scientists would know about it

Prof.Stuart Burgess #fundie answersingenesis.org

When a false god is called upon to solve gaps in knowledge, this is sometimes referred to as “god of the gaps.” For example, if someone did not know that ice is formed when water freezes and proposed that there was an “ice god” that occasionally causes ice to spontaneously appear, then they would be guilty of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation.
Biblical Creation Is Not a God of the Gaps

Atheists have often accused Christians of invoking God to fill in a gap in scientific knowledge. Even the great scientist Isaac Newton has been accused by atheists of using a god-of-the-gaps explanation when he said that the universe reveals evidence of design.1 But creationists like Newton do not believe in a god of gaps, but a God of absolute necessity. Newton recognized that the universe could not exist without the supernatural creative power of an almighty Creator.

Newton and most of the other founding fathers of science could see that the universe can only be fully explained with a combination of natural and supernatural explanations. Creationists only invoke God in origins when a supernatural action is necessary according to the laws of science. For example, according to the conservation of matter and energy (the first law of thermodynamics), it is impossible for a universe to come into existence without the supernatural intervention of an all-powerful being.

The Bible is scientifically correct when it states that divine supernatural power is required to create the universe (Genesis 1:1) and life (Genesis 2:7) and different kinds of creatures (Genesis 1:24). The Bible is also scientifically accurate that divine supernatural power is required to uphold all things (Colossians 1:17). Rather than being accused of superstition, the Bible should be commended for correctly identifying the areas of origins where a supernatural Creator is necessary.
Biblical Creation Is Not Anti-Science

Creationists are sometimes accused of ignoring scientific evidence and being anti-science. But belief in God in no way diminishes zeal for how life works. The great pioneer scientists of the 17th to 20th centuries were inspired by their belief in God. Likewise, modern-day scientists who are biblical creationists find their belief in a purposeful universe to be a help in their work.

Biblical creationists are always eager to learn from real scientific discoveries in every area of science. I personally have designed rockets and spacecraft for the European Space Agency and NASA using the latest scientific knowledge in physics and engineering. I have a patent on a special gearbox that was used on the world’s largest civilian spacecraft and have been awarded three national prizes for the development of technology for spacecraft.

The only “science” that creationists do not use is the speculative science of evolution that has nothing to do with useful operational science. Evolutionary ideas like “monkey-to-man charts” that supposedly chart human evolution are based on pure speculation and not useful to science and technology in any way.
Evolution Is Guilty of God-of-the-Gaps Explanations

Ironically, it is actually evolution that is blatantly guilty of god-of-the-gaps explanations. When secular biology books attempt to explain why creatures or plants have a certain design, the answer is almost always “evolution did it” or “natural selection did it” without any explanation as to how the design feature could evolve by chance.

This is what Dawkins has written about the origin of life:

We have no evidence about what the first step in making life was, but we do know the kind of step it must have been. It must have been whatever it took to get natural selection started . . . by some process as yet unknown.2

The above quote is a classic example of evolution being a god-of-the-gaps explanation. There is a total gap in what evolution can explain about the origin of life, and Dawkins invokes the god of evolution to fill in the gap and asserts that natural selection “must” have gotten started somehow. But natural selection by itself cannot create anything; it can only select from things already created.

When my daughters did a two-year advanced biology course at high school in the UK, the teachers kept saying that “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” for the origin of features like fins and wings and hearts and lungs. Near the end of the course, one of my daughters challenged the teacher and said, “Miss, you keep saying ‘evolution did it,’ but you never actually explain how evolution did it.” The teacher had to confess that my daughter made a valid criticism, and the rest of class agreed.

Since evolution has no credible evidence, biology books use examples of adaptation as supposed examples of evolution. Darwin’s finches and resistant bacteria are held up as classic examples of evolution even though they are not evolution at all. These adaptations involve no new information, but simply a shuffling of existing genes.
Evolution Is Guilty of Being Anti-Science

Ironically, it is evolutionists, not creationists, who are guilty of ignoring scientific evidence.3 Over the last 70 years there have been many thousands of experiments with sophisticated equipment trying to create life in the laboratory from dead matter and energy.4 However, all of these experiments have clearly demonstrated that life cannot come about by chance. Evolutionists have a choice. Either they accept the laboratory experiments or ignore them and put faith in the god of evolution. They have chosen to ignore the evidence and exercise blind faith in chance.

Evolutionary philosophy holds back scientific progress by seeking false evolutionary explanations of origins. If you refuse to believe that a jumbo jet was designed, it will affect the way you investigate the complexity of the aircraft. If you believe that the aircraft evolved by chance, you will not have your mind open to possibilities of coordinated design. When the human genome was discovered to have far more information than expected, evolutionists immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was “junk” DNA because evolution predicts bad design not sophisticated design. However, subsequent work showed that the junk DNA was not junk at all, but highly coordinated information with important functions. That example shows how evolution holds back science.

A few years ago I spoke to a senior professor of microbiology at my university (who is an agnostic) and asked what he thought of the theory of abiogenesis—the theory that life can evolve from dead matter. He said the concept was a type of superstitious black magic. The biology professor had no religious bias and had been taught the dogma of evolution for decades, but he could still see that abiogenesis was not real science but so speculative that it could be called black magic.
The Missing Link: Yet Another Gap in Evolution’s Knowledge

When Darwin published his Origin of Species more than 150 years ago, one of the problems with his theory was that there was a missing link between man and apes. That missing link is still missing today despite extensive searches for fossil evidence of evolution all over the world. Fossil evidence shows that humans have always been strikingly different from apes. Humans walk on two legs, whereas apes walk on all four limbs. Humans have an arched foot, whereas apes have a flexible foot like a hand. Fossil evidence shows that no ape-like creature has ever had an arched foot for walking upright. As with every other aspect of evolution, the evolutionist ignores the gaps and encourages everyone to put their faith in the god of evolution.
Evolution Is Like a Magic Wand

I recently talked with another senior professor of microbiology at my university (another agnostic), and he made a surprisingly frank admission about evolution being a “god of the gaps.” He is not a creationist but like many biologists can see the serious weaknesses in the theory of evolution (although he keeps his views discreet for fear of losing his job). This microbiologist told me that evolution can be described as a “magic wand.” He said that he has noticed how even the experts say “evolution did this” and “natural selection did that” without any actual explanation being given and no demonstration in the laboratory. He said that the evolutionist can explain any aspect of origins by simply waving a magic wand and saying “evolution did it.”
Paying Homage to the God of Evolution

Evolution makes no useful contribution to scientific and technological advances. However, there is an unwritten rule in the modern secular biology community that after completing a scientific study (on a topic not linked to evolution), evolution is mentioned in the write-up as being the explanation for the origin of features of design. In the same way that a religious essay is finished by paying homage to a particular god, so in modern secular biology essays are finished by paying homage to evolution. I have personally worked on biology-related projects where this is exactly what has happened. The end result is that the community blindly believes that the god of evolution must be true.
A Battle of Worldviews

Biblical creation versus evolution is not “faith versus science,” but a worldview that includes God versus a worldview that has excluded God. Evolution is not a scientific theory because it has an unjustified assumption that God was not involved in origins. It is wrong for Christians to be accused of having a hidden religious agenda because biblical creation openly declares its worldview. Ironically, it is actually evolution that hides its atheistic agenda by pretending to be just science. If Isaac Newton and the other great scientists were here today, they would be astonished and saddened at the atheistic bias in modern secular science.
Giving Credit to the Creator

In modern society, a scientist is not allowed to say “God did it” for any aspect of creation, whether it is ultimate origins or the origin of any detailed design feature. The phrase “God did it” is seen as anti-scientific. But if God is the author of creation, then He deserves acknowledgement and credit for His work. And if God is the author of creation, then scientific investigation can only be helped by recognizing God as Creator.

If you refused to believe that a jumbo jet had been designed, then that would be dishonoring to the designers. How much more dishonoring it is when secular science and the secular media refuse to acknowledge that creation has a Designer. Thankfully there are many scientists today who are prepared to acknowledge the Creator despite the risk to their jobs and careers. Such scientists can have the satisfaction of knowing they stand shoulder to shoulder with the greatest scientists that ever lived such as Newton, Kepler, Pascal, Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin, and Flemming. And by the way, the last three great scientists in this list knew of Darwin’s theory and rejected it—a fact that secular science has never publicized.

Megan Fox #fundie rawstory.com

In the video embedded below, fundamentalist Christian home-school mom and conservative cultural critic Megan Fox — no relation to “Transformers” actress Megan Fox — visits the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago and purports to “audit” the museum for its “liberal bias.”

[...]

In the video’s opening moments, Fox is reading a display regarding the evolution of eukaryotes — which she has to ask her camera operator how to pronounce — simple, microscopic animals that first evolved as single-cell life forms, but which became multicellular, beginning the diversification that would lead to complex life forms.

“‘At first, many eukaryotes were single-celled, and many still are today,’” Fox reads from the display before scoffing. “What? If many still are today, then that would support the theory that they have never changed, that they have always been as they are today, not that they started someplace else and then are here, but they were always this and still are today.”

Regarding what paleontologists have said about the first animals to make the transition from life in the water to life on land, Fox says this is impossible. God made the creatures of the water to live in the water and the creatures of the land to live in the land, which is why fish have fins and people have feet.

“It’s not like their fins fell off and they grew feet,” she says. “That’s what they want you to believe, that their fins fell off and then they grew some feet and started walking on the land. This is the dumbest theory I’ve ever heard in my whole life. It’s not good, it’s really not good. It’s bad. It’s very bad. Do you know how complex feet are?”

At one point, Fox argues levelly into the camera that evidence of the existence of dragons exists, but that liberals and scientists are covering it up because “it would throw off their whole time line of what they want you to believe.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. #conspiracy web.archive.org

Deadly Immunity

In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly "embargoed." There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left.

The federal officials and industry representatives had assembled to discuss a disturbing new study that raised alarming questions about the safety of a host of common childhood vaccines administered to infants and young children. According to a CDC epidemiologist named Tom Verstraeten, who had analyzed the agency's massive database containing the medical records of 100,000 children, a mercury-based preservative in the vaccines -- thimerosal -- appeared to be responsible for a dramatic increase in autism and a host of other neurological disorders among children. "I was actually stunned by what I saw," Verstraeten told those assembled at Simpsonwood, citing the staggering number of earlier studies that indicate a link between thimerosal and speech delays, attention-deficit disorder, hyperactivity and autism. Since 1991, when the CDC and the FDA had recommended that three additional vaccines laced with the preservative be given to extremely young infants -- in one case, within hours of birth -- the estimated number of cases of autism had increased fifteenfold, from one in every 2,500 children to one in 166 children.

Even for scientists and doctors accustomed to confronting issues of life and death, the findings were frightening. "You can play with this all you want," Dr. Bill Weil, a consultant for the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the group. The results "are statistically significant." Dr. Richard Johnston, an immunologist and pediatrician from the University of Colorado whose grandson had been born early on the morning of the meeting's first day, was even more alarmed. "My gut feeling?" he said. "Forgive this personal comment -- I do not want my grandson to get a thimerosal-containing vaccine until we know better what is going on."

But instead of taking immediate steps to alert the public and rid the vaccine supply of thimerosal, the officials and executives at Simpsonwood spent most of the next two days discussing how to cover up the damaging data. According to transcripts obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, many at the meeting were concerned about how the damaging revelations about thimerosal would affect the vaccine industry's bottom line.

"We are in a bad position from the standpoint of defending any lawsuits," said Dr. Robert Brent, a pediatrician at the Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children in Delaware. "This will be a resource to our very busy plaintiff attorneys in this country." Dr. Bob Chen, head of vaccine safety for the CDC, expressed relief that "given the sensitivity of the information, we have been able to keep it out of the hands of, let's say, less responsible hands." Dr. John Clements, vaccines advisor at the World Health Organization, declared that "perhaps this study should not have been done at all." He added that "the research results have to be handled," warning that the study "will be taken by others and will be used in other ways beyond the control of this group."

