Archive for December, 2013

Skeptic of what? Who? Who can you trust?

December 30, 2013

http://logicallibertarian.com/2013/12/26/we-would-not-be-alive-today-if-not-for-skeptics-so-what-is-a-skeptic/

He’s a fellow libertarian even if he is (his words) “agnostic-atheist”. He is a self-described “skeptic”, which seems to be his center. Like most people who identify today as “skeptics”, though, it is not a perfect skepticism, and there are some areas where he’s not a skeptic at all when he should be. We all share this to some extent.

As a guy who “followed the evidence” from Bible-believing preacher’s kid to atheism and kept on going to a more mature –and absolutely evidence-based– belief in the Bible, I know something about skepticism. I was determined to keep my beliefs within factual science, meaning demonstrable knowledge.

“It seems that all too often people will believe what they’re told by a single media source, a politician, a political party, a professor, etc.”

This is very, very true. But it’s not a matter of just a “single media source”, either. Libertarians should know that the entire government-media complex of establishment corporate institutions very much follow the same political meme, “even when” it is most obviously wrong, and even when they don’t seem to care that it looks so coordinated you can reconstruct the original press release from the government department or corporate PR department it came from.

Often, also entire majorities of entire nations and states are often collectively deluded by government or corporate or other propaganda
machines. Socialist memes from Karl Marx have persuaded even influential wealthy silver spoon rich, despite thinkers like Ludwig von Mises showing they are even self-contradictory.

I believe anyone who believes we didn’t put a man on the moon is ignorant. Click here to see the Mythbusters dismantle these issues on the faked moon landing. I do believe the Americans did put a man on the moon, and in fact I am convinced the Bible predicted space travel at least (Revelation 18:5).

? But I know some people who are anything but ignorant that did believe it. Ad hominems don’t prove anything about anybody but they can be good persuaders. And in this case it helps your reader understand that you are not one of those in no uncertain terms. But sometimes that’s like Peter denying Christ, he finally cursed at the woman the third time, and like Shakespeare’s character said, “Thou dost protest overly much”.

A true skeptic has learned to have a strong distrust of media that have been the vehicles for so much a multitude of lies.

* I believe anyone who thinks George W. Bush spearheaded 9/11 is disgusting, hateful, and ignorant….. insulting to the military who would never follow such an unlawful order…

I don’t believe “George W Bush spearheaded 9/11”, but I also know that not all the people who are skeptical of the official government story are “disgusting, hateful, and ignorant”. And yes, it is “insulting to the military” to say they would follow such an unlawful order, but some things have changed. High military brass (not the ones in the “official-story” media) in alternative media have exposed the fact that the promotions in the military, from the White House down, at the highest levels, have favored the “one-worlders”, as they are called military officers’ circles.

And yes, American military forces have been used for many unlawful and unconstitutional adventures and projects in the past, and no doubt today in many situations. The Congress has helped blur the lines by passing laws that blur the line between its own duty to be the only body authorized to “declare war”.

For example, I have only recently learned that Abraham Lincoln ordered the Army to put down a protest in New York against the draft, in which they engaged in a great massacre, shooting great numbers of protestors in cold blood. With no punishment at all against the officers who issued the orders to do it, nor against the privates who did it. I don’t know if any of them resisted.

How about General Custer’s last stand, after commanding a cold-blooded slaughter of the women and children of the braves who went to pow-wow elsewhere? And in modern times, we have unlawful undeclared wars happening with clockwork regularity, with the military marching right on in, and the last one who refused what he considered such an unlawful order was Michael New.

But special forces participated in a war in Libya, on the ground, rather obviously, in a war against Libya with a specific mission to take out Gadhafi by surrogate, a war that the Obama administration said it did not have to even inform Congress about, much less seek approval for, much less ask for a lawful declaration of war.

So, I’m sorry to bust a bubble, but yes, way too many American soldiers today, especially in the secret missions branches, are all too willing to obey unlawful orders contrary to their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution.

And we can thank God there are also a great many who would presumably never consciously do so.

What I know about odds and probabilities leads me to believe there is life in our universe outside of Earth. What I know about physics tells me it would have almost no way of getting here in tact. So yes I believe there is alien life, no I do not believe it has ever inhabited Earth.

