I refuse to play the game by the materialistic rules that you and Morton have swallowed. There is no point wasting time over geological minutiae when your whole framework is up the creek.

Your opinion means nothing when it's contrary to the facts.

This because evolutionists are acting CONSISTENTLY with a world view that says we are just rearranged pond scum, so there is no transcendent source of objective morality. Therefore it is perfectly CONSISTENT with their world view to bear false witness. After all, morality is merely some chemical process in the brain that conferred some survival advantage on their alleged ape-life ancestors. Conversely, creationists have strong motivation to be truthful, because Jesus is 'the truth' (John 14:6). So on this grounds alone, it makes more sense to trust creationist websites like Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research over the gutter sites run by the infudgels etc.

Jesus was an excellent teacher, yet you would have us believe that He was misunderstood for 1800 years until Christ-haters like Lyell, Darwin and Huxley uncovered the true history of the Earth and life upon it.

Those that hate God are blinded by their rebellion and devise clever stories of creation in which God has no part.

Here at TomatoBubble.com; we love all of our readers, including the Atheist / Evolutionists. From time to time an E-mail that reads something like the following will arrive in the inbox:

"Mike. I love your work but you really need to stick to history and current events. You do not understand the science behind Evolution and are only harming your credibility when you attack Darwin."

Though this type of feedback is certainly more cordial and tolerable than the occasional, "You are a stupid ignorant deranged 'Nazi' extremist who believes that a giant spaghetti monster created the universe in 7 days. Ha ha ha" - it is still a variation of the condescending you-do-not-understand-science ad hominem logical fallacy that Evolutionists always resort to. This rhetorical device is a weaponized trick that we shall now disarm.

First of all, the lack of any extensive "scientific background" does not necessarily disqualify a logical thinker from expressing an opinion on Evolution or any other matter related to science. If a man observes a rapidly darkening sky on a brutally hot and humid summer afternoon; followed by a sudden temperature drop and distant rumbles of thunder; would his lack of a "background in meteorology" invalidate his opinion that rain is forthcoming?

If a man opts to take the elevator downstairs instead of simply jumping out of a 40th floor window and into his waiting convertible; would his lack of a "background in physics" invalidate his fear of jumping out of skyscrapers?

This idea that any matters pertaining to science, or alleging to pertain to science, can only be discussed by those with the right "qualifications" is a clear example of another classic logical fallacy; the 'Appeal to Authority'. Every great philosopher from Buddha, to Confucius, to Plato, to Socrates, to Marcus Aurelius, to Jesus, to Schopenhauer and so many others specifically warned against the inherent errors associated with this type of boot-licking, group-thinking worship of authority figures. Buddha expressed the key to right thinking very well when he stated:

"Do not go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought."

In other words, "To hell with those diploma-decorated fools. Use your own reason and observation!" And with that, let us dispense with this puffed-up patronizing rubbish about "lack of a scientific background" once and for all. You see, it doesn't take a "scientific background" to understand the basic and timeless principles of what is known as "The Scientific Method". Ironically, it is the hallowed Scientific Method which dooms the "theoretical science" of Darwinian Evolution to the toilet bowl of pseudo-scientific error.

Had Darwin studied Greek or Buddhist philosophy, he would never have made such a monkey of himself.

What is the Scientific Method?

The Scientific Method consists of the flow-chart steps shown in the following chart:

image

Each step must logically flow into the next step until the process is complete. No skipping steps! As soon as the standards of any given step cannot be met, the game ends and the hypothesis goes into the garbage. Now, let's plug "Evolution" TM into the step climber and see what we get.

Step 1: Ask a Question

OK. This one is easy. Anyone can ask a question about anything. Here it goes: "How did we all get here?"

Step 2: Do Background Research

Gather data and observe it carefully. If you detect a pattern that suggests a plausible conclusion, then move onto the next step. What Darwin "discovered" during this step is that all living creatures share many common traits; and that the differences among them adapt them perfectly to their natural environment.