In fact, the government has proved to be far more adept at handling the damage than at protecting children's health. The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Even many conservatives are shocked by the government's effort to cover up the dangers of thimerosal. Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, oversaw a three-year investigation of thimerosal after his grandson was diagnosed with autism. "Thimerosal used as a preservative in vaccines is directly related to the autism epidemic," his House Government Reform Committee concluded in its final report. "This epidemic in all probability may have been prevented or curtailed had the FDA not been asleep at the switch regarding a lack of safety data regarding injected thimerosal, a known neurotoxin." The FDA and other public-health agencies failed to act, the committee added, out of "institutional malfeasance for self protection" and "misplaced protectionism of the pharmaceutical industry."

The story of how government health agencies colluded with Big Pharma to hide the risks of thimerosal from the public is a chilling case study of institutional arrogance, power and greed. I was drawn into the controversy only reluctantly. As an attorney and environmentalist who has spent years working on issues of mercury toxicity, I frequently met mothers of autistic children who were absolutely convinced that their kids had been injured by vaccines. Privately, I was skeptical. I doubted that autism could be blamed on a single source, and I certainly understood the government's need to reassure parents that vaccinations are safe; the eradication of deadly childhood diseases depends on it. I tended to agree with skeptics like Rep. Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California, who criticized his colleagues on the House Government Reform Committee for leaping to conclusions about autism and vaccinations. "Why should we scare people about immunization," Waxman pointed out at one hearing, "until we know the facts?"

It was only after reading the Simpsonwood transcripts, studying the leading scientific research and talking with many of the nation's preeminent authorities on mercury that I became convinced that the link between thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real. Five of my own children are members of the Thimerosal Generation -- those born between 1989 and 2003 -- who received heavy doses of mercury from vaccines. "The elementary grades are overwhelmed with children who have symptoms of neurological or immune-system damage," Patti White, a school nurse, told the House Government Reform Committee in 1999. "Vaccines are supposed to be making us healthier; however, in 25 years of nursing I have never seen so many damaged, sick kids. Something very, very wrong is happening to our children." More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year. The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines in 1931.

Some skeptics dispute that the rise in autism is caused by thimerosal-tainted vaccinations. They argue that the increase is a result of better diagnosis -- a theory that seems questionable at best, given that most of the new cases of autism are clustered within a single generation of children. "If the epidemic is truly an artifact of poor diagnosis," scoffs Dr. Boyd Haley, one of the world's authorities on mercury toxicity, "then where are all the 20-year-old autistics?" Other researchers point out that Americans are exposed to a greater cumulative "load" of mercury than ever before, from contaminated fish to dental fillings, and suggest that thimerosal in vaccines may be only part of a much larger problem. It's a concern that certainly deserves far more attention than it has received -- but it overlooks the fact that the mercury concentrations in vaccines dwarf other sources of exposure to our children.

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

Internal documents reveal that Eli Lilly, which first developed thimerosal, knew from the start that its product could cause damage -- and even death -- in both animals and humans. In 1930, the company tested thimerosal by administering it to 22 patients with terminal meningitis, all of whom died within weeks of being injected -- a fact Lilly didn't bother to report in its study declaring thimerosal safe. In 1935, researchers at another vaccine manufacturer, Pittman-Moore, warned Lilly that its claims about thimerosal's safety "did not check with ours." Half the dogs Pittman injected with thimerosal-based vaccines became sick, leading researchers there to declare the preservative "unsatisfactory as a serum intended for use on dogs."

In the decades that followed, the evidence against thimerosal continued to mount. During the Second World War, when the Department of Defense used the preservative in vaccines on soldiers, it required Lilly to label it "poison." In 1967, a study in Applied Microbiology found that thimerosal killed mice when added to injected vaccines. Four years later, Lilly's own studies discerned that thimerosal was "toxic to tissue cells" in concentrations as low as one part per million -- 100 times weaker than the concentration in a typical vaccine. Even so, the company continued to promote thimerosal as "nontoxic" and also incorporated it into topical disinfectants. In 1977, 10 babies at a Toronto hospital died when an antiseptic preserved with thimerosal was dabbed onto their umbilical cords.

In 1982, the FDA proposed a ban on over-the-counter products that contained thimerosal, and in 1991 the agency considered banning it from animal vaccines. But tragically, that same year, the CDC recommended that infants be injected with a series of mercury-laced vaccines. Newborns would be vaccinated for hepatitis B within 24 hours of birth, and 2-month-old infants would be immunized for haemophilus influenzae B and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis.

The drug industry knew the additional vaccines posed a danger. The same year that the CDC approved the new vaccines, Dr. Maurice Hilleman, one of the fathers of Merck's vaccine programs, warned the company that 6-month-olds who were administered the shots would suffer dangerous exposure to mercury. He recommended that thimerosal be discontinued, "especially when used on infants and children," noting that the industry knew of nontoxic alternatives. "The best way to go," he added, "is to switch to dispensing the actual vaccines without adding preservatives."

For Merck and other drug companies, however, the obstacle was money. Thimerosal enables the pharmaceutical industry to package vaccines in vials that contain multiple doses, which require additional protection because they are more easily contaminated by multiple needle entries. The larger vials cost half as much to produce as smaller, single-dose vials, making it cheaper for international agencies to distribute them to impoverished regions at risk of epidemics. Faced with this "cost consideration," Merck ignored Hilleman's warnings, and government officials continued to push more and more thimerosal-based vaccines for children. Before 1989, American preschoolers received 11 vaccinations -- for polio, diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and measles-mumps-rubella. A decade later, thanks to federal recommendations, children were receiving a total of 22 immunizations by the time they reached first grade.

As the number of vaccines increased, the rate of autism among children exploded. During the 1990s, 40 million children were injected with thimerosal-based vaccines, receiving unprecedented levels of mercury during a period critical for brain development. Despite the well-documented dangers of thimerosal, it appears that no one bothered to add up the cumulative dose of mercury that children would receive from the mandated vaccines. "What took the FDA so long to do the calculations?" Peter Patriarca, director of viral products for the agency, asked in an e-mail to the CDC in 1999. "Why didn't CDC and the advisory bodies do these calculations when they rapidly expanded the childhood immunization schedule?"

But by that time, the damage was done. Infants who received all their vaccines, plus boosters, by the age of six months were being injected with a total of 187 micrograms of ethylmercury -- a level 40 percent greater than the EPA's limit for daily exposure to methylmercury, a related neurotoxin. Although the vaccine industry insists that ethylmercury poses little danger because it breaks down rapidly and is removed by the body, several studies -- including one published in April by the National Institutes of Health -- suggest that ethylmercury is actually more toxic to developing brains and stays in the brain longer than methylmercury. Under the expanded schedule of vaccinations, multiple shots were often administered on a single day: At two months, when the infant brain is still at a critical stage of development, children routinely received three innoculations that delivered 99 times the approved limit of mercury.

Officials responsible for childhood immunizations insist that the additional vaccines were necessary to protect infants from disease and that thimerosal is still essential in developing nations, which, they often claim, cannot afford the single-dose vials that don't require a preservative. Dr. Paul Offit, one of CDC's top vaccine advisors, told me, "I think if we really have an influenza pandemic -- and certainly we will in the next 20 years, because we always do -- there's no way on God's earth that we immunize 280 million people with single-dose vials. There has to be multidose vials."

But while public-health officials may have been well-intentioned, many of those on the CDC advisory committee who backed the additional vaccines had close ties to the industry. Dr. Sam Katz, the committee's chair, was a paid consultant for most of the major vaccine makers and was part of a team that developed the measles vaccine and brought it to licensure in 1963. Dr. Neal Halsey, another committee member, worked as a researcher for the vaccine companies and received honoraria from Abbott Labs for his research on the hepatitis B vaccine.

Indeed, in the tight circle of scientists who work on vaccines, such conflicts of interest are common. Rep. Burton says that the CDC "routinely allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on intellectual advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines," even though they have "interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be providing unbiased oversight." The House Government Reform Committee discovered that four of the eight CDC advisors who approved guidelines for a rotavirus vaccine "had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine."

Offit, who shares a patent on one of the vaccines, acknowledged to me that he "would make money" if his vote eventually leads to a marketable product. But he dismissed my suggestion that a scientist's direct financial stake in CDC approval might bias his judgment. "It provides no conflict for me," he insists. "I have simply been informed by the process, not corrupted by it. When I sat around that table, my sole intent was trying to make recommendations that best benefited the children in this country. It's offensive to say that physicians and public-health people are in the pocket of industry and thus are making decisions that they know are unsafe for children. It's just not the way it works."

Other vaccine scientists and regulators gave me similar assurances. Like Offit, they view themselves as enlightened guardians of children's health, proud of their "partnerships" with pharmaceutical companies, immune to the seductions of personal profit, besieged by irrational activists whose anti-vaccine campaigns are endangering children's health. They are often resentful of questioning. "Science," says Offit, "is best left to scientists."

Still, some government officials were alarmed by the apparent conflicts of interest. In his e-mail to CDC administrators in 1999, Paul Patriarca of the FDA blasted federal regulators for failing to adequately scrutinize the danger posed by the added baby vaccines. "I'm not sure there will be an easy way out of the potential perception that the FDA, CDC and immunization-policy bodies may have been asleep at the switch re: thimerosal until now," Patriarca wrote. The close ties between regulatory officials and the pharmaceutical industry, he added, "will also raise questions about various advisory bodies regarding aggressive recommendations for use" of thimerosal in child vaccines.

If federal regulators and government scientists failed to grasp the potential risks of thimerosal over the years, no one could claim ignorance after the secret meeting at Simpsonwood. But rather than conduct more studies to test the link to autism and other forms of brain damage, the CDC placed politics over science. The agency turned its database on childhood vaccines -- which had been developed largely at taxpayer expense -- over to a private agency, America's Health Insurance Plans, ensuring that it could not be used for additional research. It also instructed the Institute of Medicine, an advisory organization that is part of the National Academy of Sciences, to produce a study debunking the link between thimerosal and brain disorders. The CDC "wants us to declare, well, that these things are pretty safe," Dr. Marie McCormick, who chaired the IOM's Immunization Safety Review Committee, told her fellow researchers when they first met in January 2001. "We are not ever going to come down that [autism] is a true side effect" of thimerosal exposure. According to transcripts of the meeting, the committee's chief staffer, Kathleen Stratton, predicted that the IOM would conclude that the evidence was "inadequate to accept or reject a causal relation" between thimerosal and autism. That, she added, was the result "Walt wants" -- a reference to Dr. Walter Orenstein, director of the National Immunization Program for the CDC.

For those who had devoted their lives to promoting vaccination, the revelations about thimerosal threatened to undermine everything they had worked for. "We've got a dragon by the tail here," said Dr. Michael Kaback, another committee member. "The more negative that [our] presentation is, the less likely people are to use vaccination, immunization -- and we know what the results of that will be. We are kind of caught in a trap. How we work our way out of the trap, I think is the charge."

Even in public, federal officials made it clear that their primary goal in studying thimerosal was to dispel doubts about vaccines. "Four current studies are taking place to rule out the proposed link between autism and thimerosal," Dr. Gordon Douglas, then-director of strategic planning for vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health, assured a Princeton University gathering in May 2001. "In order to undo the harmful effects of research claiming to link the [measles] vaccine to an elevated risk of autism, we need to conduct and publicize additional studies to assure parents of safety." Douglas formerly served as president of vaccinations for Merck, where he ignored warnings about thimerosal's risks.

In May of last year, the Institute of Medicine issued its final report. Its conclusion: There is no proven link between autism and thimerosal in vaccines. Rather than reviewing the large body of literature describing the toxicity of thimerosal, the report relied on four disastrously flawed epidemiological studies examining European countries, where children received much smaller doses of thimerosal than American kids. It also cited a new version of the Verstraeten study, published in the journal Pediatrics, that had been reworked to reduce the link between thimerosal and autism. The new study included children too young to have been diagnosed with autism and overlooked others who showed signs of the disease. The IOM declared the case closed and -- in a startling position for a scientific body -- recommended that no further research be conducted.

