scientists would know about it

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

Nobel Prize winning "scientist" Dr. Luis Alvarez was given the task of x-raying the pyramids at Giza to find hidden chambers. Using naturally occurring cosmic rays, his scheme was to place spark chambers, standard equipment in the high-energy particle physics of this time, beneath the second pyramid of Chephren in a known chamber. By measuring the counting rate of the cosmic rays in different directions the detector would reveal the existence of any void in the overlaying rock structure.

Dr. Alvarez was in the observation plane that flew over Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Here is a quote from the autobiography of Dr. Alvarez, published in 1987:

By September 1966 Jerry Anderson, my son Walt, and I, with our wives, were ready to go to Cairo. Jerry brought equipment mock-ups to make sure everything would fit through the pyramid passages. Ahmed Fakhry arranged for the joint Pyramid Project to occupy a modern building near the Second Pyramid's Belzoni entrance. It had been his home and office when he was chief inspector of pyramids. We converted it into a combined office and shop complete with electronic instrumentation and machine tools. I have long been a member of the board of directors of Hewlett-Packard. Because of Bill Hewlett's interest in the joint Pyramid Project, Hewlett-Packard made a gift of the electronic equipment. The National Geographic Society contributed substantial unrestricted funds, as did my friend Bill Golden. IBM donated a computer, the first any Egyptian university owned. (Alvarez, Alvarez: Adventures of a Physicist, p. 233).
Alvarez and his team were about to use space age technology to look inside the oldest building in the world.

Dr. Luis Alvarez recommended using cosmic rays to x-ray all the pyramids in the Giza Plateau.

Archaeologist and author Ahmed Fakhry was his liaison in Egypt.

Their work continued until the Six-Day War in June 1967.

The x-raying–supposed to last for 2 years–was interrupted by the outbreak of the Six-Day War in June 1967. The Egyptian military believed Alvarez and his team had helped the double pyramid "Jews" by allowing their planes to completely destroy the Egyptian Air Force on the ground. As a result, the work was suspended, and they were ordered to leave the country.

The results were ASTONISHING. The cosmic rays could not penetrate the water saturated limestone blocks of the pyramids.

To buy his silence, Alvarez was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in October 1968.

The $1.2 million prize money persuaded him to keep the results of the tests secret!!

Alvarez really believed in not letting his left hand know what his right hand was doing. Oblivious to his previous failure, in 1974, a massive 1 million dollar project was launched by the National Science Foundation in the U.S. to locate hidden chambers in the Giza pyramids.

In 1974, apparently unaware of the pyramid x-raying of Alvarez, the National Science Foundation launched another attempt to x-ray the pyramids.

This time the results were published.

The limestone rocks were too saturated with water to allow penetration by cosmic rays.
The search had to be abandoned because the electro-magnetic sounder equipment could not penetrate the limestone rocks due to their high water content.

Limestone from all over Egypt was tested against Cheops limestone for water content.

The results were that Great Pyramid limestone is UNIQUE . . . and not found anywhere else in the world because it is pre-Great Flood limestone.

A report was published in 1975 by the National Science Foundation in Washington City:

A Joint Egyptian-American research team conducted electromagnetic sounder experiments during autumn 1974 with the primary objective of locating archaeologically significant chambers in the Giza area. Radio frequency losses in the limestone rock of the area, ranging from 6 dB/m at 10 MHz to 25 dB/m at 150 MHz, appear to preclude much practical application of radio-frequency sounding in the vicinity of Giza. The high losses are contrary to expectations based on samples analyzed before the Giza experiments, but are consistent with later laboratory analyses made at the high temperature and high humidity characteristic of the Giza environment. (Electromagnetic Sounder Experiments at the Pyramids of Giza. p. iii).

Only a few academics were made aware of these facts because it threatened to demolish Darwinism and his sinking sand theory of evolution. Of course, none of the people involved in the experiments were awarded Nobel Prizes!!

Ross Olson #fundie creation.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim #fundie blog.reaction.la

Leftists have a word “entryism”, which they use when privately talking amongst themselves. They never plainly state what entryism is, but if you are part of the in group, it becomes obvious that they are talking in code. If the chans got hold of some emails about “entryism”, would probably interpret it as referring to satanic rituals involving sex with children.

I don’t know what “pizza” means in the pizzagate emails, other than that it obviously does not mean pizza, but I know what entryism means:

Identify a respected institution.
kill it.
gut it.
wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect

Since outsiders have never heard the word “entryism” used, they invented their own word for this: “Barnacling”

Science died with peer review, and is now a skin suit worn by a demon. As social justice warriors moved into technology companies, the same has happened with technology. If you are a gamer, you will have noticed that you no longer need new hardware every year. If you are a fan of self driving cars, you will have noticed that they can self drive just fine 99.99% of the time, which is 0.01% less than is useful, and that impressive as this is, it is not getting any better, nor is it likely to get any better. Similarly, Google Translate was a gigantic achievement, but no real progress has been made in automatic translation since Google went social justice, quite a long time ago.

Musk is a serial scammer, always hyping technology that does not exist and that he has no real intention of producing, but his reusable booster was a real technological achievement. It was, of course, produced by male geeks, and now that the eye of Soros has fallen upon them, they are finding their job redefined from producing a reusable earth to orbit rocket, Musk’s proposed, and genuinely intended BFR, to proving that black muslim women produced all technology, and whites stole it from them. Musk’s electric cars and solar city are scams, which could have only produced a profit through Hillary’s crony capitalism, but he really did intend the BFR, the re-usable earth to orbit and back again rocket. Reading between the lines, I feel him giving up hope for it now, which is going to destroy the lives and careers of a horde of really great rocket scientists. If no BFR, there is not much for them to do now. Their careers are going through the same dead end arc as a Fortran engineer’s, or a nuclear engineer’s or a climate scientist who tells peer reviewers what he actually observed, instead of observing what they tell him he observed.

The term “Barnacling” was coined in reference to the Social Justice takeover and destruction of the Star Wars mythos and intellectual property, but I have seen the same thing happen to various open source projects that adopted a contributor code of conduct. Instead of the objective being to produce good software to serve some valuable purpose, the objective becomes giving black women STEM credits, and the project suffers bitrot and technical debt. The creators are, sooner or later, accused of mansplaining, sexual harassment, rape and racism, they become radioactive and permanently unemployable. And without them, the project mysteriously languishes while being used to adorn the resumes of progressives who do not know what a dongle or a fork is.

If you adopt Github’s community code of conduct, your STEM career is going to die, because you are giving people who hate you and everything you stand for, who hate your race, hate your sex, and hate the entire civilization that your ancestors created, the tools with which to destroy your life.

If you have heard leftists talk about entryism (and you will have only heard them talking about it if they are confident you are a fellow leftist) it swiftly becomes obvious that they are talking in code about something that gives them great pleasure. You might suppose that the code is code for satanic rituals and diddling little boys, which is probably how the chans would interpret it, but they are talking about something more fun that that: They are talking in code about destroying the lives of people that they hate. And they hate you, and they hate everything you represent.

Stealing from the best, here is a detailed description of how social justice warriors destroy games and movies:

SJW CRITICISM – The intellectual property is criticized by SJWs for being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and a smattering of other things.
Intellectual property IS ABOUT TO UNDERGO REBOOT – or reimagining, or remake, or whatever term is fashionable at the time.
THE BARNACLING – SJWs barnacle themselves to the intellectual property both within its production and without in the fan base, and start lecturing long time fans.
FAN CRITICISM – Long time fans of the intellectual property voice legitimate criticism of the new direction.
SJW RESPONSE TO FAN CRITICISM – A large fan backlash is created when SJWs both within and without the production falsely accuse critics of being racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic etc.
DISMISSING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces declaring the backlash doesn’t exist.
IGNORING THE BACKLASH – Media publishes pieces instructing others to ignore the “tiny vocal minority.
SUPPRESSING THE BACKLASH – Blogs and websites delete or otherwise “redact” critical comments and posts in discussion forums under the aegis of “hate speech.”
BACKLASH INTENSIFIES – As an inevitable side effect of suppression, backlashers seek out other venues to express their criticism, and some publish their own, growing the backlash exponentially.
HATE HOAXES & FALSE FLAGS – The rank and file SJW activists get heavily involved in shouting down critics, and creating false flags and hate hoaxes in an effort to discredit critics.
Intellectual property FAILURES – The intellectual property starts to falter as fans drift away and sales plummet.
THE DAMSEL IN DISTRESS – A female member of the production (it could also be a gay man) is granted victim status over a fishy event in order to deflect from the failures of the intellectual property, and shame critics into silence.
DESPERATE PLEAS FOR COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT – “White Knights” in the media call for creative authorities to smack down the backlash and restore control of the narrative in response to The Damsel In Distress event. Media publishes multiple articles with the same talking points and buzzwords such as “toxic” in an effort to mischaracterize the fan base. Major news outlets report on the story, and quote these “think” pieces as authoritative.
ANSWERING THE CALL – Celebrities and creative cast & crew answer the media’s call, and make public statements admonishing critical fans, typically over false accusations.
THE FINAL PUSH – Media entities, and rank and file SJWs tell long time fans to go find something else if they don’t like it anymore, in a last ditch effort to push critics out of the “community” once and for all.
Intellectual property BLEEDING – The intellectual property continues to hemorrhage money, as long time fans continue to abandon the intellectual property in droves.
FANBASE OBLITERATION – The fanbase is utterly destroyed, leaving behind only the small handful of SJWs who don’t make any purchases.
THE END – The new incarnation of the intellectual property comes to an end. Since the majority of the fan base has abandoned it, there’s no more controversy or discussion about it. It’s over. The best case scenario is that the original intellectual property is largely forgotten with the exception of a few die-hards who still carry the torch. The worst case scenario is that the new incarnation of the intellectual property overwrites the original intellectual property, and the original intellectual property is forgotten altogether and overshadowed by the new incarnation in all future media mentions.
MIGRATION – The remaining SJWs jump ship to devour a new intellectual property that is popular, and undergoing a transitional phase.
REBIRTH – The process begins anew.

If you are working in tech or science, as for example Musk’s rocket, expect the same, though with far less reporting by major newsmedia. I have seen the same at Google and at projects that adopted a community code of conduct, and reading between the lines of Musk’s tech announcements, I can feel his reusable earth to orbit rocket fading from a real project that would create income, purpose, dignity, and status for a great many rocket scientists, to yet another of his many tech scams. (As, for example, his self driving car: When Musk decided to produce a self driving car without lidar, it was obvious he had given up on the possibility of producing an actual self driving car.) Today, only a scammer can produce science and technology, because you have lie to social justice warriors, and scammers are apt to scam all sides, scamming those who have high hopes for science and technology, and scamming those who hope to have income, purpose, and dignity in creating it. Trump is the only notable scammer who seems to be genuinely on our side.

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

The stage is set in Syria for another Pentagon false flag operation!!

In October 1962, a Pentagon false flag operation called the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to the annihilation of the entire human race. Beginning in the summer of 1962, "Communist" Nikita Khrushchev began secretly shipping "nuclear missiles" to Cuba via the British controlled Straits of Gibraltar. Khrushchev was not even Russian, he was a "fake Jew" from UKraine, and most of his soldiers in Cuba were UKrainians.

In preparation for the Cuban Missile Crisis, British Secret Service agent Greville Wynne recruited a Russian colonel named Oleg Penkovsky to decapitate the top Soviet military leaders.

MI6 Greville Wynne–working out of the British embassy in Moscow–recruited colonel Penkovsky as a spy.

Greville was the liaison between Winston Churchill and suicide bomber general Curtis LeMay.

KJB Penkovsky's job was to disable the Russian Doomsday Device before the Pentagon's thermonuclear attack!!

Under the guise of a trade delegation, Penkovsky the spy arrived in London on April 20, 1961.

From April 20 to May 6, 1961, Penkovsky underwent an intensive debriefing at MI6 HQ in London.

MI6 Chief Sir Dick White then shared this info with John McCone–his CIA counterpart.

During his stay in Britain, "Guy Fawkes" Penkovsky was shown every trick in the MI6 spying arsenal.

To disarm the Doomsday Device, Penkovsky recommended that small atomic bombs be planted at strategic locations and timed to go off just before general LeMay's bombers arrived:

As a strategic officer, a graduate of two academies, and having worked for some time in the General Staff, I know what the sensitive spots are. I am convinced that my viewpoint is absolutely correct, namely that in case of a future war, at H-hour plus two minutes, all of these critical targets such as the General Staff, the KGB Headquarters on Dzerzhinsky Square, the Central Committee of the Party, which organizes everything, and similar targets must all be blown up by pre-positioned atomic bombs rather than by means of bombs dropped from aircraft or rockets, which may or may not hit the vital targets.
In our Soviet Army we have a five-kiloton, a ten-kiloton, and bigger weapons, but they have not yet been able to produce a one-kiloton weapon. Our scientists are still working on it. I know this exactly. Such weapons would not need to be set within the buildings themselves, but there are many adjacent buildings where they can be concealed. Dwellings and stores are adjacent. For example, there is a large Gastronom [food store] next to the KGB Headquarters. A small group of saboteurs equipped with such weapons, governed by a time mechanism, should plant them in the locations from which all these headquarters can be destroyed. Irrespective of what other attacks will be made at H-hour, these essential headquarters must be destroyed. These headquarters can be easily spotted in every major city. They are easy to find in Leningrad, Sverdlovsk, Voronezh, and Novosibirsk, for example. All one would need would be one man to do this for each military district. This would destroy the mobilization and organizational directorates that are the backbone of the army. If these headquarters of the General Staff and the Military Districts are destroyed, this will reduce the combat strength of the Soviet Army to a very great degree. A number of months would be required to assemble more or less experienced men from the reserves. (Schecter & Deriabin, The Spy Who Saved the World, p. 75).

Amazingly, Penkovsky's spying was not done in a corner. His Moscow handler worked out of the British Embassy . . . just a stone's throw from the Kremlin.

Penkovsky would meet Janet Chisholm, wife of Station Chief Rauri, at Tsvetnoy Boulevard Park in Moscow.

Under the guise of giving candy to her kids, he actually gave her top secret documents about the Soviet nuclear arsenal.

Even children played a deadly role in the Doomsday scenario called the Cuban Missile Crisis!!

On the very day that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky was arrested. Moscow was about to be lit up with FIREWORKS, and its wasn't even New Year's Eve!!

On the very day (October 22) that President Kennedy made his "full retaliatory response" speech, Penkovsky's plot was uncovered.

The arrest of the Russian Guy Fawkes caused panic at the Pentagon as they now faced the prospect of a horrible death by cobalt hydrogen bomb radiation.

There is no doubt that the Pentagon feared the Russian Doomsday Device, and they dreaded the prospect of dying a horrible death by radiation.

The drama was as intense in Moscow as in Cuba and Washington City:

There was one more piece of urgent business falling to the KGB secret police. For the past year, a Soviet military intelligence officer named Colonel Oleg Penkovsky had been providing top secret documents to his British and American handlers. Among the documents now in the hands of the CIA was the technical manual for the R-12 missile system, together with the layout of a typical missile site and detailed descriptions of the various readiness levels. Penkovsky had been under suspicion for weeks, but the KGB delayed moving against him because it wanted to smash the entire spy ring.
With the Cold War on the verge of turning hot, Penkovsky could not be permitted to feed any more information to the Americans. Plainclothes agents burst into his apartment on the Moscow River and arrested him without a struggle. Because of the importance of the case, the head of the KGB, Vladimir Semichastny, decided that he would take personal charge of the interrogation. He ordered his men to bring the traitor to his third-floor corner office in the Lubyanka. They sat him down at the other end of a long conference table.
Fearing torture or worse, Penkovsky immediately offered to cooperate with the KGB "in the interests of the motherland." Semichastny looked at him with distaste. "Tell me what harm you have inflicted on our country. Describe it all in detail, with the most pertinent facts." (Dobbs, One Minute to Midnight, pp. 56-57).

Arch-traitor Penkovsky faced a firing squad and most of his accomplices were arrested. Typically, Wynne escaped and lived to a ripe old age. British Secret Service agent Nikita Khrushchev lost most of his power after the Cuban Missile Crisis and he was overthrown in 1964.

If that was British spying on the "police state" known as the Soviet Union, imagine what the situation is like today....Truly horrendous!!

The generals at the Pentagon spend most of their time figuring out how they can get Russia to shoot first, in order for them to launch a nuclear attack on that great and free country.

Now that the British Joint Chiefs have a puppet in the White House . . . and the Kremlin . . . they are eagerly looking forward to World War III.

Tucker Carlson #fundie westernjournalism.com

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

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

Tucker vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patrick Scrivener #conspiracy reformation.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was the most explosive discovery since gunpowder cannon.

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

Chateau Heartiste #sexist heartiste.wordpress.com

Dating Market Value Test For Men

Here is a system for determining your dating market value if you are a man. Dating market value is a measurement of how you stack up against other men in the competition for attracting female interest. Be honest with yourself taking this survey. It will give you a fairly accurate assessment of the quality and number of women you are capable of attracting for a sexual relationship. Girls, you may take this quiz for your boyfriends to see if you are slumming it or about to be cheated on.

1. How old are you?

under 25 years old: 0 points
26-34 years old: +1 point
35-45 years old: 0 points
45+ years old: -1 point

2. How tall are you?

under 5’9?: -1 point
5’9? to 5’11”: 0 points
6' to 6’4?: +1 point
over 6’4?: 0 points

3. What is your BMI?

(Go here to calculate your BMI. I know BMI doesn’t account for very muscular physiques, but since most men are not Lee Haney, it is adequate for this survey’s purposes.)

under 20.0: -1 point
20.0 to 24.0: +1 point
24.1 to 27.0: 0 points
over 27.0: -1 point

4. How much do you bench press?

60% or less of your body weight: -1 point
61% to 80% of your body weight: 0 points
81% to 170% of your body weight: +1 point
over 170% of your body weight: 0 points

5. What does your hairline look like?

Full head of hair if you are over 35: +1 point
Full head of hair if you are under 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are over 35: 0 points
Receding hairline if you are under 35: -1 point
Bald (age irrelevant): -1 point
Bald but you are dark-skinned: 0 points

6. How much money do you make?

under $40K and you are out of college: -1 point
$40K to $70K out of college and under 40 years old: 0 points
over $70K out of college and under 40 years old: +1 point
under $40K and you are college age or younger: 0 points
$40K to $55K and over 40 years old: -1 point
$55K to $90K and over 40 years old: 0 points
over $90K and 40 to 55 years old: +1 point
over $200K (age irrelevant): +1 point

7. Do you have a car?

No (under 21yo): 0 points
No (over 21yo): -1 point
Yes (under 21yo): +1 point
Yes (over 21yo): 0 points
No, but you have a motorcycle (age irrelevant): +1 point

8. Are you good-looking?

(Self-assessment is somewhat unreliable, so if you are uncertain of your looks post your pic on hotornot and wait a week for your score. Or get opinions from unbiased and blunt friends. Hashing out the biometric details of what makes a male face attractive would require another lengthy post, so for now these two methods are acceptable substitutes.)

On a 1 – 10 scale:

0 – 4: -1 point
5 – 7: 0 points
8 – 10: +1 point

9. Have you ever played a leading role in a team sport?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point

10. What is your occupation?

(Since I won’t list every single high status job in the Department of Labor’s Occupational Handbook, you’ll have to make a judgment call on your own job. It’s a safe assumption that most people know a high status job when they see it.)