Step 3: Construct a Hypothesis

Based on your data mining, make an educated guess as to what the truth is. Not just any ole guess; not a wild and baseless guess; but an educated guess based on a compelling pattern of data. Here, at a very early stage of the Scientific Method, Darwin has already gone off the rails. In his own words:

"The real affinities of all organic beings, in contradiction to their adaptive resemblances, are due to inheritance or community of descent. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed."

What Darwin observed is nothing that a retarded 8 year old, living 10,000 years ago, could not have easily noticed on his own; namely, that all creatures have much in common. For example, a lizard has two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc; and, a human being also two eyes, a mouth, teeth, a tongue, four limbs, a spine, a skeleton etc. And from that, and nothing more, Darwin "hypothesizes" that all living things came from an original "single-cell" organism? Really Chuck?

Darwin himself even admits that there is no data to support his hypothesis; which means that the hypothesis itself should never have been put forth in the first place. Again, from his own mouth:

"On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life?

We meet with no such evidence. and this is the most obvious and forcible of the many objections used against my theory."

That's right Chuckie. The MILLIONS of "missing links' flowing from single-cell pond scum to modern man did not exist in the 1800's, nor have they been pieced together to this day. In fact, as even prominent Evolutionists openly admit, the fossil record actually appears to show that new life forms came on to the scene very suddenly.

Nonetheless, in spite of the fact that the standards of the 'Hypothesis Step' of Scientific Method have, by Darwin's own admission, not been met; let us, purely for the sake of argument, cheat a little and give the Evolutionists a "free pass" to the next step.

Step 4: Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

I don't even know where to even begin with this one. How does one construct an experiment to "prove" that great-great-great grandma^[x] was a piece of algae that spontaneously appeared in a pond, and "mutated" into millions of transitional species, culminating in what we are today. In the absence of any experimentation, one could conceivably skip this step and jump to an intense observation of unfolding natural processes; a "natural" experiment, so to speak.

But here again, there is nothing to observe. The reality is that trans-species evolution is not observable and has never been observed, neither in nature nor in the fossil record. Sorry Evolutionists, but a non-definitive skull fragment of some creature purported to be an "ape ancestor" does not meet the standard of observation; let alone constitute evidence that great-great-great grandma^[x] was single-celled pond scum. The same goes for your desperately hyped-up finches, peppered moths, 'super rats', platypuses etc.

And speaking of "simple" single-cell organisms (which we now know are more complex than nuclear submarines and space shuttles!), a single-cell organism has NEVER been observed to "mutate" into a new species of two-cell organism. My God! The Evolutionists cannot even validate, neither in nature nor in a laboratory, the jump from one-cell bacteria to two-cell bacteria; yet they call us "stupid" for doubting that our common one-celled pond scum great-great-great grandma^[x] "evolved" into the modern day human, elephant, bird, bumble bee, dolphin, eagle, spider, flower, tree etc.

Obviously, steps 5 and 6 of the Scientific Method are rendered mute; but that doesn't stop the dogmatic Evolutionists and degenerate Marxists from pounding their fists on the table and screaming "Science ... science ... science!" in your face; whilst viciously denouncing you as "uneducated" for daring to question their pond scum to human scenario.

The Theory of trans-species Evolution TM is neither testable nor observable. Likewise, the theory of life blindly coming from non-life is neither testable, nor observable; to say nothing of even being sane. Heck, these ideas were never even 'hypothesizable', and that was before our understanding of the incredibly complex DNA computer code we call the genome; a mind boggling instructional code that is programmed into all organisms, including those "simple" single-cell amoebas and bacteria!

Bottom Line: According to any honest rendering of the Scientific Method, Evolution TM is NOT science!

[Replying to 'way to invoke gods to fill the gaps']I only invoke ONE deity...

"The White race has crossed seas, harnessed rivers, carved mountains, tamed deserts, and colonized the most barren icefields. It has been responsible for the invention of the printing press, cement, the harnessing of electricity, flight, rocketry, astronomy, the telescope, space travel, firearms, the transistor, radio, television, the telephone, the lightbulb, photography, motion pictures, the phonograph, the electric battery, the automobile, the steam engine, railroad transportation, the microscope, computers, and millions of other technological miracles.