Well, now there you have it. Micheal Crichton took down this idea about odds and probabilities masterfully in his talk, “Aliens Cause Global Warming”. Among other things, EVERY ELEMENT in Drake’s famous formula about the probability of alien life was completely and utterly ARBITRARY. Of course the still completely arbitrary guesses about how many planets might be able to sustain life are in a precipitous plummet now due to discoveries of actual planets surrounding nearby stars.

Jules Verne could write credibly about people on the Moon, now considered as dead as saying it’s made of green cheese. Then life on Mars became a credible science fad. Now that’s been pushed into eons before. Clarke even had to invent a black-box “monolith” to explain how intelligence “evolved”.

And remember also, that as far back as the 1980s mathematicians proved that the probabilities actually disproved the biologists’ theory on spontaneous biogenesis, again, nearing a 100 years after Pasteur showed the same thing. The problem for the biologists in this kind of mixed-discipline pow-wow was that the mathematicians who did the math were still swearing loyalty to the ancestry in the mud. That we came from rocks eroded into mud.

Never mind all that, though, it is enough to point out that the Drake equation is built on sand. All made-up factors from thin air.

I’m an agnostic/atheist. I do not believe in any supernatural or spiritual beings. The burden of proof is not on science, as such claims are not falsifiable. The burden lies with the people claiming such phenomena exist. I’m open to the possibility, provided there is any scientific evidence presented to support it—such evidence has yet to be presented.

That’s what I said, and then got a chance —took the chance– to look at the evidence. The claim that there is no such evidence is made by people who go through the evidence every day and say it is not. But these are the trusted people that self-identified “skeptics” are not skeptical about.

The anti-creationist paleontologist every day faces the strong evidence of stasis in the fossils. He also now faces soft tissue in fields of bones that stink of exposed, rotting flesh. But they swear fealty to the Darwin dogma of common ancestry in spite of it. Still, some begin to wonder. Not in journals that blacklist such ideas, though.

The anti-creationist physicist has to face the anthropic principle every day. So instead of admitting “a divine foot in the door”, he postulates self-reproducing universes with no real science theory to base it on, multiple universes, infinite universes. And they accuse the creation scientist of blind faith!?

Physicists battle out strings and dimensions and twist themselves silly to avoid the “divine foot in the door” evidence. To keep away the Creator they have dark matter implied by anomalous gravity phenomena, dark energy invented to “explain” the universe stretching out (a circular reasoning conclusion since its only definition or description is that it does what it was postulated to “explain”).

“Trusted” biologists, having seen that cells are not so simple, that all of life depends on thousands of irreducibly complex super-molecules with vital functions that leave life dead without them, still say they “evolved” in stepwise evolution. Many saw Pasteur prove Huxley’s abiogenesis wrong and double wrong, and still do not question it.

They saw Mendel prove that traits are inherited not created anew but still believed it. When Watson and Crick discovered DNA, in when they realized its irreducible complexity and its incorporation of a completely symbolic language for folding proteins, they still swore allegiance to the Most Inviolate Blind-Faith Dogma of science: macro evolution. They were delighted to discover what they said was how it happened in fact.

So with the progress of genetics, they used the evidence of the “expression” of genes, that show the importance of epigenetics in forming traits, which help a species adapt to changing conditions, to say its the same as leaps by slow crawl–punctuation–to completely new forms.

Saying you are skeptic just means that you apply the scientific method to your every day life and belief system.

Would that were the case. If it were, how about an expose by Skeptic Magazine of the global warming fables? Climate models disproved over and over again by actual real world events, which don’t seem to matter to either the pop science press or the “academic” journals?

Now comes a mainstay for them, but it has an unspoken subtext.

The greater the claim one makes, the greater the evidence required to support it.

Yes, but then many who say that also make presumptions of what are lesser claims or greater claims. Richard Dawkins postures himself as such a spokesman, with the claim that Christians have the burden of proof.

That makes an assumption that contradicts one of the earliest occupants of the most respected position in the Royal Academy, Isaac Newton, who said the consistency of the rules of physics made a Creator obvious.