High status (doctor, lawyer, stockbroker, executive, professor, business owner, successful artist or musician or writer, professional athlete, etc.): +1 point
Neutral status (engineer, programmer, accountant, salesman, mid level manager, scientist, military officer, well-paid tradesman, etc.): 0 points
Low status (low paid blue collar, admin, construction, janitor, struggling web designer, help desk, etc.): -1 point

11. How many friends do you have?

0 to 3: -1 point
4 to 20: 0 points
over 20: +1 point

12. How many friends have you met through the internet that you have never seen in person?

0 to 2: 0 points
over 2: -1 point

13. When was the last time you went to a house party?

Within the past month: +1 point
Between one month and one year ago: 0 points
Over one year ago: -1 point

14. Have people besides your family called you funny?

None: -1 point
A few have: 0 points
Nearly everyone who knows me: +1 point

15. What is your IQ?

Under 85: -1 point
85 to 110: 0 points
110 to 130: +1 point
130 to 145: 0 points
over 145: -1 point

16. At a party, which happens first – you approach someone or someone approaches you?

I approach someone first almost every time: +1 point
I occasionally approach first: 0 points
Someone normally approaches me first: -1 point

17. Have you ever been in a serious fight where real punches were thrown and you felt like you wanted to kill your opponent(s)?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point
Yes, with a girl: -1 point

18. Have you ever been arrested?

No: 0 points
Yes: +1 point
Yes, for child pornography or public exposure: -1 point

****

It’s best to answer the following four questions based on your past experience with similar scenarios. Who we really are is not what we wish we were but what we have always been.

19. You are on a second date with a girl. You go to kiss her. She turns her cheek to you and says “Slow down, I’m not that kind of girl.” You reply:

(A) “Sorry.”
(B) “Yeah, well, no prob.”
(C) “This could be trouble ’cause I’m that kind of guy.” *smirk*

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

20. You’re chatting up a pretty girl you just met in a bar. After a few minutes she asks you to buy her a drink. You reply:

(A) “Sure.”
(B) “I’m not an ATM.”
(C) “No, but you can buy me one.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

21. You’ve just met a cute girl in a club and have been talking with her for five minutes when she abruptly changes the topic to a raunchy conversation about her multiorgasmic ability. You respond with:

(A) a huge grin and an eager “Damn! That is HOT!”
(B) a look of mild disdain.
(C) a raised eyebrow while saying “Hey, thanks for the medical report.”

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

22. The pickup has been going well. Later in the night she leans in and begins making out with you passionately. You feel like a king and your jeans suddenly feel much tighter. Do you:

(A) immediately grope her boob in return.
(B) continue making out with her for as long as she wishes.
(C) kiss for a little bit then push her gently away and look distracted for a second.

If you answered (A), subtract a point.
If (B), no points.
If (C), add a point.

And finally, the critical thinking portion of the quiz. The following questions are based on the progression of a single pickup attempt.

23. You go to a bar. Twenty feet away are a pretty girl, a fat girl, and an average guy talking amongst themselves. The pretty girl briefly eye flirts with you. In reponse, you:

(A) eye flirt back and forth a few times before approaching 20 minutes later.
(B) immediately approach in a direct fashion maintaining strong eye contact with your target.
(C) immediately approach but from an indirect angle, looking around the room distractedly on the way over to your target as if you might see an even prettier girl somewhere else, and finally delivering your opener from over your shoulder.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

24. Who do you address first?

(A) the pretty girl.
(B) the fat girl.
(C) everyone.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

25. After getting the whole group engaged in conversation and having a good time, your target blurts out “Hey nice pink shirt! Are you gay?” You:

(A) say “No, I’m not gay!”
(B) ignore her.
(C) say “OK, who brought their little sister to the bar!”

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

26. In the middle of the conversation you have to pee. You say:

(A) “I have to go to the bathroom. I’ll be right back.”
(B) “Excuse me.”
(C) nothing. Just go.

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

27. You’ve managed to get her outside your front door. There is obvious sexual tension. You want to close this deal. You say:

(A) “So, um, ah, see you around.”
(B) “Why don’t you come inside?”
(C) “I’m thirsty. Are you thirsty? Let’s go inside and taste DC’s finest tap water. But you can only stay for a minute, I have to get up early.”

(A): -1 point
(B): 0 points
(C): +1 point

****

SCORES

There are 26 points to earn or lose based on the questions asked. The scoring breaks down as follows:

-26: Why are you still alive?
-25 to -20: You’re an omega. Celibacy has its charms.
-19 to -15: You actively repulse girls. Your kind will usher forth the sexbot revolution.
-14 to -10: You’re always getted foisted onto the warpigs.
-9 to 0: Lesser beta. You don’t immediately disgust girls; they just don’t notice you. With much painful effort you can redeem yourself.
1 to 9: Classic beta. You catch some girls’ eyes, usually the ones you don’t want. Try not to make fatty fucking a lifestyle.
10 to 14: A few attractive girls in the bar will be intrigued by your presence. But you need game to close the deal.
15 to 19: Congrats, you have crossed the alpha Rubicon. A lot of cute girls will be pleased when you hit on them. But you can still fuck up by being yourself.
20 to 25: You’re a natural. Many hot girls check you out and forgive your occasional pickup blunders. You always have a look of sexual satisfaction on your face.
26: Super Alpha. Booty sticks to you like bird shit on car roofs.

(Submitter's note: Compare and contrast Dating Market Value Test For Women)

Bodie Hodge #fundie answersingenesis.org

(Ken Ham's son-in-law responds to Mr. C)

Dear Mr. C,

Thank you for commenting about the Nye Ham debate. Please see my comments below.

This is one proof you lost the debate.

But Mr. Ham didn’t lose the debate (and the gospel was spread to millions of people). Here is the simple reason why: Mr. Nye never addressed the debate topic, so how could someone win the debate if they never addressed the topic?

The debate topic was the following: “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins in Today’s Modern, Scientific Era?”

Mr. Nye immediately changed the topic to address something else: “Does Ken Ham’s creation model hold up? Is it viable?”

What few realize is that in doing so, Mr. Nye also misrepresented Mr. Ham’s position by claiming Mr. Ham’s model was that natural law changed at the Flood, that Mr. Ham’s model was opposed to science, that Noah’s Ark was like a zoo, that Noah’s Ark held at least 14,000 animals but was supposed to have millions of species, the Bible (specifically Genesis) was written by men only (no God), we oppose scientific predictions, and the list continues. The point is that this false model was a straw man that Mr. Nye set up. In other words, he changed what the creation model really was and attacked a false version of it in the debate, and so he never really addressed the debate topic. And this was the case throughout the debate.

you couldn’t answer nye on your feet,

A few things here. First, with the debate format and time limits, you can’t answer everything. Mr. Nye used the “skeptical method” by the way, which is to throw out numerous arguments, true or false, and hope to deceive people into thinking he won.

The reason for doing this is simple. Many watching the debate will notice that Mr. Ham didn’t answer a particular question, and so it is assumed then that he can’t answer the question, hence viewers may misperceive that someone loses the debate on that account. But it works both ways: neither debater can answer everything they were presented with even in typical debate, let alone when one uses the skeptical method.

Mr. Nye admitted to using this method after the debate. Mr. Nye says the following of a misrepresentation of biblical creationist and debater Dr. Duane Gish:

He was infamous for jumping from one topic to another, introducing one spurious or specious fact or line of reasoning after another. A scientist debating Gish often got bogged down in details and, by all accounts, came across looking like the loser. It quickly occurred to me that I could do the same thing. . . . I did my best to slam Ken Ham with a great many scientific and common sense arguments. I believed he wouldn’t have the time or the focus to address many of them.1

Second, not answering something is not the same as losing a debate. Jesus never answered certain things at his trial, and even though they had Him put to death on the Cross, Christ won (Acts 8:32).

Third, Mr. Nye failed to answer the most basic tenets of debate from his worldview, such as why he thinks logic, reasoning, morality, truth, and knowledge exist in his materialistic worldview. For Mr. Nye to even argue against the biblical position would be to give up his worldview (which cannot account for the existence of logic and reason) and borrow from the truth of God’s Word. In other words, for him to even try to make a case meant he lost the debate! He never answered this after being asked repeatedly to do so.

[...]

more and more people are realizing just how intellectually bankrupt AiG is

Yet we are increasing in support each year. This is mere hand waving. Our mission is to proclaim the absolute authority of God Word. Why would any Christian think this is bankrupt?

—in fact, some people i know, fellow old earth creationists, are now dialoguing with a woman who wrote a book defending YEC [young earth creation]—using mostly AiG materials—and, in light of criticisms of atheists, has now become an atheist.

And I used to hold to some old-earth ideas promoted by Dr. Hugh Ross, but because I couldn’t hold to geological and astronomical evolution in light of God’s Word or to the idea that the order of creation was different, that the old-earth position was not tenable.

The issue was God vs. man’s ideas. The hope would be that this woman would realize that atheists can be wrong but God cannot be.

as long as ministries like AiG endure, we'll see more and more stories like this;

As long as ministries like RTB exist that mix Christianity with secular humanistic religious ideas like the supposed big bang and millions of years in Genesis, then there will always be a need to help people get back to the authority of God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

especially among young people—once they realize they've been lied to by YEC ministries, they almost inevitably reject the christian faith.

Stats from America’s Research Group show the exact opposite. It was hypocritical Christian leaders who taught things like an old earth, when the kids can read Genesis and not get millions of years out of it, that led to the majority of kids walking away. Please read Already Gone by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer for more about why two-thirds of young people are leaving the church by the time they reach college.

By the way, what lies do you claim we teach?

my prediction is that, within 50 yrs AiG will either become nonexistent or so irrelevant that is practically doesn't exist, or that it will morph into an old earth creationist ministry!

Only the Lord knows. We ask that people pray to keep the ministry of Answers in Genesis a solid biblical authority ministry for years to come. But your prophecy is marked (consider Deuteronomy 13).

for those of you questioning your faith after watching ken ham lose to bill nye,

First, Mr. Nye didn’t win because he never addressed the debate topic. For those deceived into thinking that Mr. Nye won even though he never addressed the debate topic, we invite you to read the Bible (you can get an overview with Begin) and realize that God is never wrong, but people can be. It is a matter of faith in either fallible, imperfect men about the past or a perfect, infallible God.

Meanwhile, we’ve been praising the Lord for the many testimonies of people whose faith has been strengthened after watching the debate.

i encourage you to log onto [the Reasons to Believe website] for real answers to science-faith issues!

For those reading, Reasons to Believe believes that the secular interpretations of nature are equal to Scripture. Often times, they are used to supersede the plain reading of the Bible, particularly in Genesis in favor of the secular world’s ideas like the big bang.

The president of RTB, Dr. Hugh Ross, has made the claim in his book Creation and Time that nature is likened unto the 67th book of the Bible and should be trusted as such.2 He has reiterated this. If you read the Charisma article by Andy Butcher, “He Sees God in the Stars” (June 2003), you’ll find that Ross still agrees with this principle of adding to Scripture. The principle can even be found in his more recent book A Matter of Days.

RTB also agrees with astronomical evolution (big bang) and geological evolution (millions of years), which are tenets of the religion of humanism. They also believe the Flood of Noah’s Day was local and not a global, world-covering event (see, for example, Genesis 7:19–20).

We want to encourage RTB to get back to the authority of the Bible from the very first verse. When we read the pages of Scripture, the whole creation is corrupted due to sin (e.g., Romans 8:22), the ground has been cursed (Genesis 3:17), the Curse has not been removed yet (Revelation 22:3), and our fallen and sinful natures often err when trying to properly understand this sin-cursed and broken world.

So why treat nature on par with the 66 books of the Bible? Instead, the Bible should be used to supersede our fallible interpretations of nature, particularly the past.

GOD bless!

Blessing in Christ,

Bodie

Footnotes

1.Bill Nye, “Bill Nye’s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate,” Skeptical Inquirer 38, no. 3, “http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bill_nyes_take_on_the_nye-ham_debate/

2.Colorado Springs: Navpress 1994, 56.

natsumihanaki20 #fundie natsumihanaki20.deviantart.com

1# Homosexuality is inborn


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

2# Homosexuality is not harmful, it is just fine

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

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

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

4# Homosexuality cannot be changed

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Guhin #fundie newscientist.com

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

Christian Revival Center (Thomas Robb Ministries) and The Knights Party #fundie whitepridehomeschool.com

Ken Ham, the famous “creationist” is a favorite of the new apostate Christian church. He is heavily cited as an expert in Christian science textbooks. He misleads his followers into believing in evolution. How can a “creationist” mislead sincere Christians into believing in evolution? He teaches that Adam and Eve were the first humans (we know they were the first white man and woman) and that from them all Homosapiens resulted. After the tower of Babel incident when God confused the languages – Ken Ham teaches that people went to different parts of the world and in a few hundred years evolved into the different races. People in Africa became black and got tight kinky hair. People in Asia got extra eye folds from squinting at the sun and people in Europe – well they didn’t really change much at all. His theories are bizarre and based on Charles Darwin. Noah and his family who God spared because he was perfect in his generation (racially pure) He wasn’t really perfect – only Jesus Christ is perfect – were a mixed race family – we are told by “scientists” like Ham. He would have us believe that Noah had a racially integrated family. None of his teachings make any sense and smack of the ramblings of a small child who comes up with various fantasies as to why the sky is blue.

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!

John Derbyshire #fundie johnderbyshire.com

Asians in America, and most particularly Chinese in America, are in danger of getting themselves a reputation as the whining minority. From a tiny number of instances of "discrimination," many of them of very questionable significance, "Asian-American" activists are building a case for special treatment like that accorded to blacks, homosexuals and so on. They are, they want us to believe, victimized. They are, they claim, "distressed" by words they find "demeaning."

The Wen Ho Lee case has been a godsend to these nuisances. The FBI went after Lee just because he was Chinese, they tell us. Well, of course they did! If vital national secrets go missing, and if it becomes known that the Chinese have got their hands on them, and if one of the people who had access to them is of Chinese origin, then of course he is a prime suspect! Who on earth should the FBI be scrutinizing in such a case? Hungarians? If the lab employee has, in addition, been downloading classified material to unauthorized tapes, which he has then lost, he really shouldn't be too astounded to find himself in leg irons.

Is it really such a secret that China's intelligence agencies target Americans of Chinese origin when trying to recruit spies? Where is the outcry against this "racial profiling" by Chinese intelligence agencies? Nobody from the Chinese government ever tried to recruit me as a spy. However, if I had a Chinese name and worked at Los Alamos for many years — during which years I made trips to mainland China — I should be astonished not to have been the subject of approaches. I happen to think, and have argued before in this space, that Lee is the victim of a bureaucratic cover-your-rear operation; but part of the blame for his misfortunes is his, and a much bigger part is the Chinese government's.

You can't sell any of this to the "Asian-American" activists. They have convinced themselves that they are "oppressed" — that they are at the receiving end of a plot to — to what, exactly? Turn them into chattel slaves? Deprive them of the vote? Force them to work as cooks for railroad-laying teams? I don't know what they think, and they probably couldn't tell you themselves. Probably they just want designated victim status, and the cash benefits that go with it. And they want to whine.

The campaign for designated-victim status plays into one of the great cultural weaknesses of the Chinese, in fact: they are, as a nation, awfully fond of self-pity. Much of Chinese literature is unreadable on this account, from the epic whining of 3rd-century-B.C. poet Qu Yuan (he had lost the favor of his monarch and been exiled) to Lin Daiyu snivelling herself to death in the 18th-century classic novel Red Chamber Dream. The mid-20th-century Chinese writer Bo Yang (author of The Ugly Chinaman and the Crisis of Chinese Culture) used to ask his students at Peking University to keep diaries of their social interactions with classmates. One of the most frequent patterns he found was that classmate A would write: "Classmate B was openly rude to me today. After I have been so nice to him! After all that I have done to help and encourage him! I am so wronged! It is so unfair!" — and that classmate B's diary would say exactly the same thing about classmate A.

You find the same thing with the endless whining of official Chinese sources about their mistreatment at the hands of foreign countries in the past. "You forced us to sign 'unequal treaties'!" they pout indignantly. Apparently the treaty forced on the government of Tibet (pop. 6 million) by the government of China (pop. 700 million) in 1950 does not count as "unequal." And for all the bellyaching about "foreign imperialism," no foreign power ever treated the Chinese as badly as they treated each other. If there is a prize awarded in hell for killing Chinese people, the easy winner for the 20th-century division must be Mao Tse-tung.

A foretaste of the coming great Wen Ho Lee whine-o-rama was provided by novelist Gish Jen, who is of Chinese ancestry, in an Op-Ed in the 9/15/00 New York Times. How to restore faith in the American dream? Ms. Jen whimpers. Well, I mix with Americans of Chinese origin every day — I am, in fact, married to one, and the father of two more — and they are living very well. None of them is poor; none of them is in jail; none of them is the victim of anything at all, so far as I can see. Like Ms. Jen's ancestors, they have attained not only the American dream, but the Chinese dream, the great dream of all Chinese people throughout history: to escape from Chinese government. None of them is "oppressed" in any degree at all. It is true that none of them works at a nuclear-weapons research lab; but the right to do such work is not guaranteed in the Constitution.

In fact, when we are faced by a power like China, which is violently anti-American in its propaganda to its own people, which has deployed a full triad of nuclear missiles, many of them aimed at us — whose government officials have, in fact, openly threatened us with nuclear attack — I think our own government is perfectly within its rights to deny employment in classified facilities to persons who have connections in China. This may cause some hurt feelings among U.S. citizens; but do hurt feelings really outweigh the rather obvious dangers of a contrary policy? Ms. Jen: "Since the Wen Ho Lee case began, the number of Asian and Asian-American scientists applying to work in our nation's weapons labs has declined dramatically." Well, good. I think our nation's security problems have therefore diminished in proportion — for which benefit, putting up with all that whining is a small price to pay.

TMR Editor #conspiracy themillenniumreport.com

There is perhaps no other internet hoax that is more ludicrous than the Flat Earth Theory. We’re talking about the most nonsensical and preposterous, laughable and foolish hoax in history! Yes, it is that zany and loony, wacky and silly.

However, what is really crazy is how many people are buying into it. That is where the silliness ends and the serious PSYOP begins. That is also where the Tavistock Institute intersects with the NSA, Facebook collaborates with the CIA, and YouTube and Google really drive some heavy traffic IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. The spooks are watching the evolution of this PSYOP very, very closely. After all, they started it.

All anyone has to do is read the following post by the Thunderbolts scientists and they will quickly understand the error and folly of the hysterical Flat Earth Theory hoax.

The Electric Universe

How’s that for an elegant and thoroughly scientific theory of astrophysics—an Electric, Plasma-filled Universe ?!

Here is one more enlightening piece for the all flat earthers: The Thunderbolts Project. Perhaps they can send these two links to their handlers at the Tavistock Institute.

The Millennium Report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Central Intelligence Agency Will Do Just
About Anything It Feels It Can Get Away With


Cosmic Convergence Research Group

CCRG Editor’s Note:
If ever the CIA and/or Tavistock Institute wanted to test out a new mind-control program, the Flat Earth Theory would be the perfect theme for the program. As most know by now, the CIA has been running covert mind-control experiments on various segments of humanity for decades. With the internet being a global platform, the opportunities for the intelligence agencies to advance their mind-control agenda, as well as test their techniques and technologies, have increased and intensified considerably.

