the actions of this powerful shadow government in denying access to information concerning UFOs is expressed in author Timothy Good’s book titled “Above Top Secret: The Worldwide UFO Cover-Up.” Mr. Good discusses the refusal of the United States Government, through the National Security Agency to release documents concerning UFOs.

While much of what is available is considered to be a matter of public record, what “Above Top Secret” information was denied to U.S. presidents?

“What is it? What would it be except that it would be some greater knowledge of The Wheel, its power and its occupants?” Min. Farrakhan asked.

Government officials don’t mind that a large number of Americans believe “that something is out there that is flying around” because several U.S. presidents have said they saw them, however, anytime they’ve attempted to investigate further to find out what was learned about what they had seen, they were stopped from probing further.

“So who is this shadow government that denies the person voted in to be the president of the United States this critical knowledge of what is above our heads that can be our friend or our enemy?” asked the Minister.

AngryNotice #fundie christianforums.com

The fallacies of gravity

just curious if anyone can explain these errors that many people are aware of when it comes to the theory of gravity

number 1. the way gravity reads, scientists have you think that objects of larger mass would have more of a gravitational pull then objects of smaller mass. so tell me how this makes sense

when we look at the sun we see the earth orbiting the sun, and the moon obriting the earth. if gravity were true, shouldnt our moon be orbiting the sun??? oh better yet, how come a planet way out in the distance such as neptune will orbit the sun, yet its moons will not orbit the sun??? something is wrong here, even at thise immense distances the moons will orbit the planets and not the sun, yet the suns "gravity" is strong enough supposedly to keep the planets in orbit.

number 2. why is it, only planets have orbits?? you could put a space shuttle in outter space and a astronaut will not orbit it. you could put the smallest pebbble into outter space and it will not orbit the space shuttle. why is this???? if gravity were true then surely such small objects would orbit larger ones, especially in space

number 3. on earth we see things that defy "gravity" on a daily basis. birds and airplanes for example. are you going to tell me that the gravity of the sun is strong enough to keep PLUTo in orbit but not an airplane or a little bird??????

number 4. scientists dont know how gravity works. or what it really is, and even then we see anaomolies in space that defy gravity

so my point is that gravity(like other scientifist "tHeories" is very on shaky grounds. it doesnt have the evidnece to back it up, and when examined critically it falls under the pressure(no pun intended )

show me a pebble that orbits a mountain or a bird that orbits the earth and then gravity will make sense. or better yet just show me how gravity works(if it works at all) and then maybe it will be more than just a theory

how do you evolutionsts explain gravity???

Umm_Hanzalah #fundie ummah.com

"I'm not interested in fossil evidence. Anyone can make stuff like that up...as we know many of these fossil evidences and bones have been proven to be fake. I'm just fascinated at the fact that these atheist scientists claim to be more logical than those who believe in God and yet fail to show transitions of species that are alive. For if they were telling the truth, transitions of living species would be observable.

I stick by my belief that the theory of evolution's origins lie in racism and atheism, despite what the political beliefs of todays evolutionists may be.

The reason why I say that atheists grow in arrogance when studying the creation is because by studying the intricate details of this beautiful creation, (which is in wonderful working order) it should humble them to acknolwedge that there is something greater than them (i.e. The Creator), but instead they marvel at their own so-called 'intelligence' and reject The Creator and grow in arrogance regardless of which 'top' university they may be at."

Debbie #fundie skeptico.blogs.com

Had you done your homework you would know that when JZ Knight goes into her trance and Ramtha takes over her body, her body rapidly goes through changes that are not humanly possible and the body physically dies. She had been hooked up to equipment on several occasions, because the results of each test were beyond belief, and she made followers of many of the scientists that performed the tests, as they started out wanting to discredit her.

Gabriel #fundie joystiq.com

Atheism is just as much a religion as anything else. How is it the same text books discuss Pasteur's discovery that life can't come from non-life and then claim that at some point life did come from non-life for some unexplained reason at some unexplained time? As for the spontaneous generation of a single cell, even if proteins formed first, the chance is less than 1 in 10 to the 4,450,000th power that a cell would spontaneously generate from those proteins. Also, the big bang is complete bunk as people know it and has to be adjusted, though I believe there was a similar occurence to the big bang. But the belief that there was about an equal amount of matter and anti-matter in a singularity is ridiculous since the two can't exist together. The universe would have destroyed itself from day one. Over 70% of scientists, most of them evolutionists, because of problems like these, believe in God. They don't like intelligent design because science is only the study of the natural world and cannot study the supernatural. Science also only works with finite numbers, so anything that theoretically existed for an ifinite amount of time is impossible for science to study. You can't rationally come to an atheist conclusion through science, though. The furthest you can go is agnosticism.

TongueSpeaker #fundie iidb.org

[And so far, all the evidence collected fits the ToE very well indeed.]

But what is the theory then? Why don't we have a single page say on Wikipedia that formally defines what evolution is and what it isn't.
Because for Evolution to be something we must obviously know what it is not. Presently every person has his own adhoc defenition and that person can't tell me how he got his particular version.

Your whole quote is according to you. You say so. There are other atheists and scientists who differs from your view. You are stateing it with some sort of authority. I am not looking for Arguments from Authority. I want to know who has formally established The Theory of Evolution, Theory of Change or Theory of Everything on the same level that Kepler established his laws via Astronomia Nova 400 years ago, without which we would not have http://www.youtube.com today.

Yankee Goy #racist realjewnews.com

Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs is one of the key persons who scapegoats Muslims, some who do awful things tis true, but she glorifies Jews and Israel nonstop too, and Muslims are used as misdirection from the broader evil.

For example she had a few articles on Muslim organ trafficking but ignore all those Israeli rabbis arrested for organ trading, and all the Palis and US soldiers coming back without their innards.

French scientists showed huge liver and mammary tumors in rats who ate GMO grains and corn, which Monsanto is pushing world wide. I would suspect it's Israel/JWO behind this to kill off the 600 million Whites, followed by about 7 billion Goyim for their JWO-Jerusalem nirvana goals.

We pay Israel to plot mass genocide of Goyim. All Jews know this. You can't absolve a Jew who just acts nice or humble, because they all know this. I bet the only non-GMO grain is sold at kosher stores.

Paul M. Dohse Sr. #wingnut #pratt #fundie paulspassingthoughts.com

The news stopped me dead in my tracks mentally. A giant mural of teen “environmental activist” Greta Thunberg is going up in San Francisco’s Union Square. Recently, Leonardo DiCaprio praised Thunberg as a “leader of our time” following a day of just chillin’ out together. Shockingly, she has even spoken before the UN Assembly and invited to speak at a TED Talk. She is 15 years old.

A fact reality check: in the 1960’s global freezing was going to destroy the world by sometime in the 1980s; it didn’t happen, and frankly, even as adolescents, we knew better. In the 60s the book, Silent Spring was all the rage and required reading in our junior High School Literature class. The thesis of the book follows: for the first time in human history, man had acquired the ability to destroy the world. Hence, the scientific world was divided into to camps: those who improve and empower a society made up of the collective efforts of free individuals, and those scientists who believe that man must be saved from himself by minority elitists. Indeed, presuppositions concerning mankind are central to all of this. Is mankind totally depraved? Is mankind totally unable? In the total depravity of man ideology, whether of secular political ideology or religion, the truly wise are experts in the knowledge that enables the totally depraved to have their best existence according to what has been preordained for them. They are experts in the knowledge that man knows nothing, which is the beginning of wisdom. Supposedly. It is a zero sum life ideology, a kind of nihilism if you will.

But, does man really have the ability to destroy the world? Well, if you look at man’s execution of the most earth-destroying power at his disposal to date, that would be the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Not only were several thousand survivors walking around in the horrific destruction and death immediately after the blast, but today Hiroshima is a thriving modernized city full of life. It is unlikely that all-out nuclear war in our day would destroy the earth. For sure, it wouldn’t be a picnic for maybe 20 years afterward, but total annihilation of humanity? Unlikely.