The report may have satisfied the CDC, but it convinced no one. Rep. David Weldon, a Republican physician from Florida who serves on the House Government Reform Committee, attacked the Institute of Medicine, saying it relied on a handful of studies that were "fatally flawed" by "poor design" and failed to represent "all the available scientific and medical research." CDC officials are not interested in an honest search for the truth, Weldon told me, because "an association between vaccines and autism would force them to admit that their policies irreparably damaged thousands of children. Who would want to make that conclusion about themselves?"

Under pressure from Congress and parents, the Institute of Medicine convened another panel to address continuing concerns about the Vaccine Safety Datalink data-sharing program. In February, the new panel, composed of different scientists, criticized the way the VSD had been used to study vaccine safety, and urged the CDC to make its vaccine database available to the public.

So far, though, only two scientists have managed to gain access. Dr. Mark Geier, president of the Genetics Center of America, and his son, David, spent a year battling to obtain the medical records from the CDC. Since August 2002, when members of Congress pressured the agency to turn over the data, the Geiers have completed six studies that demonstrate a powerful correlation between thimerosal and neurological damage in children. One study, which compares the cumulative dose of mercury received by children born between 1981 and 1985 with those born between 1990 and 1996, found a "very significant relationship" between autism and vaccines. Another study of educational performance found that kids who received higher doses of thimerosal in vaccines were nearly three times as likely to be diagnosed with autism and more than three times as likely to suffer from speech disorders and mental retardation. Another soon-to-be-published study shows that autism rates are in decline following the recent elimination of thimerosal from most vaccines.

As the federal government worked to prevent scientists from studying vaccines, others have stepped in to study the link to autism. In April, reporter Dan Olmsted of UPI undertook one of the more interesting studies himself. Searching for children who had not been exposed to mercury in vaccines -- the kind of population that scientists typically use as a "control" in experiments -- Olmsted scoured the Amish of Lancaster County, Penn., who refuse to immunize their infants. Given the national rate of autism, Olmsted calculated that there should be 130 autistics among the Amish. He found only four. One had been exposed to high levels of mercury from a power plant. The other three -- including one child adopted from outside the Amish community -- had received their vaccines.

At the state level, many officials have also conducted in-depth reviews of thimerosal. While the Institute of Medicine was busy whitewashing the risks, the Iowa Legislature was carefully combing through all of the available scientific and biological data. "After three years of review, I became convinced there was sufficient credible research to show a link between mercury and the increased incidences in autism," state Sen. Ken Veenstra, a Republican who oversaw the investigation, told the magazine Byronchild earlier this year. "The fact that Iowa's 700 percent increase in autism began in the 1990s, right after more and more vaccines were added to the children's vaccine schedules, is solid evidence alone." Last year, Iowa became the first state to ban mercury in vaccines, followed by California. Similar bans are now under consideration in 32 other states.

But instead of following suit, the FDA continues to allow manufacturers to include thimerosal in scores of over-the-counter medications as well as steroids and injected collagen. Even more alarming, the government continues to ship vaccines preserved with thimerosal to developing countries -- some of which are now experiencing a sudden explosion in autism rates. In China, where the disease was virtually unknown prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug manufacturers in 1999, news reports indicate that there are now more than 1.8 million autistics. Although reliable numbers are hard to come by, autistic disorders also appear to be soaring in India, Argentina, Nicaragua and other developing countries that are now using thimerosal-laced vaccines. The World Health Organization continues to insist thimerosal is safe, but it promises to keep the possibility that it is linked to neurological disorders "under review."

I devoted time to study this issue because I believe that this is a moral crisis that must be addressed. If, as the evidence suggests, our public-health authorities knowingly allowed the pharmaceutical industry to poison an entire generation of American children, their actions arguably constitute one of the biggest scandals in the annals of American medicine. "The CDC is guilty of incompetence and gross negligence," says Mark Blaxill, vice president of Safe Minds, a nonprofit organization concerned about the role of mercury in medicines. "The damage caused by vaccine exposure is massive. It's bigger than asbestos, bigger than tobacco, bigger than anything you've ever seen." It's hard to calculate the damage to our country -- and to the international efforts to eradicate epidemic diseases -- if Third World nations come to believe that America's most heralded foreign-aid initiative is poisoning their children. It's not difficult to predict how this scenario will be interpreted by America's enemies abroad. The scientists and researchers -- many of them sincere, even idealistic -- who are participating in efforts to hide the science on thimerosal claim that they are trying to advance the lofty goal of protecting children in developing nations from disease pandemics. They are badly misguided. Their failure to come clean on thimerosal will come back horribly to haunt our country and the world's poorest populations.

Danny Faulkner & Janet Mefferd #fundie rightwingwatch.org

The Creationist group Answers In Genesis, which was already incensed about Neil deGrasse Tyson’s revival of Cosmos, is now complaining that the show lacks scientific balance because it fails to provide airtime for evolution deniers.

Danny Faulkner of Answers In Genesis and the Creation Museum appeared on The Janet Mefferd Show yesterday to criticize Cosmos for not providing airtime for Creationism adherents. When Mefferd asked if Cosmos will “ever give a Creationist any time,” Faulkner responded by lamenting that “Creationists aren’t even on the radar screen for them, they wouldn’t even consider us plausible at all.”

Mefferd agreed that the show isn’t being very fair and balanced: “Boy, but when you have so many scientists who simply do not accept Darwinian evolution it seems to me that that might be something to throw in there, you know, the old, ‘some scientists say this, others disagree and think this,’ but that’s not even allowed.”

“Consideration of special Creation is definitely not open for discussion it would seem,” Faulkner added.

Arguing that evolution, the foundation of modern biology, and one of many theological beliefs on human creation are simply “two sides” that merit competing time on a science program is much like the equally absurd argument Creationists use when trying to undermine the teaching of evolution in public schools.

MBC H #fundie answers.yahoo.com

NO! not if you believe in MacroEvolution!
Microevolution is the Variation WITHIN genetic boundaries; even our own children have different variations in eye, hair and skin color - a better name for microevolution would be micro variation!
However, it is NOT evolution at all because the genetic material and variations already exist.
A worm cannot turn into an eagle! That would be true evolution or what is more commonly known as macroevolution.
When we hear about a frog turning into a prince we KNOW that’s a fairytale – yet when scientists seeking only to be right, not absolute truth, tell us that a salamander turned into a human millions or billions of years ago – we call that Macro evolutionary science instead of Science fiction, which is the more accurate term!
Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism invented by the mind of man!

Toidiedud #fundie forums2.battleon.com

God Made Us and he judges us...after your name is blotted out on the book of life you go to hell unless you are in the lambs book of life then heaven...book of life is the record of every human being and your name is blotted out when you die...the lambs book however is every person who beleives in him and is born again...


I dont see how any sane person would belive in anything else...I dont know if this is off topic but someone is bound to bring these up...

Evolution-No proof whatsoever...microevolution and adaptaion sure but for one species into another?No...it goes against the scientific method...they arnt observing it and they arnt following the scientific method when they "Study" evolution and then of coirse the very idea itself is just stupid...it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than Christ...

The Big Bang-Um...again goes against scientific methods AND a law...Energy cannot be created nor destroyed right?So um...how does nothing ecplode into the universe?It dosnt it goes against everything science thinks...so The Big Bang theory is for idiots...

And just a tidbit...I dont remember the names but two of the worlds best scientists two of the smartest people were asked where we came from...heres their answers...

Aliens...yeah...

And Organisms piggybacking on crystals...he never would say anything else...

Thats from a Documentary...I forget its name...Ill think of it...

Oh and this is all from a college proffesor I know...he went in to much more detail though...

TheRavenMother #conspiracy indigosociety.com

Scientists are eager to do a new project in regards to the moon.
They want to mount lots of mirrors onto it, claiming that it would be great for many things— one main thing would be, to make it like a giant flashlight to earth at night by reflecting the sun to us – meaning, in affect, possibly 24 hour sunlight— now, I don’t know about you— but to me, that seems like a real dumb ass idea.

Because I see that as a problem to add towards global warming— however, scientists claim it will have the reverse effect, I don’t see how!

The other good idea about this, according to scientists is, by using it as a flashlight to communicate with extraterrestrials, via a kind of flashlight Morse code.
So, this means they know there is life out there, obviously?

But what concerns me is the fact they want to put onto the mirrors flappable photovoltaic cells, which means that the mirrors will beam, microwaves back to earth!

I don’t know about you, but this all doesn’t sound like a great idea, in fact it sounds like the quickest way to kill our planet off— what are your views?

Michael & Stephanie Relfe #conspiracy metatech.org

The Lacerta Files

Interview with a Reptilian

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: Please ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follower #fundie teens4christ.org

[What I was saying was that Einstein was not a believer in Christianity, so Christians should probably avoid using Einstein to support their religious beliefs. I'm pretty sure if I didn't say anything, Follower would try to claim Einstein for our team.]

Absolutely not. I know of Einstein's evil quotes, and as far as I'm concerned, he's a great example of a scientist. I don't want those kind of people on our side. The less "education", the better.

esther #fundie teens4christ.org

Yeah, they [scientists] think theyre so smart. Like they've got the whole world figured out. Sometimes I think the world would be better off if we ignored science altogether. Obviously they dont know what theyre talking about if they dont think God ever existed.

GayShaw #conspiracy imdb.com

[On the news that the new "Godzilla" movie will be related to Global Warming]

I hope this is not true. So-called anthropogenic global warming is a U.N. scam to bring in a whole new set of taxes called carbon taxes. It is junk science driven by an agenda to bring in a global governing body run by The U.N., CFR, IMF, World Bank, etc.

Did you know that several of the top global warming climate scientists got caught in exposed emails talking about how the warming had stopped in the late 90's, and discussing how they would "hide the decline" in temperatures from the public?

Google Climate Gate or Agenda 21 for more info. You won't get it from the main stream media.

Still look forward to the movie, but I hope it doesn't go pushing the BS global warming agenda.

Garvan Ellison #fundie garvanellison.blogspot.com

I would ask that all Christian posters please remember Dr Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, in their prayers.

For those of you who do not know, 'Dr Dino' was a creation scientist who has paid with his liberty for preaching the truth in the supposedly 'free' USA. In spite of his incarceration, he continues to fight the good fight here on his blog.

The 'official' version of events presented by the establishment is that Dr Hovind was indicted because he tried to defraud the IRS and refused to pay tax. For some reason, the IRS decided that Doc Hovind's group was not a religious organisation and thus demanded every last penny he had. This wasn't a lot - since both Kent and his wife did not take a salary and none of the volunteers who helped them were employees. NO OTHER CHURCH HAS BEEN TREATED LIKE THIS!!!

So why did they go for Kent? It all boils down to an offer he made in 1990, and which still stands. $250,000 to ANYONE who can present ANY empirical evidence for evolution. And, despite all the atheist rantings that evolution was a 'fact', NOT ONE SCIENTIST was able to take up this challenge.

The Truth is that Doc Hovind had the establishment corned: the TRUTH was about to come out. The response was an age-old one - DISCREDIT the servant of God through false allegations and lies. Ultimately the allegations themselves were not sufficient, so they threw him in prison.

BUT He will not be silenced, and his wonderful work is still being continued by his family and friends.

hisarcher19 #homophobia hisarcher19.deviantart.com

As the title implies, I'm going to look at the "gay-rights" arguments that really scrape the bottom of the barrel. I hope that whatever side of the debate your on, you can agree that these arguments don't hold water. To emphasize this, I'm going to try to sound as neutral as possible.

1. Separation of Church and State is in the Constitution. So you can't use Christian morality to outlaw same-sex marriage.