CIA PSYOPS FLAT EARTH

Facebook Proves Itself To Be Another CIA-Managed Media Experiment

There is no greater example on the internet today of inciting people of every ilk toward “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” than the utterly ludicrous phenomenon known as the Flat Earth Theory. What is truly shocking is the number of really smart and aware, well-intentioned and spiritually oriented individuals who are supporting this transparent pseudo-scientific sham. Truly, the CIA has outdone itself with this mind-scrambling endeavor.

Yes, scientific knowledge and applied technology have been egregiously abused and misused throughout the modern era, as this website has frequently pointed out. That is exactly the sentiment a “CIA” would like to exploit; however, true scientific paradigms based on common sense and human reason ought not to be whimsically replaced by pure fantasy and fiction — even if the Tavistock Institute provides every rhyme and reason to do so.

“When scientific knowledge and applied technology reach a critical level of advancement, without being informed by spiritual truths and guided by moral authority, the planetary civilization will relinquish its destiny to continue as it is.”
(Source: Cosmic Convergence Accelerates Epochal Planetary Transformation)

Quite incredibly, this ridiculous notion — that Planet Earth is really flat — has been enthusiastically embraced by thought leaders and light-workers everywhere. Their primary reason for entertaining such an absurd ‘hypothesis’ is because it takes such a strong anti-science establishment position; otherwise, there is simply no good rational reason for assuming such a sympathetic posture toward this very bad cyber-space joke.

Truly, if the dark side wanted to undermine the workings of the authentic New Age movements, deliberately disseminating a Flat Earth Theory would be a great way of doing so. They probably never imagined in their wildest dreams that so many would climb on board such a farcical disinfo initiative — — — did they?!

Jon Rappoport #conspiracy jonrappoport.wordpress.com

Zika: The CDC is the medical CIA

Its agents run global covert ops

The virus hunters

While I was writing my first book in 1987, AIDS INC., I spoke with a media rep at the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC). After a bit of wrangling, he told me what I wanted to know: the CDC sends certain people to Langley for CIA training, and when they come back they have advanced security clearances.

This melded nicely with what I was learning about the CDC’s little-known Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS). Right off the top, I can tell you they create disinformation on a scale that must make the CIA jealous.

Graduates of this EIS program, as proudly stated by the CDC, have gone on to occupy key positions in the overall medical cartel: Surgeons General; CDC directors; medical school deans and professors; medical foundation executives; drug-company and insurance executives; state health officials; medical editors and reporters in media outlets.

It’s a loyal insider’s club. They collaborate to float prime-cut, A-number-one cover stories of extraordinary dimensions. They invent medical reality out of thin air.

Here is a brief excerpt from the CDC’s website, “50 Years of the Epidemic Intelligence Service”:

“In 1951, EIS was established by CDC following the start of the Korean War as an early-warning system against biologic warfare and man-made epidemics. EIS officers selected for 2-year field assignments were primarily medical doctors and other health professionals—who focused on infectious disease outbreaks. EIS has expanded to include a range of public health professionals, such as postdoctoral scientists in statistics, epidemiology, microbiology, anthropology, sociology, and behavioral sciences. Since 1951, approximately 2500 EIS officers have responded to requests for epidemiologic assistance within the United States and throughout the world. Each year, EIS officers are involved in several hundred investigations of disease and injury problems, enabling CDC and its public health partners to make recommendations to improve the public’s health and safety.” (italics added)

Several hundred investigations a year. An unparalleled opportunity to shape the truth into propaganda. Control of information about disease. Control out in the field, where EIS agents rush to the scene of “outbreaks,” all the way through the hallowed halls of academia, into the press, into Big Pharma, into the government.

When I say control of information, I mean disinformation. That’s what the EIS is for. They’ve never met a virus they didn’t love, and if they couldn’t find one, they pretended they did.

They front for the medical cartel. And they provide cover for the crimes of mega-corporations. There’s a town where poverty-stricken people are dying, because horrendous pesticides are running into the water supply and soil? No, it’s a virus. There’s a hotel where the plumbing is broken and human waste is getting into all the bathrooms, and they want this hotel to be the epicenter of a new epidemic? No, it isn’t the plumbing, it’s a novel virus never seen before by man. There’s a section of a city where the industrial pollution is driving people over the edge into immune-system failure? No, it’s a virus.

And here’s the capper. Their propaganda is so good most of the EIS people believe it themselves. You don’t achieve that kind of robotic servitude without intense brainwashing. The first installment of the mind-control program is called medical school.

The EIS would have you believe the whole world is being attacked by viruses, all the time. That’s their mission.

Here is the data you need to know. I’ll try to boil it down. To even begin to say a particular virus might be causing a disease, you have to remove diseased tissue from many humans with the same symptoms, put the tissue samples under an electron microscope and see a whole lot of that particular virus, not just one or two stragglers. This procedure is rarely done. The tests that are used widely, the antibody and PCR tests, are worthless for this purpose. I have provided details in other articles (see this “zika” one).

Finding what might be a particular virus in a few people doesn’t cut it. Which is exactly what happened in the 2003 SARS “epidemic,” for example. Ten closed labs did all the original research. They emerged with what they called a coronavirus as the cause of SARS. However, in Canada, as the weeks passed, fewer and fewer diagnosed SARS patients showed any sign of the virus. It was all a ruse, a con.

Researchers are trained to think that possibly finding a virus in a few patients allows a conclusion that the virus is causing the disease. This is utter nonsense.

In the case of Zika, as I wrote in a recent piece, Brazilian researchers have just gone off the reservation and decided to revisit their own original findings. So far, they’ve only been able to confirm six cases of microcephaly (small heads, brain impairment) where the Zika virus is present. Six. The whole thing is turning out to be ridiculous.

The Brazil op has several dimensions. I’ll point out one here. The Zika virus, as in other cases, will be strongly linked to global warming (yet another example of bereft “science”). This tune will be sung: mosquitoes that carry disease are expanding their territory because of warming, and therefore people who once considered themselves safe from these “exotic” viruses will fall ill and die. Bottom line: to limit warming, the planet must adopt cap and trade, carbon taxes (and lower energy production). This is the Globalist agenda. It is intended to drive countries deeper into misery, debt, and chaos—thus making it easier to install a wider and wider global management system.

And this line of psy-op and propaganda begins with the virus hunters of the EIS. They control and own the chokepoint of disease research. They blow up their scanty findings into ex-cathedra pronouncements.

And of course, this strengthens the vaccine establishment because, for every virus, there must be a vaccine: the shot in the arm, loaded with toxic chemicals and a variety of germs.

The EIS. The CDC’s band of brothers. The medical CIA.

Mario Seiglie #fundie ucg.org

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn’t believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly “evolved” or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere micro evolution—small changes within a species—but macro evolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally— you !

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the “molecules to man” theory—we’ll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine “bugs” we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: “The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is ‘the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,’ according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give ‘no satisfactory answer’ to why no fossils had been discovered. Today’s scientists are none the wiser” (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe , 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world’s continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It’s like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: “If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves — All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find ‘the’ missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another” (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind , 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now “evolving” into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin’s landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as “could,” “perhaps” and “possibly” plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You’ve probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It’s a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it’s called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it’s only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, “A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day.” How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more “faith” to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn’t even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator’s great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.

Eric Hovind #fundie rawstory.com

On his show yesterday, Thom Hartmann debated Eric Hovind, the president of Creation Today, about public funding for religious education in 11 states.

[...]

“Why would anybody want to do this to their children?” Hartmann asked Hovind. “Because it seems like — it borders on child abuse, to be teaching children science in the context of religion — or for that matter [teaching] religion as a statement of fact, when there are other religions that believe very different things? Or to be teaching kids that Jesus was a political conservative in the modern mold and that liberals are somehow evil people.”

“Obviously,” Hovind replied, “you and I come from opposing views then. Why should we let Christians teach their kids what they believe about Creation and do that in science? We find creation scientists all over the United States. It hasn’t kneecapped or handicapped them whatsoever.”

“Well, I’m sure they can find a few billionaire, right-wing Christians who can fund them,” Hartmann replied. “Particularly those who own big oil companies, who want them to promote a ‘science’ that suggests that global warming isn’t going to screw up the world — but my primary objection is that in 11 states, our tax dollars are paying for this stuff.”

“I’ll tell you what’s even worse,” Hovind shot back. “In all fifty states, tax dollars are going to tell the kids that they’re cousins of bananas, and that they all evolved from rocks. That’s being forced, down the kids’ throats, in all 50 states.”

“So you think that the minerals in your body did not start out as rocks?” Hartmann interjected.

“I’m saying that we did not evolve from a random process over billions of years, coming from the Earth, which was originally made out of rock, according to the evolution worldview,” Hovind replied.

“How do you know that?” Hartmann asked.

“Because we actually have revelation from God that tells us how it really did happen.”

“I have no problem with you believing that,” Hartmann retorted. “Or with you promoting that in a church, or in a religion class, but if that’s the way you’re going to teach science, and you’re going to do it with my tax dollars, I have a big problem with that.”

“Well,” Hovind said, “I have a big problem with your tax dollars, and my tax dollars, going to tell kids we all evolved from a rock, that the Big Bang created everything from nothing — that’s what they’re teaching.”

“No,” Hartmann said, “it was a singularity, it wasn’t nothing.”

[...]

“Why are you refusing to see the other side?” Hovind asked. “Why don’t you say, ‘I see, I’m forcing you, Eric, to have my view to be taught?’”

“Because it’s science.”

“That’s not ‘science,’” Hovind replied. “That’s just a ‘historical idea,’ not ‘science.’”

[...]

“The thing is,” Hartmann countered, “the things you’re throwing out here are neither accurate nor scientific.”

“It’s very scientific,” Hovind replied. “How is it that there are 20, or 26, doctorate degree, professor-level teachers just at Liberty University alone?”

“Because Liberty University lets you in without even having a G.E.D.,” Hartmann responded.

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

image
Messenger Elijah Muhammad

Meet Elijah Muhammad (pictured above). He’s the founder of the Black Muslim Nation (religion). Elijah Muhammad was born in October of 1897 in Georgia to William and Marie Poole. He grew up poor with 7 brothers and 5 sisters. His father was a Baptist preacher. It’s hard to imagine Elijah Muhammad growing up in a Baptist home and then becoming a Muslim (one who adheres to the Islamic Faith), but he did. Genuine Muslims and Baptists believe each other are going straight to hell. Elijah Muhammad was a devout Muslim and believed that only Allah was God, not Jesus.

The Black Muslims have an official web site at “Muhammad Speaks Website.” The following quotes are taken directly off their web sight:

The following article was transcribed from a video-taped lecture of the 1973 "Savior's Day" Lecture given by Elijah Muhammad titled: A Savior Is Born, February 26, 1877—-“Brothers and Sisters, I'm so happy to see your smiling faces, who have come here from far and near to help us give thanks to Almighty God, Allah, Who came in the Person of Master Fard Muhammad, To Whom Praises is due Forever.”

Elijah Muhammad met W. D. Fard in 1931 for the first time and believed that Mr. Fard was literally Allah incarnate, with a message for Elijah to spread to all nations. Here are Elijah’s own words:

“In Detroit one day in the latter part of 1931, our leader met with Master W.D. Fard --THE SAVIOUR--Who was teaching among Blacks at 3208 Hasting Street. Our Leader immediately recognized the POWER of THE MESSAGE and THE MAN (MASTER W. D. FARD) Who said that He was God in Person. Our Leader, right away, accepted the Truth of the Message and the giver of the Message, seeking more insight, more wisdom, knowledge and more understanding.”

image Master Fard Muhammad

Elijah Muhammad claimed that Mr. Fard had a black father who purposely married a white woman so their son would be white (to allow him to sneak into the U.S.A. unnoticed and liberate all blacks). Elijah believed that he was the last great prophet that Allah (W.D. Fard) would send before the end of the world. Here are Elijah Muhammad’s objectives:

“I am doing all I can to make the so-called Negroes see that the white race and their religion (Christianity) are their open enemies, and to prove to them that they will never be anything but the devils' slaves and finally go to hell with them for believing and following them and their kind.”

So it’s clear that one cannot be a Christian and a Black Muslim. Elijah Muhammad (as do all Muslims), rejects the deity of Christ (that He is God). They don’t believe Jesus was ever crucified, nor do they believe that Jesus can forgive sin. They say God has no Son. They claim Jesus was a prophet of Allah, no more. Both Islam (Muslims) and Black Muslims reject the Bible (Word of God) on the claim that it is distorted and corrupt, they claim the Quran (also Koran) as God’s only Word. The Quran is nothing more than an Anti-Jew, anti-Christian book filled with jumbled words and much contempt for Jesus Christ and His Word. It’s important to recognize
that orthodox Muslims (followers of the Islamic religion) are not the same thing as Black Muslims. Nearly all Muslims reject Elijah Muhammad and his foolishness. Elijah was first a Muslim and then simply started his own false religion in addition. Muslims do not recognize Elijah Muhammad as anything except a nut. However, the two religions do have quite a bit in common—mainly that Elijah Muhammad was an Islamic Muslim.
Elijah Muhammad foolishly claimed that the Bible prophesied of his coming in Deuteronomy 18:18 and Malachi 4:5.
Let’s hear what this prophet says about white people:

“The Yakub made devils were really pale white, with really blue eyes; which we think are the ugliest of colors for a human eye. They were called Caucasian.”

According to Elijah Muhammad, Yakub was a black scientist that created the white race in a laboratory by separating one of his own black germs; hence, all white people came from a black man. Elijah adds,

“The black nation is only fooling themselves to take the Caucasian race otherwise. This is what Jesus learned to their history, before He gave up His work of trying to convert the Jews or white race to the religion of Islam.

The Holy Quran (Surah 49:13-15) throws a great light on the truth of the creation of this pale, white race of devils. Black people have a heart of gold, love and mercy. Such a heart, nature did not give to the white race.”

Wow! This is religious science-fiction at it’s best folks.
If you want to know the sickening truth, visit their site at muhammadspeks.com Beware, this is a hate site in our opinion.

Muhammad was a racist, full of hate and resentment for all Christians and white people. This is wrong, and two wrongs don’t make a right! Racism is a sin, period! The Bible says, “For ALL HAVE SINNED—” (Romans 3:23). All men, of all races, of all religions are sinful and wicked. The Jews (whites) were enslaved for hundreds of years by the Egyptians, enduring cruel treatment and hard labor in the time of Moses. Elijah Muhammad is wrong to teach that white people are devils, WE ARE ALL DEVILS WITHOUT JESUS CHRIST!

Elijah Muhammad had a strong influence over multitudes of blacks because of his message against the cruelty, killings and slavery which was inflicted upon them by many of the whites. He offered a message of hope. Sadly, he rejected Jesus Christ and led many multitudes down a wrong path to Islam (Allah worship). His influence is still great today even though he died in 1975. His foolish teachings concerning the white race are ludicrous and simply indicate the bitterness and anger he was never able to resolve in his own sinful heart. He was a man without Christ!

Malcolm-X (or Malcolm Little) first converted to the Black Muslim religion while in prison. Upon his release in 1952, Malcolm-X became a minister of the Black Muslim religion. In 1963, he and Elijah Muhammad split up due to their differences. Malcolm converted over to orthodox Islam and denied his affiliation with Elijah Muhammad’s Black Muslim religion. Two years later in 1965, Malcolm-X was murdered.

Louis Farrakhan is also a Black Muslim and is well known for organizing the “Million-Man March” in Washington D.C. He follows the unscriptural doctrines of Elijah Muhammad, as do all Black Muslims. Below is the death announcement of Messenger Elijah Muhammad:

“On February 25, 1975, at the age of 78, Elijah Muhammad died in a Chicago hospital, reportedly, of congestive heart failure -- with no aid from white people, he left behind, an empire, estimated to be worth $60,000,000, which included LAND and cattle holdings in Michigan, Georgia and Alabama, along with grocery stores, restaurants, mosques, schools and newspapers, homes, clothing stores and many other things.”

All this wealth and Elijah Muhammad couldn’t take a dime of it with him. He left this world at 78 without Jesus and went straight to hell-fire and damnation. He didn’t go to hell because of his sins, but for his unbelief in Jesus Christ. All Muslims (Islamic and Black) reject Jesus Christ as their Savior. They say they will accept the Jews and Christians—"If they reject Christ." Will you reject Jesus Christ, God’s son? Call on Jesus now, friend, to forgive your sins.

Ray Comfort #fundie facebook.com

“Hi Ray Comfort, can you please tell me how you would recommend witnessing to a close relative who is a very convinced atheist, and who is dying of cancer? Many thanks.” Delphine R. Noah

We will pray for him. Maybe he will read this:

It was early in the morning. Very early. Most people in the airport looked as though they could have done with an extra week or so in bed. I was flying back from New York to Los Angeles waiting to board a plane when a tall man asked me, “What rows did they call?” I answered, “First class— the rich folks.” He smiled and said, “Yeah. The ones who should be going on their own Learjet.” I handed him a Million Dollar Bill tract and said, “Here’s the down payment on your Learjet.” When he smiled, I passed him a Department of Annoyance tract, and said, “And here’s my card.” He turned it over and to my horror began to read out loud the gospel message on the back—despite the fact that the text was printed in reverse to give me getaway time. When I quickly added, “It’s a gospel tract,” he mumbled “I’m an atheist.”

While atheism is the ultimate intellectual suicide, I can understand why some people are tempted to believe that there’s no God. The previous night I had listened to a CNN report that scientists had discovered why human beings are more intelligent than animals. I was intrigued with their assumption, and listened to how scientists believed that 20 million years ago we developed larger brains. They predicted that the human brain will continue to grow, giving us larger heads. This will mean that future generations will see more Cesarean births. I admired the newscaster’s ability to remain straight-faced.

A few minutes later, CNN reported that after a giant tsunami in Southeast Asia killed multitudes, authorities could hardly find any animals that died in the flooding. They surmised that the animals had some sort of intelligence that caused them to move to higher ground when the tsunami-causing earthquake struck. It was human beings who stayed on the beach to take pictures of the wave as it approached.

As I stood in line at the airport, the morning newspaper showed a picture of a ten-year-old piece of grilled cheese sandwich which was said to bear the likeness of the Virgin Mary. It was sold on eBay to an “intelligent” human, who paid $28,000 for it.

It is information like this that should help anyone with any intelligence to realize that humanity isn’t as intelligent as we are led to believe. While most Christians are too smart to bite into the error of Virgin Mary toast, they profess a faith that makes no sense. While watching TV in my hotel room the night before, I saw a well-known pastor talk about his book, which has sold a phenomenal 20 million copies. He said that God’s agenda for humanity was to “make our lives better.” That was a summation of his message.

Tell that to those who were burying tens of thousands of human corpses after the tsunami hit. Tell that to the fathers who hold the dead bodies of their beloved children in their arms, or to the relatives of those who died of horrific diseases. It doesn’t take much intelligence to realize that if there is a God who created all things, He must be all-powerful. Nothing is impossible for Him. He therefore could have easily prevented unspeakable agony by simply lifting His finger off the earthquake button. But He didn’t.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence (from cheese sandwiches to tsunamis) for a thinking person to conclude that a God of love who is all-powerful and wants to better the life of humanity doesn’t exist. If He did, He would immediately get a supply of good food to the starving in Africa so that their lives may be better, or at least provide some rain to grow their crops.