The most formidable threat to the earth is a thing we call natural disasters. Man has no way to create the destructive powers of natural disasters and is powerless against them for the most part. Yet, so far, earth has shown restraint in annihilating itself. Of course, environmentalist claim that man’s abuse of nature causes natural disasters. On the one hand, Silent Spring announced the dawning of man’s ability to destroy himself, while on the other hand, he causes natural disasters that have obviously been around since the beginning of creation. Environmentalism and the total inability of man (total depravity) go hand-in-glove. On the one hand, secular scientists like to promote the idea of a very, very old earth unlike religious zealots who tout the idea of a very young earth, yet, nature in its immeasurable powers hasn’t managed to destroy itself or man in more than a billion years. But yet, supposedly, the end is near because of man and the only way of saving mankind is submitting our misguided notion of freedom to the all-knowing elitists.

Past all of that, the Bible is clear on how life as we presently know it comes to an end, and how.

Why do people believe in the environmental movement? Why do factual arguments fall on deaf ears? Answer: because regardless of commonsense facts, like many other things people believe, it’s what they want to believe. The Bible states that people have a propensity towards living by DESIRES. Unfortunately, for the most part, people are desire-driven. This is what drives me absolutely nuts when I am watching Fox News. They have these ideologues on in order to be “fair and balanced.” Regardless of black and white facts, these people answer with totally bankrupt reasoning. Why? Their thinking and reasoning is desire-driven; it’s what they want to believe.

Why do they want to believe it? Answer: fear. Government in general and elitists in particular offer a safety net. People who fear individualism think you stand or fall on your own. It’s a lack of self-confidence, and the total depravity of man ideology rejects self-confidence altogether. People want to play in the sandbox of life, but they want mommy watching from the kitchen window. They don’t trust the goodness of man to help them in times of need, they trust the elitists. Besides, government has the power to take from greedy individuals and give it to whomever might need it…you. Government elitists are Robinhood; they take from the evil rich people and give to the poor. The Bible says to work with your hands so you can give to people in need.

Truth is whatever your fears and desires say it is. Facts don’t determine truth; individual desires determine truth. And your truth along with your bankrupt self-esteem needs a cheerleader; a hero, really, an image in the form of a person. Yes, your argument isn’t facts, it is those great people of the present and past who confirm your beliefs. They are the monuments of what you believe.

supersport #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Evolutionists have dreamed up a whole theory based on mutations. Millions of them, we are told, have arisen randomly, for no reason -- without any beneficial direction -- only to be chosen later by natural selection. This dogma has been forced down our throats ad nauseam. But you would think, being so-called scientists, that evolutionists would have tested this assertion. Wouldn't it only be logical to test to see if the so-called "fit" mutations actually had deleterious effects on surrounding molecules? Well, I think that would only be fair. But have evolutionists bothered to test and/or report the details to the uninformed public in their books? Of course not. And do you know why? It's because the evolutionary scientific communtiy is largely immoral and simply cannot be trusted. Period. Their little pet theory is like an emotional security blanket to them, and they don't want people -- especially Christians -- taking away their nite-nite blankey.

YYYYYYY #fundie answers.yahoo.com

"Christians, How can you believe a book that has so many scientific errors/contradictions"

Self righteous retard, how do you know the world DOES move? How do you know it's NOT the stationary centre of the universe, and that everything revolves around it? Think about it--the Earth is God's single best creation, so it's only logical that it would be the centre of the universe.

Oh, let me guess you base your assertion on no real evidence except for believing what a stupid fancy-pants scientist says. They should have killed that Galileo faaaaaag

Michael Houdmann #fundie compellingtruth.org

What is radiometric dating? Does it fit with the view of a young earth?
Radiometric dating is the way that scientists determine the age of matter. Radiometric dating techniques are applied to inorganic matter (rocks, for example) while radiocarbon dating is the method used for dating organic matter (plant or animal remains). The idea of a young earth, as presented in the Bible, is not compatible with the findings of radiometric dating.

What does this mean for Christians? Are we forced to accept that the Bible is inaccurate or not literal, based on what radiometric dating has found? It's a good question. First, let's look at what radiometric dating is, and how scientists determine the age of matter.

Radiometric dating is based on the rate of decay of certain isotopes, which is defined as: "each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element." The isotope Uranium-238 (U238) is one of these unstable, radioactive isotopes. Over time, U238 decays and goes through many unstable stages, until it finally becomes stable as Lead-206 (Pb206). U238 is the "parent" isotope, and Pb206 is the "daughter" isotope.

Scientists found that by measuring the amounts of both parent and daughter isotopes in matter (seeing how much of the U238 has stabilized into Pb206), they could accurately calculate the age of that matter. For example, it takes 4,460,000,000 years for half a sample of U238 to turn into Pb206. So, if they found a rock that contained an exactly equal amount of these two isotopes, they could date that rock at exactly 4,460,000,000 years old.

There is no question that radiometric dating is accurate—provided that certain assumptions are true. First, we must assume that the rate of decay of U238 into Pb206 has remained constant over time. Second, we have to assume that no other chemical processes have adulterated the rate of decay (no amount of either parent or daughter has been added or taken away from the specimen). Third, we have to assume we know how much of each the parent and the daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process. The rate of isotope decay will always remain the same, but the accuracy of radiometric dating depends on these assumptions being correct for the specimen in question.

Assumptions two and three are not by any means certain, because how can we really know, having not watched the specimen over its entire life, how much of each isotope was present at the beginning, and whether or not anything was added or taken away? We can't know, so scientists are working on reasonable guesswork there. However, the first assumption (that the rate of isotope decay has remained constant over millions of years) has always been pretty much unquestionable—until recently. New research has found evidence to suggest that isotopes decayed at different rates in the unobservable past. This research is based on yet another element, called helium.

Helium is a gas—very light, with very small atoms, and is unreactive. Helium is a byproduct of the decay process of U238 into Pb206. As the uranium isotopes pass through their unstable stages on the way to becoming lead isotopes, they let off helium. Now, scientists found some crystals called zircons within granite specimens, which still contain a good deal of helium. According to radiometric dating, these zircons (and the surrounding granite) should be 1.5 billion years old. But if that were true, the helium, because of its nature, would have escaped from the rock over that much time (its atoms are smaller and lighter than the atoms of the zircons). However, there was still plenty of helium inside the zircons. It should have slowly seeped out, but it didn't. Because of this, scientists can now assume that the zircons, and the surrounding granite (a type of Precambrian granite that is the same across the entire planet) cannot be more than 4,000 to 14,000 years old.

New research has determined that radiometric dating is not an infallible method. This example shows that there is still so much that we do not know. Scientific discovery is important, and should never be discouraged, but when it contradicts the Bible, it is rational for Christians to reserve judgment and wait for further evidence to be revealed.

Resources:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/accelerated-nuclear-decay

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

Some TERFs #sexist reddit.com

Re: Where Does Organized Male Evil Come From?

I just got finished reading this article about the rapes of Rohingya women and the persecution and slaughter of their people: http://www.thejournal.ie/rohingya-rape-3745266-Dec2017/

I know it's not uplifting to read this stuff, but it's also important not to turn away.

I want to know what causes such organized male evil. It doesn't matter whether it's a dispute over territory or religion or ethnicity, it is men who do this in an organized fashion. It has always been men.

Is it as simple as "patriarchy?" Silvia Federici's Caliban and the Witch describes the creation of capitalist evil through the weaponization of men and male sexuality, the formal institution of patriarchy, the enslavement of women, and the colonial/imperial ventures of the new world order.

Although it's true almost no corner of the human world has gone untouched by the Western project of colonialism and imperialism, other cultures have their own ancient histories of warfare, bloodshed and male rule that predate Western history.

I know the advent of agriculture and the dawn of land ownership have been cited as the reason for growing institutionalization of patriarchy and subjugation of women and expansion of territory--but really--I struggle to understand how men can commit such horrific atrocities in an organized fashion. If women ruled the world, would we do this? Would we?

I have never given much credence to notions of biological determinism and I still don't; if men are like this by dint of nature as well as nurture the power of human socialization can change them. So far is has mainly been used to cement these violent, hierarchical tendencies it seems.

I just never used to believe there could be this fundamental difference between men and women where under the right circumstances men could join together to commit such atrocities in a way that women wouldn't. Is it because women have been stripped of their power that we don't see them band together to exercise it in such horrific fashion? Or is there really a fundamental, biological difference between us that makes men more susceptible to committing violence?

