Archive

Archive for July, 2010

Knight’s Theorom: A Proof and Formula for Knowing the True Religion

It occurred to me at about 9:25 P.M., while thinking about a refutation against Hinduism I’ve been writing and then thinking why it was so easy to refute various religions, and then thought that it was because there were so few variables, and remembered how one of the few and main variables is, “There is no absolute truth” which is self refuting. I then realized that religions which teach the opposite, like the Hindu religion, are self-refuting because that is indirectly saying, “Religions which say that Hinduism is false are also correct religions.” Obviously if you’re saying, “It’s true that I am wrong about how to achieve perfect lasting peace,” then you are admitting to being in error about how to achieve lasting perfect peace. Catholicism, a pagan Christianity, is also self-refuting as it accepts healthy adult persons and religions which are ignorant of the Bible or gospel, that would include religions against Catholicism, religious people who would kill Catholics and any other opposing religion without listening to reason (like “Fundamentalist” Muslims would do). Even traditionalist Catholic religions like Mel Gibson’s accept as good and would allow eternal life for those who ignorant of the gospel and yet tend to increasing destructiveness. Arminian Christian religions like Interfaith, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian in USA, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Free Will so and so, liberal churches and certain so called non-denominational Arminian ones (which is incorrectly taught as meaning “is not like other churches because they it doesn’t have the same name”, wrong because obviously you can have a different name but the same or basically the same main beliefs as other churches) are also accepting of adult ignorants.

So, formulas for judging what the so called “true religion” if any, would be:

1) If  (religion) A says “There is no absolute truth” (in other words everything is false) then A is also false.

2) If (religion) A says (religion) B is a true religion and (religion) B says (religion) A is a false religion then (religion) A is a false religion because it says (religion) B is correct about (religion) A being a false (religion).

3) If (person or religion) B says “no person is true (or: “is not truthful”; “is not correct”; “is not real”) then (person or religion) B is not true (or: “is not truthful”; “is not correct”; “is not real”).

4) If C says C is false and true than C is false.

5) If D says D is true and only itself and A, B, and C false than D is true.

C could be replaced with “Islam” because in the Quran it teaches that all Muslims will go to Heaven, but it also says that all Muslims will go to Hell, and even if you don’t believe that, then it still fails, because all Muslims know that the Quran teaches that the Bible is God’s word, and the Bible excludes all religions except one. Any Christian religion that contradicts the method of salvation in the Bible some way while claiming that the Bible is entirely true can also be placed in C, because it’s refuting itself, and that would include every Arminian-compatible Christian sect (who teach forgiveness and God’s love can be earned or kept with good deeds, which the Bible either implies or directly says is impossible in some way, both in the Old and New Testament).

There is only one religion that I know of that excludes all other self-refuting and universalist-type religions (like Catholic, Arminian, Universalist, Interfaith, Hindu and Buddhist ones) that is not self-refuting and only accepts itself as the true religion, and that is the one which is known as Calvinism (though those who are Calvinists don’t always call themselves Calvinists, but may call themselves Reformed Christian, Baptist, Presbyterian, or Christian or non-denominational. That doesn’t mean that anyone calling themselves by those names is what they calling themselves however. Calvinism teaches that there is only one specific way to know the truth, be truthful and have eternal perfect peace and says what it is specifically (unlike all other religions), which you can learn here: http://eternian.wordpress.com/life

…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth… – Arthur Conan Doyle

post link: http://truthproof.tk

Lemmiwinks2’S ”Where did the universe come from” refuted

Lemmiwink2’s comments, in the order they came, minus one minor sentence, are in bold, with my replies:

“Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies are under the misunderstanding that the universe had a beginning,”

And they are mistaken because you said so.

“Even as they are saying this, they acknowledge that there could be no reaction which could take place in a complete void,”

If they think it was simply a void then they are wrong. According to Genesis, which is accurate as can be shown indirectly by various evidences, including archaeology, prophecy and science, there was some formless mass from which God created the universe, or rather a formless universe from which he made an ordered one.

“and so there must have been something likions predicted an expanding universe until somebody told him.”

What is “likions”? And why did you refer to a him when you referred to two people before: Hawking and Davies? Something wrong with your thought process?

“Also, science until recently has been tied up with religion,”

No: the scientific method is programmed into humans. Everyone trying something new or trying to confirm what they are instinctively programmed to know how to do (like move their mouth and tongue to speak) has an emotional or mental thought to do something, and who wants to accomplish that thing, and finds the time and resources to, will try. And if they don’t succeed, they will try again unless past attempts from other things let them know it won’t work. But if they succeed, then they confirm that their desire or idea was possible. Everyone does that. Also, it’s vague to say, “tied up with”. What exactly does that mean? Do you mean hindered by religion? Did you know that Einstein said, “science without religion is lame”? And just how is it “tied up” with religion? Are you saying that when a Christian performs an experiment, he’s praising and worshiping God? And what is your point? That you personally don’t like God being praised while experiments are done, and…? So what?! Are you a stupid brat? So what if you hate God? Lame.