In other words, Isaac Newton would demand all this extraordinary proof of the atheists’ extraordinary claim. The extraordinary claim being, not so much the atheism, but the extraordinary claim that there was no evidence for God.

While we will often admit a creator is possible, rarely are skeptics religious. This is due to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence and the underwhelming lack of scientific evidence.

Well, I am one skeptic observer and therefore creationist. The dismissal of the vast body of scientific evidence showing the Creator’s handiwork in specific scientific ways is one thing. But more offensive to logic is the dismissal without a thought to the great founders of the various branches of science, and the ones who made the greatest contributions to science in all of modern history, of whom Isaac Newton was only one, and still considered the greatest scientist of all time. Some place Einstein on high, but Newton invented calculus, and Einstein needed help with the math from his wife for his theories.

A skeptic will start from a null hypothesis—the idea that nothing is true until reasonably confirmed with evidence. If you tell me that magnetic wrist band will cure my headaches and increase my sperm count, you’d better have more than a testimonial, which of course are discredited by the placebo effect. Nothing less than a proper peer-reviewed study will do.

Okay, let’s see what skeptics do with evidence. St. Luke’s Hospital in Kansas City, according to CRI, was the place for one peer-reviewed study that found the odds 25 to 1 against a complete chance explanation for the result. (Neither doctors nor patients knew about the study). There have been a great many such studies. Also note that CRI opposes such studies for their own religious reasons that have more to do with suppressing the claims of some “TV evangelists” that are getting to be about as credible as the psychic on the corner in your neighborhood.

As for me, I say bring on the studies but have a skeptical mind toward them. If your people praying do not believe in it, you’re cheating.

Of course I am skeptic about such studies myself. The St. Luke’s Hospital study is described as involving people who believed in the effectiveness of prayer.

There’s another thing about “anecdotes”. Remember that “anecdotal” evidence often very properly sends men to the death chamber. “With my own eyes” has lost some of its clout as too often we see mistakes made, and too often what we see is guided by experience.

That said, eyewitness testimony is important. They eyewitness testimony of more than 500 people compelled those witnesses to share what they had seen: The same Christ they knew had been crucified, but now walking the earth before them.

Many criminal cases fall apart because the witness will not testify. Do you trust the source?

f we read some random meme on Facebook or Twitter which makes a provable claim, we’ll usually assume it’s bunk and not even bother sharing it. If we’re curious, we might check it out on Snopes or other reputable sites, then share if we can confirm it to be true.

But you will learn that you cannot always trust Snopes, either, or these “fact-checker” sites.

Some years ago, another such “fact-checker” web site was sneering at suggestions that Obama was lying with his “If you like it you can keep it” promises. It’s the one that made that promise the number one lie of 2013.

It may have been the one that also in 2008 gave a “false” reading to “Obama is a socialist”. They compared him to the Soviet style Marxist definition in which the state takes formal, written, explicit ownership. But his voting record in the U.S. Senate was already farther left than the declared socialist Bernie Sanders.

We believe in the scientific method. Almost everything we enjoy in life, from gadgets to health care, we have because this method works—it has for centuries. We don’t need to believe in the method, we know it works.

Who can speak against the formal scientific method? Therefore one must always be skeptical of dogmas in the assertions in science that are “known” outside that method. One of the steps in the famous scientific method is that the hypothesis, the theory, be empirically verifiable. Repeatable. The only Darwinian empirical such experiment is Lenski. After 50,000 generations at least, his E Coli have undergone some genetic changes in certain apparent adaptations too, but they are still always E Coli, and nothing else. And looking at many, or most, or all, such bacterial “beneficial” mutations have been either losses of genetic information (of a type that provided a vulnerability for virus attack or chemical damage), or an adjustment in epigenetic controls over gene expression that is breeded into activation by the environmental change.

Some experimentation is done by epigenetic and genetic mechanisms that biologists still don’t understand.

In fact, check how recent discoveries in epigenetics has revolutionized biology. In one science article, a biologist was described as almost despondent, because the new developments were going to have to go back and rewrite all of biology.