I also struggle with the connection between sex and committing violence so often seen within cultures and among mostly male individuals across the world. Is it male or is it masculine?

(anxietyaccount8)
No it's not just as simple as patriarchy. I once believed that but now I don't. Men really are just more violent than women. Male sexuality is also very different than female sexuality (in general) and I don't think anybody could have socialized me into being interested in some of the crazy things they are interested in.

I think that the reason a lot of people dismiss these claims is because they are reminded of evolutionary psychology, which for the most part is not very scientific at all. But the thing is that just because things like "women are naturally better at cooking" are BS it doesn't mean that everything that sounds like evopsych is wrong. For example we know that male and female animals act differently. We know that males and females have different body types, hormone levels, and different ways of reproducing. Would it really be so insane to suggest there are mental differences too?

Now to be fair, I am not really sure if this is true, and none of us will be sure unless we have substantial evidence, but this is my personal theory. It just feels really obvious to me.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
This was my point to another poster. To what extent can the behavior of other mammals, including our closest relatives chimpanzees and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) be interpreted to reflect on our own?

Not only the male correlation of sex and violence but specifically the far greater incidence of male sexual fetishes (about the same as the disproportionate ratio of male vs. female violence, 10 to 1) causes me to believe there's something more than socialization going on here. Scientists who study human sexuality say it has to do with a more intense focus from males as a group on sexuality in general, heightening fetishes. But how often do you hear of women who like to pretend to be baby boys and wear diapers? (Seriously?) And like to be burped and breastfed and rocked to sleep? (I would really like formal studies of how often these bizarre fetishes occur in males as compared to females. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a result of porn and therefore male domination arising from social reasons because how much of porn is men pretending to be infant girls and breastfeed? Please don't tell me).

I am not saying this to be in favor of gender or against it. "Gender" as we know it is a social construct. Any innate evolutionary differences in the sexes--say, of violent vs. pacifist, or systematizing (from, say, hunting more often than women in most prehistoric societies) vs. integration (from the greater social relations of gathering and building)--need not be our fate if detrimental. We are highly social animals almost entirely at the whim of our socialization, which has been civilizing in some respects but in others greatly lacking.

I agree that just because evolutionary psychology has become a crutch of sexist males it does not mean absolutely none of it is true. It's more important than ever we separate the wheat from the chaff.

(anxietyaccount8)
Right, and it's important that people recognize radical feminism's criticism of gender actually does not contradict this existence of innate differences. We are all born into a society where we have to follow prescribed gender roles, and this social construct bleeds into all aspects of our lives and causes differences of its own. If some differences are innate this social construction makes them much more prominent and worse.

Also it doesn't mean that there is a distinct male or female brain, or that trans people really do have the brain of the opposite sex. Even if, hypothetically, a trans woman did actually act in ways that women are biologically supposed to, they are just proving that there is variation and a male can be that way too.

(Unabashed_Calabash)
Lol at the downvotes. I also don't understand how butthurt men get about this subject. It is quite clearly true (unless you prefer "violence" to "evil" because you don't believe in imposing moral values on human actions), and I am merely asking why and where it comes from.

Humanity will never change until men reckon with their own and their fellow men's actions.

(bigoltreehugger)
Ew. So many men came in caping for other men in response. I miss the days when this sub didn't have as many dudes hanging around. I'm sorry I can't engage your question properly but I just wanted to say that I've always appreciated your input on this sub.

(descending_wisdom)
fundamental biological differences. Sexual selection theory easily explains male violence. Watch some videos on organized warfare in some troops of chimpanzees.

(sunscreenonface)
Gonna leave this write up from notcisjustwoman here:

"Patriarchy pre-dates both the agricultural revolution and hunter-gatherer societies, because the basis of the oppression of women, indeed the very basis for oppression itself, is rape.

Male animals have been raping female animals since before the first humans, or even the first primates, appeared on earth. Events like the agricultural revolution codified male oppression of women into a more organized system, and religion has evolved over time to become an enforcer and moralizer of male violence, but neither of things things created patriarchy. Patriarchy began the first time a man raped a woman, and instead of being beaten to death by her tribal/family group, he was rewarded with fathership of her children.

It’s not comfortable even for most radical feminists to see this full and complete scope of the history of patriarchy, because it means that things are much more complicated than mere socialization, but it is a brutal truth we must confront in our analysis."

To expand upon this, here's a previous write up I did once I'd read notcisjustwoman's blog:

"I don't think this will make anyone feel better, but I've recently been thinking a lot about the various species of animals across this earth that have been known to rape...and it turns out most animal species have some form of rape. Ducks, squirrels, dolphins, dogs, gorillas, etc. all have observable males who rape and aggress females.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that aggressive males who rape will pass on their aggressive traits to their offspring that are conceived via rape. I don't think it's a stretch to say that male homo sapiens might be more likely to aggress and rape females since they inherited a tendancy towards violence from their male ancestors who were conceived via rape. (Reminder: I could be completely wrong about this!)

Does this make rape ok? NO!!!! Even if rape and aggressive sexual behavior is 'natural', 'natural' does not instantly equal something good or beneficial for a species. Homo sapiens dying of tooth decay at 22 is quite natural, but it's horrific and traumatizing for everyone involved.

All I'm saying is my understanding of men's GLOBAL and CONSTANT violence toward women became easier to understand once I started to think about sexual violence as an issue often found in primate species and not as something completely 100% culturally-bound.

Here's a link to a tumblr write-up that spawned my thoughts on this: http://notcisjustwoman.tumblr.com/post/175761393959/what-is-good-for-the-gander-is-not-always-good-for#notes

(Unabashed_Calabash)
I've read about the extremely complex history of rape among animals of all kinds (they have highly evolved methods of rape--an actual sexual arms race between males and females, as females also evolved to try to avoid rape--in fact, some believe the reason we walk upright is because women first stood up to avoid greater vulnerability to gang rape from behind, and that these gang rapes were so violent many of the females of our prehistoric ancestors who did not stand up did not survive). The species in which pair-bonding and good fatherhood are the norm are not the norm.

There's a reason that male sperm in all species is a complex chemical cocktail. In humans it's designed to lull/drug the mate and bond females to males even at their own expense.

My gut feeling and experiences tell me notjustciswoman is right.

There's a reason rape as committed by men is so normalized and also so easy for men to commit. Behavioral scientists have discussed the not-so-mythical "rape switch" and posited that all or most men have one.

Reading stories of men's mass raiding/raping parties, I'm inclined to agree. (My own experience aligns with this as well. I have actually witnessed a man struggle with his own desire to rape when confronted with a woman highly vulnerable to it. He had a low "rape threshold" certainly, but I don't actually think it's all that unusual. I think human men--because human beings can feel remorse and regret--may struggle with what they have done or the harm they have caused, if society or the victim force them to reflect on this, but they still did it and wanted to do it anyway). Neither the normalization of rape nor its prevalence despite official messages all over the world that it's wrong would be so common if rape were not somehow natural to the males of this species.

I remember an author saying "we cannot deal with violence until we admit uncomfortable truths, such as the thrill of war." The same is true of rape/sexual abuse; there's no way we can combat it without understanding it, and understanding why some men like to do it even when it's officially discouraged, or why men as a class can be easily encouraged to commit it under the right circumstances, is, I think, important if we ever hope to combat it.

(And yes, the history of conquest and invasion in our species is the history of rape. There's a reason so many men in the world carry the same Y chromosome).

JAMES DELINGPOLE #fundie breitbart.com

Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum

If, like me, you love the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York, here is a question I can guarantee you’ve never asked.

Never once — as you’ve circumnavigated the blue whale or gawped at those marvelous Teddy Roosevelt-style dioramas in the mammal halls or admired the T-Rex’s jagged 6-inch gnashers — have you paused in deep thought and mused to yourself: “Gee. I wonder if the guys who pay for all this stuff are Democrats or Republicans?”

The reason you’ve never had this thought is because you’re not stupid. Or at least, not that stupid.

You understand — because it’s so obvious that even one of the stuffed primates in the Akeley Hall of African Mammals could grasp this basic point — that the collections in the American Museum of Natural History have nothing whatsoever to do with politics. They have to do with science, which is something completely different.