This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what Separation of Church and State is. The phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution. It was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church that was worried Jefferson would force his Deism on the churches. Jefferson assured them the first amendment would protect their freedom. So the question is, what does the first amendment do? It prevents the government from establishing a state religion. Outlawing same-sex marriage does not establish a religion. It doesn't force anyone to become a Christian anymore than it forces them to be Jewish, Muslim, Mormon or any other faith that sees homosexuality as sin. Also, it doesn't prevent anyone from using their religion to motivate their politics. If you truly believe your religion, it should influence your decisions or you should consider if you truly believe it or not. You want real Separation of Church and State? How about having the government butt out of marriage entirely since it finds its origin in religion and different religions have different views of marriage anyway (e.g. Islam and some forms of Mormonism permit polygamy.)

2. The way things are, the LGBT community are 2nd class citizens.

No they aren't. They have the same rights everyone else does. Including marriage. To elaborate, a homosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex. And a heterosexual can marry someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex. We have equal rights. The LGBT goal would make more sense if they asked for a new right since the equality they ask for already exist.

3. It's unconstitutional to out-law same-sex marriage since marriage is a right.

Marriage is not a right, it's a privilege. If you read the Constitution you'd know that. And again, my previous points stand.

4. Homosexuality is accepted by the majority as normal and thus, no longer immoral.

First off, I doubt the claim at the majority support it since most states ban same-sex marriage and (as of this writing) only 17 states allow it. Last I checked, 17 out of 50 was not a majority. Second, even if that was true, to say that the population decides right and wrong is insane at best and dangerous at worst. There was a time when slavery was considered acceptable by many. Years before even that it was common for people to rape the women of the country they conquered. Was any of this right? (Rhetorical question. If you answer "yes", please see a therapist.) To quote Leo Tolstoy:
Wrong doesn't cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.-Leo Tolstoy
5. People are born homosexual, so it would be wrong to not allow them what they want.

Some scientists speculate the same thing about alcoholics, drug-addicts and sociopaths. Does that make what they do right? (Again, a rhetorical question.) If this were true, these conditions would be more like diseases. But as someone I know (who was an alcoholic) put it, what he did wasn't totally involuntary. He chose to get drunk just as he chose to stop and ultimately kick alcoholic beverages out of his life all together. Just as people have left the LGBT lifestyle.

6. What about infertile couples? They can't have children either and your Bible says marriage is for having babies.

This argument is a reply to oft-quoted argument against same-sex marriage by pointing out that same-sex couples can't naturally produce a child. There counterpoint, however, is a strawman. This may shock some people, but the Bible says sex (in wedlock) was not only for child rearing but for pleasure. It was designed to be a beautiful experience... then humanity ruined it like everything else. Proof? Song of Songs. :iconnuffsaidplz: Besides, homosexual behavior causes serious health problem. HIV being only a tip of the ice-berg. An infertile couple is still natural and, as long as they are being responsible and faithful, they won't contract STDs.

7. People used religion (i.e. Christianity) to justify not letting interracial couples marriage.

Those people were also stupid. The Bible is shown to be very anti-racist, including having interracial couples (like Ruth and Boaz.) And another thing, PLEASE stop equating what you do to the way other people look. It's nonsensical at best and insensitive at worst.
For more info, click here: townhall.com/columnists/michae—
8. If you don't support the LGBT, you're homophobic!

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.- Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride."
Furthermore, if someone was in a lifestyle that was harmful wouldn't you try to convince them out of it? We do this with alcoholics, why not homosexuals? Especially since homosexual behavior brings damage that makes alcoholic damage look miniscule. Frankly, I could argue I love and care for them more than those who try to push for this behavior.

9. Legalizing gay marriage won't affect anyone.

I think the redefinition of mankind's oldest and most important institution would affect everyone. Also, some LGBT advocates agree it is to affect everyone as to make people stop viewing homosexuality negatively. Now I know some of you are saying, "Not THAT kind of effect." Sinful acts never just affect one or two people, it often affects whole communities and even countries. Achan's sin in Joshua 7, and David's sin in 2 Samuel 24 are a couple good examples. As for some modern examples, Spain and Argentina have greatly deteriorated the family structure ever since same-sex marriage was allowed. In the Netherlands, there is a decline in marriage rates even though same-sex marriage is allowed. To help explain my point (on this topic and others), I recommend the book "Homosexuality ad the Truth of Politics." Now before you shoot this down as biased, there are LGBT advocates that agree with this book. In fact, the leader of H.O.P.E. (Homosexuals Oppose Pride Extremism) wishes that this book was required reading in schools!

Also, this journal explains the problems of same-sex parenting.


Any thoughts? Do you agree? If not, why? Did I miss any? Leave your thoughts in the comments and please act like an adult.

Hunter Lewis #conspiracy mises.org

CDC, PHARMA, And Mainstream Media On The Same Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Recent Cover Up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

metmom #fundie freerepublic.com

And tell the GLBT community here to stop it’s immoral, life threatening behavior.

The people in Africa are bearing the consequences of that irresponsible behavior. The AIDS/HIV research isn’t about them anyway. It’s a liberal PC push to allow gays to continue in their lifestyle without bearing the consequences of their behavior.

Most of the rationale behind the funding for this isn’t to help the victims in Africa and it will likely be decades before any over there even have hope of seeing it. That’s why we’re simply calling it as we see it. It’s about promoting a consequence-free homosexual and drug lifestyle.

It’s nobody else’s fault the disease is still around because a cure hasn’t been found but that of the gay and drug using community. They are the ones responsible for it. They are the ones who can stop it dead in it’s tracks and they are responsible to do so. It’s reprehensible that they would continue behavior that they know will result in the deaths of others.

It’s wrong to continue that, demand funding, and then lay the deaths of innocents at the feet of scientists and researchers for something they failed to do.

Stephenson Billings #fundie #conspiracy harddawn.com

With the scourges of typhus, malaria and dengue fever raging through communities in the 1940s, the United States government did a curious thing. They loaded up airplanes with the chemical DDT and commenced aerial spraying to wipe out the insects spreading these diseases. At first, the technology behind such dispersals was crude, but over time it became sophisticated and efficient. This public usage of DDT, both in the air and on the streets of our cities, continued into the 1950s. In the 1960s, sky dusting advanced considerably. The chief reason was the widespread use of Agent LNX (“Agent Orange”) during the war in Vietnam. Agent Orange was employed as an herbicide and defoliant meant to reduce the agricultural resources of the communist Vietnamese. As we know today, both DDT and Agent Orange had devastating affects on human populations.

For those of us who grew up in farming communities, this technology is not an abstract concept. Crop dusting is a common site in rural America. It’s an essential way to spread seed and pesticide. We encounter it often in the planting season. Many other Americans unwittingly witness a very different application of the idea of crop dusting on a nearly daily basis. This is known as “chemtrails.”

Chemtrails are the aerial spraying trails left by large aircraft, both commercial and federal, that are not associated with farming. Millions of images of these sky dispersals can be found on the internet. You will see thick plumes of dense whiteness ejected from the backs of jetliners with purposeful squirts. They are not continuous, but rather sporadic when planes reach a particular altitude. When such substances are released, they become hyper-heated in the atmosphere to attain a canopy-like distribution above targeted regions. Leaked images of these chemical containers in the bodies of large-sized aircraft regularly surface on the internet, underscoring the veracity of these claims.

The American public has never quite grasped the purpose of all this spraying. Officials in the Obama administration have long refused to even talk about these efforts, though some have suggested that super spy Edward Snowden may leak details of this widespread project if forced against the wall by the international community. As we have seen with other government programs, the ultimate result here is not likely to be a beneficial one.

In various online communities there has been vigorous debate about what chemtrails actually mean. Some believe they spread barium as a highly-sensitive electromagnetic missile defense system. Others postulate they contain compounds that attack our blood cells and ultimately reduce populations, much like the fluoridation of our water supplies. The rise in disease and other unexplained medical phenomena does strangely coincide with the popularization of chemtrails.

Yet another theory that has been gaining traction and deserves serious consideration is that America’s massive science-industrial complex is attempting a most dangerous experiment. Since Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, we have seen a grave movement towards science-based strategic thinking in all forms of national policy. Whole swathes of government have been taken over by academic PhDs with an intense obsession with scientism. From the National Science Board to the Department of Education, from NASA to the National Institute of Standards, a powerful cadre of elite intellectuals is seizing control. A common thread amongst these activist bureaucrats is a love of science over God.

Links to Radical Atheist Movement

President George W. Bush famously fought against the scientists entrenched in his administration. At many points they promoted evolution “theory” and “global warming” over good old-fashioned common sense. They tried to uproot Christianity in our schools through activist judges. And while President Bush fought the good fight, he ultimately did not win the battle. The long line of anti-theists ruling the inner halls of power since Lyndon Johnson remained in control.

So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist’s next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus’s very Heavenly Agents of Love.

Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

Will Atheistic Science Annihilate Love and Prayer?

As secret atheist scientists in government pursue their goals of undermining Jesus in America, it only stands to reason that they would take their battle to the skies. The aerial dogfight is likely a vicious one. Who knows what advances they have made since the days of DDT and Agent Orange. Yet fight on they do, every single day! Our heavens are coated in a thick aerosol haze of spiritual hate and this nation’s faith is sinking.

In our lifetime, the United States has been bombarded by supposedly “natural” disasters and terrorist attacks. Religion is at an all time low, while sodomy and perversion are at epic heights. Clearly the overlap of these symptoms with the widespread usage of chemtrails is more than just a coincidence. Clearly the astonishing rise of militant atheism in America must factor in. So what is the ultimate answer to the mystery of the chemtrails? Have Heaven’s angels forsaken us for such an offensive maneuver? Or are they actually losing, dying off in plumes of jetliner butchery? Surely America’s atheists in the great halls of government are asking these very same questions.

speakout #fundie christianforums.com

You are walking for a nice leisurely walk in your local mall area you are approached by two eighteen year olds in white shirts calling themselves elders, seventeen year old elders? Welcome to the surreal world of Mormons but you might ask what has this going to do with evolution? Do you not know that the Church Latter Days Saints are evolutionists?
But at least I would credit them with telling the world exactly what they believe and having worked out what our friends the pseudo scientist have not yet thought about: they want to be gods.

Now let me take this opportunity to ask my friends evolutionist, if you sincerely believe in the evolutionist theory, what will you then evolve into? You cannot surely become a chimp , you have to be more refined than you are currently.

You might need to come to your senses and admit that evolution is a mystery religion which advocates that godhood is in sight, men can evolve into a higher being. There you are: Evolution has joined the ranks of mystery religion and is now teaching Freemasonic philosophy and Catholism.

Gary Sechler, Translator #fundie quora.com

What are things a Christian can tell an atheist to make them doubt their belief?

Well to be truthful, absolutely nothing, They are intelligent people, who are temporarily insane on this one point of wisdom, but God is at work in the minds of all people, and one day when God has prepared them to accept the truth, a light will go on, and the light of God will brighten their life forever. Their biggest problem is getting past the false concept that science is always right, and religion is always wrong. I think the easiest way to get them to conceive of a brighter mind in the universe than theirs is this, Genesis 1, 3,000 years ago God sat down a common shepherd, Moses and told him how the universe was created, and he wrote it down. It still stands as the only logical explanation of the creation of the universe, but it suffers because of ignorant translators. No one questions the order of life coming into this world, They question the existence of a God and His ability to do it. They question the time reported for Him to do it in. that is where the ignorant translators come in. the Hebrew word translated as day, actually originally meant a period of time, not a set 24 hour period, so it could have been millions of years. He didn’t mention dinosaurs, but he was writing for people 3,000 years ago and there were no dinosaurs 3,000 years ago, if he had mentioned it no one would have believed him until about 200 years ago. That’s it now if you are dense enough to think a common shepherd could have sat down and come up with that on his own, you deserve to be an insane atheist. Now let me prove Noah’s flood and the tower of Babbel

I don’t know of any scientists who believe there was ever a world wide flood as described in Genesis, and yet there is historical proof that there was one, and it was world wide. I don’t know of any scientist who believes the tower of Babel was the cause of all the different languages in the world, but again, there is historical proof, which is contained in the proof of the flood, that something like the tower of Babel happened. Nothing happens in this world unless God causes it or allows it to happen.