In the book of Judges, Gideon carries out the modern version of the scientific method: more than one try to confirm a hypothesis. Also, as you know, Christians have been using science to try and conform their beliefs since the concept became clear to them, and that was occurring since before Darwin was born, a man whom anti-Christians and ignoramuses act like is the father of science, forgetting about Christians like the great genius mathematician Euler.

“and religious beliefs played a part in scientists trying to prove what they already believed.”

And that isn’t recent.

“Early in Einstein’s career he believed in an eternal universe, with two equations: energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and mass equals energy de a singularity of infinite density that the universe came out of, which would actually be the universe in a different form. They ask us to believe that this singularity existed for all eternity, unchanging, because there was no time, and then all of a sudden decided to explode. This is a ridiculous idea, because any reaction which possibly could take place would have already happened over eternity.”

More evidence that Genesis is true: that a thing or things without a will of their own, disordered, could not order itself/themselves without someone to order it.

“They are following the teachings of some respected scientist like Einstein who was in fact wrong in that particular case.”

Seems to be true from my study of Michio Kaku which I reported on in my journal here.

“Einstein was known to be wrong many times in his mathematical calculations, and didn’t see that his equativided by the speed of light squared seeming to back this up.”

That is a grammatically nonsensical sentence it seems to me: what is an “equativided”?

“The universe is eternal,”

And whatever you say is true because you said so? That’s not true for God, to simply speak and be right “juz cuz”, so then how can you be greater than God?

“and any theory which says that it can’t be needs to be reexamined.”

Just not yours, juz cuz. Contradictory arrogance.

“Anything which can possibly happen has happened before”

Sounds circular reasoning to me.

“and will continue to happen for all eternity.”

In the renewed universe, God teaches that sin will no longer exist, it will only exist in Hell, and people building homes with their own hands (or whatever) will cease. They will no longer feel pain. And God is always right.

“Big bang, big crunch.”

That’s not a sentence and makes no point.

“Please read my articles on the subject by googling rowan casey, and looking for my associated content profile.”

After reading your broken logic: no. And associated content is anti-Christian, or at least anti-[[Calvinist]], so double no.

“This is the second most popular theory, I don’t need to site my sources.”

Of course: because you’re God and whatever the false God says is true is true, juz cuz he said it’s the second most popular theory.

Google garbage and the definition of a god: Why Google sucks lemons

I just looked up “definition of god” on Google.com, and this is what it gave me:

  1. Apologetics Press – A Coherent Definition of a God

    In my debate with him on God’s existence, two minutes and four seconds into his opening speech, he stated: “There’s no coherent definition of a God.
    http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240132CachedSimilar

  2. What is your definition of a god? – Yahoo!7 Answers

    Jul 1, 2010 My definition of a god is: A being of unchallengeable power G(capital g)od: The main power and creator of the religion of all forms of
    au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid…AustraliaCached

  3. Ignosticism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child’s definition of a god is meant or if a theologian’s is intended instead.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IgnosticismCachedSimilar

  4. What is your definition of a God? | Facebook

    Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends,
    http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=102028364820&topic…;Cached

  5. What is your definition of a God? – KH-Vids.Net Forum

    4 posts – 4 authors

    My definition of a God is anything that is massively intelligent/powerful and unable to die. He/she/it exists outside of the multiverse as a blob of energy
    http://www.kh-vids.net/showthread.php?p=3215816Cached

    Get more discussion results

  6. What is the definition of a god parent? – Yahoo! Answers

    Jul 8, 2008 one who stands surety for another in the rite of Christian baptism. In the modern baptism of an infant or child the godparent or godparents make
    answers.yahoo.com › Pregnancy & ParentingParentingCachedSimilar

Why does Google keep giving answers from Yahoo Answers, a website everyone knows, even narcissists, is controlled by trolls and polluted with extreme stupidity, a place where idiotic anti-Christian, atheist- and Catholic-pandering moderators are constantly deleting the accounts of people they personally disagree with, rather than allowing “freedom of speech”, who despite their pandering keep angering the very people they pander to? And what is lgnosticism and who cares? Is that even a word? Why isn’t dictionary.com or freedictionary.com at the top? Google has become like Microsoft, Walmart and Amazon and banks that are too big to fail, watered down and inefficient; it’s become polluted with trash.

http://yippy.com and http://cuil.com are alternatives I recommend that gave me much better results than Goggle’s garbage, though I don’t like that both use Wikipedia in their search results, rather than the pages Wikipedia links to as its sources (and often pages on Wikipedia, don’t have sources, which is hypocritical of the Wikipedian moderators and administrators to allow):

The result page from cuil:

Kabbalistic definition of God
Wikipedia: God Names of God Conceptions of God Existence of God Definition of God, Kabbalistic Category:Conceptions of God Mainstream Orthodox Judaism teaches that God is neither matter nor spirit. They teach that God is the creator of both, but is Himself neither. This often raises the question: if God