Science is about studying what is. Politics is about what ought to be or what might be. Science is about objectivity. Politics is about subjectivity.

They really don’t mix and when people try to make them mix it’s a disaster. To believe otherwise, you’d have to deny all the evidence of history, know nothing about the scientific method and be really, really thick.

Thicker than a pickled cuttlefish in a jar of surgical spirit; dumber than a lobotomized mollusk; more basic than an amoeba with severe learning difficulties.

o bearing all this mind, what should we feel towards the bunch of 182 self-proclaimed “scientists” who have written an open letter to the AMNH demanding that it cut its links with trustees and donors whose politics they find objectionable?

My suggestion would be: a mix of pity, embarrassment, and disgust.

Plus, maybe, a judicious soupçon of horror that such imbeciles could have been given tenure at any academic institution where the teaching of impressionable young adults is involved even at all, let alone where it’s financed by hard-working U.S. taxpayers.

So that means you, Michael “Hockey Stick” Mann, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University; and you, Naomi Oreskes, Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University; and you, Kerry Emmanuel, Cecil & Ida Green Professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and you, many of you others among the 182 signatories of this bizarre, outrageous, and embarrassing letter.

You have these ritzy sounding titles which seem to confer on you an aura of gravitas and scientific distinction. But by putting your names to this spectacularly dumb letter — of which more in a moment — you have relinquished all claim to be taken seriously as voices of scientific authority. You are all, basically, frauds.

Why? Because what you are engaging in here patently isn’t about science. Nor is it, as you profess, about the well-being and credibility of the American Museum of Natural History. No, this is about low-down, dirty political activism. It’s Antifa with a PhD.

Let’s examine in more detail what these fake-science terrorists are demanding in their letter.

Headed “Open Letter from Scientists to the American Museum of Natural History,” it begins with a paragraph wreathed in apparent high-mindedness and dispassionate concern.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) is a treasured and influential institution. Museums must be protected as sites that build understanding, help the public make meaning, and serve the common good. We are concerned that the vital role of science education institutions will be eroded by a loss of public trust if museums are associated with individuals and organizations known for rejecting climate science, opposing environmental regulation and clean energy initiatives, and blocking efforts to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Pretty soon, though, it shows its true colors:

Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation, political kingmakers and the financiers behind Breitbart News, are major funders of climate science denial projects such as the Heartland Institute, where they have donated nearly $6 million since 2008. The Mercer Family Foundation is also a top donor to the C02 Coalition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, institutions that assert that an increase in C02 emissions from fossil fuels will be a great benefit to plant and animal life on Earth.

Yup. Like I said this has nothing to do with science, let alone with concern for the integrity of the AMNH. This is a political hit job co-ordinated by a bunch of malicious, embittered second-raters. They’ve been losing the scientific argument on climate change for years, so instead they’re fighting back in the only way they know how: using dirty, underhand guerrilla tactics.

To give you an example of how desperately feeble their case is, here’s the Twitter thread that supposedly prompted the letter:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774167276220416/photo/1

This is so obviously a put up job it’s embarrassing. Read the label for yourself. In vain will you find anything “shocking” or “saddening.” It’s restrained, sensible, factually accurate: a model, in fact, of what the displays at the American Museum of Natural History should look like.

But Busch — an environmental economist, by the way, not a palaeoclimatologist or a geologist: so it’s not like he’s bringing any special expertise to the party — pretends to have been triggered by that stuff about warm cycles and ice ages.

Talk about nitpicking. Talk about chutzpah! Talk about cry-bullying! What is this guy’s problem?

First, we are indeed living in an “interglacial period” — it’s called the Holocene — which is what you call the warm bits between ice ages.

Second, these interglacials do indeed move in roughly 10,000 year cycles.

Third, given that we’re around 11,700 years into this particular interglacial, it is indeed quite possible that — as the label very sensibly concedes — we could be due for another ice age.

Yet even though all the stuff on the label is unexceptionable and factually accurate, Busch claims to be so appalled that he has been forced to throw his toys out of the pram on social media and demand a retraction.

On what basis?

Here — in his follow up tweet — is his attempt at a justification:

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774372197330945/photo/1

Oh great. A single paper, published in Nature — an organ notorious for disseminating parti-pris studies pal-reviewed by climate alarmists on the scaremongering global warming gravy train. A paper, furthermore, which is dependent on the kind of computer models — “our simulations” — which have been repeatedly and comprehensively falsified by real world observations.

So, to recap: a climate activist on Twitter cooks up a #fakenews story in which he claims, on no evidence, that the American Museum of Natural History’s scientific integrity is being corrupted by right-wing donors; though the story is factually inaccurate in almost every conceivable way, this #fakenews incident is then used as the pretext for an open letter to the museum by 182 other climate activists demanding that it take action to deal with this non-problem.

Their letter claims:

Last week thousands of people shared a Twitter comment by environmental economist Jonah Busch, PhD, who pointed out misleading information on climate science in an Exxon-funded exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. To its credit, the AMNH’s response was swift: it committed to updating the outdated information to reflect the best available science. But the initial online public anger showed that trust in the museum is undermined by the museum’s association with climate science opponents.

It concludes by demanding:

We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees.

This is outrageous. Allow me to spell out why.

The signatories of that letter make a big deal of the fact that their primary concern is the museum’s credibility.

But what could be more damaging to a museum’s credibility than if it were to fire some of its most generous, committed trustees, to cut off part of its income stream, and to change the factually accurate labelling on its exhibits purely to accommodate the petulant demands of a shrill bully mob of left-leaning academics who have rejected science in favour of political activism?

As Homewood notes:

This attempt by a gang of self appointed, second rate scientists to exclude people from jobs with public bodies, or indeed any sort of association at all, simply because of their politics, is extremely dangerous.

It is the sort of behaviour one would normally associate with communist and fascist juntas, and needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Yes, indeed.

Itasca Small #conspiracy windturbinesyndrome.com

image

Once again, Dr. Pierpont has done an exceptional job in warning the wisely concerned residents of Cesme, Turkey, with valuable facts that should alarm everyone in their community, and everyone anywhere in the world who has the opportunity to read her letter. The links within the body of the letter are well-worth following for those who want to learn the truth about Industrial Wind Energy.

The video of infrasonic vortices created by IWTs in a blizzard is a one-minute “picture worth a thousand words!”

The excerpt from Professor Salt and Professor Lichtenhan’s paper includes the following:

“No one has ever evaluated whether tympanostomy tubes alleviate the symptoms of those living near wind turbines. From the patient’s perspective, this may be preferable to moving out of their homes or using medical treatments for vertigo, nausea, and/or sleep disturbance. The results of such treatment, whether positive, negative, would likely have considerable scientific influence on the wind turbine noise debate—.”

I’m sure they mean well, but, are they suggesting that a procedure intended to be temporary, albeit over six months or so, might be an acceptable alternative?

WE ARE THE VICTIMS HERE!

Why should we be the ones to even consider surgery when we’re not the criminals causing the problem?

The wind industry has known that their monstrous machinery causes adverse health effects since at least the 1980s. Now, these professors seriously consider the possibility that we could be forced to resort to repeated temporary, otherwise unnecessary, surgeries on the unlikely chance that we could stay in our homes to continue being subjected to this MAN-CAUSED DESTRUCTION!!!

We’re already lab rats and guinea pigs to mad pseudo-scientists, businessmen, government officials/agents, etc., who have NO concern, sympathy, empathy, nor compassion for THEIR VICTIMS!

Why on God’s Green Earth should we have to even think that we might have to resort to “such treatment?”

The industry knows full-well what they are doing to us. I believe they take sadistic pleasure in the power-trip it gives them, knowing they are torturing untold numbers of humans and animals with 21st Century versions of the “rack” — and getting paid handsomely to do it!

Ahh, but, whether the surgery proved positive or negative, the scientific influence upon the debate would be considerable! And the rats and guinea pigs will either feel better and live longer, or feel no different and die sooner. Yes, but, the debate would be considerably “influenced!” Researchers would have new fodder with which to experiment for the next few decades while we suffer and die. . . .