A skeptic wants both sides of the argument. In politics, if a Democrat makes a claim, I want to hear a Republican’s or Libertarian’s rebuttal and vice-versa

That is always a good point. Remember that especially when there is much at stake, be it money, or power, and sometimes other motivations, you cannot simply accept the media consensus story. The most despised intellectual minorities, like creation scientists, for example, insist not that you blindly believe but that you consider the evidence, while note that their detractors use ad hominems instead of science arguments, almost always. Some honest intellectual atheists, like the main academic and intellectual champion of atheism, Antony Flew, even accept the evidence of DNA and admit their had be a great Designer.

Not I agree with this skeptic heartily that ” shows about cryptozoology, astrology, alien abductions, ghost hunting, etc. belong on the The Sci-Fi Channel, not The Science Channel. While presented as science, they’re all utter nonsense. One cannot make scientific claims about Bigfoot if one does not have a living or dead Bigfoot standard to compare it to.”

Another thing, though. After saying that skeptics are rarely “religious… due to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence and the underwhelming lack of scientific evidence”, you said that Steve Jobs “proved” in 2003 when he opted when he opted for a homeopathic solution to his cancer instead of what his doctors recommended.”

…But there is plenty of empirical evidence for whole-person approaches to healing, and not just one alternative to modern medicine as practiced. Vaccines are one of the politically protected pharmaceutical products, for example. Medical schools emphasize sick care, not health maintenance, and nutrition is the neglected stepchild of medicine, for another example.

One should be skeptical of established institutions, due to the tendency of institutions to cultivate status quo protection for themselves through the effect on its human members. Lobbyists in D.C. like to hide in the shadows, but what they do is good for the country (Just ask them!).

But with the Black Plague it wasn’t skeptics that proposed it could be something that might have a cure. Where is the evidence that there were not believers among those folks with new ideas? Those dissident and breakthrough ideas in science have been more product of Christian and Jewish believers through the centuries than from non-believers.

Pasteur, for example, Mendel, Faraday, Newton, Roger Bacon (the scientific method). Call them mavericks, skeptics too, if you want to, but they certainly knew what to be skeptic about, but they did not have enough blind faith to believe that maybe God did not exist. They would tell you that such an extraordinary claim in the face of the real world would require extraordinary evidence.

Modern medicine in fact owes much to the Christians who were skeptical of the superstitious claims of leaches and such things. The established and respected scientists of the times of Galileo and Copernicus were the ones who fought to preserve their positions, but those two were the skeptics and they still claimed faith and that God did not contradict his universe. To defend their positions and reputation, they rushed to the Roman Church to condemn their ideas as heresy, just as today Darwinians have organized a group of clergy to declare a Darwin day.

And you call that “skepticism”?

I’m a libertarian too, anarcho-capitalist from what I understand of what these terms mean, so I wil continue to speak against robbing the fruits you earn of your labor for state support for anything smacking of either creation or “faith-based initiatives”. Like Montescue said, government payouts to religions and churches weakens them. Bush may have had this in mind with this initiative.

Likewise, payments from politically created organs of government like NASA and NIH and the CDC have weakened science and politicized it. There is no greater example of this than the “global warming” studies funded by government. True Bible believers have also been the biggest pain in the rear for totalitarians throughout the millenia, especially notable in the atheist regimes (were they “skeptics”? or “believers”?)

I believe that miracles happen, but would call 911 for a heart attack. What most believers and “skeptics” both fail to understand is that the Bible talks about two kinds of faith.

One kind of faith is the evidence kind.

Paul demanded that the unbeliever check the evidence.

The earliest Christians in the First and Second centuries pleaded with the emperors to check their records to prove that these things were true.

Paul pointed to the 500 eyewitnesses of the Resurrection.

Jesus said if you “do” his words (meaning try them, check them out to see if they are true), you’ll know they are true.

In Malachi God challenges believers to try him, to prove his promises to find they are true.

Alexander the Great saw the proof and still did not change. Too bad for him.

The Bible speaks of DNA:

Psalm 139:16 Thine

eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

The Bible condemns Darwinism through its ancient pagan manifestation:

Jeremiah 2:27 Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

It’s just a simple matter than some people, like Lewontin admitted, are committed to a hard materialist dogma and “cannot allow a divine foot in the door”.

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

I used to sit in the atheist chair

December 29, 2013
English: Diagram showing the steps of the scie...