The White Race has discovered countless medical advances, incredible applications, scientific progress, etc. Its members have included such greats as Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Homer, Tacitus, Julius Ceaser, Napoleon, William the Conqueror, Marco Polo, Washington, Jefferson, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Magellan, Cabot, Edison, Graham Bell, Pasteur, Leeuwenhoek, Mendel, Newton, Galileo, Watt, Ford, Luther, Devinci, Poe, Tennyson, and thousands upon thousands of other notable achievers.

Throughout 6,000 years of recorded history, the Black African Negro has invented nothing.

1). Not a written language, weaved cloth, a calendar, a plow, a road, a bridge, a railway, a ship, a system of measurement, or even the wheel. (Note: This is in reference to the pure-blooded Negro)

2). He is not known to have ever cultivated a single crop or domesticated a single animal for his own use (although many powerful and docile beasts abounded around him)

3). His only known means of transporting goods was on the top of his hard burry head. For shelter he never progressed beyond the common mud hut, the construction of which a beaver or muskrat is capable.

4). He never build a house although there were millions of board feet of lumber at his fingertips; he never built a table or chairs; he never built a chest of drawers, a dresser; he never built a bed, or desk; he never built a kitchen, never built a stove; he never formed a brick, until he saw the white man do it; he never made a knife, spoon, fork, dish, glass, cup, or any of the other things to eat with; he never built a building; created a money system; he never discovered how to doctor those who were sick except with a few natural remedis that he accidently found; he never built a fireplace to cook and warm himself with; he never weaved a piece of cloth, nor made a shirt, pants, dress, bed clothes, sheets, spreads, quilts, or anything of the sort; he never built an automobile, an airplane, a train, a bus, truck, tractor; he never farmed anything until the white man showed him how, and then when the white man left he let the tractors that he had been given sit and rust away, and the fields unplowed; he never dug a well to produce water for his crops, family, friends and etc., but when the white man came and dug the wells and installed the pumps they used the water with glee, but when the white man left and the pump wore out instead of fixing it they went to the city and begain begging the white man for more food and water."

For starters, this is my first post, so I want to express how much respect I have for those in here who genuinely are here for watching over the world. Despite the shills, you all are heroes in my book. Information sharing and truth should be free, and must be, if we are ever to survive. Those who belong to communities like GLP, may very well be among the last standing. Just remember to always help out those in need, as most of you all are probably much smarter than the average joe.

That being said, I am no stranger to the "conspiracy" circuit. I too have been keeping my ears to the ground and have been for several years. I should've already been posting, not just watching, but oh well, no time like the present.

I'm posting now, about a guy named stevies new stalking victim - he's on facebook, and has a lot of information, and responds (usually right off, or within hours) - who goes on extensively about cloning centers and reptilian creatures who have the ability to host humans. Are you guys familiar with him? Right now there's a group of people, like-minded like all of you, that is trying to rally. I support this group for 3 reasons. Like Socrates once claimed that he was wise for knowing nothing at all, so too must be for us, and I can't guarantee he is the truth speaker we've been looking for - but it doesn't matter for these reasons:

1. Conspiracies are real. Surely not all, but there are forces out there that wish us harm.

2. With Fukushima and other 'doom', time really is running out for us. We must rally around someone/thing.

3. His information is corroborated with a myriad of synchronicities. He speaks earnestly. He is 110% behind exposing the evil behind the scenes. Much of what he says makes tremendous sense.

If you haven't heard of him, please, at least do yourself a favor and read his info. Knowledge is power...I know you all know that.

John

“Please note, there is no such thing as hypocrisy in politics; all positions flow from ideology based on the political presupposition. Besides, who are you oh little person of the great unwashed to judge what is hypocrisy or not hypocrisy?”