[Hmm, I guess such surgery could create a lucrative market for ear-surgeons and their entourages — if it worked — considering all the people who will eventually be needing relief as long as the IWTs keep-on turning across-the-globe. . . . Even the veterinarians could jump on the bandwagon and insert tubes in their patients’ eardrums!]

No human being should ever be asked to allow “Band-Aid” surgical procedures in his ears, just because he can’t or won’t move away from the MAN-MADE CAUSE OF HIS AFFLICTION.

WE’RE NOT THE ONES WHO NEED TO MOVE!!!

WE ARE ALREADY VICTIMS OF AN UNSPEAKABLE CRIME!!!

WE SHOULDN’T BE FORCED TO MOVE OR SUFFER AND DIE!!!

AND WE DON’T NEED DR. FRANKENSTEIN EXPERIMENTING IN OUR EARS!!!

Dr. Kelley, et.al., found: “Further, there is evidence that the strong resonances found in the acoustic pressure field within rooms [in people’s homes] . . . indicates a coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances at 5, 12, and 17-25 Hz, resulting in a sensation of whole-body vibration (p. 120).” And, Dr. Pierpont’s study independently showed: “I discovered the same thing in my research. What Kelley refers to as a ‘sensation of whole-body vibration,’ I refer to as Visceral Vibratory Vestibular Disturbance (VVVD): . . .”

I would really like to know if the entire cascade of adverse effects to my body that nearly killed my adrenal glands, and by extension, my life, were all caused by the vestibular effect. (Along with being in all of Dr. Pierpont’s risk factor classes, I am one of those who could perceive infrasonic waves when they passed through my body unimpeded even before the IWTs invaded.)

It would be extremely helpful to know if anyone is known to have non-functioning vestibular organs. If so, is he physically affected by infrasound? Because, I believe the infrasound that can so drastically agitate the inner ear must also directly affect the other cells and organs in the body through the “. . . coupling of sub-audible energy [infrasound] to human body resonances . . .”

If the infrasound is coupled to human body resonances outside the Inner Ear, the overall effect is a combination of vestibular effects and the direct vibratory effects on other organs and cells at the same time. If the vestibular organs were non-functioning, it seems that symptomatology would occur but be somewhat different — as was mine with already weak adrenals. If this is true, then, tympanostomy tubes might reduce the adverse effects, but not “Band-Aid” the WTS in a meaningful way. Stressing the other organs and cells would still cause bad effects and overdrive/destroy the adrenals. (If I’ve forgotten something from Dr. Pierpont’s book, I apologize — my memory has not fully recovered from the effects of the infrasound.)

Nikola Tesla studied infrasound extensively and concluded that it is destructive to living cells. This was a monumental discovery, and now, decades later, it should be considered along with the ESSENTIAL discovery by Dr. Pierpont that the inner ear, and its influence, is significantly impacted by wind turbine infrasound. The proof is blatantly evident that Wind Turbine Syndrome is real. The only reasons the turbines still turn and we continue to suffer, are the evil ulterior motives of the perpetrators, and the indoctrination of the masses.

Further, Dr. Pierpont says: “Wind industry advocates likewise argued that only downwind turbines created noise, that is, low-frequency noise. Dr. Kelley and his research team effectively debunked that falsehood, . . .”

In 1987, Dr. Kelley, et.al., reported that: “low-frequency acoustical loads radiated from both individual turbines and groups of upwind and downwind turbines. . . .” I can attest to this fact in my own community’s experience. Our symptomatology increases and decreases as our predominantly SW winds — upwind to the turbines most of the time — shift through the compass directions, with the 2.2MW turbines northwesterly to southeasterly across the center of the circle. The worst times are when the wind is out of the NW. It is at least approximately 10.5 – 13 miles ENE to the nearest IWT.

Also, “Moller and his colleague, Christian Sejer Pedersen, demonstrated that ‘the larger the turbine, the ongreater the ILFN (infrasound and low frequency noise) produced.’ ” And, that: “The relative amount of low-frequency noise is higher for large turbines (2.3–3.6 MW) than for small turbines (2 MW), and the difference is statistically significant.”

If the difference between “low-frequency noise” of 2.3 – 3.6MW and 2.2MW turbines is statistically significant, and the 2.2MW turbines at least ~10.5-13 miles distant, forced me and others from our homes — and are adversely affecting others — then, just imagine how far and how seriously the larger ones will destroy lives!

Yes, Dr. Pierpont, the setbacks must be more than 2km; 5km is a start and may well be enough for now, in the particular conditions in Cesme. But, I will rejoice when more researchers believe there are those of us in different localities who are being victimized by IWTs at much greater distances. . . .

If the evidence in Dr. Pierpont’s letter does not convince the reader that there is something rotten in the wind industry, and in all the governmental, pseudo-scientific, and media support for it, NOTHING WILL.

Many people worldwide are like blind sheep, believing the lies out of ignorance and trust. However, if truth is presented and they still reject it, their willful blindness becomes guilt, as they aid and abet the crime.

The biggest truths about Industrial Wind Energy are:

THERE IS NO SAFE DISTANCE FOR WIND TURBINES ON PLANET EARTH!!!

WIND ENERGY WILL NEVER SAVE THE PLANET!!!

Itasca Small
Wind Energy Refugee

NephilimFree #fundie youtube.com

The flood caused the loss of the canopy which once protected life from intense sunlight and gamma and x-rat radiation. The earth's desserts are all only thousands of? years old. We know this from their rate of growth and historical record (ancient literature) which tells us places that were abundant with trees and plantlife in the past are now dessert. The polar caps have tropical plant fossils under thier ice sheets. This has been discovered by scientists.

[You realize that if the atmosphere were? thick enough to block x-rays and gamma radiation, no sunlight would reach Earth at all?]

It? was Ice above the atmosphere.

Varg Vikernes #wingnut #elitist burzum.org

[From “War in Europe: Part III - Homo sovieticus”]

The Norwegians don't know any better; they are proud when they get their degrees, thinking they are successful when they do, not knowing how difficult it would be to get the same degree in any other country in the world (Ghana included...). They are lost in the Marxist substitute reality. Naturally they educate very few mathematicians or physicians or biologists in Norway; you cannot cheat with natural sciences. To learn mathematics you bloody well need to understand mathematics too! So Norway after year 2000 educates fewer (!) natural scientists than Norway did in the 1950ies, when we didn't even have senior high schools for everyone. The educational budget is about a thousand times larger today, but... their priorities lie elsewhere, so to speak. As explained above.

After education they are just about all given a job. Norway is proud to be one of the countries in the world with the lowest unemployment rates! Wow! What a feat! Marxism must work then, right? Well, not exactly. The Soviet State of Norway has created an abnormal amount of what I call "artificial jobs", intended only to employ Norwegians and to keep the unemployment rates down. We have socionoms, sexologists, journalists en masse, social-anthropologists and so forth, all sent out to confirm the Marxist myths and to keep the Norwegian people in ignorance. Even the dumbest working-class girls have their fancy degrees and are now allowed to perform completely meaningless tasks professionally.

Even at the university in Norway nobody demands anything from them. You can get a fancy degree in Norway with minimal effort, and all the way you will be followed by the dumbest, slowest and worst students. You see, they too are given the "equal opportunity" to get a fancy degree, and in order to make sure they too succeed the Marxists have removed all real challenges on the way. You can pass a course at the university in Norway by reading maybe three or four books. In my English course at the university in Tromsø I only had to translate four pages of text and attend lectures a once or twice each week to pass. I am not kidding!

David B. #fundie news.yahoo.com

[In response to an article that explains what it was that wiped out the dinosaurs.]