1. If there was a world wide flood, and if Noah had 3 sons, we would expect to find, in history, 3 separate stories of this flood that would be similar, but different, that came down through the following generations, one story for each son and his children. These stories, would be major stories that were recorded long before Moses wrote Genesis, possibly by thousands of years.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

2. If the Tower of Babel story is true, The names of Noah and his children and other principle characters, would be different.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

3. If this was a true world wide event, we would find similar stories in almost every culture in the world.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

4. If the Tower of Babel story is true, none of these stories would contain the same names of any character in the Bible story.

Historically this is exactly what we find.

Conclusion: since all of the above is true, this proves the existence of God, proves the happening of a world wide flood, and proves an event that can be equated with the Tower of Babel story where all the languages of the world were changed from an original language.

Noah’s name in the 3 major stories handed down by his three sons was, Atrahasis, Utnapishtim, and Deucalion. All of these stories are known to have been recorded prior to the writing of Genesis.

In addition to these three major stories, there are over 500 other stories of a world wide flood, that have been found through out the world.

All of these stories can be found on the internet, by doing a search for “flood traditions.”

Final conclusion: there was a world wide flood, God exists, The Tower of Babel, happened.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

THE TWIN TOWERS DEMOLITION WAS THE U.S. GUNPOWDER PLOT!!

SIR EVERARD DIGBY WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL 13 JESUIT CONSPIRATORS,
AND HIS DESCENDANT, HILLARY DIGBY CHURCHILL CLINTON, WAS ONE
OF THE MAIN CONSPIRATORS IN THE U.S. GUNPOWDER PLOT!!

The Holy Bible predicted that Satan would be loosed from his prison after 1,000 years of the Christian era had expired:

Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and he will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea (Apocalypse 20:7).

It doesn't specify how long after that milestone the dreadful event would occur, but the Babylonian Captivity of Britannia occurred just 66 years after the expiration of the first millennium. Remarkably, when that prophecy was written about 90 AD, the earth was not a globe . . . because, even "scientists" know that a globe is ROUND, and does not have CORNERS!!

The Twin Towers were built by a "Mickey Mouse" construction company named the Karl Koch Erecting Company. The Towers were built like BIRDCAGES, with absolutely no reinforcements in the center.

The Twin Towers were demolished by explosives, and a small nuclear weapon hidden in the basement.

It was Pearl Harbor II, with the Pentagon providing a convenient excuse to invade Iraq, Syria, and Crimea.

The birdcage construction of the Twin Towers made them very easy to demolish. Old buildings are usually demolished by explosives perfectly timed to prevent damage to surrounding buildings.

Another reason for 9/11 was to get rid of a fearless reporter named Barbara Olsen.

Barbara Olsen (a last days Deborah) was a lawyer and well known TV personality.

She was the bane of Hillary, as she just published a damning expose entitled Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Hillary hated the very ground she walked on and demanded that she be killed in a "plane crash" on 9/11.

Ominously, John F. Kennedy Jr. —a rival of Hillary for the position of senator from New York—also died in a plane crash.

Hillary Digby Churchill Clinton was planning on running for President in 2008, and anyone who stood in her way was marked for death.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was the driving force behind "Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr. took their marching orders from "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher. Tony Blair was British prime minister when Bush Jr. assumed the Presidency. Tony Blair was a frequent visitor to the White House to remind Bush Jr. that his father had made a grievous mistake by not removing Saddam Hussein—the bane of the British Empire—from power.

Beginning in March 2001, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was a frequent visitor to the White House.

The invasion of Iraq was uppermost on his agenda.

The invasion of Iraq was launched on March 20, 2003. The capital, Baghdad, fell on April 9, and Bush declared the end of major combat operation in May. In reality, that was just the beginning of the Iraq War.

Compounding all of President Bush's problems, the Iraq War was bankrupting the country, and devastated New Orleans would require billions to rebuild. The Presidential election of 2008 was also on the horizon.

Both the real Hillary and her doppelgänger campaigned for the Presidency in 2008.

That year was the worst possible time for her campaign, and she lost out to Barak Obama.

On Jan 20, 2009, Barak Obama was sworn in as President instead of Hillary Digby Churchill Harriman Clinton.

Magnum 44 #fundie freerepublic.com

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

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

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

Stephenson Billings #fundie web.archive.org

So what is at the heart of this secret society of globalist atheism? One of their most significant concerns is the power of Faith. They despise the Glory of Jesus and the hope that He brings to countless Americans. The atheists are so insanely dedicated to their obscene cult they will try just about anything to destroy every remnant of Christian Love on this earth. As this sickening obsession was wed to advances in aerial spraying technology in the last century, one can surmise the evil compound that resulted. In this formula, it seems quite logical that the atheist’s next step would be to attempt the widespread murder of Jesus’s very Heavenly Agents of Love.

Angels. They are much more than a Christian bedtime story. They are much more than the sweet flutterings in the ears of believers. Angels are quite literally the factory workers of faith. They are tireless and everywhere. They accomplish innumerable feats, from minor pangs of guilt to the throbbing passions of love. The angels are there to guide us, to inspire us and, ultimately, to remind us of our obligation to Jesus. The fly through the air at His beckoning. They are gentle and ever willing. We would be far less human and humane were it not for the angels. And that is exactly why atheists fear the power of angels.

Atheists shake with contempt at the thought of love and decency. Their whole lives are dedicated to nothingness, to the gaping void of pain that nihilism defines. Indeed, atheists love pain. They love pain in their sexual rituals, in their drug addictions and in their secret globalist power schemes. Why do we have war? It’s the atheists who spread contempt of God and invite such reckless notions of communism and Islam.

Will Atheistic Science Annihilate Love and Prayer?

As secret atheist scientists in government pursue their goals of undermining Jesus in America, it only stands to reason that they would take their battle to the skies. The aerial dogfight is likely a vicious one. Who knows what advances they have made since the days of DDT and Agent Orange. Yet fight on they do, every single day! Our heavens are coated in a thick aerosol haze of spiritual hate and this nation’s faith is sinking.

In our lifetime, the United States has been bombarded by supposedly “natural” disasters and terrorist attacks. Religion is at an all time low, while sodomy and perversion are at epic heights. Clearly the overlap of these symptoms with the widespread usage of chemtrails is more than just a coincidence. Clearly the astonishing rise of militant atheism in America must factor in. So what is the ultimate answer to the mystery of the chemtrails? Have Heaven’s angels forsaken us for such an offensive maneuver? Or are they actually losing, dying off in plumes of jetliner butchery? Surely America’s atheists in the great halls of government are asking these very same questions.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

Evolutionists continue to promote the false claim that the Earth is old because their fish to mankind belief system falls apart without it. Yet there's much evidence the Earth cannot possibly be anywhere near that old.

#1 Very Little Sediment on the Seafloor

#2 Bent Rock Layers

#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils

#4 Faint Sun Paradox

#5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field

#6 Helium in Radioactive Rocks

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

#8 Short-Lived Comets

#9 Very Little Salt in the Sea

#10 DNA in “Ancient” Bacteria

1) Net gain of 19 billion tons of sediment per year. At this rate, 1,300 feet of sediment would only need a few million years, not billions of years.

2) Rock doesn't bend, it cracks and breaks. Yet rock layers of the same thickness, thousands of feet thick, that evolutionists claim each layer took millions of years to be deposited are BENT, not cracked or broken.

3) It's scientific fact that red blood cells cannot survive more than a few thousand years. Yet they find them in bones mistakenly claimed to be tens of millions of years old, proving those bones are merely thousands of years old.

4) The sun is getting hotter, meaning it was much cooler in the past, too cool at the ages evolutionists claim for life to have been possible on earth.

5) The strength of the magnetic field has been decaying overall - the earliest records are only 1820's or so. As some put it "Such a rapid decay could not have been going on continuously for millions of years, because the field would have to have been impossibly strong in the past in order for it to still exist today." This alone puts the age of the earth at best to be 20,000 years.

6) Helium defuses so rapidly there would be no helium after, at most, 100,000 years, more so in hot areas where it defuses even faster. The deepest and therefore the hottest zircons (387 degrees F) contained far more helium than expected. All measurements are in agreement that all the helium should have leaked out long before now in the claimed age of the universe.

7) The Earth was not supposedly formed when the imagined big bang happened. After a few hundred thousands of years, with a half life of 5,730 years, there should be none left, yet it’s found in abundance in “ancient” fossils.

8) Comets burn up merely being anywhere near a sun, not just entering in an atmosphere. Scientists know comets cannot last millions of years, so they invent “oort clouds” as one “rescue device” where these imagined clouds make new comets.

9) Again an imagined “the land became sea and vice versa” as a rescue-device, realizing the salt accumulation in the oceans would mean we could now walk across the oceans because the salt would be so thick.

10) DNA breaks down quickly even in ideal conditions. Even evolutionists agree it should not last more than a million years. Yet we find it in bacteria dated at 250 MILLION years. (A false dating of at LEAST 250 times the true date).

MercyBurst #fundie christianforums.com

[No credible scientist, writing a scientifically credible paper would refer to things like "the consequences of the lifestyle" as if homosexuals are a monolithic and homogenous community, joining which would entail certain, predictable consequences.]

Most every literate person knows the consequences of the lifestyle such as STDs and mental illnesses. .

jairuswtsn #fundie imdb.com

Actually, evidence does exist of a worldwide flood!
It is the interpretation of that evidence, indeed the interpretation of all fossil evidence, which support the truth of the bible and the lie of evolution as the source of all life.

You think millions of years created the Grand Canyon? I suggest that it could have been created in one year and flow dynamists have proven it is a distinct possibility. Many years to lay down the sedimentary layers seen in the sides of the canyon but only one year of erosion is needed to actually cut the swath with the power and force of water should Teutonic plates shift.... (Interesting)

How did sea fairing and formerly existing proven fossils get at the great heights of the Himalayas? Teutonic plates shift and raise those mountains into position! Interestingly enough... this might correspond with the end of the worldwide flood... (Interesting)

Fossils. How do fossils exist? Bacteria and other living creatures consume most living flesh very quickly. Kill a pig in the forest and come back a year later. Very little evidence exists and most scientists know that this is the criterion to consider when a fossilized remains is discovered. Why was it preserved? Something has to have covered that remains in order to preserve the creature. A worldwide flood would stir up sediment like nobodies business and that sediment would cover many organisms very quickly. A plethora of dead organisms worldwide will and are very apparent and if you search, you will find this to be true.
Unfortunately, Satan knows this fact very well. Much of the truth of the Great Flood has been covered up and held back or diluted through misinformation and lies.

You are given a mind that can search out the truths and separate the lies from the truth. God is truth. I suggest you check the facts before jumping to any conclusions.

Scott Guenther #fundie talkorigins.org

As a biology teacher and a creationist, I find that all of the fossil evidence and radioactive dating that supposedly supports the evolutionary theory, actually can also be used to support a seven day creation with an earth that is less than 12,000 years old. As God made the earth, He obviously made a mature earth.
[...]
There is also the probability that oil deposits existed and they would seem to be millions of years old, though they were just made less than one week ago. Fossils could be part of the makings of this old earth. As most most scientists desire to know everything they can, it is difficult for many of them to admit that there are many things we humans will never know. Belief in God and in creation forces one to accept that fact.

Elizabeth Prata #fundie the-end-time.blogspot.ca

I don't know why scientists and unbelievers do what they do. Most of them are not trying to scientifically prove that the flood happened, they use science to prove it didn't. If they were scientifically honest they would understand that between the salinity of the seas, the difficulty in determining fossil age, and the fact that there are sea fossils on top of the Himalayas, they would see that science in fact proves the flood. Science proves the earth as young, creation of man, and the flood, as a matter of fact. Scientists ignore the science and pervert it to suit their reprobate minds just as the prosperity gospel preachers pervert the scriptures to pervert the word. It stems from the same source: satan the liar and the father of lies
As for the baby animals, I do not think it was any harder to care for them than an adult. Each has their own particular needs. Some theologians believe God put a spirit of docility into them so they could co-exist with each other and with man during the flood confinement. After all, God sent the animals to Noah and they docilely walked into the ark under their own steam. Noah did not have to hunt or trap them. So it seems they were already operating under a command of God. (Gen 6:20). It is not hard to believe their docility extended to the months on the ark and didn't end at the door when they walked in.