Elitism is a result of sin, but this is a political post and not a religious one. Nevertheless, let me say that Elitism began in the garden. The serpent came to Eve and claimed to have more knowledge about God than she had. It can also be said that, clearly, the serpent claimed to have more knowledge about reality than Eve. Hence, caste was first introduced, and the serpent was presenting himself as a mediator between her and God. In addition, the serpent was claiming to have knowledge that would benefit her personally.

From this, Elitism was born. Those who have the superior knowledge should rule over those who have less knowledge because those with less knowledge are detrimental to humanity because of their ignorance. Socrates defined sin as ignorance.

Fundamentally, there are two different caste systems: freewill and predetermined. The latter dominated human history until the Enlightenment Era. Those of the Elitist class who should rule over the great unwashed are preordained in some way—usually by lineage. The British Crown is a good example.

America is based on a caste system, but there is a very important distinction that determines how free the people will be under such a caste system. In the American system, Elitism can be earned no matter who you are. This is freedom of upward mobility; this is the freewill caste system. In America, if you don’t like being treated like a loser by the Elitists, you can pursue an education and become one yourself. Remember, it is knowledge based; the perceived knowledge is the moral rule.

Better than both of these is Individualism. This is an organic body concept. To the degree that every individual is the best individual they can be, ALL people benefit. This would seem rather obvious. Think of a body and all of its cells. The 100 trillion cells that make up your body vary greatly in regard to the role they play, and their depth of intelligence and function. Even the most simple cells are well beyond being fully understood by scientists. To the extent that each cell is as healthy as it can be, human wellbeing is determined. In an individualist society, contributing to the success of every individual benefits all of the other individuals. America’s representative republic is based on Individualism while freewill caste is an unfortunate residual product of it.

Communism and Socialism flow from a predeterminant caste system. That is, those of the Elitist class are predetermined. There is no upward mobility for those not preselected. Elitism is defined by predeterminant caste.

Please note, there is no such thing as hypocrisy in politics; all positions flow from ideology based on the political presupposition. Besides, who are you oh little person of the great unwashed to judge what is hypocrisy or not hypocrisy?

Now, let’s put some feet on this. Nancy Pelosi is supposedly a hypocrite because she is for gun control but always protected by a heavily armed security detail that doesn’t have to abide by any gun laws like gun-free zones etc. That’s not hypocrisy at all, but merely a result of her Elitist ideology. According to her worldview; it makes perfect sense.

First, the great unwashed cannot be armed in case the Elitists have to do something they know is best for the whole of society that much of society might disagree with. Along with that comes necessary collateral damage that is outweighed by the greater good. Sure, you may have to watch your family being ravaged during a home invasion while defenseless, but that is unfortunate collateral damage for the greater good. In contrast, if an Elitist is lost, the world has less knowledge and leadership to protect the great unwashed from themselves. The absolute cardinal sin is the belief that individuals know what’s best for themselves. This, in the eyes of Elitists, puts all of society at risk.

In addition, the sole purpose of the individual is to serve the needs of the Elitists; in fact, their total life value is based on their ability to do so. The following excerpt makes this point aptly:

Sharon Osbourne is facing backlash after revealing she forced her former assistant into a burning building before firing him.

On a recent episode of the BBC game show, Would I Lie To You?, Sharon, 67, recalled that she and Ozzy, 71, were home for Christmas one year when their house became engulfed in flames from a candle they were gifted for the holiday.

“This alarm was ringing and ringing,” The Talk host said. “A fire alarm. I sent him [Ozzy] down. And so he went down, and suddenly I hear my name being called. ‘Sharon, Sharon, help me!’ “

“I went downstairs and there he was in the living room and his arm was on fire,” Sharon continued. “He had a sling on. And half his hair was all on fire.”
After noting that Ozzy’s assistant was still sleeping during the crisis, Sharon said that she used a magazine to try and stop the fire on Ozzy’s shirt and hair, but to no avail.