Oh give me a break. 1) NONE of these 'scientists' knows with any degree of certainty that the earth is even that old!
2) an asteroid had nothing at all to do with anything like this on this planet. It was a global flood that did in the dinosaurs. It's been proven.
3) the Earth, at best is near 8-9 thousand years old, not millions.
4) HAD an asteroid hit this planet, it would NOT be in the kind of perfect orbit it is that sustains the life it does. It would have knocked us out of that orbit, not left it alone on the exact axis tilt we are on, at the rate of speed we are, on the orbits around the sun that we are.
College educated idiots is what they are...

bcats #fundie techre.vu

Blackfx, Where do I begin! First, I don't really know very many big words, and I'm not that great at math, just passing. The only thing I got going for me is the wisdon God blesses me with! People sometimes ask me, "how do you know God is real? Can you prove it? Here's the thing... I don't prove God is real, HE proves He's real to me! And I know because He ( I won't say talks) communicates with me! He does it in a way that I know it's Him! There is no mistaking it, and I promise I'm not delusional. The reason God can hear 5 million prayers at the same time is because there are Millions of dementions. Since God is a Spirit and He is everywhere, He hears every prayer. BTW, satan is only in one demention and he can only be in one place at a time. But he has fallen angels (demons) by the thousands doing his evil works for him. All that to say this... Millions of dementions are not empty places. There is plenty going on we can't comprehend. God is on such a higher plane than us. As much as we try, We can not expect what makes sense to us to apply to God. In other words, We can not bring Him down to our level! We try to prove things on our level. There are things that are on such a higher level that our level of thinking is like us trying to tell cavemen about jet airplanes or computers, they just can't comprehend any of it. Blackfx, there are scientists who also teach bible prophesy who also study the stars, universe. One of these scientists told me, "God created the whole vast universe 'just to sustain the earth'". That means in our universe, life only exists on earth! Now perhaps (I'm guessing) in another demention, there is other universes where God created life on another planet! I don't know if Jesus had to die for other peoples' sins on other worlds in other dimentions! But I do know this.. Jesus would do it a thousands of times to please the Father! God says in the bible, "Jesus would have come to the earth and die that same death on the cross if YOU were the only person on this planet. HE would have came to die JUST FOR YOU!" wow, so YES, I believe Jesus would die a thousand times for all worlds, if be needed. continued.....

Mark of Zorro #fundie jref.com

To answer the question of whether pedophilia is a sickness or a crime, it is neither. It is popular and common to use the word to mean both or either, but that is complete and total misuse of the concept and the word, and that misuse has a major effect in ensuring the very separate topics are not handled correctly or fairly in the slightest. And I have no hope that the knot of stupidity will ever be untied in my lifetime, because the topics are valued by so many people as topics where they can feel free to rant and not dedicate one ounce of critical thought. The whole thing is dominated by witch hunters and I have been attacked numerous times for daring to address related topics with fairness, justice and logic.

I will explain why it is neither a sickness or a crime. First, it is not a sickness because the only reason it causes mental distress is because of societal intolerance. The only kind of pedophilia I would call a sickness would be where its compulsive and the person just can't help themselves but to molest or rape children practically on sight. But that sort of pedophile is exceedingly rare, pretty much like serial rapists.

Your average run-of-the-mill pedophile, someone who simply prefers pre-pubescents as sex partners, would be perfectly happy if society left them free to date and have sex with who they wanted (as in Polynesian society before the Europeans came, or even American and British societies where the age of consent was ten for hundreds of years). So while some might call their desires sick, it does not mean they are sick. They are no more sick than homosexuals, and it took society and psychology a long time to conclude that homosexuals were not sick, and that delay was simply the product of societal taboo, same as with pedophilia today.

But it has to be said that a pedophile is best defined as someone who PREFERS prepubescents. Just finding yourself attracted to prepubescents does not make one a pedophile, because if that were true, 25 percent to 33 percent of all males would be pedophiles, and the word would lose all meaning.

Next, pedophilia is not a crime because pedophilia is not an act. Only acts can be crimes. Pedophilia is sexual preference, not an act. That is why I use the term "age of consent violation" rather than lump words like pedophilia, statutory rape and rape into one confusing jumble of overlapping concepts. Its just crazy to say that, for example, Mary Kay LeTourneau raped Villi Fualau. She didn't. They had consensual sex and they loved one another. In fact, they are now legally married. Its also crazy to say that Mary Kay is a pedophile. That is for many reasons. First, when they began sexual relations, Villi was not a prepubescent. So there is zero reason to think Mary Kay prefers prepubescents since she is not accused of ever sleeping with one. Next, she never even repeated her "crime" with another person underage, so she is certainly not compulsive in that sense.

Clearly what happened with Mary Kay is that she was in love. But some segments of society don't want to accept that and all others are too weak to speak against it. So Mary Kay gets labeled a pedophile out of hand and zero rational thought behind it.

All that said, I freely admit that Mary Kay is a bit off. I think she is compulsive, but just not toward underage boys. I believe her love is genuine, but allowing herself to get knocked up by a 13 year old, particularly when she has other children to care for, indicates someone without much foresight or self-control. The woman needed mental help for that. Instead, society gave her jail, all because witch hunters have contol of this topic.

So anyway, pedophilia is a sexual preference. A sickness would be compulsive pedophilia marked by a lack of self-control over the urge. A crime would be an age of consent violation, as that would be an act, as much as I think the label of crime is over-blown. Rape is just rape, hardly matters the age of the victim. The term statutory rape is absolute garbage and should be erased from the vernacular. And age of consent violations should be called precisely that, because calling consensual sex between a 15 year old and her 18 year old boyfriend as rape, pedophilia, sexual assault, or statutory rape is grossly and seriously unfair, injust and misleading to the point of me wanting to punch people's lights out.


The concept behind statutory rape is the general consensus from scientists that the brain is not developed enough to know the consequences of your actions at that age.

For starters, no, the concept of statutory rape began in the middle ages and no related legistlation, even modern, is based on any scientific study. Frankly, you just made that up.

Next, how does brain development translate into understanding the consequence of your actions? You cannot induce a baby into a coma, wake him up when he is 25, and expect him to understand the consequences of sticking his finger into a light socket even though his brain has fully developed.

My son is two years old. He understands the consequences of touching a hot stove.

In short, that whole brain development thing is complete red herring. The brain develops yes, but no one knows what effect that has on the decision making process. They only have guesses, and those guesses tend to conform toward agenda.

Further to that, if a child was refused a bicycle on the grounds of safety, how many people would say their parents are over-reacting? Kids ride around on bicycles all the time! Do you think they understand all the consequences, such as being hit by a car? Do you think they understand the dynamics of vehicular traffic well enough to truly be safe? Please! And a bicycle is more dangerous than sex.

How many 16 year olds are driving cars?! They could kill you. You could kill them. But if you loved them and had sex with them, there is some sort of massive danger??

That's subjective, of course, however I tend to believe that the law is more towards the younger end. Just out of personal experience, I have not met too many developed minds under 25.

The age of consent has only risen, and its now well beyond puberty, which is insane and unfair, as sex becomes an imperative after puberty.

I find it preposterous that anyone would consider an early teen to be mentally sound enough for sex with an adult.

So you are saying they are mentally sound enough for sex with eachother? Or are you saying they are raping, traumatizing and manipulating eachother? What do you mean by "mentally sound" anyway? What does it have to do with sex??


It's far too likely that such relationships are ones of manipulation.

Why? Why would you assume that any person's desire for a sexual relationship with a teen is based on manipulation? Do you think the human race is generally bent on manipulation? Do you know of any relationship based on manipulation?

For centuries teens were free to marry and age disparate couples were common. Many of our grandparents and great grandparents were in such a relationship. Now suddenly its wrong and all about manipulation?


I would question the ego of any adult that needs a relationship of manipulation.
So would I. But more than that I question your lack of faith in humanity. I do not believe that most people are out to manipulate the people they are attracted to, at least not maliciously. I do not believe that being minor attracted lends itself to a desire to manipulate maliciously.

In fact, if anything, I would say the tendency would be more toward a desire to protect and care for. But its usually the bad apples that get all the press isn't it? The news is rarely about people in love. So people who read the news tend to think people are evil at heart.

Jon Rappoport #conspiracy jonrappoport.wordpress.com

"Logic students used to learn: you can have a perfectly valid argument, even if your premises, your first assumptions are completely false. Well, if the argument is about politics, your conclusion will be insane. Implementing the conclusion will earn you praise as you destroy lives. What we’re talking about here is a species of mind control.” ](The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

What’s the latest solution to the virus that causes nothing?

Here we go.

Punch line: MIT Technology Review, 2/8/16: “We have the technology to destroy all Zika mosquitoes.”

“A controversial genetic technology able to wipe out the mosquito carrying the Zika virus will be available within months, scientists say.