English: Diagram showing the steps of the scientific method. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

I used to sit in the atheist chair, but determined to keep my mind open to whatever the truth was, and was dragged along by science, facts, logic, history to the Bible.

 

The Creator has a right to laugh at those who plot against him. Isa 33:22 For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

 

It is ridiculous to question the truth. Cellular life, DNA, appearing for no reason from the dirt plus water plus sunlight, entropy violated, 20 anthropic principle physical universe values fine-tuned, spiral galaxies, dozens of objects that contradict the red shift distance calculation, Pasteur’s research showing life cannot come from non-life, Mendel showing that traits are inherited, not so spontaneous, mathematicians showing that DNA amino-acids spontaneously sequencing just so cannot happen, blood clotting requiring 12 steps of specific chemistry, most involving irreducibly specific compounds that cannot “evolve” stepwise, too many benevolent mutations required, polystrate fossils, polonium halos, soft tissue in T-rex fossils with the stink of rotting flesh, the Lensky E Coli experiment where the little cells adapt just like from the beginning and E Coli is still E Coli, creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicting the outer planets’ magnetic field strength spot on based on Genesis One and all of NASAs geniuses missing by orders of magnitude, evidence of the Flood all around with shared flood memories in the most remote cultures, carvings in ancient temples depicting dinosaurs, Ica stones, uniqueness of Earth.

 

See, creationists like to talk about science, atheists like to talk about religion. Creation scientists debate with facts, anti-creationists debate with ad-hominems. Creation scientists rely on the scientific method, Stephen Gould said We don’t need the scientific method anymore.

 

But a Darwinist himself, Lewontin, blatantly admits that anti-creationists don’t care about the evidence for or against God or the Bible:

 

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

 

 

 

//

 

 

 

India Finds New Methods to Punish U.S. Diplomats – NYTimes.com

December 28, 2013

India Finds New Methods to Punish U.S. Diplomats – NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/world/asia/india-consular-employee-retaliation.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0

The New York Times is being disingenuous here. India is right. The Indian government warned the US government about a maid that was on a visa meant for such domestic workers, as the USG knows full well, and then left into the general America population. No doubt there were do-gooders who thoughtlessly encouraged her to demand more from her employer, told her about American laws, and nudged her along.

Even if you think that’s great for her, what about the other domestic help they bring over from a hundred other countries. Right now Indian representatives around the world are rushing to make things much more difficult for such maids. That maid in New York was already making more than she did in India. No doubt she also agreed to work under two different contracts, one for real, the other one to show for the visa.

So now American government officials and politicians are going to get all indignant about how poor and mistreated Indians are? While they abuse us Americans every single day in every way? How dare they.

Oh yes, not to mention that now American diplomats in India will have to work under the same conditions as Indians in America. No more immune protections. There are some Indians who will welcome the chance to throw around some weight.

Indians have always been nice to Americans I think, except when it came to a few things like missionary visas, and if you’re an American actor don’t do something stupid like grab a famous actress and slobber-kiss on her.

Now the left-liberals and left-fascists are going to screech about the poor abused maid. Who quit her job, hit the streets and found herself a pawn in an Indian prosecutor’s hand, eager to prove himself.

Americans used to show more Christian grace and modesty. Not anymore. Arrogance pops up in the ranks now of those who still make a show of saying America’s no better than any other nation. Critics of “exceptionalism” will rush to apply American exceptionalism here, even while they continue the contradiction of applying it in reverse with different cultural groups that do worse.

The “human family tree”?

December 28, 2013
Generic amino acids (1) in neutral form, (2) a...

Generic amino acids (1) in neutral form, (2) as they exist physiologically, and (3) joined together as a dipeptide. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-family-tree/

 

So the genetics the Creation-deniers said proved Darwinism (punctuated equilibrium with no evidence for punctuation) found Adam and and Eve but they’re still afraid to admit the obvious. They have NO FRIGGIN’ IDEA how long ago those two lived no matter what they come up with. There’s the Biblical genealogy and then there are the other genealogies from other lands that point the same direction that they never let loose.

 

The first guy that compiled all the world’s flood stories said he thought it would prove the Biblical flood was just another myth, and by so doing showed that it was NOT a myth.