“So then outside there was a fountain,” she explained. “I pushed Ozzy out and then the arm and his hair stopped. And then I think ‘Right, where is that assistant?’ So I go into the guest house and he’s going, ‘Everything Alright?’ and I’m like ‘No, house is on fire. Get out, help. Go in and get the paintings out.’ “

“There were dogs, and I said ‘You must go in and find the dogs,’ ” she recalled telling the assistant. “So he did get the dogs, and the fire engines arrive. Very lovely people. They came and they had this oxygen for the assistant. So then I said to him ‘How very dare you, you work here, and you get more paintings out right now.’ “

“I took the mask and I put it on my dog,” Sharon said, which earned applause and laughter from the judges and audience. She then explained the moment she decided to fire her husband’s assistant.

“After this terrible night, he was not talking to me,” Sharon recalled. “And Ozzy and I were counting everything and we were laughing and laughing and he goes ‘I don’t see what’s funny about any of this. I think I am going to have damaged lungs.’ “

“So then, I just said ‘If you don’t think that’s funny, do you think this is funny?’ And he said, ‘What?’ And I said, ‘You’re fired,’ ” Sharon said, again receiving applause and laughter from the studio.

When it came time for the judges to guess if the shocking story actually occurred, all three predicted it was true — which Sharon confirmed.
Following the revelation, fans flocked to social media to express their disappointment in Sharon.

A rep for Sharon did not immediately return PEOPLE’s request for comment.

Though many are shocked by this testimony from Osbourne, they shouldn’t be; the sum and substance of an individual’s life is determined by their ability to serve the Elitists according to their worldview.

Be sure of this: Elitist rule will rob us of all freedom if we allow it to have political power; Elitism is freedom’s greatest enemy.

paul

The Bible doesn't say what happens to babies who die, whether born or unborn.... the fate of dead babies is not your concern. All we know is that God will act justly towards them.

Except that evolutionism has NOTHING to do with science and math and EVERYTHING to do with bigoted materialism. We already know that Jimmy has the typical humanist hatred of Christianity and Patriotism.

Who cares about secular archaeology... secular archaeology would deny lifespans of 900+ years for most of the Genesis 5 patriarchs too, so who gives a monkey's? But it's hardly surprising that Morton puts secular archaeology about Biblical history, since he puts uniformitarian 'science' above the Bible too.

Experiments of this type confirm my feeling that the Flood had to be instituted to wipe out all of mankind due to ancient genetic experimentation of the kind arising today that eventually polluted virtually all the genomes of the natural order. There is a hint of this in the words of scripture that mentioned that "Noah was perfect in his generations", and thus was able to restart the human race to a relatively unpolluted genetic state. This would also explain why so-called 'innocent' life had to be terminated as well.

Trust Chicky [another poster] to believe in something as outdated as heliocentrism.

If one follows these things for as long as I have it becomes obvious that evolutionary belief is a moving target because as soon as one argument for it is proven wrong another arises to take its place. This happens so regularly it could almost be considered a Law of Nature.

I also found the location of Socrates' plagiarism from the New Testament:

1 Corinthians 1:25 "For God's foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength."

8 Ways to Ensure Your Daughter Won't Become a Mudshark
Nothing is more terrifying to a father of a beautiful White* daughter than to see her walk hand in
hand with a Negro who will ultimately abuse her emotionally, physically, financially or socially.
Then he will inherit grandchildren who do not remotely resemble him.

Here are some tips you as parents can use to hopefully ensure your daughter doesn't go the Nicole Brown path.

1. Do not allow television programs featuring interracial relationships or White men appearing inferior to "Negroe Knights."

The media loves picking the fit buck Negroes for commercials, television programs and other visual garbage and putting them next to weak, feminine and pathetic White men. They are trying to say "pick Terry Crews with his 8-pack and huge penis or this weak balding White guy."

2. Do not allow access to media like music and sports that features and glorifies Negroes.

Many of these "artists" have lyrics sexualizing White women including songs about White women giving Black men oral sex. The Jew also promotes the Negro as the super athlete who when he makes gets rewarded with a White blonde wife. How many White dates have drove their daughters to concerts of Negro hiphop and rap performers to be around Negro men grabbing at their crotch? Also, do not let your daughter idolize female pop stars who get down with coloreds.
They will ultimately try to emulate their behavior.