During that same day the tsunami hit, 150,000 other people died around the world—about 40,000 of starvation. If He wanted to make our lives better, perhaps He could also halt the parade of killer hurricanes that line up to regularly devastate the U.S., or He could slow down the hundreds of terrifying tornadoes that take precious human lives each year. Maybe He could even whisper to us a cure for the cancers that are killing millions annually, including innocent children.

A quick look at Jeremiah 9:21-24 gives the answer to this intellectual dilemma. How could God be loving and yet allow suffering? The Bible tells us that He is in control, and that He does send judgments to this earth. God is love, but He’s also just and holy and if He gave us what we deserve, the tsunami of His holiness would sweep us all into Hell.

Imagine you have knowledge that a bridge has been washed out by a terrible storm, on a dark and moonless night. You stop all approaching cars and say, “The bridge that spans a thousand-foot chasm has been washed away! Please turn your vehicle around.” The violence of the storm itself is enough to convince any thinking driver that you are speaking the truth, and those who have the sense to believe you do turn around.

Tsunamis, terrible diseases, agonizing cancers, massive earthquakes, devastating tornadoes, killer hurricanes, awful suffering, and death itself are very real and violent storms that should be enough to convince any thinking person that our warning is true.

The message of Christianity isn’t one of God wanting to better this life for humanity. It is one of warning of a terrible fate in store for those who continue on the road of sin. We are told by God’s Word that there are two deaths on the highway to Hell. The first death is when we leave the storms of this life and pass into timeless eternity. The second death is the chasm of eternal damnation. It is the terrifying justice of a holy God.

So with the cheese sandwich insanity, and the confusion about the message of Christianity, I could sympathize with my atheist friend in the airport. When he professed atheism it gave me the opportunity to humbly cite my atheist credentials. I said, “I wrote a book called God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists: Proof the Atheist Doesn’t Exist.” Then I told him that I was a platform speaker at the American Atheists’ national convention in 2001. I offered, “It’s really easy to prove God’s existence.” He replied, “It’s not healthy for me to talk about God.” I said that I could understand that, and added, “But you are a reasonable and open-minded person, so you can listen to me for two minutes.”

He gave me the okay, so I told him how he could know for sure that God existed, that God had given him a conscience and that if he even lusted after a woman, Jesus said that he had committed adultery already with her in his heart. I also mentioned that if a criminal was given a death sentence and he said to the judge, “But I don’t believe in the electric chair,” it didn’t change reality.

He politely listened, and said, “Well, I’d better board the plane.” He reached out his hand, shook mine and said, “My name is Pat.” I told him my name, watched him board, and prayed that he would read the literature that he still held in his hand— and that he would have the intelligence to believe the words of warning.

One other thing. We know that God exists for the same reason we know when we look at a building, that a builder built it. Buildings don’t build themselves. And neither did creation (Nature) make itself. That is a scientific impossibility.

John Derbyshire #racist vdare.com

Part Two of my answer: Jews are white, Asians are not, and while any overclass is resented, a racially distinctive overclass is resented more than one that barely looks any different from the resenters.

Anti-Semites know this; that's why they put out drawings of the hunch-backed, hook-nosed cartoon Jew when they want to inflame anti-Jewish feeling. It makes the Jew plainly a different race.

Part Three of my answer: even under the current covert quotas, Asian Americans are enrolled at elite colleges in numbers far above their five percent share of the U.S. population.

Yes, they're being held down: on a strictly meritocratic basis their numbers would be much higher yet, because of the arithmetic of those distribution tails. Still, strictly measured by demographic proportionality, they're high.
So yes, we were importing an overclass a hundred years ago. Elite universities dealt with the issue by fudging and chicanery—just as they are dealing with this repeat performance.

There are some key differences, though. Jews are white, which makes things easier to fudge.

Also, the high IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is more verbal than visuo-spatial, leading to that dominance in the shaping of opinion.
Asian Americans, by contrast, are much more visible as a group. And their high IQ is more visuo-spatial than verbal, giving us more engineers and scientists, fewer writers, lawyers, comedians, movie and newspaper moguls.

But in both cases, non-Asian gentiles get squeezed. We un-squeeze blacks and Hispanics with Affirmative Action, but that just squeezes white gentiles even more.
Under our current state ideology, the orthodox approach to that hovers somewhere between "Who cares?" and "Serve them right!"

Whether that ideology can be sustained going forward through the 21st century, is an interesting question.

Second point main point raised by readers: any merit-based immigration system imports an overclass.

I agree. Consider for example India. The mean IQ of that country is 82. The mean IQ of Indians in the U.S.A., on the other hand, is 106—higher than the mean for white gentile Americans.

So there's an overclass we've imported — from a low-IQ population.

The same applies to Africa. The mean IQ in black Africa is 70, which is very low. Assuming a normal distribution with mean 70 and standard deviation 15, Microsoft Excel tells me that only 0.0032 percent of the population is higher than 130 IQ.

That's a teeny-tiny percent; but there are an awful lot of black Africans: 1.2 billion is the latest number I've seen. Point zero zero three two percent of 1.2 billion is 38,000. Every one of those 38,000 very-smart Africans is applying for a U.S. student visa.
Caribbean blacks are, for complicated reasons, somewhat smarter than black Africans. Add them into the mix and we're importing a small black overclass.
Is this something we should be bothered about? We-e-ell — there are contrary factors to consider.

Under the present regime of chain migration, for example, all those smart Indians and Africans can bring in their way-less-smart siblings, brides, parents, and even cousins. You could argue that long-term that evens out the mix.

There's also regression to the mean. The offspring of these high-IQ immigrants will regress towards their population mean — although not all the way to it, or else Natural Selection wouldn't work. Given the likelihood of assortative mating, in fact — smart immigrants marrying other smart people — regression all the way back to the population mean is highly improbable, even after many generations.

So, no, this is not a great issue. It is an issue, though — an issue that lurks behind all the happy talk about a merit-based system of immigration.

The first time America imported an overclass, we did so accidentally. When that Great Wave of Ashkenazi Jews came in after 1881, we had only the vaguest ideas about population differentials in intelligence and personality. Psychometry as a quantitative science was just getting started.

Now we understand much more, and can make better decisions. If we import a new overclass today, we'll be doing it deliberately. We know enough to not do it.

And any overclass we import now will be nonwhite. That follows just from the balance of races in the world being much different than it was 100 years ago.

If you're a nonwhite who doesn't like white people, you are fine with that. If you're a white person living in one of the globalist-bubble districts — big coastal cities, college towns — you may think it's no big deal, we can all get along.

The rest of us are shaking our heads.

Gavin McInnes #fundie takimag.com

15 Myths Millennials Accept as Fact

1. THIS COUNTRY WAS STOLEN FROM THE INDIANS

We fought them for 400 years. They fought against us, alongside us, and behind us. Before we got here they were fighting each other, and yes, it was savage. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage describes horrific mass graves from way before we got here. Indians used to shoot arrows into their victims for hours after the guy died so he’d be fucked in the afterlife. The smallpox blankets were likely a myth. The worst we behaved was probably Wounded Knee but the reason everyone knows about it is because it was meticulously documented by outraged whites who were—and still are—disgusted by our behavior there.

2. WE ARE A NATION OF IMMIGRANTS

No, we’re not. We’re a nation of citizens. This country was built on legal immigration, and the ones who made it through learned the language and assimilated. Many didn’t get in. Today’s scenario is 15 million illegals ridiculing those of us who played by the rules. My green card took 15 years to get and I brought a ton of jobs with me. The Statue of Liberty doesn’t say “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and all their relatives.”

Oh, and don’t give me that old “They’re doing jobs Americans won’t do” line. They’re doing jobs Americans won’t do—for that price. In Canada, there are no Mexicans and the landscaping still gets done. We use teenagers.


3. THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON SLAVERY

Yeesh, this old trope. Some rich Southerners had slaves. Then there was a civil war and America’s bank account dropped to zero. After that the country was rebuilt from scratch without slavery. As Pat Buchanan put it, we didn’t start slavery. We ended it. And don’t get me started on reparations. We’ve already paid them.


4. AMERICA IS RACIST

I’ve already gone through this. I highly recommend you cut out this monitoring hate speech crap. I’m warning you, you’re going to end up censoring the people you’re trying to protect. Studies show that white people are actually the least racist group. Getting rid of all the racists would mean America would be almost all white. Therefore, fighting racism is racist.


5. BLACK YOUTH ARE TARGETED BY WHITE MEN

Zimmerman was a statistical anomaly but that didn’t stop everyone and their dog from wearing a hooded sweatshirt and Tweeting all about it. Black youth are in danger but it’s not Jews from Peru who are killing them.


6. WOMEN MAKE LESS THAN MEN

Obama Tweeted this old wives’ tale recently. Does anyone in the White House have a fucking computer? Women choose to make less than men because they’d rather be at their daughter’s piano recital than stay at the office all night working on a proposal. When they don’t have kids, they actually make more than men. If women were cheaper labor, we’d hire them as often as we hire illegal aliens.

On The Independents recently, Jill Filipovic told me that resumes with female names do worse than the same ones with male names. I’m willing to accept that, but it’s not prejudice. It’s postjudice. Employers have noticed their male employees are more likely to stay at the office all night working, even when their daughter does have a piano recital.


7. PRO-LIFERS ARE SEXIST

Most women are pro-life. To ignore their rights while touting abortion is sexist. Also, gender-based abortion is becoming more popular. We’ve seen how that goes for women in China. It ain’t pretty. So stop using abortion rights as some kind of proof there’s a war on women when the opposite is true.

8. TRANNIES ARE WOMEN

Whether you cut your dick off or just start saying “I’m a woman,” that doesn’t mean you’re a woman. That trivializes what it is to be a woman. These mythical creatures can create life. You can’t just throw on a wig and yell “Me too.” That’s sexist.


9. GAYS LEAD THE SAME LIVES WE DO

I’ve heard Jon Stewart say this and it often comes up when discussing gay marriage and adoption. Do any of these people know any fags? They are perfectly wonderful human beings with whom I spend much of my time, but they are also hair-whiteningly decadent. They call me an amateur for having participated in a couple threesomes. They’ve had dozens of eightsomes.

10. CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-SCIENCE
Maybe one in ten Americans believes the earth is only a few thousand years old, and most of those people are old ladies and dirt-poor farmers. They’re not shutting down schools and canceling Cosmos. The other 90% of us are totally okay with the big bang theory. Even the pope supports it. We understand there’s evolution and an incredible universe. We just think God is the one who set the whole thing up.

Also, if you love science so much, stop refusing vaccinations for your kid. You’re literally making us sick.


11. WE NEED FREE HEALTH CARE

Not so fast. Have you seen the way this administration handles money? We’re 17 trillion in the hole. That’s a lot. Seventeen trillion seconds ago we were cavemen trying to figure out fire. This country is rife with severe obesity and millions upon millions of illegals. We don’t have the cohesion that other free health care countries have, so this perfectly reasonable idea may be impossible.


12. THE EARTH IS DYING

There is a lot of evidence that says the earth is warming but not a ton of conclusive evidence that it’s our fault or that the warming is a bad thing. We keep hearing about a consensus but it’s ecologists, not real scientists. What all the experts and politicians really agree on is that we need more funding to pay them to look into this terrible problem.


13. THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE

The air has never been cleaner. We’ve never lived longer. Crime is at an all-time low. By virtually every possible metric, life has never been better. Yes, there was a school shooting recently. That doesn’t change the hatefact that schools have never been safer. Traveling, eating, fornicating, fighting—all safer than ever. The list goes on and on. I saw a homeless man today checking his iPhone while he asked for change! Does anyone in this country not have a TV? If you think things were so much better back then, get in a time machine and go there. Make sure you get your shots first though. God help you if you get sick.


14. DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH

When it comes to restaurants this is true, and that is why people always use restaurants to prove it. By any other standard, it tends to go pretty badly. I’m a race mixer but our family has decided to err toward Western values more than the American Indian ones because the West is the best. Assimilation leads to a sense of fraternity and that means a cohesive society. You ever see a wave pool in Japan? They are packed in there like sardines but they don’t mind because they’re all the same. When integration is discouraged you get Balkanization and we saw what happened in the Balkans. They played soccer with human heads.


15. WE’RE ALL EQUAL

You know there’s retards, right? You realize the children of geniuses tend to be smarter than the children of stupid people, yeah? This is why they ask sperm donors questions. That’s what happens when idealists have to practice what they preach. They scoff at eugenics until it’s time to make a baby. They love the gay lifestyle until their son brings home a tranny. They love diversity until it’s time to choose a place to live or a school for their children. They pretend we’re all equal but they insist the government enforce this because they secretly know it isn’t true and in fact see themselves as superior to everyone else. They’re free to think that, but before going on a rant about it, maybe they should look it up first. Better yet, shut up and leave us alone.

Reason2012 #fundie christiannews.net

The prophet Isaiah also tells us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). This is not a reference to a flat disk, as some skeptic maintain, but to a sphere. Secular man discovered this 2,400 years later. At a time when science believed that the earth was flat, is was the Scriptures that inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world

God told Job in 1500 B.C.: "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). The Bible here is making what appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement—that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that radio waves travel at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. Science didn’t discover this until 1864 when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia).

Solomon described a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists "discovered" them. "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

The great biological truth concerning the importance of blood in our body’s mechanism has been fully comprehended only in recent years. Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled," and many died because of the practice. If you lose your blood, you lose your life. Yet Leviticus 17:11, written 3,000 years ago, declared that blood is the source of life: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood."

Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of invisible atoms. Here, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Medical science has only recently discovered that blood-clotting in a newborn reaches its peak on the eighth day, then drops. The Bible consistently says that a baby must be circumcised on the eighth day.

At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth’s free float in space: "He...hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7).

"Kids Answers" section #fundie answersingenesis.org

A Feathered Dinosaur?

A common idea among those who believe molecules-to-man evolution is that dinosaurs have turned into birds over millions of years. But, from the Bible (Genesis 1), we know that God created all things about 6,000 years ago—birds on Day 5 of the first week, dinosaurs (land animals) on Day 6.

So what about the “feathered dinosaurs”? Do they prove that dinosaurs changed into birds? For example, some scientists have recently found bumps on the forearm of a velociraptor. They suggest that the bumps were where feathers attached to the bone.

Although no actual feathers were found with the velociraptor fossil (or any other dinosaur fossil, for that matter), it may be that some dinosaurs had feathers. But this group of animals would merely be a kind of feathered reptile—descendants of the animals that God created in the beginning. Feathers on reptiles have nothing to do with proving that one kind of animal changed into another kind. They just show the creativity and diversity of our wonderful Creator God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Houdmann #fundie compellingtruth.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resources:

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

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

Lance Welton #racist vdare.com

[Note to mods: I'm filing this under RSTDT because that's the plurality of the quote, but there's enough misogyny and anti-LGBT content to contest this categorization]

The hysteria provoked by Donald Trump’s appointment of Brett Kavanaugh as an associate Justice of the Supreme Court may well be unprecedented in US history. Never before has a president’s judicial nomination been met with such an overwhelmingly emotional reaction. And it’s not in the least bit surprising, either. Females (especially when rejected), minorities and homosexuals—the very people most infuriated by Kavanaugh’s elevation—are highly emotional. And there are sound evolutionary reasons why this is the case.

Back to Kavanaugh. Chef, from South Park once observed that, “There’s a time and place for everything, and it’s called college.” Anyone who’s ever been to university—or even to a co-ed high school—knows that students are callow, promiscuous and strongly sexually-driven. When I was at university, sexual behaviour between opposite-sex friends—sexual touching, lip-kissing and even making out—was perfectly normal, as were intense but brief sexual relationships (what Tom Wolfe called “Hooking Up”) and the consequent breaking of hearts. But, “What happens in college stays in college.”

Things can become difficult, however, when it is the female’s heart that is broken. Adult females are much higher than males in the personality characteristic Neuroticism—the essence of which is feeling negative emotions strongly. [Age differences in personality traits from 10 to 65, By C. Soto et al., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011]. This is seemingly because, in the prehistoric environment, an optimum level of anxiety helped to ensure that the kids you were caring for didn’t get hurt. And worrying makes you more competitive to get your man and keep him, in a prehistoric context in which pregnant and nursing females needed males to support them. [Why Neurotics Haven't Died Out, By Rachel Rettner, Live Science, June 15, 2010]

And it really it is true that “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. Females are higher than males in all negative emotions. Though some men never fully get over a break up, women feel the emotional pain of a break up far more intensely. [Quantitative sex differences in response to the dissolution of a romantic relationship, By Craig Morris et al., Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 2015].

...

Ramirez is also Hispanic. Hispanics being higher in mental instability than whites, probably because there was less intense selection against mental instability in ecologies where basic needs were more easily met, meaning that group cooperation is less important. [Mental Health Disparities: Hispanics and Latinos. American Psychiatric Association, 2017] Hispanics are also, on numerous measures, simply less honest than whites. [Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality, By Richard Lynn, Washington Summit, 2018, In Press]

A combination of Neuroticism and hysteria is likely to explain why Julie Swetnick went public, on 26th September, with her unfounded allegations that Kavanaugh attended parties where males would prey on young girls, spike their drinks, and rape them. [New Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick details local house parties where girls allegedly were drugged and raped, By Dan Breuninger, CNBC, September 26, 2018]

Swetnick is also Jewish. Jews are much more likely than whites to suffer from schizophrenia [Scientists Discover Gene That Predisposes Ashkenazi Jews to Schizophrenia, By Ido Efrati, Haaretz, November 26, 2013]. The essence of schizophrenia is “hypermentalism”—being so acutely aware of the physical cues of mental states (such as facial expressions) that you read too much into them: a smile means he’s in love with me; a slight frown means he wants to kill me.

Schizophrenia also distorts your memories.Schizophrenia is at one extreme of a spectrum at the other end of which sits autism; the inability to infer emotion from physical cues. [Mentalism and Mechanism, By C. Badcock, in Human Nature and Social Values, 2003] If a group is subject to a harsh environment, such as the persecution which the Jews were historically subject to, it is more likely to survive if everyone in it cooperates together and gets along. This is more likely to happen if people are higher in “mentalism”—if they are better able to read the emotions of others. So, the average member of a highly cooperative group will be higher on the schizophrenia spectrum than the average member of a less cooperative group. But this means that a highly cooperative group will include a larger minority who are simply schizophrenic at the spectrum’s extreme end.

Kavanaugh was also strongly opposed by a group of senators that includes two African-Americans. African Americans, compared to whites, are high in psychopathic personality, meaning that they have poor control over their emotions, which can easily overwhelm their intelligence.(See Race and Psychopathic Personality, by Richard Lynn, Amren.com, July, 2002.) They also feel almost all negative emotions far more acutely that do white people, because in the easy ecology of Africa there was little selection for highly cooperative groups. The only exception: the trait psychologists call “social anxiety”. Blacks are so incredibly low in this—due to weak selection for cooperation—that, overall, it is found that they are lower in Neuroticism than are whites, despite their scoring higher on the other Neuroticism traits. [Race Differences in Anxiety Disorders, Worry and Social Anxiety, By Heitor Fernandes et al., Mankind Quarterly, Spring 2018]

Blacks are also higher in all psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, partly because, in a relaxed ecology, there is less selection against genes which cause antisocial behavior. Indeed, Darwinian selection, in general, is weak in such ecologies, leading to high genetic diversity. [Racial disparities in psychotic disorder diagnosis, By Robert Schwartz and David Blankenship, World Journal of Psychiatry, December 2014]

Kavanaugh has also found himself subject to sustained attack by the “LGBTQI+” community, simply because he has refused to express an opinion on gay marriage. According to “Human Rights” campaigner Chad Griffin, Kavanaugh’s refusal to do this is “alarming and completely unacceptable” . [What does Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh mean for LGBT rights? By Ella Braidwood, Pink News, September 28, 2018]

We should expect such strong emotions from this group. Homosexuals are more mentally unstable than heterosexuals. They have higher rates of anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, suicide and, fascinatingly, left-handedness, than heterosexuals. [Review and theory of handedness, birth order, and homosexuality in men, by Ray Blanchard, Laterality, 2008] As I showed recently, we are evolved to be right-handed, so left-handedness means something has gone wrong: it betokens “developmental instability”, either due to mutant genes, a sub-optimal fetal environment or both.