 

Darwin’s idea has taken hits from every major advance in biology, biochemistry, biophysics, but blind faith does not need evidence. It’s like the co-worker that once responded to the (still current) 15-year cooling trend with “Global cooling is part of global warming.” You cannot make this stuff up.

 

First, Darwin himself admitted that the fossils were testament against his theory.

 

Then Pasteur proved you cannot get life from non-life.

 

Gregor Mendel proved that a plant inherits its traits from its progenitors.

 

Watson and Crick discover DNA, a massive molecular paradigm with intricate design and structure a nd flexibility to blueprint all biology, built from just four amino acids (“letters”) with a completely SYMBOLIC language with no direct natural relation to the biology that it designs.

 

The DNA is so contradictory to the idea of spontaneous life from dirt that Crick couldn’t believe it. Being at least honest about that much, but unwilling to admit the Original Origins Theory that the greats of science history held, which dethrones smarter-than-thou I-said-so scientists, he says it was comets. Everybody laughed at that, so he said “It was aliens!” Everybody laughed at that too, but with time some of them demanded they had to fill the gaps with aliens. Did he even think of the one Great Extraterrestrial that pop-sci today avoids like the plague? We don’t know, but he never said so.

 

(At least the head of the human genome project finally said okay, yes, there is evidence of design here.. But then said that the God that intervened to create life by design, would not actually intervene in the creation. True, kid you not.)

 

So Drake pulled out a formula and with a few sweeps of the pen had the galaxy crawling with life out of corners, and Carl Sagan jumped in and helped the feds finance the Great Search for We Are Not Alone. Michael Crichton would later give a speech that should have had everybody cackling wildly at it. Nope. Instead we got ten thousand “science fiction” movies. The title of his speech shows the fairy tale origins story: “Aliens cause global warming”.

 

Then Stanley and Miller create an intelligently designed experiment to create amino acids from methane and other ingredients using electric sparks, from which mix they have to immediately remove the amino acids to save them from immediate destruction, thereby proving that amino acids could not appear spontaneously in the chemical mix they needed to make them, and so they announce the opposite! I am not making this up! And dozens of science articles were written and experiments done everybody repeated that the experiment that showed amino acids cannot get created spontaneously from this mix “proved” that it could.

 

And then mathematicians start taking those amino acids (all left-handed none right-handed) and calculate the odds of a spontaneous line-up, like all those monkeys with taking “as long as it takes” to type out the Encyclopedia Britannica (with much less specified complexity than a genome by the way). And the mathematicians calculate, yep, for one itsy bitsy single solitary DNA molecule to just happen like that, even given the ingredients and the conditions, you need MORE TIME THAN THE UNIVERSE IS OLD, by about a gazillion times longer!

 

Mathematicians have a very exotic word for odds like that: “impossible”. Or sometimes, “not gonna happen”.

 

The biologists retorted with “We’re smarter than you! We’re the biologists! We’re the paleontologists! No way you’re going to mess with our trade secrets! The “divine foot in the door” is “unacceptable”! The mathematicians retorted back by putting their figurative hand on their own holy books and swore that they would never question the inviolate dogmatic faith of the high priests of modern biology but that the biologists had to come up with something better that did not challenge the mathematicians’ faith in the dogma!

 

So the biologists just announced that it was not chance anymore that generated life. What was it then? “Never mind, we’ll get back to you, we know it’s true, we don’t need to do any five-step scientific method on this one, someday we’ll show you, just accept it by faith (but don’t use that word)..”

 

And they discover bio-molecular super-machines that cannot be deconstructed and that have functions that have nothing to with any of their parts. But they come back and do a thought experiment that creates more problems and multiplies the odds against, but that doesn’t matter, because they’re smarter than you.

 

Then the “trade secret” of paleontology comes out of the closet, because a biology hot shot has figured out that to prove “punctuated equilibrium” he doesn’t need any friggin’ evidence for the “punctuation” because the “trade secret” is that there is no record of it in the fossils.

 

Then we hear that there is SOFT TISSUE in the dinosaur bones, included obvious and visible blood cells. So contrary to all of what science knows about organic tissue exposed to the elements, they announce that they are so surprised that red blood cells can survive for 68 million years! You cannot make this stuff up! And they ridicule people that believe in a rabbit’s foot!