“The technology, called a 'gene drive,’ was demonstrated only last year in yeast cells, fruit flies, and a species of mosquito that transmits malaria. It uses the gene-snipping technology CRISPR to force a genetic change to spread through a population as it reproduces.

“Three U.S. labs that handle mosquitoes, two in California and one in Virginia, say they are already working toward a gene drive for Aedes aegypti, the type of mosquito blamed for spreading Zika. If deployed, the technology could theoretically drive the species to extinction. (emphasis added)

“’We could have it easily within a year,’ says Anthony James, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Irvine.

“Any release of a gene drive in the wild would be hotly debated by ecologists … But with Zika sowing fear across Latin America and beyond, the technology is likely to get a closer look. Four weeks ago we were trying to justify why we are doing this. Now they’re saying “Get the lead out,”’ says James. It’s absolutely going to change the conversation.’”

No kidding.

Unforeseen consequences? Unpredicted results? Ecological domino effect? Transfer of genes from mosquitoes to humans? Don’t be silly. All is well. Don’t worry, be happy. Move straight ahead with your mouth shut and your eyes closed.

In previous articles, I’ve been reviewing the basics of covert ops, because Zika fits the bill. In this case, take a virus that causes nothing, falsely link it to a tragic condition (babies born with small heads and brain damage), and then slide in the real agendas. I’ve already spelled out some of those plans, which are materializing in front of our eyes.

Gene editing is a towering plan: technocrats don’t like a species — wipe it out.

Build up the threat with lies and obfuscations and false science and wall-to-wall propaganda — then introduce the grand solution.

Depopulation turns out to be easy. Just reconfigure genes. Snip-snip.

The Zika virus isn’t “sowing fear,” as the MIT Review claims. The World Health Organization is inventing that fear. In the 70 years since Zika was discovered, it has, at worst, caused mild transient illness. Now, suddenly, it’s supposed to be creating radical birth defects. Of course, the Brazilian researchers can only find a possible correlation between Zika and the birth defect in 17 cases. Seventeen. Maybe.

But never mind. Wipe out all the mosquitoes that may be carrying Zika. Wipe out the whole species.

And come to think of it, could a case be made that certain human populations are destructive and, well, superfluous? There are people who think so. They also think that, in the onrush of automation and AI, efficient robots could replace those useless populations.

Face it. Despite all the warnings about viruses running out of control and wiping out half the world, the depopulation freaks just haven’t been able to put a dent in the global population. They hope, they pray, but no dice.

However, they have been able to produce one result: planting fear of viruses in humans. They’re adequate to that task. So wake up and smell the cover story.

“In order to destroy the imminent threat of viruses and save the human race, we must turn to cutting-edge technology: gene editing. That’s our ultimate hope.”

Destroy the village in order to save it.

Here are the final paragraphs of the MIT article:

“But a gene drive [gene editing] can also make mosquito populations disappear. The simplest way to do that is to spread a genetic payload that leads to only male offspring. As the 'male-only' instructions spread with each new generation, eventually there would be no females left, says Adelman. His lab discovered the Aedes aegypti gene that determines sex only last spring. The next step will be to link it to a gene drive.

“Kevin Esvelt, a gene-drive researcher at MIT’s Media Lab who has been outspoken about the need to proceed cautiously, also thinks Aedes aegypti eradication should be the goal, so long as the public is onboard and the safety of the idea proved.

“’Technologically, we could probably do it in a couple of years,’ says Esvelt. I’m sure we’ll be able to do it before people can agree if we should.’”

Did you get that last piece? The “cautious” scientist says: what the hell, let’s eliminate a whole species if “the public is onboard” and we prove it’s safe.

How to prove safety before launch? Hard to say. Basically, try it and then we’ll know. Vote for the bill and then you can read what’s in it. Allow a global explosion of GMO crops based on zero science about health and economic consequences, and see what happens. Expand the list of mandated vaccines for children from six to 60 and see what happens. Spray poisonous pesticides all over the planet and see what happens.

Only cranks and conspiracists and rubes and yokels and Luddites and tree huggers and bitter clingers oppose the march of science. How about editing their genes? It would make things so much easier.

Wipe out the mosquitoes. One small step for man, one giant step for mankind. Today, the mosquito, tomorrow the (fill in the blank).

The mind plays tricks:

“Listen, we’re not talking about depopulation in general. Don’t be silly. We’re just going to wipe out one species of very troublesome insect that’s wreaking havoc. Come on. It’s just once. We’ll never do it again. We’re not crazy. We’re researchers. Just give us a chance. Please. We want to launch the experiment and watch it with joy. That’s what we do. Just once. It’s our present under the Xmas tree.”

Why not? All you have to do is forget the giant clue that’s clubbing you on the head:

The virus they’re going to stop causes nothing.

What are they counting on? They’re counting on you not being able to believe the virus causes nothing. They’re betting on that.

They’re betting you’re in the trance they created.

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

EndWelfareToday #fundie freerepublic.com

[The Sun converts hydrogen in to helium and then that gets converted into higher molecules. We know this from spectrophotometer observation of the sun.]

And what data are you using to compare the results found while using the spectrophotometer? Surely you are speculating that between here and the Sun there are no phenomena that could skew your results or perhaps you are speculating that there are no other gases or chemicals or ??? God only knows what that closely resembles the results junk-scientist claim to be fact isn't this correct?

Forgive me but I'm tired of egg-heads stating as fact "theories." Theories are nothing more than glorified hunches and until actual evidence (like a physical sample of the material burning on the Sun collected off the Sun) that's all this "hunch" will be.

I'd appreciate it if people would make their statements in an honest manner instead of trying to brainwash the general populace into supporting causes that are full of hot air.


Jon Rappoport #conspiracy jonrappoport.wordpress.com

2.3% of kids in Los Alamos public schools don’t get vaccinated. Their parents have received exemptions.

That’s the highest rate of non-vaccination in the state.

We’re talking about parents who work at the US Los Alamos Labs.

People with advanced degrees in science.

People who work for the federal government.

You would think the vaccine rate in that environment would stand at 100%, no questions asked.

What do these people know? Why are they opting out of vaccinations for their kids?

Those are hard questions to answer. Very hard.

Hmm, let’s think. For example, have they done some actual research on their own, and have they decided that vaccines are unsafe and ineffective?

No, that couldn’t be it. Of course not. Who in his right mind would come to that conclusion?

It must be this: these sober PhD federal scientists are being driven into fear by wild-eyed anti-vaccine lunatics. Yes. That’s it. Of course.

Spartanfe2 #fundie forums.gametrailers.com

the Bible will never be debunked, and let me give you one little story to prove it. You know the thing that we landed on the moon with? You remember the circular feet on the bottom of the landing gear? Ok, here's what they were for. The scientists at NASA designed those because the moon's surface has accumulated dust on its surface since almost after its existence. The scientists realized that if they landed the lunar whatever on the moon without these special "landing pads" that the ship would sink into the billions of years of moon dust they figured would be on the moon because of the billions of years that supposedly happened because of evolution. However, when the ship landed, only about six inches of moon dust was present on the surface, not 6-12 feet or more that they were expecting. Even using their own data, they figured the amount present could have only been about 6000years worth of moon dust, but out of those 6000 or so years, one day was missing. A Christian working at NASA remembered something he had read in his Bible earlier that week. The passage being referred to talks about a battle that the Israelites were going into, and God told Joshua, the Israelite's leader at the time, that as long as it was sunlight, He would give them power to win the battle. So Joshua asked God to hold the sun in the sky, and God agreed. God held the sun in the sky long enough for the Israelites to win, which was the span of one extra day. Given this story explains the missing day, the facts line up and the Bible is true and will NEVER be debunked.

Tucker Carlson #fundie westernjournalism.com

Tucker Carlson Takes On Bill Nye On Climate Change – ‘You Don’t Know!’

The climate was definitely frosty Monday night as Bill Nye joined Fox News host Tucker Carlson for a heated discussion on the effects of human activity on the earth’s climate.

Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

“The core question from what I can tell is why the change?” Carlson asked. “Is it part of the endless cycle of climate change or is human activity causing it? That seems to be the debate to me, and it seems an open question, not a settled question to what degree human activity is causing that.”

“It’s not an open question,” Nye replied. “It’s a settled question. Human activity is causing climate change.”