In line with this, younger sons are more likely to be homosexual, because the mother’s immune system regards male hormones emanating from the fetus as enemy agents. It duly overwhelms them with female hormones; the mother’s immune system getting stronger with each pregnancy. If her immune system is too strong, due to mutations, her male offspring will not only be homosexual but they may inherit these mutations, explaining why homosexuals and the left-handed are prone to allergies; where the immune system overreacts. (See Blanchard, above.)

Lesbians are masculinized females. [Genetic and Environmental Influences on 2D;4D Finger Length Ratios, by Kyle Gobrogge et al., Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2008] They are often the product of mothers who produce too much testosterone [Early hormonal influences on cognitive functioning in congenital adrenal hyperplasia, By S. Resnick et al., Developmental Psychology, 1986] due to the mother’s mutation-caused conditions. And it is no surprise that transsexuals—suffering as they do from mind-body dysmorphia—tend to be mentally unstable.

The intensely emotional debate provoked by the judge’s nomination may seem beyond belief. But it makes sense if examined from viewpoint of evolution and genetics. “Hell Hath no Fury” not merely “like a woman scored” but also “like a minority” and “like a sexual deviant scorned.”

Moreover, the level of hysteria in American politics is going to get worse. As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow documented recently, the Democratic Party has “tipped”—in 2016, for the first time ever, a majority (53%) of its Presidential voters were non-white, homosexual or Jewish. (61% of the Democrat vote was female). Non-whites are increasingly claiming leadership roles (New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, Florida) which means the kind of behaviour we saw from Kamala Harris and Cory Booker at Kavanaugh’s hearings (“I am Spartacus”, the “Jane Doe” letter) will become more common in Congress in the future.

...

In other words, there’s going to be a lot more screeching. My advice to the GOP (and America): Buy earplugs.

Bryan Fischer #fundie afa.net

The question remains: is Gov. Perry right?

What follows is a straightforward, four-step refutation of the theory of evolution. The steps are easy to remember, and make a nice little cadence when spoken with a little rhythm: First Law, Second Law, Fossils and Genes. Armed with this truth, go forth and conquer.

[later on]


Before we even start, we ought to notice that, if evolution is true, there would be no way to know it. Because evolution teaches that everything that exists is the product of the random collision of atoms, this logically includes the thoughts I am thinking about evolution. But if my thoughts are the product of the random collision of atoms, there is no reason to think that any of them are true — they just are.

No one "random collision of atoms" can be said to be truer than another, any more than one randomly generated Rorschach ink blot can be said to be more correct than another.

As J.B.S. Haldane famously observed, "If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

All right, here we go.

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, an honest scientist will tell you that there is nothing in the observable universe that can explain either the origin of energy or matter. By logical extension, then, matter and energy had to come into being by some force outside the universe.

What this means, then, is that science simply has no explanation for the most basic question that could possibly be asked: why is there something rather than nothing?

Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have an answer to this question; evolutionists do not.

When you see a turtle on a fence post, what's the one thing you know? Somebody put him there. When you see a world hanging in space, what's the one thing you know? Someone hung it there.

It's futile to resort to the big bang theory, as some evolutionists are wont to do. They say they have an explanation for the origin of the universe: it began when a ball of incredibly dense matter exploded and flung the universe into existence. Okay, fine. Now: where did that incredibly dense ball of matter come from?

Even Aristotle saw that behind the existence of the universe had to be what he called a Prime Mover or an Unmoved Mover. If everything is the result of secondary causes, nothing would ever actually happen. Some great power had to be a primary cause of life, motion, energy, and existence.

If you walk into an office and you see one of those toys with the steel balls swinging left to right, right to left, virtually endlessly, the one thing you will know for an absolute certainty is that some force outside that toy had to start the whole thing by lifting the first ball and releasing it to clack against the others. The process you observe could not possibly have started all by itself.

Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory offers a Prime Mover, evolution does not.

Holdwater #conspiracy tallarmeniantale.com

I realize fully that the reader must have been awash in the prevailing view that there has been an Armenian “Genocide” during the days of W.W.I’s Ottoman Empire. (Nobody can argue the catastrophe suffered by the Armenians was genocidal in its impact; where the deception lies is that the impact of genocide was felt singularly by the Armenians and not by all of Anatolia's citizens, and the assertion [which is what "genocide" basically means] is that the destruction took place as a policy of state.) After all, Turkey has never been seriously interested in explaining what truly occurred until the early-to-mid 1980s, and Armenians and other Turk haters have had the field wide open to tell their side of the story, virtually unopposed. The Turks made the very mature decision to not dwell on the tragic events of the period... not to sweep crimes under the rug, but to look forward and avoid the destructive forces of hatred.

(...)

Therefore, the site targets the Western reader who is interested in getting to the bottom of what really took place. I can understand the Westerner is not going to trust Turkish sources, as the word of an accused criminal will always be held suspect. Save for commentaries and the occasional Turkish source, an effort has been made for the information in this site to come from impartial Westerners. As opposed to the handful of web sites that present the Turkish viewpoint (that I’ve seen), this one also presents various Armenian sources.

As a matter of fact, this site is a unique one. I combed through Armenian sites, of which there happen to be no end (in fact, Armenians are so obsessed with the genocide issue, they have constructed pseudo- "generic genocide" sites along with pseudo-"Turkish" sites, which is pretty immoral; meanwhile, there are extremely few Turkish "genocide" sites put up by individuals, because the Armenian "Genocide" is simply not a driving force of life)... and I was hungry for the best facts the Armenians were ready to throw out. Unfortunately, that's what many of these "facts" deserved... to be thrown out. Aside from the incredibly deceptive garbage long recognized as forgeries and falsifications (such as the Talat Pasha telegrams) that many of these sites still unethically present as genuine, the best defense the Armenians offer are charges of Turkish "lies," "propaganda," "revisionism," and the ever popular "The Turkish government says..."

I did not hide a thing. The more incriminating the "evidence," the more I chose to highlight it on this site. Anything I couldn't analyze with the real facts or just plain common sense and logic, you will see I've been man enough to admit.

The reason? If the Armenian "Genocide" were to be proven as a genuine fact tomorrow, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. Genocide is a terrible crime, and I wouldn't be proud about the episode... even though the event took place under a Turkish government the current one worked to overthrow. What am I going to do, allow this historic episode from a century ago bend me out of shape, as with some Germans who are still struggling with guilt... and by the same token, should I also not be able to live with myself for what Americans did to the Indians? It would also be a great help for me to know the Armenians violently provoked the events (unlike the Jews of WWII), by committing the ultimate treason.

Turks choose to live in the present, and Armenians choose to live in the past; the Armenian "militia" has made the "genocide" a cause for their existence. Their obsession and deep pockets allow them a clear upper hand in the West, regarding the information war. I maintain an open mind... and when all is said and done, I really don't know if there was a state-sponsored extermination policy by the Ottoman government. (Although after preparing this site and learning all I have, I'm convinced more than ever there wasn't.) And anybody who says they know for a fact the genocide occurred are either deluding themselves, or hoping to delude others. All we can go by are the cold, hard, reliable facts...and the only factors that guide me are truth, honor and integrity.

By the same token, Armenians have been allowed to get away with murder (which can actually be taken literally) in the presentation of their story, and it is very frustrating to see lazy-thinking Westerners blindly accepting their version of events. I will at times not hide my emotions, and consequently talk to you on a human level at this site, and not in a cold, clinical and scholarly way. In fact, those times when I'm not outraged by the degree of deception on the part of the Armenians, I believe the examination of this subject matter calls for some humor now and then... since it's unbelievable in this day and age Westerners still choose to overlook the volumes of impartial evidence against the genocide argument. (Admittedly, this is a kind of "bitter" humor, but the situation is so absurd, it's kind of funny.)

The main reason for why Westerners have been unable to shake their deeply-ingrained belief systems, of course, is that there are very few outlets that present the contrary, Turkish view. Even many professors think twice about going against the Armenian grain, as they have learned during this last quarter-century (or so) how harmful Armenian fanaticism can prove to be to their reputations, or worse.

While Turks will no doubt make use of the information presented here and will enjoy the impartial facts and figures which serve to absolve them (in a "one-stop shopping" kind of a place, which can be very useful), this site was not prepared with Turks in mind. I have put myself in the shoes of the non-Turk. This was easy for me to do, as I was born and raised in the United States, and have had little contact with Turkish people. (The reason for that is there have been few Turks. American immigration policy only allowed for the cream of Turks to enter the country... the scientists, doctors and other skilled professionals... until around perhaps a generation or so ago, when the “ordinary Turks” were allowed to trickle in. Living in New York City, by the way, my best friends — not just regular friends — in different phases of life have been Greeks. At least at one time there were more Greeks living in NYC than in Athens, so it's not very hard to cross paths with a Greek.)

I can only hope Armenians and Greeks who come by will consider the material here with an open mind... but I know that unlike Turks — who are generally raised to look upon these peoples (with whom they have shared a common history for so long) as their brothers and sisters — too many Armenians and Greeks are raised with hatred for the Turks. Coming across information that counters their deeply ingrained belief systems often proves too rattling, and such information will likely be dismissed as lies... no matter how impartial and sensible the information sounds. Not all Armenians and Greeks are like this, of course; such is the danger of generalizing. However, there is a definite pattern with the great majority of them that cannot be ignored.

The difficulty in presenting impartial Western sources is such: Turks are not just unpopular with the Orthodox peoples; since the Crusades, the “infidel” Turks have been regarded as the enemies of the West. (And it is precisely this historic Christian-Moslem animosity that Armenians and Greeks have learned to exploit, in selling their sob stories to the sympathetic West.) The average Westerner has grown with a negative impression, regarding Turkey. Therefore, few Westerners are going to make it their business to learn about a people they have come to regard as historical villains... and fewer are going to write books and articles in defense of the Turks. (Turkish people themselves could not defend themselves in the West... until the last half-century, few Turks had been living in the West, and those that were Western residents had other things on their minds besides presenting the Turkish viewpoint... assuming they possessed the language skills of their new countries to effectively do so.)

All the more reason to keep in mind the Western sources in favor of the Turks (that are comparatively much more difficult to come by than the Western sources in favor of Armenians and Greeks) can be trusted. The reason? Those Westerners who spoke/speak for our Orthodox friends often had/have their own prejudices and agendas... and very few were/are impartial. However, the Westerners who speak for the Turks grew up like any other Westerner, where the image of the Turks has almost always been negative. In their delirium to discredit anything that comes across as "Pro-Turkish," Armenians and bedfellows are known to make unsubstantiated charges that these people must be getting paid by the "sinister" Turkish government, as if the Turkish government has so much money to burn... but if you don't buy into this nonsense, you can easily conclude the only motivating force for those who speak for the Turks is respect for the Truth.

If you think this logic makes sense, and realize there really isn't a reason for a typically prejudiced, anti-Turkish Westerner to speak well of the Turks except for reasons of integrity, then... generally speaking... regarding information that comes from a "Pro-Turk" Westerner, please keep in mind the following scientific formula : Pro-Turk = Pro-Truth.

David Chase Taylor #conspiracy truthernews.wordpress.com

Based on breaking news and events, it appears that the CIA in Switzerland and their minions are about to execute a man-made earthquake attack that will likely result in a devastating tsunami, killing tens of thousands of people. The unsanitary conditions found in the aftermath of the so-called “natural disaster” may spark the biological pandemic planned for 2015.

Although the impending man-made earthquake and tsunami attack could theoretically transpire anywhere in the world, it will most likely occur in Japan, namely the regions of Tokyo and Okinawa. Similar to the 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami, the impending tsunami attack will target multiple locations, namely on the east coast of Japan.

The notion of a man-made earthquake was recently highlighted by Yahoo News on August 18, 2014, in a report ominously titled “Less Shake from Artificial Quakes, Fed Study Says”. Since man-made earthquakes have now been confirmed on multiple occasions (see list below), it’s just a matter of time before another one is used to spawn a so-called “natural disaster”.

In order to foreshadow Japanese-related terror just prior to a horrific man-made earthquake attack in Japan, the state-sponsored terror group known as ISIS allegedly took two Japanese tourists as hostage. In the wake of this man-made earthquake report, the hostages will predictably be beheaded or killed in another fashion.

Tsunami-Fire

Japan Tsunami Bomb Operation
In what appears to be cover for the U.S. Navy’s tsunami bomb operation in Japan, it was revealed on January 22, 2015, that a cargo ship of the U.S. Navy has run aground off the Japanese coast near Okinawa. The ship has since been identified as the “USNS Sgt. Matej Kocak”. Whether the alleged grounding has provided the necessary cover for the installation of tsunami bombs off the coast of Okinawa is not known, but it’s highly likely. Said tsunami bombs could be detonated at a future date in order to give the appearance of a “natural disaster” (i.e., earthquake and tsunami). Interestingly, the ship is part of the Military Sealift Command which operates more than 100 noncombat, civilian crew ships that service the Department of Defense in specialized missions. The term “Sealift” is telling for that is exactly what tsunami bombs do; lifting up the sea, creating a massive tsunami wave.

Japanese Earthquake Attacks Trending
Prior to a high-profile man-made Japanese earthquake attack, the world must be psychologically prepared to accept that this is in fact possible. Fraudulent headlines and fabricated events are a slick way of convincing people that yes, it can happen. As evidenced earthquakes are now at an all-time high in Japan which suggests that a state-sponsored earthquake attack is imminent.

Japan Earthquake Terror Timeline:

1. February 5, 2015: Magnitude 5.0 earthquake strikes western Japan, no tsunami warning
2. February 16, 2015: Offshore 6.9 earthquake triggers tsunami advisory in Japan
3. February 19, 2015: Strong 6.3 earthquake strikes off east coast of Japan
4. February 23, 2015: Magnitude 4.5 quake shakes eastern Japan, no tsunami warning
5. February 25, 2015: Earthquake measuring 6.2 magnitude strikes off southern Japan

[Does not purport to be a complete list of recent earthquakes in Japan]

Tokyo Disaster Drill
In what appears to be a pre-Tokyo earthquake/tsunami attack drill, it was reported on January 16, 2015, that a major commercial complex in Tokyo has opened its doors to hypothetical disaster victims in a citywide emergency earthquake drill in which the transportation network has collapsed. The unprecedented earthquake drill was executed a day before the 20th anniversary of the Great Hanshin Earthquake.

I. MAN-MADE TSUNAMIS:

Tsunami_Wave

1.1: Tsunami Bombs
Just prior to Hurricane Sandy making landfall, it was reported on October 26, 2012, that the U.S. Navy had sent 24 naval vessels, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, out to sea. Whether or not the U.S. Navy ships were in fact participating in a coordinated effort to rig military grade explosives off the eastern seaboard is not known, but a few months late on January 1, 2013, it was reported that so-called “Tsunami Bombs” were tested off the coast of New Zealand. According to reports, the tests, which were carried out in the waters around New Caledonia and Auckland, showed that “Tsunami Bombs” were a feasible WMD in that a series of 10 large offshore blasts could potentially create a 33-foot tsunami wave capable of inundating a small city. The top secret operation, code-named “Project Seal”, tested out the doomsday device as a possible rival to the nuclear bomb. Although 3,700 bombs were exploded during the tests, experts concluded that single explosions were not powerful enough and that a successful tsunami bomb would require about 2 million kilograms of explosive arrayed in a line about five miles from shore. When all the facts concerning Hurricane Sandy are taken into consideration (i.e., Sandy’s unprecedented landfall pattern, “Tsunami Bomb” technology, and the 24 U.S. Navy ships off the New York and New Jersey coast), it does appear that Hurricane Sandy was in fact a man-made hurricane. Coincidentally, on June 27, 2013, it was reported that a mysterious mine was found by a swimmer just off the coast of Bay Head, New Jersey, roughly 50 miles south of New York City. According to the report, the mine, which was detonated by the U.S. Navy, sent water 100 feet into the air.

1.2: Hurricane Sandy Flashback
Although Hurricane Sandy was only a Category 1 hurricane, it had a storm surge equivalent to a tsunami which flooded parts of the East coast shoulder high and swamped the streets, subways and tunnels of New York City. Just prior to Sandy making landfall, it was reported on October 26, 2012, that the U.S. Navy had sent 24 naval vessels, including the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, out to sea from Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia to avoid being damaged in port. If Sandy was indeed a “Superstorm”, why would the Navy risk sending 24 ships out into harm’s way? Is it possible that the 24 Navy ships were in fact participating in a coordinated effort to detonate modern day “Tsunami Bombs” off the East coast of America in order to create the man-made Hurricane Sandy? Although further research must be conducted, it does appear that the deadly “hurricane” which killed over 100 people and cost an estimated $20 billion in economic damage was in fact a man-made event.

1.3: Tsunami Bombs Dropped on New Zealand?
In yet another example of how the government spawns “natural disasters”, New Zealanders ran screaming from buildings in Wellington on July 21, 2013, when as a magnitude 6.5 earthquake blew out windows and caused part of the city’s port to slide into the sea. According to the report, the earthquake struck at 5:09 p.m. local time and was centered offshore, 57 kilometers (35 miles) south-southwest of the capital city, at a depth of 14 kilometers, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Coincidentally, on July 21, 2013, the same exact day as the earthquake, it was reported that the U.S. Navy had dropped 4 bombs totaling 4,000 pounds into the sea just off the New Zealand coast. Although the exact location of the incident was changed, which is standard operating procedure for intelligence agencies, the fact that a major earthquake occurred on the same day as 2 tons of aquatic bunker busting-like bombs were reportedly dropped is quite a coincidence, furthering the notion that so called “natural disasters” are anything but natural. As of August 16, 2013, the Australian and U.S. Navy are now in the process of “retrieving” the bombs. What exactly is really going on deep beneath the sea off the Australian coast is unknown, but it the navy wanted to insert some tsunami bombs, the bomb retrieval is the perfect cover.

II. MAN-MADE EARTHQUAKES:

03_27_2013_induced-earthquakes

2.1: Governments can “Set off Earthquakes”
Back in April of 1997, U.S. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen stated that governments “are engaging in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves”. Although Cohen would like us to take him at his word, it is far more likely that his statement was part of a military psychological operation (PSYOP) in order to draw attention away from the tried and true method of creating earthquakes—large amounts of underground or underwater explosives.

2.2: Admitted “Man-Made” Earthquakes
If in fact underground or underwater explosives are the root cause of earthquakes, oil and gas drilling operations conducted by multinational corporations would provide the optimal cover needed for these covert operations. Under the term “fracking”, the National Research Council admitted as much on June 15, 2012, when it was reported that certain oil and gas operations can result in earthquakes. The report was quick to point out that the risk of earthquakes from hydraulic fracturing is generally low and that “fracking” was only found to have caused very small quakes of 2.3 and 1.5 magnitude.