 

Then we discover tucked in between other stuff that the dinosaur digs up in Montana actually still emit a very strong stench of rotting flesh! But I guess they’re hoping nobody notices that! They might question the trade secrets.

 

“in the beginning, God…”

 

 

 

Related articles

 

 

HIV infection rising, and why they say…

December 27, 2013

Are we “safe” yet?

December 26, 2013

So said a lover of state security to me:

Therein lies the problem.  You say these words, you believe these words, 
but what you really mean is you are free to do whatever you wish to do 
and everyone else is free to do whatever you wish to allow them to do.

Oh yes, lover of state security, that is the perfect definition of totalitarian government, which lies at the end of the left-fascist utopian road down to the valley of perdition, where they take care of you their own way whether you like it or not.

(MEMO: WE DON’T LIKE IT!)

Better than FREEDOM is security, eh? Oh yeah, you’re so safe now right?

Well, let’s see how safe we are:

..body search and seizure in every flight,

every one of your phone calls recorded and meta-data collected in case they want to look at it later,

stop-all-citizens and demand-papers checkpoints whenever they feel like it,

dragging people out of ALL their houses and searching them for bad guys and roughing them up if they question you, “voluntarily” wink wink,

looting of the economy for big money banks,

currency whiplash by the currency kings and money changers,

dozens of bullets confusing an unarmed and confused young mother before ever seeing a weapon,

muzzles on all types of religious expression but especially the Christian kind,

targeting of political opponents by the tax collectors,

a “kill list” with whomever is a threat on it,

extortion to pay for procedures against conscience,

the entire economy looted to force the whole country into risky insurance schemes they hated,

losing their insurance and doctors,

drones provoking anti-American animosity around the world,

the government telling you forget about defending yourself (leave it to us, we’ll make a report when we get there),

extortion to pay for chemicals that prohibit the free exercise of your religion,

longest and highest time of unemployment in the U.S. since the Great Depression,

$17 TRILLION debt setting up for a dollar crash that will set off the most violent domestic social disruption in American history since the War Between the States,

a treaty that invites Russian forces into the United States in case of any domestic self-defense against government attacks,

“fusion centers” to turn your local home-town sheriff into an armed enforcement organ of this security state,

naming of peaceful religious and para-religious groups in lists of official bad guys,

THE LISTING OF THE MOST PEACEFUL AND ANTI-WAR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN HISTORY as one to watch together with the most violent organizations in the world,

the overthrowing of governments around the world, something that American left-fascists used to oppose but now demand, led by this security state,

Pentagon-designed programs spawned into all federal agencies by their original “Total Information Awareness” project,

even their own security state agents shot up with hallucinogens to study the effect,

syphilis deliberately injected into citizens to study the effects of infection,

dangerous and poisonous industrial chemicals approved for human food,

When you ask a fox to guard your hen house, don’t be surprised if it starts eating your children.

And you feel “safer” with all that than without it?! 

 

Jeremiah 17:5 Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

Daniel 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

//

//

//

// <![CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw“); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };

// ]]>

Taki Mag says A&E dirty trick is (“just”?) a publicity stunt

December 25, 2013

The takimag article is here.

It’s an unlikely event, though, unless the idea was to subtly promote an LGBT-friendly brand among the lucrative “gay market” for the long term.

Maybe some execs there have seen the future coming with an officially sanctioned persecution of Bible-believers that will rival those of Rome at least, if not the much worse mass murders of same under leftist and fascist regimes in the 20th century and continuing today, to follow on the heels of the censorship of speech favoring Jesus Christ out of government.

Right on, except that there is a little more to this story, “this story” being A&E’s duplicity and hypocrisy and according to this story, simply pulling a PR stunt. In spite of some independent souls actually producing spiritually and culturally healthy fare from there, the figurative Hollywood “establishment” cares more about muzzling criticisms of its orgiastic contortions, than it does about the money you know they want.

In March 2013 they had already apparently requested the Duck folks accept cutting out the “Jesus” word or bleeping it out. The producer of the show apparently once did a “gay porno” thing.

So we can safely conclude that they treated at least one gay with enough respect to work together with him for many months (years?) on this show.