3. Do not allow your daughter to become overweight or have low self-esteem.

Male Negroes are predators for these type of White girls. It's well known that Negro men love overweight women. As far as they are concerned, more "cushion for the pushin'." What ends up happening is the overweight or low self-esteem White girl doesn't get any attention from the White guys so when the Negro who is just out for some ass pays her attention she falls in love and realizes that is all she can get. You then have a mudshark for life who will end up getting impregnated.

4. Do not allow your daughter to play sports that are similarly enjoyed by Negroes.

Time and time again, White females who are basketball players or cheerleaders are constantly around Negro men. Your White cheerleader daughter has to go and do routines with her pom-poms for the "Negro super athlete." Thus, much of their time will be surrounded by Negro men. The White girls watch the Black boys play and eventually end up spending their extracurricular time with them. Before you know it, she'll go from dribbling a ball to putting a Black penis up to her lips.

6. Do not allow your daughter to be friends with girls who have Negrophilia.

Here is what is going to happen if you do: These girls are ostracized by their parents. They get asked "but don't you like White guys, too?" Their parents just don't get it. But much like when your children are underperforming at school, they say "well, other people in the class failed that test too" to validate their own failure. White girls who are into Negro men do the same thing. They try to lure their friends into the lifestyle so they can say "well, Britney likes Black guys too so who cares?" It's the most elementary form of social peer pressure.
They are constantly trying to recruit their friends to their lifestyle.

7. Do not allow your daughter to feel White culture is bland compared to modern Negro culture.

"White boyz be bland" is what they will say. They'll say White men are not dominant enough because their songs are not as sexually suggestive or as interesting. Once Whiteness is seen as unoriginal or boring they will think the work of 50 Cents or one of the Kartrashian boyfriends is superior to that of Socrates, Nikola Tesla, or Thomas Edison. White women who have no respect for the hard work, ingenuity, and creativity of the White male culture will undoubtedly become mudsharks.

8. Don't push too much.

"You are not permitted to date Black boys" and obsessive reminders are only going to push your children to rebel against you. Gentle, consistent reminders will suffice. But making it constantly known how banned this type of behavior is will only make the forbidden fruit more desired, so to speak. Let them know once. Once the behavior starts to lead in that direction do what you can to gently influence their behavior and time spent away from going down this road and you should be just fine. Otherwise, ride them over it and expect to have grand kids who do not look like you.

Since there is no credible conventional explanation for the geological layers, it amazes me when people say there is no evidence for a global flood when they are probably standing on it right now. Wasn't there a classic novel about hiding things in plain sight?

[Replying to 'what did the animals eat after the global flood?]Forgetting exhumed carrion, which carnivores would rather eat than expend energy hunting, or fish trapped in pools left behind by retreating floodwaters.

And not that the Beserk One cares, since he doesn't believe in any God anyway. But like a lot of misotheists, he's happy to use the likes of Bubba, QED and JJRamsey [Christians who accept evolution] as 'useful idiots' (Lenin's phrase) to help undermine Christianity by white-anting the very first book of the Bible.

According to Ussher the universe or the begining of creation is 4004 BC. He based this off the text of the bible and did a good job of it. That would put us at 6012 years since creation.

The flood occured at 2500 BC.

Noah put 7 each of all clean animals and 2 each of all unclean. This is based on barim which is close to Family in our current classification system. So he brought on 2 dog/wolf kind onto the ark. From these two dog/wolf kind come all of the species of dog and wolves that we have today.

God did not need to miraculously create olive branches. The dove picked the branch off of a tree that was just covered by the flood water. It was a tree that was there before the flood, so no creating had to be done. The purpose of the flood was for God to kill all "flesh from the face of the earth" or land dwelling animals. This did not include trees and plant life or fish which were in the oceans.