2.3: “Man-Made” Quake #1 (Baton Rouge, Louisiana)
Back on October 8, 1988, the Earthquake Game took place in front of a crowd of 79,431 at Tiger’s Stadium. According to reports, the game between Auburn and LSU registered an earthquake according to a seismograph located in LSU’s Howe-Russell Geoscience Complex around 1,000 feet (305 m) from the stadium. The seismograph reading was allegedly discovered the morning after the game by LSU seismologist Don Stevenson who submitted the reading to the Louisiana Geological Survey to have it preserved. Needless to say, if thousands of screaming fans can produce an earthquake, imagine what thousands of tons of C-4 or dynamite could do.

2.4: “Man-Made” Quake #2 (Seattle, Washington)
Back on January 8, 2011, the “Beast Quake” occurred at CenturyLink Field in Seattle, Washington when Seattle Seahawks player Marshawn Lynch scored a winning 67-yard touchdown over the New Orleans Saints in the 2011 NFL Playoffs. This was the first time that the fans of Seattle Seahawks allegedly generated an earthquake during an NFL game. Needless to say, if thousands of screaming fans can produce an earthquake, imagine what thousands of tons of C-4 or dynamite could do.

2.5: “Man-Made” Quake #3 (Punggye-ri, North Korea)
Back on February 12, 2013, it was reported that South Korea had detected “an artificial earthquake” as a result of North Korea’s nuclear program. According to the report, “The United States Geological Survey confirmed an earthquake in North Korea’s northeast of between 4.9- and 5.1-magnitude, at a depth of about one kilometer.” The report further stated that, “The Japanese Meteorological Agency reports that the tremor’s epicenter was located in Kilju County, at exactly the same place and depth as the quake caused by North Korea’s last known underground nuclear test in 2009. North Korea’s first nuclear test in 2006 was also carried out at the Punggye-ri test site.” Whether or not nuclear weapons exist is debatable, but this test in North Korea shows that earthquakes can result from the use of explosives.

2.6: “Man-Made” Quake #4 (Prague, Oklahoma)
Back on March 26, 2013, it was reported that a team of scientists had determined that the 5.6 magnitude earthquake in Prague, Oklahoma, on November 6, 2011, was man-made as a result of “oil drilling waste [that] was injected deep underground”. These oil and gas drilling operations could easily enable the strategic placement of large amounts of explosive far beneath the earth’s surface which can then be detonated at a later date via remote control. Based on these recent revelations, it appears that “fracking” is the political cover for man-made “black ops” earthquake operations.

2.7: “Man-Made” Quake #5 (Seattle, Washington)
Back on December 2, 2013, it was reported that Seattle Seahawk fans created an earthquake during a regular season game versus the New Orleans Saints. This was the second time that the fans of the Seattle Seahawks allegedly generated an earthquake during an NFL game. Needless to say, if thousands of screaming fans can produce an earthquake, imagine what thousands of tons of C-4 or dynamite could do.

2.8: “Man-Made” Quake #6 (Seattle, Washington)
Back on January 13, 2014, it was reported that Seattle Seahawk fans created an earthquake during a playoff game versus the New Orleans Saints. This was the third time that the fans of the Seattle Seahawks allegedly generated an earthquake during an NFL game. Needless to say, if thousands of screaming fans can produce an earthquake, imagine what thousands of tons of C-4 or dynamite could do.

2.9: “Man-Made” Quake #7 (Korea Peninsula)
Back on February 12, 2013, it was reported by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that a 5.0-magnitude earthquake was detected 132km (80 miles) from the Korean peninsula early on April 1, 2014. The quake reportedly took place at a depth of nearly 16km (10 miles) in the sea west of the Korean peninsula, just days after North Korea threatened to carry out a “new form” of nuclear test. Although not explicitly stated, it can be deduced that the alleged nuclear test caused the earthquake.

2.10: Fake Earthquake Alarm (Japan)
In yet another sign that most major earthquakes are indeed man-made, on August 8, 2013, it was reported that Japan’s Meteorological Agency was investigating itself for a fake earthquake warning after it issued an alert for a 7.8 magnitude earthquake which only resulted in a minor 2.3 magnitude earthquake. According to the report, an all-out alarm sounded, including cellphones and TV warnings, just before 5 PM Japanese time, warning that Japan should prepare herself for a massive quake. However, the major quake never came, only a small 2.3 magnitude earthquake. How any government agency, earthquake or otherwise, is able to know beforehand when an earthquake will strike and how big it will be without somehow being responsible for initiating it defies logic. In the aftermath of the false alarm, news reports stated that the earthquake agency blamed electronic noise for triggering the false alarm.

Charles Eisenstein #quack charleseisenstein.org

Let me take the argument of interbeing to its extreme. Climate change skeptics often blame climate fluctuations on the sun, which of course is not influenced by human activity—right? Well, I would hazard to bet that most premodern people would disagree that the sun is unaffected by human affairs. Many of them had rituals to thank and propitiate the sun, so that it would keep shining. Could it be that they knew something that we do not? Could it be that the sun is recoiling in pain from the ingratitude and violence humanity is perpetrating on Earth? That it will inevitably mirror our own derangement?

Yes, my friends, the conceptual revolution we are beginning goes this deep. We need to rediscover the mind of nature, to return to our original animism and the ensouled universe it perceived. We need to understand nature, the planet, the sun, the soil, the water, the mountains, the rocks, the trees, and the air as sentient beings whose destiny is not separate from our own. As far as I know, no indigenous person on Earth would deny that a rock bears some kind of awareness or intelligence. Who are we to think differently? Are the results of the modern scientific view so impressive as to justify such arrant presumptuousness? Have we created a society more beautiful than they? In fact, as the example of the quantum particle suggests, science is finally circling back toward animism. To be sure, scientific paradigms that countenance an intelligent universe are mostly heterodox today, but they are gradually encroaching on the mainstream. Take the example of water. Emerging from the shadows of homeopathy, anthroposophy, and research by marginal figures like Masaru Emoto and the brilliant Viktor Schauberger, the idea that water itself is alive, or at least bears structure and individuality, is now being explored by mainstream scientists like Gerald Pollack. We still have a long way to go before anything like the sentience of all matter can be accepted, or even articulated, by science. But imagine what that belief would mean when we contemplate mountaintop removal mining, polluting aquifers with fracking fluid, and so on.

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.”

Peter Vajda #fundie creation.com

Peter Vajda, Ph.D. is a research scientist with the Division of Geophysics at the Earth Science Institute, at the Slovak Academy of Sciences in Bratislava, Slovakia. He studied geophysics at the Comenius University, Bratislava, specializing in paleomagnetism, and obtained his doctorate at University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada, researching the earth’s gravity.

These days, people think scientists do not believe in God or the Bible, but Peter is one of many researchers who shatter those ideas. He is a successful scientist who believes the Bible completely.

Dr Vajda (a Hungarian name pronounced VIE-da) is the internationally acclaimed head of the Department of Gravimetry and Geodynamics at the Earth Science Institute. With more than 60 papers to his name, he has presented at conferences all over the world including in South Africa, Canada, Fiji, USA (including Hawaii), and in several European countries.

His research interest is primarily geophysics, with a focus on the earth’s gravitational field, its observation and interpretation. One important application of his research is studying magma deep inside volcanoes by carefully measuring the strength of the gravity in the surrounding area. It helps scientists understand how dormant volcanoes re-awaken, and the threat of impending eruptions. This helps keep people safe from volcanic explosions.

Peter grew up in Slovakia (formerly part of Czechoslovakia) in an orderly, happy home. His father lectured in physics at the university, and his mother taught at college. Peter recalls that his parents loved him, and the family enjoyed outdoor activities together, including hiking, swimming, skiing, snowboarding, and mountain climbing.

It was his passion for the outdoor life and the beauty of nature that prompted Peter to study mathematics and physics. “My idea was that I would do lots of field work and expeditions.” Peter recalls, “I was a satisfied atheist. I firmly believed that the world and life came into existence through evolution, although I knew nothing about it. And I thought of myself as a good person who never hurt anyone.”

Things started changing during his time in Canada. A friend introduced him to the Bible, which he began reading in the evenings. Within a few days he was ‘hooked’. As he read, he realized he was selfish, used people, and hurt them. That made him think there was something wrong with his heart, which started him reflecting on life.

“I began reading the Bible in Genesis,” Peter explained, “and the amazing thing is that, although I was an atheist and evolutionist, I did not dismiss it. As I read, the truth came through that the heart of man is corrupted. This matched my own experience. It left me wondering, ‘Why didn’t my parents tell me this? Why didn’t they teach me this at school’?”

When he read about animal sacrifices in the Old Testament, he felt he needed to get a flawless lamb to sacrifice somewhere to make him clean. “Eventually I reached the New Testament and discovered the solution—Jesus Christ died on the Cross 2,000 years ago as my sacrifice.”

Peter explained, “I knew the Bible was right about the corruption of man’s heart so I concluded it would be right about the cure.” Eventually, he got on his knees and asked God to save him. Peter recalls, “And God did. With time, I realized there were new things at work in me. I had new values in life. I had new desires. I discovered that God is alive and personal.”

Surprisingly, Peter’s evolutionary beliefs were no obstacle to him reading the Bible. At that time, the origin and history of universe were not at the forefront of his thinking. Rather, he was consumed by the issue of righteousness and justification. Evolution did pop up about two years afterwards. The context concerned the origin of death. According to evolution, death is a natural part of life on Earth, and has been around for hundreds of millions of years. But, according to the Bible, there was no death originally. It came into the world through the disobedience of the first two people, Adam and Eve.

Peter explains, “Then and there it hit me. I realized it was either/or. I immediately accepted the biblical account for the origin of death, based purely on the authority of the Word of God. For me the Bible stands infinitely higher than human speculation. My attitude was that the ultimate truth is the Word of God. He has all wisdom; He was the only ‘eye witness’ of the history; He reveals the truth to us.”

That decision began a quest to understand where and how the evolutionary explanation was wrong. “I was especially motivated because I work professionally in research in academia, and the majority of the people I knew considered it fact. I wanted to know every possible detail about the errors with evolutionary thinking.”

He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. In this regard, Peter remembered his research work for his Master’s degree1 in Bratislava. He was studying paleomagnetism, the past magnetism of the earth, allegedly reaching back over millions of years. He recalls how, even as an atheist, he was deeply concerned about all the unknowns in trying to recover information about the deep past. He was uneasy about the way researchers said so many things with such certainty about what the earth was like ‘millions of years ago’. He recalls thinking, “How can we know? How can we be certain?”

Peter quipped, “I eventually escaped from paleomagnetism to work in physical geodesy and geophysics, specifically gravimetry. I was very happy. Now I could research things that were verifiable by empirical science based on facts—on actual observations.”

The past is in accessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role. Recalling this confirmed for Peter that we cannot discover the origin and history of the earth using ‘science’. “The past is inaccessible to empirical science. Observations can only be made in the present. The rest is reconstruction, in which beliefs play a pivotal role.”

He said, “God had already explained this in Job 38:4, that the only genuine knowledge about origins is His Word. He was there, and He has revealed this knowledge to us. Not only does He know the history of the earth because He witnessed it; He actually did it—Himself.”

One topic Peter initially found tricky to resolve was radioactive dating and the age of the earth. This, too, became clear when he recognized the difference between empirical knowledge and speculation. “The empirical knowledge, what is actually measured, is the ratio of isotopes. The age is a questionable interpretation based on untestable assumptions. Further, the value actually selected is chosen to match their naturalistic philosophy. Although they don’t want to say it, the ages they quote are taken on faith.”

In his quest on evolution he was greatly helped by the abundant creationist literature that addresses these ‘scientific’ issues. “I was thrilled as I discovered that when we begin with biblical assumptions the outcomes beautifully harmonize with the true history of the world.”

Peter thinks that laypeople would benefit from understanding “the spatial (3D) inverse problem in earth sciences”. This refers to the problem of reconstructing the three dimensional (3D) structure and properties of the interior of the earth using just two dimensional (2D) observations from the earth’s surface.

Peter explained that it is not possible to reach a unique solution because many different 3D models can equally well fit the 2D surface data. “Consider how much more uncertainty we face when we add the time dimension and try to reconstruct the deep past of Earth’s history—essentially a 4D problem. The uncertainty and ambiguity is greater by more than one order of magnitude,” Peter said. “This intrinsic uncertainty means that the materialistic, atheistic evolutionary claims on origins and history are ultimately religion, and their acceptance a matter of belief.”

On the positive side, Peter refers to many scientific evidences that give insights into and confidence in the Bible. In geology these include the abundance and preservation of fossils, the horizontal and vertical extent of sedimentary layers, their deformation, and the interfaces between them. Even more compelling are the evidences from biology: the impossibility of chemical evolution, the insurmountable problems with biological evolution, and the overwhelming evidence of design.

Peter said, “I find the origin and history of the cosmos and life to be the most interesting and ultimate of questions in the human quest for knowledge. And I am convinced that the Bible reveals the true history of the universe, and can be depended upon absolutely.”

Bert Thompson #fundie discoverymagazine.com

Sometimes you will hear scientists speak of a hypothesis (high-POTH-eh-sis). This means that they have an idea (a "guess") about something, but do not yet have any facts to tell them if their idea is true or false. Sometimes scientists talk about a theory. If something is a theory, that means there are facts which show it might be true. Further testing will settle the matter.

However, if scientists speak of a law in science, they are talking about something which has been shown to be true all the time. In science, a law means there are no exceptions to the rule. The Law of Gravity is one example of this. Everyone knows that gravity holds things down—no exceptions. Gravity is not just a theory, it's a law.

There is another well-known law in science. It is known as the Law of Biogenesis (bye-oh-GEN-uh-sis). This law says two things: (1) living things always come from living things; and (2) living things produce only more living things like themselves.

For example, to get a cow, you must first have a living thing. But, that living thing cannot be a horse, or a donkey, or a whale. It must be a cow. To get a rose, you must have a living rose. To get a dog, you must have a living dog. That is what the Law of Biogenesis says. And remember—there are no exceptions to this scientific law.

Evolution is against the Law of Biogenesis! Evolutionists tell us that living things came from nonliving matter. They also tell us that one kind of animal gave rise to a different kind of animal. Further, evolutionists tell us that this happened over and over again to produce all the millions of animals which have ever existed. But that would break the law!

The Law of Biogenesis is real, and accepted as true by all scientists. Evolution cannot be true, because it is against this law. To have a law there must be a law-giver. Who gave us the Law of Biogenesis? That Law-Giver could only be God.

Lord Thomas Drake #fundie forums.cybernations.net

[In a thread labeled "What you need to know about creation"]
1. Population statistics—If man appeared over one million years ago, the present world population would be thousands of times greater than it actually is. In fact, our entire galaxy could not provide the needed space for so many. The present world population is around 6 billion. Assuming the average life span to be 70 years and the average generation length to be 35 years, then starting with one family, the present world population would result in about 30 doublings. These doublings would carry us back in history from today to around 3500 B.C. This date is suggested by several creationist scientists to mark the time of the flood. Thus, the creation model dovetails beautifully with known world population statistics. But what of the evolutionary model? Dr. Henry Morris writes, “Now, if the first man appeared one million years ago, and these very conservative growth rates applied during that period, the world population would be at present 10 (27,000 zeros following) people. However, no more than 10 (with 100 zeros) people could be crammed into the known universe.”

(Scientific Creationism, Master Books, 1974, p. 154)

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.”

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

On the discovery of fifteen partial skeletons of a new species of hominid in South Africa.

Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell, who frequently writes articles for Answers in Genesis, is working on a full-length article on this discovery, so keep checking the website to read that. But we can say with confidence that this discovery changes nothing about our understanding of human history. You see, the only eyewitness account of human origins is the one provided by God our Creator in the Bible’s book of Genesis. No scientist witnessed the origin of man, and evolutionary scientists only believe there were intermediate evolutionary links between an ape-like ancestor and man because they have disregarded God’s Word and substituted their own fallible opinions in its place.

We know from God’s Word that “nature” did not experiment “with how to evolve humans.” God told us He created two humans as well as all the kinds of land animals—and that includes apes—on the same day. That means that there could be no evolution involved. Whatever species these bones represent—and we will be publishing a more complete report on the discovery and the claims being made about it soon—we know that they cannot be any sort of intermediate between apes and humans. The only way to find an ape-man—or a “bridge” between apes and humans—is to misinterpret fossils of either an ape or a human as something in between. But all humans—even varieties of humans that we no longer have with us—were all descended from the first two people God made. So are we. And all apes, even extinct varieties, are all descendants of the kinds of apes God made in the beginning. Scientific observation reveals that all living things, including apes and humans, only vary and reproduce within their created kinds, never evolving into new kinds. This scientific observation affirms what God decreed in the beginning, as recorded in Genesis 1, that all would reproduce after their kinds.

JAMES DELINGPOLE #fundie breitbart.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pretty soon, though, it shows its true colors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On what basis?

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

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

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

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

Their letter claims:

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

It concludes by demanding:

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

This is outrageous. Allow me to spell out why.

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

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

As Homewood notes:

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

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

Yes, indeed.

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.

Ken Ham #fundie answersingenesis.org

Bill Nye, TV's “The Science Guy,” often speaks out about climate change, something he believes is cause for much alarm. Well, he tackled the topic again in a recent video that uses “emoji” to explain climate change as part of the General Electric Emoji Science campaign. Now, late last year he did a video which attempted to teach evolution using emojis. You can read my thoughts about that video here.

In this video on climate change Bill Nye states that “climate change is a real deal.” I agree with Mr. Nye—climate change is real. Few people would deny that climates do indeed change, since changing climates are something we can observe in the world around us. For example, beginning in medieval times and ending by about 1850 there was a period of global cooling called the “Little Ice Age.” Since then, temperatures have been slowly climbing back up. So climates do change. But, while we might agree that climate change is real, Mr. Nye and I would radically disagree on the severity and alarming nature of climate change because we have completely different starting points.

You see, what you believe about the past (historical science) determines how you interpret the observational evidence. Since Bill Nye believes the earth is billions of years old, he likely assumes (as most evolutionists do) that the climate has been relatively stable for the last 10,000 years, since the end of the last supposed glacial period. Since our climate is now changing, many secularists assume that modern man must be the primary cause and, if this is true, then this certainly is cause for alarm. But as Christians we start with a completely different account of Earth’s history—the history recorded in God’s Word. According to God’s Word, the earth is only around 6,000 years old. But the climate was radically changed about 4,350 years ago when the earth was catastrophically reshaped by the global Flood of Noah’s day. This Flood even caused an Ice Age, which covered 30% of Earth’s surface with ice and snow. This transitional period then eased out to give way to the climate we now have today. So we should expect minor variations in our climate, and these changes are not necessarily man-made. So, unlike most evolutionists, we are not alarmed by reports of changing climates.