Walter O’Dim #sexist datasecretslox.com

I’ll bite the bullet and admit that I think most women basically don’t have agency in the same way that men do, that they prefer to live their lives without the agency that men have, and that this is basically a Good Thing. The problem is reordering the world to insist that women have just as much agency as men when you’re unlikely to get them to actually act like they do. The majority of happily married men that I know basically take what amounts to a traditional head of household approach to how things are run - the man made the move in the relationship, made the decision to step to marriage, made the decision on buying a house, and makes many small decisions such as where to go to dinner. Of course, they want input from their wives and treat the decision-making process as being substantially predicated on making their wives happy, but they also certainly behave as though they know that their wives don’t want to make these decisions. Of note, these are not stay at home tradwives - I’m thinking of scientists, attorneys, IT professionals, and other high-agency careers women that would really prefer their husbands make calls.

Of course, pretty much none of them will phrase it that way, but it is what it is.

Darwin Was Wrong #fundie answers.yahoo.com

Why do people believe a meteor that hit only one little section of the planet killed ALL the dinosaurs?
Seriously, wouldn't a global flood be a more reasonable explaination? You know, because it's GLOBAL, meaning it covered the entire planet. Surely that would kill off every dinosaur on earth, not some meteor, which big or not, still didn't cover the entire planet. How can scientists be so smart but yet so stupid?

John Verderame #fundie answersingenesis.org

In our day, secular scientists have grown ever more arrogant in their pronunciations about who we are, or better, are not, and where everything came from in the beginning. The late Carl Sagan described us as specks living on a “pale blue dot” floating in the universe. The pope of evolution, Stephen Jay Gould, tells us we are a “lucky accident,” and that things just “happened” to work out right for the development of life on earth. Others write books with titles like, “The Universe Explained,” or “A Brief History of Time,” which push the big bang theory that we resulted from an explosion.

Have these scientists ever asked themselves, “Why should anyone listen to me?” That is a logical question if they really believe what they say. Because, if we really are nothings living on a speck of nothingness floating aimlessly toward destruction, and there are 6 billion of us, then they are one six-billionth of nothing and we should just ignore them completely because what they have to say is worthless!
[…]
What we really should do is ask them, “Why should I listen to you?” “How do you know what you are saying is true?”, or better, in Pilate’s words to Christ (John 18:38), “What is truth?” If we are nobodies, the products of chance forces beyond our control, and we live a purposeless existence wandering aimlessly in a purposeless universe, then nothing any scientist can say should even be worth listening to.
[…]
Satan demonstrated his understanding of man’s desires from the beginning when he told Adam and Eve, “Ye shall be as gods …” if they would just listen to him and ignore the Word of God. The evolutionary apostles of our day are doing the same thing. They are saying to us, “Listen to me. I know better than God.” They are their own “gods.”
[…]
Whom are we going to believe? An evolutionist who has seen a few years of life on earth, and can only guess about the past, or God Almighty who was there from the beginning?

Sriram #fundie religionethics.co.uk


(commenting on film about an after life)


The film seems to have focused only on suicides that could be triggered if the after-life is seen as real. But so many other things would also happen which would be much more significant.

1. People would be happier because they know death is only a transition.

2. People would be more moral and ethical because someone is watching and keeping records.

3. People will focus less on pleasures here and more on their duties and responsibilities.

4. Scientists would stop philosophizing and giving their opinion on religion and spirituality. Dawkins would be somewhat depressed.

5. No one will bother about the cosmos and galaxies, big bang, exo planets etc. Better things to do.

6. Similarly with QM, evolution etc., though genetics and medical science would still be fairly relevant.

7. Crime may come down for fear of the after-life.....because the after-life does not mean only 'heaven', there would be a 'hell' too. Some NDErs have said so.

8. Generally, priorities will change dramatically, and lifestyles will change...though some people may still be unable to control their base animal instincts.

Dave Daubenmire #fundie rightwingwatch.org

On today’s episode of the “Pass The Salt Live” webcast, Religious Right activist “Coach” Dave Daubenmire said that the government should stop spending money on the study of the “fake science” of evolution and instead give that money to scientists who will work to prove the existence of God.

“Evolution is fake science, it is not true,” Daubenmire said. “Do you know how much government money goes into science research? If you want to get a government grant, you have to make sure that the research that you do is going to support the positions of the government.”

“I would like to see the government do this,” he continued, “why doesn’t the government fund research into whether or not there is really a God? Wouldn’t that be good? Let’s dump a lot of money—rather than dumping all this [money into research] proving there isn’t a God, let’s fund some scientists to do some research to see if there is a God.”

bride_of_christ's #fundie rr-bb.com

During a discussion on "Scientists Create Artificial Black Hole"

Let's push 'em in the the black hole. It would make a great new home for all of their whacked out theories and experiments.

Could you imagine having no more Scientists!!!!!!!

Sorry, getting excited prematurely. While it may not be the black hole that swallows 'em up, I know they'll soon be done away with. In the meantime, I shall pray for their Salvation.

Fritz Berggren #fundie #racist #conspiracy #wingnut #homophobia #transphobia bloodandfaith.com

[From "Civil War 2 and Resisting Antichrist"]

Joe Biden is accusing half of America as being “extremist” and a threat to democracy. In truth, Biden, his son Hunter, and his own handlers are the traitors. They are selling the country’s interests for cash, and facilitating andinvasion as dangerous as the invasion of Muslim Africans into Spain in the 700s AD, and the Mongolian threat to Christian Europe centuries ago. Satan’s plot to white of the white and Christian race continue with very much the same tactics — human wave attacks[…]
We do not live in a country where the average person has a voice. If we did, none of the above would have occurred — none. Not a single state ever voted to legalize homosexual marriage

The antichrist forces define “democracy” as trannies, sodomy, open borders, the destruction of American industry, mandatory “vaccines,” and rule by “experts” who masquerade as “scientists” who know better than “we the people”

Only an awakening in the free and independent Pulpits can resist the current tyranny[…]
But . . . if we do not have Christians nations and Christian states, we will genocide the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth. There is no limit to Satan’s voracious appetite and therefor no end to the rapaciousness of the devil’ children and synagogue. We are fooling ourselves by believing that our current docile and submissive relationship with the world and the Jews is acceptable. There simply is no peace between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the serpent (the brood of vipers, the children of the devil, Satan’s synagogue)[…]
There is a reason whites are the target — we are the most anti-antichrist people in the planet naturally, instinctively, genetically, and historically. We need to resurrect that[…]
You either bend the knee to the antichrist of this generation or you stand in defiance of him. There is no third path. The idea of a third path is Satan’s idea

Carico #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

The theory of dinosaurs came along in the mid 1800's just before the time Darwin begain imagining the ape scenario. A young scientist envisioned an enormous creature in his mind and set about trying to find it. He was met with much skepticism and no real evidence until he found something that looked like a skull but he wasn't sure. So he set about trying to create a creature from that skull, all the while, his wife believing he was insane, which of course, he was, thus re-inforcing the phrase "mad scientist."

So after many years of gathering different bones, the dinosaur was created. Never mind that there's absolutely no way to know if those bones came from one animal or several animals. All that mattered was creating a fictitious monster out of any bones that were found and passing it aong as the truth so he can get his name in science books. Scientists even admit that some of the skeletons were "missing" so they added other bones from other animals to complete their design. This is not science. It's called; artwork. And it's very creative artwork at that! Some of those creatures are hilarious and any design is possible because there were no witnesses! But unfortunately, it's no different than kids finding sticks in the woods and creating anything they want from them. And most people see that as children's imaginations (which it is), but if those children had letters after their names, then people would claim they were "brilliant, just brilliant." And this is all palentologists do.

Then they assign each creature a name ( and the longer the better to show how intelligent they are but they more accurately describe the size of their egos than any real living creature) and decide which ones were herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores. So how can they know what these animals ate? :confused: The answer is that they can't know. They have simply made it up. And all they have to do is use the letters after their names and they can pass anything along as the truth. :)

So these fictitious beasts are in every science book in elementary school and passed along as facts instead of artwork. And people have been so brainwashed to believe them as facts, they can't see the forest through the trees that there's no way to prove them whatsoever. The various bones have all been positioned and glued together to depict the imagination fo the artist. There's no way to tell if these bones were all from the same animal or one animal. Even today, scientists have to extract DNA to see if the bones they find from a dead body all belong to the same person! So the one thing scientists have that is undeniable and that is an imagination. But it's hardly science. Palentologists would make more money working for Steven Spielberg than spending their times on hot deserts. ;)

andriodvageta #fundie emmatheemo.wordpress.com

Every guy I know would tell you that they would TOTALLY have sex with an underage girl if they could. Why? Because they’re hot.

Look, I think a lot of the people that are all up in arms about this topic are so because they have no EXPERIENCE with being sexually active with girls. No no no—I’m not banging a 13 year old here—I promise. However, what I can say is that I HAVE banged 13 year old’s when it was legal for me to do so.

What have I learned from this?

Well for starters, 13 year old girls have awesome EVERYTHING. They have great perky breasts, beautiful flawless skin, nice tight asses—pretty much tight and perky everything. Also, they have GREAT—uhhh—”sexual organs”. Still slightly underdeveloped. Small, fresh, tidy.

NOW—granted—they aren’t as mature or experienced as older women but let’s face it, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how to ride the D or bend over.

I say all this to prove my point. I can look at a 13 year old and find her attractive or even sexy NOT because it’s natural (which is part of it and I totally think is a “thing”—it’s evolution, baby!) but because I KNOW what they have to offer me sexually. I know that her vag would feel amazing. I know that you could bounce a cinder block off her breasts.

It doesn’t help either that I just am naturally attractive to petite women in general.

So yeah—point of the story is that if you’ve HAD it, there’s NO WAY you wouldn’t still WANT it. I just don’t believe it.

But in the end I have grown. I’ve seen and done many a thing and have learned how fragile the mind is—especially at a younger age (I do a lot of religious studying and—those poor children—). So therefor, I can say that IF given the chance I probably wouldn’t do it. In the end though I can definitely say that I love to look!

Mike King #fundie tomatobubble.com

The timeless principles of Graeco-Roman logic and philosophy that we have just reviewed (not to be confused with the pointless mental masturbation that many modern pseudo-intellectuals like to engage in over a Starbucks’ latte) will expose a charlatan or an ignoramus every... single... time. Indeed, armed with nothing else but the earlier segment on Logical Fallacies, any “average Joe” can easily take down one of these “scientists” and humiliate him.

The Fake Scientist is thus compelled to declare: “there is no debate” because he knows that he cannot win a debate! Just like Count Dracula before a crucifix or sprinkled with Holy Water, the Fake Scientist will recoil in agony when confronted with the Socratic Method of inquiry.

Therefore, it is not surprising, but to be expected, that warmist Fake Scientists would express such open contempt and hostility for the millenniums-old discipline that should serve as the foundation of all intellectual pursuits and even common, every day understanding of life situations. Here they are, in their own words, mocking Philosophy – the very rules of thinking that we use to pursue truth and unmask lies and errors.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson: “Philosophy is not a productive contributor to our understanding of the natural world —. It (philosophy) can really mess you up.” (28)

Stephen Hawking: “Philosophy is dead. Philosophers have not kept up with modern developments in science. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” (29)

Bill Nye: “Philosophy is important for a while—. But you can start arguing in a circle—. Keep in mind, humans made up philosophy too.” (30)

You see, when a Fake Scientist needs to work around the eternal rules of lie-detection, he simply ridicules them, declares them “dead” or dismisses truth itself as “relative.” It’s sort of like a local burglar telling you that installing a home alarm system, adopting a big guard dog and keeping a loaded pistol under your bed aren’t effective anymore; or a nervous criminal, under interrogation, insisting that polygraph (lie detector) tests are never accurate.