It is the Uniformatarian dating method that gives us older dates than the 6000 years in the bible. Most modern scientist use this dating method and it ends up putting human artifacts back 10,000 plus years. So for these scientist to put a date of 8000 years on some chinese cave writting is not uncomon for their education. Unfortunately put agaist the bible the dates would be incorrect because nothing can exist before the date of creation. The question is who is wrong God or Man (scientists)?

The pyramids would have no evidence of the flood because they were built after the flood. In Socrates writting of Criteas and Timaeus, the Egyptian scibe refers to a Great Flood in their historical reccord which they were familiar with.

But that's par for the course with evolutionists, whether atheists or their churchian 'useful idiot' dupes.

And you sir have lost all sense of perspective and common sense by claiming the extensive accounts of the creation and flood are metaphor and allegory.

Earth Day is April 22, 2008, so this is a good time to mention how global warming activism = green Marxism. Like regular communism, it’s dogmatic, international, and a secular religion that’s bent on saving mankind (mankind and Mother Earth).

We are supposed to believe that a global temperature increase of 1 degree during the past 150 years is “proof” of global warming.

How long before Western governments make green ideas mandatory? How long before “global warming denial” laws are installed?

My own attitude is that the Big Bang is illogical as a scientific theory right out of the box. Assuming that all the material/energy in the universe was once in a space smaller than the head of a pin is totally dumb.

IMHO unicorns were dinosaurs. Since they were unknown when the KJV bible was translated, the Hebrew word was mistranslated into English.

I used to be impressed by all the 'scientific' dating methods until I finally looked into the subject in detail. It amazed me how people could delude themselves so badly. Thus, I finally concluded that there is no real reason to doubt the veracity of the Genesis narrative regarding a short age for the Earth and probably the universe as well.

Actually many of the Greek philosophers proposed evolutionary ideas, e.g. Anaximander, Epicurus and Empedocles. This also demolishes silly arguments like 'Newton was a creationist merely because there was no alternative.'

... you and Morton refuse to treat Scripture as supremely authoritative. That is the key issue. By going down your lines, I would be implicitly abandoning biblical authority and accepting the supremacy of autonomous human reasoning.

And I couldnt give a monkey's what a Mormon cultist like Schindler thinks, especially one who contradicts his own doctrines.

They [Giordano Bruno, Michael Servetus] were not martyrs to science but outright stinking heretics, denying the Trinity. But don't bore us here -- there are threads on TWeb dealing with the Inquisition.

In addition, the Big Bang assumes that the coordinates of the universe are expanding. This is ad hoc, because there is no direct evidence that this is the case.

So should we bow to the Scriptural teaching of the doctrine of eternal punishment, or do we allow human 'arguments from outrage' to override the clear teaching of Scripture?... if, as most of the Christian world has believed, the Bible does teach that the unsaved will be tormented eternally, then we should say that it is fit punishment, and build a model from there.

My own wild speculation, based only on ancient legends including those of Atlantis, is that genetic experiments had been conducted which essentially polluted the genomes of the entire human race, except for a few who like Noah were said to be 'perfect in their generations'. Thus, the necessity of a wholescale cleansing, including otherwise innocent children, and perhaps many animals as well. Perhaps someday we will find out the rest of the story.

This seems to be inconsistant with surveys. This makes evolutionists mad, because even though all the schools and media outlets teach that monkeys and Man descended from a common ancestor, most people have enough common sense to reject such a preposterous claim.

[From "An Anti-Fascist Statement"]

(Above: Pinochet, seated in front, just after the Sept. 1973 Chilean coup).

(I’m sort of tempted to sign that anti-fascist statement in order to make a point: I’m not a fascist per se, and Alex has said the exact same thing, and most of the people in the White nationalist movement are also not fascists per se; although I do understand that, to save the sinking ship called America, there will likely come a point in time when fascist measures must be implemented for a few years, just like Augusto Pinochet did in Chile circa 1973/1974. To think that America can vote itself back to being a healthy republic is to be an idiot).