Now, in his video Bill Nye made reference to an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since the mid-eighteenth century. Many climate change alarmists will point to this rise in CO2 as evidence of dramatic man-made climate change. But is CO2 really the cause of climate change and global warming? Well, Dr. Alan White, an organic chemist with a PhD from Harvard University, writes in The New Answers Book 4,

We do know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases act as a blanket over the earth. When sunlight heats the earth’s surface, the warm earth radiates some of that heat into the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases slow the escape of that radiated heat. You have been led to believe that the most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide. It is not. Water vapor and clouds are actually responsible for about 80 to 90 percent of the total greenhouse effect. That’s right, at least 80 percent. That is why clear mornings are usually much colder than cloudy mornings. On clear mornings, we do not have that blanket of clouds to hold in the heat. The percentage of the greenhouse effect attributable to CO2 is believed to be as high as 20 percent by some and as low as 4 percent by others. Almost everyone agrees that the percent of CO2 that is man-made is only about 4 percent of total CO2. Therefore, the greenhouse effect caused by man-made CO2 is less than 1 percent of the total and may be a small fraction of 1 percent.

Despite this, many scientists today claim that the rise in man-made CO2 is the major cause of the rise in global temperatures over the past century. Just because global temperature and CO2 concentrations have risen over the past several decades does not mean that one caused the other . . . . The correlation between the CO2 concentration and global temperature is not strong, particularly between 1900 and 1950 . . . [and] man-made CO2 was not high during the Medieval Warming Period. These data are not convincing.

So should we really be alarmed about rising carbon dioxide levels destroying our climate? Well, the observational data is certainly not convincing that we should be greatly concerned.

Bill Nye then mentioned some possible ways to stop supposed man-made climate change by suggesting we need to engineer new ways to distribute and store renewable energy from the sun and wind. Now, should Christians be against renewable energy? Of course not! We have been placed as stewards of the earth, and so we need to care for what God has entrusted to us. This means that Christians should be concerned about the environment and take steps to ensure that we are good stewards of what we have been given.

Thanks for stopping by and thanks for praying,
Ken

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

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!!

However, the Militia of Satan didn't waste any time after the expiration of the second millennium of the Christian era.

Vice President Al Gore was the chosen successor of the Clintons.

He was totally subservient to the British Empire.

As President, he would have destroyed any remnants of the former Soviet Union . . . and replaced them with Islamic regimes!

After the disastrous dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Clintons were supposed to finished the job by eliminating any pro-Russian counties in the Mideast. Their final geopolitical goal was to make UKraine and Crimea a part of NATO. That would cut off Russian access to the Mediterranean, and turn back the clock to the 17th century, when Russia was struggling to survive against the Terrible Turkish onslaught.

George W. Bush was the Republican candidate for President in 2000.

Candidates for the Presidency are as carefully screened by the FBI and the media as candidates for the Supreme Court.

Amazingly, just 5 days before the election, Bush proudly announced that he was arrested for drunk driving.

Al Gore was delighted with the announcement and called Bush immediately to thank him.

That move by Bush at that critical juncture was just a ruse to THROW the election, and guarantee that Al Gore would be the next President. Because of that timely announcement by Bush, the election was a dead heat, and only the state of Florida would decide the outcome.


Antonin Scalia was the most influential associate justice on the Supreme Court, and he desperately wanted the position of chief justice.

A Reagan appointee, he knew that a Gore Presidency would deny him the opportunity to be the Godfather of the Court.

Scalia stopped the Florida Fiasco and Bush was assured of the Presidency.

Scalia truly believed that Bush wanted to be President, and by stopping the Florida recount, he expected Bush to repay the favor as soon as he became President. That could only happen if Bush forced Chief Justice Rehnquist to retire by persuasion . . . or a a timely death!

Not all was lost however with the inauguration of President Bush. There was still the Twin Towers in New York City, and an opportunity for a false flag operation to continue the war against Russia.

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

The invasion of Iraq was uppermost on his agenda.

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" was really "Operation Uncle Sap," as the U.S. would do all the fighting and dying for the British Empire.

Janet bloomfield #fundie judgybitch.com

Drunk chick gets in car with man she doesn’t know to do a line of coke, ends up getting raped.Totally didn’t see that coming!Utterly shocked that Grand Jury won’t indict!The state of rape in the USA.


Every time I write a piece about rape, I think to myself, “okay, that’s it. I am done with this subject”.But then I run across stories like this one and I just can’t—..

http://www.vice.com/read/i-got-raped-then-my-problems-started

Here is the story, quick and dirty:Gina Tron goes to a bar to meet some friends and she gets drunk.Some guy she doesn’t know is there, but she assumes he is with the group.He’s lean and swarthy and has a “disconnected” look in his eyes.He makes her nervous. But then he offers her cocaine, and hey, cocaine!She sets aside all her misgivings, and gets in the car with a guy she doesn’t know, who makes her nervous and who is “disconnected”.

[img]https://i1.wp.com/judgybitch.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2013/07/coke.jpg?resize=300%2C168[/img]

Because cocaine?

What the fuck, Gina. Seriously. What the fuck are you doing?Gina ends up locked in the car with this guy, they drive to his apartment, she goes with him and whatever happened next, Gina considers it rape.She is transfixed by the 666 tattoo across his abdomen, and based on how Gina describes the guy, it’s a complete and utter shock that he would have such a thing, right?

He said, she said. Okay.Whatever Gina.

You know what kills me about this case?That three other women report the same thing happened to them. THREE!There are at least three women who are so unconcerned with their own safety and well-being, they put themselves in the exact same situation.

Parts of Gina’s story are bizarre, too.She went to the guy’s apartment.She knows where he lives.Why does she need to spend hours looking at mug-shots then?So she can ID him and then find out where he lives?She KNOWS where he lives.It makes no sense.

[img]https://i1.wp.com/judgybitch.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2013/07/grand-jury.jpg?resize=286%2C176[/img]

And she claims the defence attorney had incriminating character evidence against her at the Grand Jury trial, except Grand Jury trials don’t have defence attorneys and there is no cross-examination of any kind.The Grand Jury just considers whether there is the tiniest shred of evidence to have the case proceed to trial.In Gina’s case, the answer was nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment

The other two women who were allegedly assaulted by the same man declined to take part in the trial.

Let’s just assume for one moment that Gina is telling the god’s honest truth and the story played out exactly as she said.The commenters at Vice, and at Slate, where Amanda Marcotte (big surprise!) picked up the story use the same analogy over and over again:


Someone’s new car gets stolen, and the police respond that having a nice, new car is just asking for someone to steal it. A man walks down the street in an expensive suit. When he gets robbed, the officer tells him that his outfit was just a come-on for thieves, and, besides, he had been seen giving money away, and how did anyone know for sure that he didn’t give his money to the thief and just change his mind about it later.Dea Henrich

If a man is walking down the street in a $10000 suit wearing a Rolex watch and someone jumps him and robs him, no one ever says it was not robbery because he “wanted it.” They never say it was HIS fault for dressing in a way to indicate he had wealth worth taking. If he is counting hundred dollar bills while walking down the street and gets mugged they don’t say it was not a crime because his actions led the attacker on. Nor do they dredge up things like, he likes to play poker therefore he has a history of willingly losing money. If someone steals a car they don’t declare it’s not stolen because the owner did not defend himself and fight back hard enough.Ethan Wallace

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/gina_tron_tried_to_put_her_brooklyn_rapist_behind_bars_but_was_abused_by.html?wpisrc=flyouts

Really?Let’s take a look at that, shall we?

[img]https://i1.wp.com/judgybitch.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/2013/07/bu.jpg?resize=275%2C183[/img]

Here’s a story from Boston University that is roughly parallel.

A research assistant from the BU Medical Campus was stabbed, punched, and robbed of an iPad by two assailants at 8:32 p.m. Tuesday at the corner of Pleasant Street and Browne Street in Brookline. The victim, a 30-year-old postdoctoral fellow, was treated at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center for two superficial stab wounds.

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/researcher-stabbed-in-brookline-robbery/

Yikes!Stabbed for an iPad.That seems a little harsh.Surely the commenters at the Boston U story are calling for the criminal to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and offering their heartfelt condolences to the victim.

Hmmm

Looks like maybe not.

When you move out of on-campus housing, this is a risk you have to expect. Instead of blaming BU, students should learn not to walk with their iDevices out and their heads buried in them. All of the people that nearly slam into me everyday with their head mashed in their phones become prime targets at night when they walk down dark side-streets that way.Anonymous on 01.30.2013 at 8:00 am

I’m born and raised from Boston (not outside of Boston, the inner city of Boston) and when I hear about these things happening it doesn’t surprise me. Inner city kids know that a lot of wealthy kids go to BU. They know that students have laptops and electronics on them. Automatically you are talented. I grew up surrounded by this mentality.

The point is, all of us students need to be smart and aware of our surroundings. Don’t walk alone at night. Don’t have your cell phone in your hand or out at all. Walk swift and with a purpose. If you see people walking towards you, cross the street. Don’t keep your hood up so you can keep your peripheral vision.

Street smarts people. If you aren’t from a city, start learning them.Local Girl on 01.30.2013 at 5:32 pm

Just because we “shouldn’t have to be afraid” of getting mugged doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take precautions ourselves. You certainly won’t see me walking around with my nose buried in my iPhone or iPad (not that we know that was the case with this robbery, but still). I value those possessions and value my safety, so I can wait to tweet or send that text until I get home. Of course having these things out of sight will not guarantee I don’t get mugged, but it certainly makes me look like less of an easy target.BU Student with Common Sense on 01.30.2013 at 1:51 pm

What, exactly, is it about demonstrating just one iota of common sense that feminists hate so much?What part of “don’t get in a car and do coke with a guy who makes you uneasy and who is completely unknown to you” is unfair or unreasonable to expect?

I think Amanda’s spin on the story is rather revealing:

Women, it turns out, are in a perpetual state of consent unless they bring weapons to bars and are able to wield those weapons against rapists who have made it clear that they are willing to beat you into submission.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/07/01/gina_tron_tried_to_put_her_brooklyn_rapist_behind_bars_but_was_abused_by.html?wpisrc=flyouts#

[

Excellent suggestion, Amanda.Bring a weapon.The one located between your ears is probably the best bet:your BRAIN!!Do you fucking have one?

The Grand Jury refused to indict in this case because it defies the imagination that anyone could be so utterly, implausibly stupid.As soon as your story starts with, “well, I went out with this guy I never met before to do coke in his car”, everything else you have to say loses all credibility.

And apparently, a lot of women who recount their “rapes” to police will often do so in a way that invites police to think they are crazy, stupid, and probably lying.


When Tom Tremblay started working for the police department of Burlington, Vt., 30 years ago, he discovered that many of his fellow cops rarely believed a rape victim. This was true time after time, in dozens of cases. Tremblay could see why they were doubtful once he started interviewing the victims himself. The victims, most of them women, often had trouble recalling an attack or couldn’t give a chronological account of it. Some expressed no emotion. Others smiled or laughed as they described being assaulted.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/06/why_cops_don_t_believe_rape_victims_and_how_brain_science_can_solve_the.html

Rebecca Ruiz, writing at Slate, goes on to explore how neurobiology explains the way women recount their rapes, comparing rape to PTSD or the kinds of trauma torture victims endure.It’s all very compelling information, chock full of fancy medical terms and explanations that sound tickety-boo.Women don’t lie about rape because SCIENCE!

In the past decade, neurobiology has evolved to explain why victims respond in ways that make it seem like they could be lying, even when they’re not. Using imaging technology, scientists can identify which parts of the brain are activated when a person contemplates a traumatic memory such as sexual assault. The brain’s prefrontal cortex—which is key to decision-making and memory—often becomes temporarily impaired. The amygdala, known to encode emotional experiences, begins to dominate, triggering the release of stress hormones and helping to record particular fragments of sensory information. Victims can also experience tonic immobility—a sensation of being frozen in place—or a dissociative state. These types of withdrawal result from extreme fear yet often make it appear as if the victim did not resist the assault.

But there is another explanation for fractured memories and laughter and total lack of credibility:women are not necessarily LYING about the fact they think they were raped, but they are nervous as hell about the fact that they did not take one single reasonable precaution to avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation. Perhaps the “traumatic memory” they are recalling is just how brainless and idiotic they were in the first place.

Perhaps Tron really WAS raped, and perhaps the jury really did refuse to indict a serial rapist:I don’t live in Brooklyn, but even if I did, it wouldn’t frighten me to know this man was loose in the least.Why not?

I don’t do coke, and I sure as hell would not get in a car with a man I don’t know who makes me nervous.

See how easy that is?I value myself.It’s really that simple.When feminism insists that no woman should ever be required to consider her own safety and her own actions and only rapists should be held responsible for rape, they are essentially asking women to discount their own value.Don’t consider yourself smart, capable, sensible, rational or in any way responsible for yourself.

This is why I don’t understand why any woman would embrace feminism.Feminism doesn’t just hate men, IT HATES WOMEN.What kind of philosophy rests on the assumption that women are incapable of taking the tiniest measures to protect themselves? That it is somehow unfair if women are asked to observe their environments, make a rational assessment of threats, believe themselves capable of avoiding potential harm and deserving of their own protection?RationalCapableDeserving

Perhaps the reason so many women are floundering in their lives and suffering existential angst is because they have bought the story feminism is peddling:women are irrational, incapable and undeserving.Victims.Always victims.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8251259/Women-in-crisis-as-depression-fuels-binge-drinking-and-sex-research.html

The only definite thing Tron is a victim of is her own colossal idiocy.


Don’t take car rides from strangers.Every five year old knows this.How does anyone grow up to think car rides from strangers mixed with drunkenness and some cocaine is a good idea? No one deserves to be assaulted, but holy hell!

When five year olds show more sense than grown women, you know we have a problem.

And the solution is fairly simple:grow up ladies.You can make better choices.Really. Give it a try.Believe you are capable.Believe you are rational.Believe you are deserving.Because you are, no matter what your Daily Feminist Blogger tells you.

And remember, only do coke with people you know!

Lots of love,

JB

Power Point Paradise #fundie powerpointparadise.com

Yes, my dear fellow human beings, it was SCIENTIFICALLY proven long ago that our ancient forebears experienced a catastrophic disaster that tilted the Earth just before 2345 B.C. The globe got such a blow that it wobbled on for over 2000 years until 1880 AD.

Our Earth got hit so bad by that Global Deluge that all our smart ancient patriarchs AND THEIR 500 ethnic descendant tribes still talked about it for MILLENNIA, no matter which branch of the Table of Nations they belong to.

Either the Earth got tilted by the heavy weight of the Northern ice-packs, or by the terrible “thruster-rocket” power of the many instant ‘fountains of the Earth’ of sub-crustal super-critical water (still extant under the crust today) spouting out from below through the crack-lines which opened up in the crust of Pangaea, as so pitifully portrayed in the upcoming movie ‘NOAH’, obviously also designed to obfuscate or “debunk” true history once more. Where did the water come from? Listen for once to the Guardian who knows where the water is, but not where it went 2400 BC. But being dim cultural Marxists, who can blame them? :)

image

Certainly Aaronofski’s poor excuse for “Noah’s Ark” looks like a very un-seaworthy leaky crate! It would shatter and sink before it’d ever start to float! Yet another big wopper in Hellywood’s long line of Weapons of Mass Deceptions! WMD!

I’ve actually been wishing for a long time that Mel Gibson would have tackled a Noah movie, in his own inimitable way! I was actually gonna try to contact him, but didn’t know how to. I should have tried harder, but sad to say—I didn’t. After all, now Aaronofski is massacring true Ancient History. Ah! He might as well, so all the liars condemn themselves.

But perhaps it is not too late for Mel to do a real version with 2015 CG effects! Does anyone know how to contact Mel? Are you reading this Mel? I’d love to be one of your advisers! I actually started a screen-play once. Leave a comment with some email. You are not too old yet, to move the world once more big time!

The real historical super-critical water-fountains were so powerful and jetting up so high that some water-propelled rock-debris even escaped Earth’s gravity causing mares (lava-seas) and craters in the Moon, oh, and not to forget our comets and asteroids that are slowly beginning to return en masse?

Actually scientists just recently discovered that the water on the Moon is the same kind of water as on Earth! Oh really? Wow! Who could have expected such a thing! Amazing those ‘scientists’, no? Some actually have a clue! Or two? :) This time in the Mail!

image

Either the water-jets from the cracks were initially more powerful or numerous on one side of the Earth that caused it to tilt, otherwise the tilt may have been caused by the eventually developing Northern Ice pack resulting from the Flood. We personally do not believe it was caused by an impact of some huge asteroid, as no impact zone exists for it.

The cracks in the crust, caused by very hot pressurized super-critical water of volcanic nature, heated up the ocean so much, that it resulted in a huge REAL Climate Change around that time. The warming ocean vaporised up into a thick cover of rain-clouds coming down as lots of snow in the North and South turning into the icecap in the North, and as rain eroding the Sphinx in Egypt!

The snow soon turned into huge kilometers thick ice packs bringing down the ocean levels by 125 Meters. Whereas there was land in the Northern hemisphere able to catch the snow, down South Antarctica had not yet descended into a polar position by continental drift, like the Piri Reis Map testifies, obviously drawn before the Ice Age.

That copy of an ancient source map, and the Oronteus Finaeus map inserted below, shows Antarctica without ice, and in a more Northern position just below Africa at the end of the upturned tail of South America, before the continental drift really got going, during the days of Peleg, “when the Earth was divided!”

image

That means that then the snow in the South mostly fell into the ocean and melted, whereas in the North it could continually build up in Alaska, North America, Europe, and Siberia, causing a great weight shift to the North.

That weight may have precipitated that 26.5 degree tilt around 2345 B.C., but I am not a physicist so I’m not sure if it could have had the tilting effect.

Perhaps it is more likely that the main force of the “Fountains of the Earth” was more powerful at one side of the Earth, functioning like a Vernier thruster rocket on a space vehicle. I personally lean towards that interpretation.

But whatever mechanism precipitated that tilt, the direct unique cause was the Global Flooding of the Earth, documented around that same time in the Book of Genesis. There is no record of any other great disaster around 2345 BC than only the Global Deluge, as proven by Dodwell, which is the massive MAMMOTH in the Historical & Geological Livingroom!

What All This Means For Us?

It means that a Total Global Destruction of everything in the entire antediluvian civilisation that existed before, did really happen! But what that also means, is that the following terms, names, concepts, labels and paradigms that we have been bombarded with since we were old enough to “watch TV”, are bogus, false, non-existent, total fiction, and globalist weirdness, myths and fabrications!

“Pre-History, Stone Age, Paleolithic, Neolithic, Cavemen, Hunter Gatherers, Neanderthalers, Lucy, Peking Man, Macro Evolution, etc! And Darwin, Lyell, Hutton, Huxley, Dawkins, Gould, and many others, are all liars, crooks, deceivers, and supplanters, chosen, selected and promoted to confuse and alienate us all from the Life that is within our spirits, our conscience from our loving Creator.

It was all designed to make you believe that you are nothing else but a happenstance of chance and a spermatozoan coincidence without any greater destiny, rhyme or reason, so that you might as well commit suicide because there is no Father Creator who loves and cares for you, and you are just a meaningless blip on the temporary evolutionary screen of Time.

It proves again how we have been severely brainwashed by the Bankers’ Rhodes scholars into believing the fairytale that we descended from “primate-monkeys” and “Lucy” in Africa, and that we are “getting smarter” via Paleolithic cavemen and “Neanderthalers” into hunter-gathererers, who finally learned agriculture and how to built huts and domesticate cows, etc. Whereas we are actually getting dumbed down into deceived media dupes at the bottom of the gene-pool!

It is a very astute 150 years old conspiracy by International Globalists who control the media and education, to use the dislike of God of some among us who were cramped in their style having to “love their neighbour”, and could use a good cop-out.