But philosophy is not dead. The theory of man-made Global Warming is, and Messrs. Tyson, Hawking and Nye all know it – which is why they want to replace philosophy (Greek for “love of wisdom”) with “theoretical science” (love of slick talking sophistry, rigged math equations and rigged computer models).

Tyson, Nye and the “talking” stiff from “Weekend at Bernie’s” (or his ventriloquist?) all rely heavily upon classic logical fallacies to sell their nonsense. The only thing that can stop them is sound logic, aka philosophy.

nmhaupt #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Here are some unexplained anomalies about the "Space Program"

1. The 1969 F1 engine used on the Saturn V are considered the most powerful rocket engines every built.

What's the other technology that peaked in 1969?
The one thousands of people worked on poured in billions of dollars of research, design and engineering and we still can't beat what we did in 1969?

Cars?
Planes?
Computers?
Electronics?
Submarines?
Boats/ships?

In every field of technical endeavor 1969 is far in the past. Except for "Space Flight."

This is your first clue that Space Flight isn't real.They tried knowing it wouldn't work, it didn't work and they faked the mission and stopped development.

2. Where are all the rocket scientists?

I can name a dozen Chemists, Physicists, Nuclear Scientists, Automotive pioneers and aeronautic inventors but when it comes to people who have built rockets that have successfully traveled in space the only name that comes to mind is Wernher von Braun. That's it. All those missions, all those rockets and only one name.

You would expect to see more names bandied about if building space rockets were a real thing. Places like M.I.T. and Caltech don't offer degrees of Doctorates in building rockets. They are supposedly man's greatest achievements and nobody wants to work with them?

Wouldn't it make the career of a scientist to build a new type of space rocket? But no smart young people waste their careers on a technology that only exists on TV and the Movies.

The smart people know rockets don't travel through the vacuum. It's actually fairly easy to prove but the post gets deleted.

Various Commenters #sexist incels.is

(Atavistic Autist)

[JFL] Femoid breaks up with high IQ Jewish physicist because he's an "insecure incel," bemoans the fact that she can't find an intelligent gigachad instead

I dated an incel, AMA

Meanwhile...

Why it is sooo unfair? If a guy is handsome most of the time he is stupid.

The foid literally admits that "personality" = "looks" here.

She juxtaposes a dumb Chad with an intelligent incel, yet specifies that the incel has "no personality."

Foid IQ: 0. She deserves nothing more than to be raped by monkeys (she's already having consensual sex with the "neighbor's dog," of course).

(WizardofSoda)

Thats evolution.. some bloodlines survived based on intellect, others on looks/physical strength.

There is few if any men out there who are handsome, healthy/strong and advanced minds.

(ItsOver4cel)

I’ve said it in previous threads and I shall say it again: foids’ minds are stuck in 10,000BC. They should be grateful to have met a very intelligent man but it just isn’t good enough for this bitch.

Yeah this. Actual intelligent men are pretty rare and these bitches treat them as the product of the week jfl when are they gonna admit they just want to suck Chad's dick and nothing more?

(GoffSystemQB)

People using the word "incel" in place of ugly male is brutal and confirms the blackpill. Jfl if you think Chad would EVER get called an incel regardless of his behavior in a relationship.

(Atavistic Autist)

Her other posts seem quite blackpilled:

We must be more understanding towards Inсels.

She is just being a benevolent feminist here.

She does not contest female control over the sexual selection process, considering it to be a given, and fundamentally agrees with the idea that highly intelligent incels have "defective" genes whereas the boneheaded Chads who make her wet have genes worthy of reproduction.

Her only point is that her fellow feminists should pity incels and say a prayer for us as we're sentenced to death. The only incels who can escape this fate are the psychopathmaxxers who are good enough at pretending to be NT and "alpha" to deceive a woman into believing it.

It would get deleted otherwise, I guess. There are some sentences, that were pretty based, but I need to sleep. She just described the status quo or not? Are you for forced male selection, just curious?

She describes the status quo and then fundamentally agrees with it. Nothing she says is anything more than virtue signalling, combined with her own style of redpilled nonsense.

She considers it an inevitability that females are the judges of what "good genetics" constitutes, their criteria being based on Fisharian Runaway qualities which have no actual bearing on men's fitness. Namely, "personality," which somehow a Chad who's dumber than a dog has more of than an intelligent incel (her reasoning being that intelligent incels tend to be neurotic and this doesn't make her cunt wet, like extroverted and imbecilic Chads do).

According to her, incels have to pretend to be those extroverted and imbecilic Chads in order to possibly impress a foid and then have sexual success with her. This is just a feminist version of the redpill. We need to deceive women with our perceived alphaness! Why not just put women into their place as inferior creatures who must submit to us?

She virtue signals about ultimately liking "ugly yet intelligent guys," but it's belied by her own stated nature, her own admission that Chads make her instantly wet and intelligent guys are merely a curiosity to her. She must be subjugated, or else she's just a hypocrite who's promoting the devolution of the species.

Top kek, do they have any self awareness at all, are they thick as shit or know what's up but don't give a fuck as to do so would be like folding on a pair of aces?

She wants a man who is high on the intelligence hierarchy, high on the looks hierarchy, and high on the NT hierarchy at the same time. This is her "Mr. Right." She is a picky bitch who is using the evolutionary psychology of the blackpill to justify her insane standards.

Intelligent men tend to be ugly, introverted, and neurotic if not autistic (in her terminology, "sociophobic"), and this makes her cunt shrivel.

On the other hand, sociopathic men who are attractive, extroverted, and outgoing tend to be dumber than dogs, which quickly bores her.

She wants the best of all worlds -- a giga-IQ, giga-NT, giga-Chad who mogs everyone, a man who she can bear settling down with. JFL.

Haha yeah she can totally get that if she gets herself a superhero reality, brilliant scientist takes strength serum or dumb brute has his brain Lasered with evolutionary beam.

Fucking dumb cunt, why would a guy that gets everything from his looks waste time reading books; no need & of course if you ain't turning heads you cope to get the good career & betabux a bitch but as we know this method ain't worth shit no more what with female empowerment of employment & simps. They call men the picky ones lol.

Hopefully she will find her standards satisfied in a Ted Bundy.

Intelligent, attractive, extroverted. The trifecta.

But a psychopath who will murder her. Good riddance, slut.

(PPEcel)

Wow, massive blackpill here.

"He is an incel because 1. ugly 2. virgin."

This confirms everything I already knew. You won't get an ounce of respect if you are male and not conventionally attractive. People look at you and based off of your appearance alone will judge your ethical predisposition.

Coming right from the fucking horse's mouth, ITards.

exactly

(FUCKITALLREEE)

JFL a blackpill straight from a femoid mouth, they still try to silence it.

image

Pretty guys are for fucking, smart guys are for dating.

Anonymous #racist misterpoll.com

Have you ever noticed how BADLY black men want White women?? It's the proverbial "every negro's dream". Despite the quantifiable fact (check the next US Census or this url: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ms-la/tabms-3.txt if you're skeptical) that 95% of people in America marry within their own racial/ethnic group (i.e. Whites w/ Whites, blacks w/ blacks, Asians w/ Asian, latino w/ latino), black men still demonstrate a stronger preference for White women than men from other racial/ethnic groups such as Asian or latino.

People are naturally attracted to people who share their physical characteristics. Although I'm able to appreciate the beauty of women from other racial/ethnic groups, I feel no strong, compelling impulse to reproduce with someone from another race. For example, I can tell you from a personal perspective that a tall White male with blue eyes, fair skin, and light brown/blond hair is going to experience the highest sexual attraction possible to a tall White woman with similar attributes. It's only natural, and similar to the preference that light-skinned negroes exhibit for other light-skinned negroes.

So why DO black men want White women so BADLY??? Poor, pathetic black women spend millions (collectively) every year for products to straighten their hair, EVEN DYEING IT BLOND IN SOME CASES, in an effort to look like a "White woman" so that they can attract and maintain a relationship with a black man. I want to offer some insight into this phenomenon.

1) Fat lips, kinky hair, and broad monstrous noses - While these physical characteristics may understandably be considered attractive in certain areas of Africa, they are considered unattractive to other races. The black men simply don't want to curse their descendents with physical traits that are regarded as unsightly by the dominant races, so they endeavor to dilute their African genetic code with a European genetic code. They want a daughter who looks like Mariah Carey or Vanessa Williams, rather than "Aunt Jemima" or the woman who gave birth to (professional basketball player) Patrick Ewing.

2) What better way to get back at "Whitey" for slavery, elevate your status among the "homeboys", and bolster your negro self-esteem, than to have sex with a White woman!!! Never mind that most of these White women are overweight, ugly, have low self-esteem, or have been rejected by White society for some reason and therefore must "settle" for a black man out of desperation... White is White!!! It still gives a reason for a homeboy to dance and clap in the pews at church and shout "Glorbee Hallelujah!!!". It's just a shame that these homeboys regard black women as "second-rate".

3) Forbidden Fruit - (this matter is somewhat complex) As American adolescents enter puberty, they begin to notice and explore media images (TV shows, movies, magazines) of attractive members of the opposite sex that are used to sell products such as candy, soft drinks, acne medication, clothing and anything else that teenagers can purchase with their disposable income. Because of the fact that America is approximately 75% White, and for obvious economic reasons, most of the images used in the mass media are of attractive Caucasians. This is probably the source of the black man's "fixation" on White women, and ultimately the source of great frustration for the male negro. This frustration is caused by societal pressures on white women to not be "social failures" who date negro men, hence the "forbidden fruit", and because the vast majority of White women are not attracted to negro men for the same reason that White men are usually not attracted to negro women. If you don't believe that White men (horny or not) are not attracted to negro women, consider this... How many WEALTHY White men (who are usually favored by most women of any race) do you see marrying or even dating black women??? The "trophy" has always been a young, attractive White woman, and I guarantee you that this situation will never change.

4) Evolution - Perhaps it's an effort to "evolve" and advance their race. In the black man's estimation, a kid who is 50% white is better than a kid who is 100% black (or has two parents of primarily African genetics). When comparing the number of engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, published authors, and successful business professionals who are White verses the number who are black... even Snoop Doggy Dogg could do the math on that one. If the black man wanted black kids, he would pursue a BLACK WOMAN, but knowing that he can never become "white", he does the next best thing. The so-callled "black pride" is sacrificed as the pursuit of the White woman becomes the negro's Holy Grail. The negro males just want to secure for their offspring what they either consciously or subconsciously perceive as "better genetics", i.e. the genetics of better looking or smarter people. If they thought black women were the other half of the "formula" for producing attractive and intelligent children, they would pursue BLACK WOMEN.

If a literate negroid has read this far, he is probably trying to console himself by asserting that White women have sex with black men because of large black genitilia. First of all, ask any gynecologist and he/she will tell you that a woman's vagina comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. Most women do not have a coarse, oversized vagina that needs a freakishly large genitilia to be properly filled. Given that a woman's vagina can expand to accomodate the birth of a baby, and that many women enjoy digital and oral stimulation, size issues are irrelevant. Furthermore, check out any of 10 billion porn sites on the Web, and you'll soon discover that a White man can posess very large genitilia. The myth of the black male genitilia is just that, a myth.

However, other than running and jumping ability, most negro men just don't have much else in which to take pride, so they obsess over their genitilia and live their lives in a state of permanent adolescence. REAL sexual satisfaction has everything to do with an emotional/spiritual connection, and NOTHING to do with the physical aspects of "gettin' a groove on", and this is why most White women avoid black men.

(unknown) #fundie scienceblogs.com

I am trying to figure out as an impartial person why scientists say there is no evidence for design.

I think species should have evolved first with only one eye. After realizing that one eye cannot create depth perception, nature would have generated another eye following thousands of years of evolution. We know this is not true. Someone or something already knew that one eye would not be enough.

Please tell me what is wrong with my theory?

supersport #fundie christianforums.com

Evolution is a religion because it's based on two concepts that require blind FAITH. The first is random mutations. The second is natural selection. Neither one of these things can be seen, tested or proven.....