Give this libertarian credit for not signing that anti-fascist statement; however, it’s sad to see that a lot of people don’t understand the real nature of libertarianism: it’s [B]a Jewish movement [/B]posing as a freedom movement. Libertarianism has no power in the West, and that was the [B]whole idea[/B] from the beginning: to make White people think individually, not collectively.

[B][Article].[/B]

And I would want to know why Christian parents were sending their kids to the anti-God public school system in the first place. It's like the Israelites sending their kids to the Canaanites to be educated.

I feel that if creation is true then all of the evidence available to date should be consistent with that event. But if evolution is true then all of the evidence should be consistent with that hypothesis. Since all of the evidence is not consistent with the evolutionary hypothesis I decided to investigate the creation hypothesis, and so far I have not found any evidence that is not consistent with it.

Normally it's only the Christians who are expected to keep their religious views out of politics, while atheist always bring in their own religious views.

Re: Why are women so fucking dumb

That's what happens when your life is too easy. Women can simply afford to be dumb as bricks and believe in made up shit.

high iq. girls in the countryside do not have the time to believe in anything beyond what their priest tells them.

t. someone who knows girls in the countryside.

I also want to add the other reasons: Femaleness has become irrelevant in modern society, which is dominated by science, logic, understanding and so on. I know this sounds cliched, but in the countryside or in pre-modern times, intuition, knowledge passed from generation to generation and the like was much more important. Women had a confidence and consciousness because they passed on knowledge about sewing, washing, arts and crafts from mother to daughter, knowledge that men were excluded from accessing due to gender roles. They, in effect, used to feel unconsciously less inferior compared to men, and didn't have much of a need for feminism.

Today, when all of these female specific jobs are taken over by factories and scientific accuracy, there is nothing female that is important anymore, there is no knowledge or understanding that is exclusive to women anymore, there is no sphere where women clearly no more than women. I can cite a passage from Plato's Republic where Socrates is asking Glaucon: Aren't there professions where women are clearly more knowledgeable than any man? And he affirms. Think about how this has changed! What's still female is nowadays at the most "emotional labour", i.e. making people feel good about themselves and providing good feelings, as nurses, teachers and the like. But this isn't a "power" and it cannot be conceptualized as such outside of spiritual means.

Women are compensating this loss of esoteric female knowledge with the dark crafts, astrology and spirituality, because it seems to be a way to access knowledge that male rationality and science can not access, you cannot explain it in scientific terms so men are excluded from it. This is precisely why witchcraft is so huge and has this feminist connotation: They think it's a way to access female-only powers that men cannot have, and they gain a self-confidence and consciousness as powerful beings that matter in more ways than being Chad's cocksleeve.

It's female cope.

Those of us who believe God are able to recognize the clues left in the record of nature that put the lie to the cleverly devised stories of those who hate God.

Many “-phobia” and “-ism” words were coined to make White people look like extremists, e.g., “racism.”

[Arguing against theistic evolution]And this overlooks the fact that evolution is a wasteful, cruel and inefficient process... and there is loads of death and suffering.

The Shroud [of Turin] is also contrary to the Bible, which says that Jesus was 'bound ... in wrappings (plural)... Shroud proponents can explain this away all they want, but the Bible should be used to judge claimed artefacts; not the artefacts used to judge the Bible.

God undoubtedly told this account [Genesis 1] to Adam... The second story was Adam's account, which like many newspaper accounts is not necessarily in chronological sequence like the first story... it was a collection of stories, written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.Some of these would have been preserved on the Ark by Noah, and Moses, being a Prince of Egypt prrobably found them preserved in the libraries in Egypt. He must have been inspired by God to compile the stories into a single document which we today call the Book of Genesis... It certainly makes far more sense than believing that God dictated all that to Moses or that Moses made it all up.

[Referring to evolution]It will be fascinating how historians of the future will explain how so many educated persons could have been so wrong about the past.

For me, the best evidence that Genesis is correct and evolution is false lies in the areas of genetics, biology, chemistry, geology and paleontology.

Also, the Bible is the perfect Antidote to superstition...

[Replying to 'you would not even consider the possibility of an old earth']  I would -- if the Bible taught it.