Nye threw a jab at Carlson and by extension others who are not believers that human activity drives climate change.

“Climate change denial is denial,” said Nye. “The evidence for climate change is overwhelming, so we’re looking for an explanation for why you guys are having so much trouble with it.”

“I think most people are open to the idea of climate change,” Carlson replied. “The core question, from what I can determine, is why the change?”

The two men disagreed on everything from what Nye said to the words he used in saying it.

“You’re using the language of politics, look you’re not a scientist as you know. You’re a popularizer and that’s fine,” said Carlson at one point.

“I’m using the language of economics,” Nye replied.

“I’m just saying to the extent that you prevent people from having an honest conversation you’re doing a grave disservice to science, don’t you think that?” Carlson asked.

Carlson tried to get Nye to admit that climate change theories are not settled fact.

“Would you like me to read your quote that people who disagree with you ought to potentially go to jail?” Carlson said at one point. “You said that, and I’m just saying actual skepticism baked into science. Should we be encouraging people to ask honest questions which I am doing, and you don’t seem to have the answers to those questions.”

“I gotta disagree with you,” Nye said, “I claim that I do have the answers.”

“You asked how long it would be before — what the climate would be if humans weren’t involved right now, is that right?” Nye later said.

“Yeah, yes, that’s exactly right. At what point would it have changed and I’m just saying you don’t actually know because it’s unknowable so why aren’t you open to questions?” Carlson said.

“So this is how long it takes you to interrupt me, OK? So it takes you quite a bit less than six seconds,” Nye shot back.

Nye then lectured Carlson that the climate of the Earth would be as it was in 1750 if it were not for human activity.

“So much of this you don’t know, you pretend that you know, but you don’t know, and you bully people who ask you questions,” Carlson added. “I’m open-minded, you are not.”

“Carry on, Mr. Carlson,” Nye said at the end of the interview. “I’m sure we will cross paths again.”

Ron Morehead #crackpot #dunning-kruger #fundie #magick ronmorehead.com

Excerpts from my new book,
“The Quantum Bigfoot.”

Excerpts from Chapter 4.

So how does quantum physics relate to spirituality and Bigfoot? In my 45+ years of researching this phenomenon, I’ve heard several very strange reports. A few of these reports, from seemingly heartfelt people, claimed that these creatures disappeared. Is that even possible? Can the laws of quantum physics actually answer that question? Knowing what I know, I’m compelled to delve in and see. The accepted mathematics of quantum physics says that there is more going on than what we see with our three-dimensional eyes.

Scientists now know, through physics, that empty space (Dark Matter, Dark Energy) is not actually empty…however, it is a dimension existing outside of the human light spectrum and the observable vibrational frequency. It seems to me that classical science has restricted itself by its own disciplines and because of those disciplines, will never grasp the big picture. If we use the classical box to try and determine all that exists, we would never begin to understand the cosmos, e.g., the world of spirituality.
The math of quantum physics indicates that there are at least eleven dimensions in existence…possibly innumerable. So, could the laws of quantum physics be the answer to the Bigfoot mysteries? If so, how do we move forward in that possibility?

Excerpts from Chapter 5:

The quantum world of physics also provides an explanation for those folks who believe in God…how divine energy infiltrates the world we live in. If we allow our minds to capture this thought we all win. Many religious people have never before considered quantum physics as the way God works throughout the universe, on this planet, in you and in me.
The quantum laws, which were brought to light in the 19th century, are the same that was taught by Jesus over 2000 years ago. The very Oneness of connection He shows us in John 17:22-23. As humans, we all have it, so why are we not walking on water?

Is there really a possible physical connection that can take us to another realm of reality…something that is not really in woo-woo land, or that can only be found in church on Sunday by bowing our heads or…

Owen Waters #crackpot #ufo #magick goldenageofgaia.com

The ether and etheric energy sound like the same thing. Many people today think they are the same. Yet, they are as distinct and dissimilar as chalk and cheese or, to use a more appropriate comparison, magnetic energy and electric energy.

The confusion arises because the ether – the fabric of the universe – seethes with etheric energy, but that energy is not the medium through which it travels. The medium is the ether or, to use its more traditional spelling, the aether.
<...>
The aether was the name given to a subtle energy field that fills all space and therefore provides a carrier medium for light energy to travel through the great void of space between the Sun and the Earth.

Then, over a century ago, an experiment which attempted to prove the existence of the aether failed. Rather than admit to faulty assumptions, the scientists of the day declared that the aether must not exist.

This conclusion ran counter to common sense. After all, if ocean waves travel through water and sound waves travel through air, then light waves must travel through something.

Meanwhile, the aether was replaced by a new name for the fabric of space: Spacetime. It was a concept that scientists agreed upon as a brilliant substitute, even if it made no sense to anyone else.
<...>
Etheric energy is the life energy that passes from a spiritual healer to another person. It is the vitality or life force contained within air, water and food. It is the mystery energy which powers the endless orbit of electrons in their atoms and planets around their suns. Without it, all life as we know it would quickly wind down to a halt.

The inevitable mastery of etheric energy will lead to far more wide-ranging advances than electricity ever did. Within etheric energy lies the keys to powerful healing modalities, pollution-free energy, and many other valuable innovations. Just the advent of abundant, inexpensive energy will transform the world, eliminating poverty and much of today’s third-world suffering.

raml #fundie rr-bb.com

Before abortions were legal we had a pretty good world. We had people who invented different machines that made life easier and scientists who discovered many new vaccines and new antibiotics there were many great musicians and singers. There was crime too that has always been with us but it wasn't as in your face as it is today. People were nicer and had better manners and most went to church every Sunday. I know I really liked my life then. I remember being so shocked when abortions became legal no one thought it would it was considered so barbaric to kill babies in the womb. The best we could get from our politicians was don't worry your taxes will never go to murder babies so much for their promises today we do pay for them even though we don't want to. Our country really starting changing after that and really changed once those 60's hippies turned into politicians. There was also the new drug culture too. When I was growing up and in my teens I never knew anyone using drugs in fact even in college I didn't at first and then stayed away from anyone later if I found out they were. Things changed slowly at first but these past 15 yrs I have seen massive changes in life styles of the average person. Many no longer even believe there is sin or a moral way to live instead it is live and let live. The last 10 yrs has shoved the gay life styles down our throats and forces us to deal with them even if we don't want to. Now they want to pre select what kind of baby they have. They want to weed out what they consider to be defective or of the wrong sex. I am glad I'm getting older because if the end isn't soon I will be closer to going home by death because I really am having a hard time living in this crazy world we have today. We do still have the power of prayer and I guess I would rather have that than any other type of power.

Bev Jo #fundie bevjoradicallesbian.wordpress.com

Most men pollute the earth for the sheer pleasure of it, not just as the by-product of their industries. Men love to leave their mark as a territorial statement, just as many male animals mark “their” territories by spraying. Of course, human males also mark with urine, as anyone who’s been in a public telephone booth knows. Even when public toilets are available, men leave their smell and mark on objects in ways females don’t.1

Some Lesbians say in anger that men are such “animals,” but that’s insulting to animals. Of course all mammals, including humans, are animals, but men are the least natural of animals. European-descent men in particular seem to have the goal of creating a completely artificial world2 and have left their mark on the earth forever by altering the natural landscape in many places. They kill forests, build their ugly cities, change the land’s shape with their destructive farming and mining methods, and they’re even changing the weather.3 They’ve exterminated countless plants and animals, and their murder of entire species is accelerating. Their radioactive and toxic chemical wastes will contaminate many parts of the earth for hundreds of thousands of years. Plutonium, which is completely man-made, remains deadly for 250,000 years. One sixteenth of a millionth of a gram can kill a person, and men have already made thousands of pounds of it.4 If we didn’t know this was true, it would be hard to believe. Even so, it’s still unimaginable except in nightmares. Man has truly left his mark on his territory and, for the most part, he’s very proud of himself.

People speak of “man’s inhumanity to man,” because the effect on females isn’t even considered. But Man enjoys his power and cruelty. It makes him more of a man. A male nuclear scientist who watched numerous nuclear explosions said what a “rush” it was because, “A male human being likes to see an explosion.”5 (And there are over 50,000 nuclear weapons on earth.)

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.

Next page