What this takimag article also misses is also that the “martyr” description is not just part of a nefarious A&E plan, unless they gambled on successfully getting Jesus actually expunged from the show. Or, put it this way, dilute the Christian witness by getting the “patriarch” out and the rest of them eating humble pie.

This has been happening all over Hollywood for a generation or two already and has been creeping into the rest of society as well.

A&E got exposed naked in the snow with this trick, for sure. (Who owns A&E, by the way?) Be it a PR trick, or a trick to throw Phil Robertson “under the bus”, they shot themselves in the foot.

But this is part of the “ethnic cleansing” that certain Christ-haters are doing throughout the country. The haters hate Christ and cannot stand that word “sin” next to actual “sins”, even though Christians can insist “I’m a sinner like anybody else just like you”.

Revelations 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12 And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13 These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16 And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

// <!–[CDATA[
function DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) { object.DOMContentLoaded(browserID, tabId, isTop, url);} };
function Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.Nav(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, isBool, url); };
function NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.NavigateComplete(BrowserID, TabID, isTop, url); }
function Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url) { var object = document.getElementById(“cosymantecnisbfw”); if(null != object) object.Submit(browserID, tabID, target, url); };
// ]]>

//

Response to Government Moving to Ban the Word “Government.”

December 22, 2013

http://www.scribd.com/doc/180035586/Response-to-Government-Moving-to-Ban-the-Word-Government

This is in reply to the government officer, yes, the “prosecution”, submitting a motion that the word “government” be banned in reference to them.

The reply from the “Defense” gets hilarious midway through. It’s a short document and it’s actually pretty good English (not legalese), so enjoy yourself getting a good look at banning words that offend somebody.

Under-reported background on Libya and Gadhafi

December 22, 2013

Yeah, what they didn’t tell you on the Most Untrusted Names in News is now getting traction in alternate and independent media, and this time you cannot, can NOT put this in one of their false right-left boxes, because the protests against the unprovoked invasion of Libya by western powers came from all corners. Libertarians led the charge from the censored background, and voices from the so-called “Right” like Sarah Palin joined in, and voices from the so-called “Left” joined in denouncing Obama’s “magnaminous” plans to fulfill George Soros’ new doctrine of “responsibility to protect”. The Christian Voice posted an article about Soros’ funding of the “Bomb Libya” policy, while giving credit to WND for the gist of the story..

Of course many people think that this Soros interventionist doctrine is more about using this so-called “doctrine” as a cover for extending international cartels’ government-enforced hegemony over the whole world. And don’t forget setting up the U.S.A. for a final blow. Remember his calling the USA the biggest obstacle to peace?

Well, the not-so-new “new” Soros doctrine has been used to justify much more interventionist talk that ever, while the opposition by citizens in countries around the world to all wars quietly builds in the background.

Here’s some fascinating reading on the background to the Western powers’ war on Libya and Gadhafi:
The Libya Secret: How West Cooked Up “People’s Uprising” – WhoWhatWhy:
http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/08/31/now-that-we%E2%80%99re-celebrating-qaddafi%E2%80%99s-end-can-we-get-a-little-truth/

And here a story about Gadhafi’s currency plans:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar#startOfPageId4630

The Issue Is Should One Destroy Another For What They Say

December 22, 2013

Here’s another view, wrapped around some insightful comments on the increasing intolerance of the left-fascist arms of the intolerant Christ-haters, who want to suppress Christian speech. This is nothing new, this kind of hate of Biblical perspectives has been going on for 6,000 years.

Lexington Libertarian

You know this whole thing about Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty is really a matter of free speech – that is allowing someone to express themselves without being muzzled. More and more the Left will boycott businesses, order people to lose their jobs and come to your house and job with bull horns to scream at you that you are intolerant.

But it all depends on whose ox is being gored. Martin Bashir can publicly say that he thinks that we all ought to defecate and urinate in Sarah Palin’s mouth without a whimper of protest from the Left. Conservatives expressed their disagreement with what Bashir said but practically none called for him to be fired or wanted to muzzle him or showed up at his house with bull horns.

And here lies the difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives will politely disagree with what you have to say…

View original post 675 more words