The Globalists were more than willing to oblige with a false narrative based on the “terrible lizard” (dinosaur) theory, as “early T-Fords of Evolution”, that started “65 million years ago”, whereas we “Homo Sapiens” (meaning “wise man” as compared to “cavemen!” Ha!) only started “3-4 million years ago.”

It is a gross lie, my dears. The Emperor has no clothes on whatsoever, and you have been taken for such a grandiose ride, that they are continually laughing all the way to their banks about our stupidity, with your money!

I know, it is hard to change your world-view plus to suddenly get the wise cracks from the uninformed who still believe the tailors of the Emperor, although they see nothing. It’s just that they don’t want people to think they are stupid. Poor guys!

That is how the tailors work, see. They manufactured global peer pressure through the damned mainstream media to make everyone stupid although they tell them that they are very smart to believe that they originated from an explosion in space, and rain on the rocks for millions of years, and through non-existent positive mutations that even Dawkins can’t remember or quote.

So now it is up to you. You continue on being dumb in their eyes and “smart” in your own, or you take the unpopular red pill and we will show you how deep the rabbit hole really goes.

I told you, from the beginning of this article, that most of the masses wouldn’t believe in this conspiracy, and ridicule us as aluminum foil heads. It’s OK. They will find out one day anyway, but sadly, then it will be too late for quite a long time—. But don’t say we didn’t tell or warn them—

orange #fundie christianforums.com

Why Creationists were bored from Evolutionists? Hi you. It is right that we, Creationists don’t want to spend our time For explaining Creationism to you. And I understand other Creationists. There are some reasons for it. 1) You don’t care about any arguments when given. Arguments and facts are meaning nothing for you. No matter/ for you. And truth in general. 2) Your ignorance bored us. 3) What is significant for you-it is your opinion. 4) There are books about it (Creationism), you can read they yourself. (Creationism and Time). 5) Truth doesn’t need to be propagated so much as lie needs to be propagated. Truth has his big price no matter that it was believed/accepted or not. But the price of the lie depends from the number of fooled persons. So at first if you are fooled it is your problem not our. 6) We gave you some arguments already. But you don’t accept them. It is already not question of arguments but question of philosophy And mental healthy——. When you can’t believe to a normal sense and your eyes, then no one can help you. You can suspect to all what you see, but is not scientific problem it is other problem. 7) Evolutionism it is not science, it is hypothesis about this- If we would accept that God not created the world, then how the world could begin to had been? So it is simply imagination. You can also imagine so, if you were not born from your mother, then how you can be created in 10 milliard years from the mud by Evolution? Scientists counted probability of life by Evolution; it is equal 0,0000000000000000000000————. and so on. Certainly this argument also means nothing for Evolutionists as all other scientific facts. 8) But instead of Evolutionism the Creationism is real science backed with Lot of scientific facts. You want us to quote all they here?? (read books for it). We were bored by reading and seeing books and movies about Evolutionism, learning/study that nonsense in Schools—. Really we have not a time. And why we must to continue when you did not accept some arguments already? Truly we don’t care about you so much, because it is your problem. 9) Evolutionism was born from Atheism. And what is Atheism? In deep their heart Atheist thinks so-If God don’t live and work in my life (It is partly true (semi truth)) I would declare (with hysteria) and believe that there is not God. ((If God don’t work in my life it means that there is not God-this is another lie, which lives in hearts in many persons and far away from the sense)). He is offended from the God (as he think). In this way he does revenge to God. So it is hysteria against God. Evolutionism is continuation of the same hysteria. This is one of main reasons why Evolutionists don’t accept any scientific fact or any argument. Because it is not only question of arguments but question of hysteria. And Evolutionism not backed by scientific facts but hysteria and lie. So it is another reason why we-Creationists don’t want to spend much of our time uselessly on Evolutionists. 10) Only one fact for example. Do you know that scientific research showed that age of earth might be only about from 3000 year to 3000000 year when was counted by various (about 50-150) methods. Most often of them is about 10000 years. Do you know this?? But when you don’t know this simple thing how you can know about other facts? So I hope that it is clear for you now why Creationists don’t want to continue to argue with you. Be well. Orange in Christ

Sarah Terzo #fundie liveactionnews.org

Woman regrets abortion after seeing her 12-week-old baby: ‘They deceived me’

Previously, I’ve written about the way abortion facility workers sometimes lie to women about the development of their babies and about abortion’s risks. In the following story, a woman discovered the abortion workers lied about her baby in the worst way possible.

The now off-line website Abortion Concern had the story of a young woman named Lynda who had an abortion. She had been pressured by her boyfriend, whom she described as being “ecstatic” when the abortion was over.

Doubts and feelings of grief began to surface on the drive home. She became even more upset when her boyfriend, who had promised to stay with her after the abortion, left her alone.

As we drove away, I felt like I had forgotten something, or left something behind. We returned home, and [my boyfriend’s] promise to me to be there with me, was totally false. He left me there alone. At first, I was relieved that it was over, and then I was hit by the most overwhelming, tremendous grief I had ever experienced.

But the worst was yet to come. Lynda says:

I was also experiencing very bad cramps. Four days after the abortion, I got up to [go to the bathroom] and felt that something was not right inside. When I wiped, I glanced down at the wad of toilet paper in my hand, and saw my 12-week old fetus. Its head was smashed, and it’s eyes were on either side of its head. Its body was attached to the head, and only the right arm and hand remained. I was shocked and horrified by what I saw.

The abortion clinic had botched the abortion and only gotten part of the baby out. At 12 weeks, Lynda’s child had been fully formed. He or she had a beating heart and brain waves. Already capable of responding to touch, he would have pulled away from the abortion instruments. At the time of his death, the baby was already right or left handed. He had lungs and would have “breathed” amniotic fluid, strengthening his lungs to breathe air after he was born. Not only did he have hands and fingers, but also fingerprints. These fingerprints marked him as a unique individual who had never existed before in all of history and will never exist again.

Lynda’s boyfriend also saw the baby:

My boyfriend saw it too. He was standing in the bathroom shaving. He heard me say “oh my gosh,” when he turned to see what I was holding. He ran out of the bathroom, and kept repeating, “I didn’t see it, I didn’t see that, I didn’t see the dead baby.”

I just sat there, with tears streaming down my cheeks, as I held my baby’s hand on my pinky, trying to find words to say, of why I failed this innocent child. I had tuned my boyfriend out, to where he was just some noise in the background.

Lynda called the abortion clinic and told them what happened. But—

They criticized me, because, “a baby does not form until the last trimester.” They deceived me when they initially told me that. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what a miniature hand, with four fingers and a thumb looked like, or to know what it was I held in my hand that day.

Lynda sank into what she called a “deep depression.” She sought post-abortion counseling through a local church but says it only made her feel more guilty. Unsurprisingly, her relationship with her boyfriend fell apart:

At night, I’d lay awake in bed, sobbing quietly, so not to wake my boyfriend, who had turned from demanding, to insensitive and unsupportive, and couldn’t deal with me, given I simply just couldn’t “get over it.” My relationship with him ended.

Lynda finished her testimony by saying, “I believe the abortion doctors deceive a person.” She claimed that she would not have had an abortion if she had been told the truth.

While seeing one’s mutilated baby after a surgical abortion is very rare, sadly, being lied to by the abortion facility is not. Read more testimonies from women who were misled and regretted having their abortions.

ScepticsBane #fundie blogs.discovermagazine.com

It seems to me that Homeopathy does work.

Does it really? Maybe the people to ask are the patients and their Doctors, instead of a bunch of frustrated lab nitwits up on their statistics and double blinded, randomized, placebo controlled “studies”. The life threatening illnesses, and their cures, don’t happen in those labs, they happen in the real world, which, oh by the way, is not the domain of the lab b0ffins nor their politicized masters.

Can it possibly work and how? Can a rocket possibly carry men to the moon? How about lasers—are they possible? In the 1930's that would have been dismissed as nonsense.
Who knows until scientists and researchers have had a go at it. Could quantum phenomena be inovlved? Again, who knows until its researched. Neither side can be sure of anything till that’s done. Neither side has the edge on deciding and there’s still those doctors and patients insisting that they benefited from it. What are the odds it’s all placebo effect? Zero.

topaz #racist debatingchristianity.com

I thought it is the educated who believe in God while the less educated look at science to disprove God. Einstein was a great scientist and he was a christian. How about that ? Is he ‘uneducated’? Einstein believed in Jesus Christ & theGod of the bible and his scientific success was based on bible facts. Einstein took those facts and used science to prove it, changing our lives permanently for the better.

[after being challenged]
By calling me a liar re einstein, you are revealling yourselves. Google him and find out about his writings on christian theology. Maybe he can be found on the web. I don’t know.

[the next post]
My apologies people. It is another jew, isaac newton NOT einstein. Sorry. LOL.

[after finding out that Newton was Christian]
Fine, so he’s not a jew but I thought he was .. his name — anyway, it was not intended as a lie. You know it. So stop being so quarrelsome. Other than the post I recd about newton and the bible code, I really have no interest in him. I know from the post that was sent to me, that newton was a christian and I may be wrong, but it was written as if he was a jew— anyway — I’m not going to argue this.

[I was referring to the errors in fact that you made with regard to Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton and did not correct immediately when the errors were pointed out. These errors were not ones what any reasonably educated person would have made.]
heck — I don’t ‘study’ einstein or newton or some other jews. I confuse their names — big deal. I know most famous scientists are jews, anyway.

livingfortruth #fundie redstate.com

I felt as if the world were in a haze, that was the day after Obama got elected. I knew then we were living on borrowed time, today was the end of the USA, welcome USSA. For Millions of Americans, their freedoms have been seized and dismembered as of today, they just do not know it—..yet. But they will, and it is too late to do anything about it. Soon there will be a requirement to be ID chipped, oh, it will be sold as something good, but it will be the branding of a slave, only this brand will enable the person to be tracked.
Some will wonder, “Why is the military allowing our country to be taken over by communists?” Why? Because they are in on it. A tracked population can be controlled.
How can they track? Heard about those new “hardened” computer systems? Heard about the new GPS satellites? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this stuff out!
But it doesn’t matter, you see, it was predicted 2000 years ago what would happen. We are right on track.

Anonymous Coward #conspiracy godlikeproductions.com

Ufology and Science

[...]

The essence of science is to analyze the data and observations. Why do scientists not do it? Because they are afraid of ridicule, and for their careers. Why? Because it is a field of investigation that the secret services have made theirs, while conducting massive smear campaigns to discourage scientists to care. Again, the snake biting its tail!

Yet this is the cross-analysis of the data that allows a synthesized image of faculties and characteristics of UFOs and aliens. By listing all these features through a composite sketch we can establish what are genuine ships, and genuine aliens, and deduce that the physical laws, as accepted today, are incomplete, because these features must be scientifically explained!

In doing so, we seek ways, responses beyond (not outside) the classic patterns of science. In doing so, it necessarily puts into question the theories to have a broader picture of the reality.

This is exactly what the Fractal Time does.

What secret services want is ufologists confined to mere collectors of catalogs of observations, that many people suggest them to be precisely! What should you expect after these catalogs of detailed observations are full like an egg? Simply continue until exhaustion?

This is exactly what happens to ufology!

The ships and aliens to be studied are exempt from public view to avoid panic. The system is more important than the truth.

Many people believe that time and space are an illusion while this may be the exact opposite: the matter is an illusion, and we just observe expressions of different space-times that cross each other.

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics begin defaulting each other. That is why it must be changed. We face deceits in mathematical expressions of the models.

It is not that some equations must be changed, it is a new epistemologically point of view that must be observed. The equations are only expressions of the representation of ideas that experiments and observations approve (or not) partially or completely. Since science can not explain paranormal phenomena among which is the bizarre behavior of UFOs , then science is incomplete.

The vision, often prevalent among ufologists, according to which the ETs who would come to us to change our scientific point of view, is truly delusional, especially anthropocentric. When they come it will not be to upset our scientific knowledge, since they are already doing it for thousands of years, especially since the nuclear age, through the inspiration.

When they come it will be to upset the whole civilization and destroy it for the Elect can settle on the earth in the New Jerusalem. There will be no technical progress or scientific debate on new equations to write. It’s too late, thanks to people like the majority of scientists who put the head in the sand and did not recognize their presence while there was still time.

What this blog is doing, is to give inputs that can satisfy intellectual curiosity of everyone. But it is mainly to raise awareness of the very short time available before the rescue of the Elect who have so little time to become one. When Jesus comes for the rapture it will be too late. So there is no question, when Jesus will come, to change the minds of some people.

Besides, it’s probably the opposite that will happen. Christ will be booed and will be taken as an alien invader by some people for not having read the Apocalypse and some passages of the Bible. Remember what happened to him 2,000 years ago, while he was Son of God!

The ETs have nothing to tell us or show us right now. They have done it since thousands of years. And even through the ‘Do You Wish That We Show Up‘ world referendum. But we took them for ‘angels’ and ‘God’. They have continued to do miracles, and stand in the sky continuously.

They have not stopped to alert and prevent. But we have not stopped taking their messengers as mere nuts. Since society has to be changed, they will not come and give evidence to the skeptics to destroy them next. The Secret Services, they know things. But you have to see or know who they work for —

Science is broad and undefined. There is just scientists who are making science since many do not agree from each other. In science, there are those who admit and those who do not confess, or greatly minimize mysteries and puzzles speaking up when it comes to claim certainties, ignoring the assumptions sometimes untenable, that these claims hide.

The history of science has shown that no theory is ever complete. Everyone contributes more or less critically. But what matters is to instill to a scientific community a new perspective.

A secret is no longer measured as the number of people who share it. To share it must be seen, read or heard. In the mass of information available on the Net, how will you know whether information is secret or not? You can have 1,000 people who know for 7 billion who do not know. So secret is relative. The Anglo-Saxons have a very eloquent expression: a cover up in plain sight!

That’s what this blog is!

Many want evidence. More evidence. But, for example, UFO pictures are blurred DUE TO the technology used in the ETs vessels. They are surrounded by a temporal field that makes them look like a fast moving object. There is also clearer photos. But do not expect that the ETs offer a vessel to study it. They will not shoot themselves in the foot either. They do not seek to satisfy our curiosity, but to fulfill God’s plan.

Therefore, in terms of ufology, it is recommended to know the techniques of the anti-UFO propaganda which will deny the precautions and advices that this blog brings about the End Times, in particular the Rescue of the Great Multitude in white robes.

Here is an excellent summary of the means used to bring us into the ranks — to destroy us when the time comes:

Gargle with abstract theoretical arguments to avoid considering the facts.

Make believe that the scientific world is opposed to beliefs.

Use the prestige of an authority to distort the truth.

Despise the evidence that is presented in underestimating it.

Reduce the unknown from the known to the price of denial of a significant part of a fact.

Indicate that common sense is the best advisor. What is historically false.

Use and abuse the principle of parsimony or Occam’s razor, of ignoring scientific proven contradictions.

Say that the evidence, even very numerous, are irrelevant while scientific experiments are either testimonials.

Say that the truth is in existent phenomena while it is scientifically impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing.

Make systematic amalgams between doubtful cases and others that are not.

Ask questions based on unfounded truths and from simplistic beliefs.

Attack the entourage of a proponent of the paranormal if he is unassailable.

Attack a person instead of responding to the relevance of its arguments.

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!

Jim #sexist blog.reaction.la

The left, in its enthusiastic rush to ever greater holiness, has forgotten that its rules are only for the little people.

Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But Harvey Weinstein is my enemy, even though he is being devoured by my enemies.

The Khmer Rouge started out as a bunch of very smart western educated intellectuals. Who proceeded to torture each other to death. They wound up with cadre that could not read numbers. Observe the obvious collapse in intelligence and competence among our elite. You could not trust the scientists building to ITER to build a chicken coop unsupervised. Recollect Obama’s struggles to get the Obamacare website up. Remember the inanity and stupidity that was revealed in the Challenger inquiry, and ITER is a long way downhill from the Challenger.

But we should no more buy in to this doctrine of the innate purity of women, than we should buy in to the allegations of CIA, fascist, and capitalist influence in the Khmer Rouge.

It is great that Harvey Weinstein is getting the shaft, but these women are not victims. They are whores.

Harvey Weinstein is guilty of hitting on hot chicks while old and fat. And worst of all, hitting on them incompetently. If he had lost some weight, or been better at it, he would have been fine. The reason this is all coming to light now is that he has been getting older and fatter.

You need to apply the Mike Pence rules in the workplace: If you are with female coworker, leave the door open, because if you close the door, it is like watching television with a large economy size bag of potato crisps beside you.

Sex is pre rational and pre verbal. If you are alone with a pretty woman, no one is going to open the door, and there is a horizontal surface, you will, perhaps unconsciously and unintentionally, emit certain stimuli, and likely she will react to these stimuli with certain other stimuli, quite likely without conscious awareness of doing so, and you will, perhaps unconsciously, react —

And pretty soon you are both horizontal on the floor.

But since she probably did not intend any of that to happen, under the current rules, she gets to call it rape. The mating dance has the form of pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. So if she subsequently decides she was raped, it is always plausible, at least to her.

Its like having a bag of potato crisps beside you while watching television, except that she gets to claim that the potato chips forced her.

Which, in a sense, they did. She did not want to have sex with you, and she did not want to finish an entire economy sized bag of potato crisps. While you and she were watching television you heard her say eleven times that she did not want any more potato crisps. And while you and she were fucking she said

“Stop!”

loudly and clearly several times, but you were too distracted to keep count.

By enforcing anti sex rules selectively upon the elite, we make the elite unattractive, with the result that women want to mate dysgenically.

We need to enforce anti sex rules selectively upon the non elite.

Obviously it should be illegal and subject to the death penalty for a man and a woman to get together behind closed doors, when that woman belongs to another man, so in a sense this is a move in the correct direction, but the trouble is we are only restraining the sexual behavior of affluent white males, not of dope dealers, criminals, and blacks, so criminals and blacks get all the pussy, and get to look, and act, way more manly than the guy in the corner office.

The concept of consent requires verbal and verbalizing consciousness. And sex predates verbal and verbalizing consciousness by a very long time. The part of your mind that decides to have sex is far older and more powerful than the part of your mind that is capable of making up a narrative about what you are doing and why.

We can meaningfully apply the concept of consent to marriage, where a woman consents to move from one household and the authority of one male, to another household and another male, but trying to apply it to sex winds up with the absurdity that each thrust needs a legal notary.

If the door is closed, and the woman does not swiftly make an exit, sex is likely to ensue, and she consented to the likelihood that it would ensue. If a man and a woman are together in private in a secure place for a reasonable length of time, there is good chance that they are going to have sex regardless of what they theoretically intend. If a woman consents to be alone with a man in private, she knows full well that sex may well ensue. If you cannot really expect to leave the large economy sized bag of potato crisps half full, regardless of your intentions, you cannot really expect to refrain from having sex, regardless of your intentions.

The reason Harvey Weinstein is now getting in trouble is that he is fat and has been getting fatter. If he had lost weight and lifted iron, he could have hit them over the head with a brick and gotten away with it.

The trouble with the way the left is enforcing restraints on male sexuality is that it means that Jeremy Meeks gets all the pussy. We need to enforce a no-getting-together-behind-closed-doors rule starting with Jeremy Meeks, rather than starting with Harvey Weinstein and Mike Pence. Our testosterone is falling, and we are getting stupid. But that the left is getting stupid is a very good thing.

Next page