Well actually NS could be proven by controlled experiments, however scientists appear to be too chicken to try such a thing. (just like they're too chicken to experiment by moving animals to different locations in the world to see what would happen to their phenotypes.) In fact, as far as I know, not ONE such experiment on natural selection has been tried. Of course I could be wrong about this, but if I am, I'd love to the see the link.

The fact is, your theory is based on sheer speculation and a desire to not be created. What you believe in is not science, it's Sesame Street-style make-believe. It's a fairytale for grownups who seek to deny the obvious. There is not one shred of hard evidence or truth to it. S

Rom831 #fundie rr-bb.com

[Replying to 'you know absolutely nothing about what causes a supernova']Apparently we know more than you. GOD causes them. If it weren't for God, you would have none. I dare to say that what the process God uses to do this is so far more complex than you or any group of your scientists can contemplate that your pitiful 'knowledge' on the subject is humorous at best.

David J. Stewart #fundie #conspiracy #pratt jesusisprecious.org

Evolution is the most obvious evil lie ever contrived by man. In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution. In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859).[1] History exposes the Freemasons as being involved in the forced indoctrination of children with the ungodly bogus theories of evolution!

There is not a more Satanic evil in this world, than the attack on impressionable children's souls with the blatant lies of evolution. Any uneducated fool knows that humans did not evolve from gorillas! If men came from apes, then why are there still apes? It is a simple question. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to figure it out. Only a wicked person who hates God would want to deprive children of the inspired Word of God, and replace it with a bizarre science-fiction story. Romans 1:28a, “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind...”

Evolutionists are fools! 1st Corinthians 3:19, “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Our text Scripture says in Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” We further read the truth in 2nd Peter 3:5a, “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old...” Anyone who accepts the lies of evolution are spitting on the Holy Bible! We have very clear teaching in the inspired Holy Scriptures, that it was God Who created the heavens and earth, and all therein. Jeremiah 32:17a, “Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and stretched out arm...”

I just read something that didn't surprise me—31% of all Roman Catholics accept the lies of evolution.[2] It doesn't surprise me because Catholics don't even accept the Bible. Mark 7:9, “And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Kindly, heathen Catholics are no better than heathen evolutionists, who elevate manmade TRADITION over the inspired eternal WORD OF GOD! People either believe what man says about God, or what God says about man. God says evolutionists are corrupt!

Oboehner #fundie disqus.com

Just one little shred of proof is too much for you? Quite pathetic.

"You've had it already. Fossils and the law of superposition. Fossils of extinct species. Same fossils on both sides of the Atlantic. Transitional fossils. Nylon-eating bacteria. Radiometric and radiocarbon dating. Dendrochronology. All the things you sneer at and think you know better than scientists do."

Law of super position doesn't come close to proving anything, there has been trees found through several layers, indicating the layers were deposited there is a short period of time.
Same fossils on both sides does more to disprove evolution than to prove it, it is logical that if evolution actually occurred the creatures would differ being segregated by long distances.
Transitional fossils are a joke, merely someone's opinion of how they should go, there isn't one shred of proof that any one fossil evolved into another.
Nylon-eating bacteria can eat nylon, that is not all they eat. Not sure what relevance that has, a dog my parents once had ate it's own poop - that doesn't prove evolution either.
Radiometric and radiocarbon dating based on speculation and assumption, no one knows the starting level not any outside influences. You also might want to look up the 70 year old volcanic rock that was dated at over 3 million years.
Dendrochronology? The oldest tree was determined to be 4580 years old, not proof of evolution either.
Do try again.

Keith #fundie talkorigins.org

If I was to say that I was a scientist with amazing true data then I would be published unless......... I supported the FACT that God created the earth. You evolutionary people think that since some fossil looks old you can say that it is somewhere between 3.3 and 3.8 BILLION YEARS OLD. WHAT are you doing saying that this is true. No way do you know that this is true at all and you should be ashamed to try and make these statments. I for one am very offended by your lack of intelligence and wasted efforts in trying to support something that you have no evidence for. Please reconsider your efforts into something more worth while. Also, if you say that something is close to 3.3 billion to 3.8 billion years old (or so) that is proposterous. No way on earth is this a scientific statement. Think about how massive this statement is. It is just plain not good science. If we say trust in God because he is close this to this good and almost right and we don't quite have the evidence then you would laugh at me. At the very least do not state your things as fact. Say this is our theory and this is another theory. Never should you say that any of your stuff is fact unless you have 100% proof like we have in the BIBLE. Sorry but you SCIENTISTS make me laugh so much it is embarrassing.

jbozz21 #fundie evcforum.net

When it comes to support for the Bible most people don't even believe in the Bible for physical, tangible or scientific reasons. We believe in the Bible by moral and spiritual experiences with the teachings of the Bible which can all be proven to be true by simple practice. Just like you can go outside and touch sand if you want to know that it is real not believe in someone else telling you it is real, you actually experience it using your senses. (ie. if you want to know if prayer works, you can actually pray and when you receive an answer then you have evidence that it actually works,and you don't stop there you keep trying the experiment watching it work over and over again. Plus you hear the experiences of many people all over the world who's results had been reproducible in your own life....etc...etc...) That is an experiment that is much more reliable to me in my opinion than someone taking DNA and putting through some chemicals and saying "yup, the apes are your cousins..." by some scientist whom I have no idea what motives lie behind their desires to disprove the claims of the Bible, nor whether they are acting out of bias or whether their claims are actually legitimate. Who's experiment's are not reproducible to me. It would be very very Hasty of me to discount the Bible because of someone elses claims especially not knowing their motives or verifying what they say. Which makes me wonder why so many of you are so Hasty to discount the Bible. If you have tested the bible on it's own claims about how to live your life then you would know that the principles work and bring greater happiness. No man-made system can nor does do that perfectly like the Bible can.

pfta2a #fundie reddit.com


Some children initiate adult contact and are active participants.

Sorry, just trying to get your facts correct. You and u/herrhiskelig imply that a child would never choose to initiate or willingly participate in a sexual relationship with an adult. Studies show that you are both wrong.

You imply (wrongly) that only a person who is not entirely sound of mind would believe a child want to have sex with them.

Quote from: http://www.mhamic.org/sources/constantine.htm

research and clinical reports leave little doubt that some children do initiate the contacts and many participate willingly. Nine studies in the review confirmed this, although initiative on the part of the child was rare in father-daughter incest.

Children can enjoy sex and masturbation, many do. Children can initiate sex and some do. Children can be willing and even enthusiastic participants.


you should understand that NO, a child does not want to have sex with you

Yes, sometimes a child does want to have sex with an adult


No, a child cannot make choices in sexual matters b/c he/she is not developmentally capable of understanding the consequences and complexities of adult sexuality nor the risks involved. He/she doesn't yet know who to trust and why, how to protect himself, how to advocate or be an equal partner, etc. In many cases, the child isn't even physically developed enough for that level of interaction.

No, a child cannot make choices in sexual matters b/c he/she is not developmentally capable of understanding the consequences and complexities of adult sexuality nor the risks involved. He/she doesn't yet know who to trust and why, how to protect himself, how to advocate or be an equal partner, etc. In many cases, the child isn't even physically developed enough for that level of interaction.


Many children know how to be quite firm with their opinions, many are more firm with their opinions than adults. Though not all do, the study I linked originally found that passively unwilling children were the most often harmed by an adult/child sexual experience, actively unwilling children generally sought help quickly and actively or passively willing children generally enjoyed the experience and thus were less often harmed (some even benefited from the experience).

The "consent" part it mostly just opinion. This Alderson would disagree.

Alderson performed seven studies (some in collaboration with other scientists) throughout the 1990s on children’s capacity to give informed consent to medical procedures, and concluded that children as young as 5 or 6 are capable of informed consent if adequately informed. Waites (2005) argued very convincingly that her work and its conclusions translate readily into the sexual sphere, though he argues (badly) that children are not adequately informed about sex in our society and therefore cannot give informed consent to sexual activity. (The answer to that is obvious.) As far as I know, Alderson’s work constitutes the only sustained and detailed scientific analysis of children’s capacity to give informed consent, and before the 1990s no such analysis existed. Ages of consent were certainly not set on the basis of such capacity, and Waites shows how consent was not a genuine factor in so-called ‘age of consent’ legislation until the second half of the 20th century.

So 5 or 6 year olds are capable of making decisions on medical procedures (including "informed consent") if adequately informed, but not of consenting to sex. The only reason for this is that our society tries very hard to make sure that children are not "adequately informed" when it comes to sex. Which ironically, can lead to higher rates of unsafe sex when young t(w)eens begin to engage in sexuality, but have not been educated on safe sex - though I'm assuming we both agree that "abstinence only" sex education is a terrible idea.

You make a few more assumptions/implications about the sexuality. One is that any adult/child interactions are "adult sexuality", but in reality only a small minority of "sexual abuse" involves actual penetration and intercourse; likely because when the child is a willing participant and respected by their partner, than the child will say no when they don't enjoy something (and many children are not physically ready for intercourse) and have that choice be respected.


"oh this 10 year old wants to have an adult sexual relationship"

Again, you seem focused on the "adult", but you don't know that they original subject (the pedophile from the podcast) was in or wanted an adult sexual relationship. As I said above, most child/adult sexual interactions do not involve intercourse. It is more likely that the adult was participating at the child's level in order to make it fun for the child, or because the child did not want to participate in intercourse.


There are quite a few online communities (including r/pedofriends) of pedophiles who don't harm anyone. I am a pedophile myself and would never harm a child. Over 50% of child molesters are not pedophile (they have some other mental condition that leads them to molest a child).

Many pedophiles avoid children to avoid sexual feelings. I am not part of that group, I actively associated with children and have one girl I am very close with. I love her and would rather hurt myself than hurt her.

That said, there is a question of what exactly constitutes "harm". What if the child is a willing participant (maybe even the one pursuing more), society would say that kissing a child; even one who wanted to be kissed by you, is harmful. I don't agree with that, but I do follow the social rules in order to avoid legal issues (and to be able to keep seeing her)

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Quantum Physics is a hoax!

"Rational mechanics must be the science of the motions which result from any forces, and of the forces which are required for any motions, accurately propounded and demonstrated." -- Sir Isaac Newton

These Illuminati agents are using junk science to cover up the fact that God's orderly universe functions perfectly! In the 1600s, the venerable Sir Isaac Newton explained much of how the universe works, and other Real Scientists expanded on his work to give us Classical (or "Correct") Physics.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Albert Einstein -- a venerable man in his own right -- accidentally unleashed this would-be science with General and Special Relativity. These mathematically sound theories do not actually describe the real world, but Einstein didn't know this. The Illuminati -- who desperately wanted to disprove the unapproachable work of Isaac Newton -- ultimately provided Einstein with fake evidence during the famous 1919 eclipse. From there, their shills were able to take over the field and claim that God's orderly universe was a lie. As a good man and not a shill, Einstein objected to this, proclaiming firmly, "God does not play dice!" However, he didn't know about the 1919 conspiracy, so he just assumed that he'd made a math error somewhere. He spent the rest of his life trying to fix his brilliant -- yet completely wrong -- theories.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]


Despite these facts, we keep hearing more and more about the infallibility of these theories -- this field -- which makes no sense! As most of you, I'm sure, the people who make these claims are shills. There, I said it. Now, I have no doubt that there will be shills like Dr. Shillstro who will come into this thread saying, "It's all been explained, you religitard! The virtual particles explain it all!" or some other obscurantist garble. Quantum shills like to obscure the truth and say, "It's too complicated." or "You're being religious." All opposition to the nonsensical superpositional nature of particles is "religious." Well, I suppose that Reason itself is religious, then.


If you want true science, the truth is that there are forces in this universe which from God's sovereignty. Newton explored the Force of Gravity, while other true scientists uncovered other forces like electricity and magnetism. The technological benefits in today's world all come from Classical Physics. Now, you have the hoax "quantum computers" and and a bunch of other garble like that. These devices are all fake. They're using cleverly obscured Classical Physics to fool you! Don't be taken in by such Illuminist lies.

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.

Next page