GodDefinition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Definition of god from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio pronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and word games. GodDefinition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Learn more about “god” and related topics at Britannica.com.
Glossary Definition: Metaphysical
Metaphysics might include the study of the nature of the human mind, the definition and meaning of existence, or the nature of space, time, and/or causality. The origin of philosophy, beginning with the Pre-Socratics, was metaphysical in nature. He termed this ordering power in the universe “God.”
god: Definition from Answers.com
Man meets God in direct personal encounter. This revelation is a manifestation of God’s love, which turns towards the individual and commands him to love God in return. According to Rosenzweig this love relation between man and God redeems the ego from its isolation and its crippling form of death.
godDefinition of god at YourDictionary.com
Definition of god from Webster’s New World College Dictionary. Meaning of god. Pronunciation of god. Definition of the word god. Origin of the word god
Muslim: Definition from Answers.com
Literally, the word means “one who submits (to God)”. Muslim is the participle of the same verb of which Islam is the infinitive. [1] All Muslims observe Sunnah, but differences in the definition of what is and what is not Sunnah has led to the emergence of sectarian movements.
Is God Good By Definition?
Suppose we agree that we shall hold that, by definition, God is morally perfect. Suppose further that we agree that we all mean by this that God possesses a set of properties which fall inside the limits imposed by idiosyncracy on what can count as “moral perfection”.
Son of God: Definition from Answers.com
In the Gospel of John, the author writes that “to all who believed him and accepted him [Jesus], he gave the right to become children of God” [John 1:12]. The phrase “children of God” is used ten times in the New Testament.
God: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com
God: Definition and Pronunciation God: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com. (l.c.) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
What is Agnosticism? Overview of the Definition of Agnosticism
If someone is a weak agnostic, they state only that they do not know if any gods exist or not. The possibility of some theoretical god or some specific god existing is not excluded. The possibility of someone else knowing for sure if some god exists or not is also not excluded.

God | Define God at Dictionary.com
God definition at Dictionary.com, a free online dictionary with pronunciation, synonyms and translation. “I want my lawyer, my tailor, my servants, even my wife to believe in God, because it means that I shall be cheated and robbed and cuckolded less often…. If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”

The result page from yippy:

  1. The individual, as in him customary rules acquire ethical character by the recognition of distinct principles and ideals, all tending to a final unity or goal, which for the mere evolutionist is left very indeterminate, but for the Christian has adequate definition in a perfect possession of God by knowledge and love, without the contingency of further lapses from duty.

  2. Definitions of religions and beliefs, ancient civilizations, Goddesses and Gods, spiritual and ritual items, and a variety of other related topics.

  3. Extensive article about God , includes definition , history, monotheism, and conceptions. Also has names for God in different religiouns, such as Allah and Yaweh.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God – [cache] – Yahoo!, Ask
  4. Definition of god from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary with audio pronunciations, thesaurus, Word of the Day, and word games.

  5. I. Unchangeable Qualities of God: Creator, not creature … II. Qualities unique of God: … III. Qualities that God shares with righteous angels and men after resurrection:

  6. Definition of god in the Online Dictionary. Meaning of god. Pronunciation of god. Translations of god. god synonyms, god antonyms. … [Old English god; related to Old Norse goth, Old High German

  7. god n. God A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship

  8. Thank you for donating your time and definition of god , and mostly, thank you for supporting God -defined.com. We can’t assure the accuracy of any of these god definitions contained herein but we certainly can ensure passion intertwined with …

  9. God – Definition . This article focuses on the concept of singular, … God is a term referring to the concept of a supreme being, generally believed to be ruler …

  10. Establish The Biblical Definition Of God … And finally, we know from the Bible that God is Mind, Soul, Spirit, Life, Truth, and Love. These are indisputable facts from which accurate conclusions

It’s very nonsensical that on Yippy, the Conscience page on the Catholic encyclopedia Newadvent.com shows up as the first result let alone any result rather than their page on God. And why is the infidel.com page in Cuil? Man-made algorithms truly are dumber than the ones God programmed into man, too bad we often ignore that and choose other schemes.

Anyways, this is my definition of a god, as is universally understood: A being able to travel without hindrance from matter or energy, existing as a spirit (a substance able to travel through matter and energy that is neither matter nor energy), who is able to move a huge amount of matter or energy by the use of a force that comes from its mind or by its spiritual body, especially a being with above average human wisdom, especially one that is wiser than a human, and which cannot be permanently imprisoned by another being which can only be killed by another being with almost equal or equal abilities.

And as a side note, God would be superior to any such god (if he existed) being that by definition he is immortal, can’t be damaged (except for while he existed in flesh as Jesus and he can be angered), permanently controls everything directly or indirectly, and perfectly understands everything there is to know, and can’t tell a lie directly, but if at all, allows deception by hiding information or by allowing it to be shown and allowing people to misunderstand, and so be deceived.

Related Article:

Google kicks Bing, Recovers search Share: 80 percent

Information on Tesla and Thomas Edison Updated

I finally updated the article on Tesla and Edison and changed the title seeing that I was wrong to say Edison was an atheist was wrong (I shouldn’t have assumed). I also found out some information very damaging to atheism about Edison and about Blavatsky which is damaging to the more modern neo-pagan movement.

Art Bell and the False Flood Prophet, “Doctor” Peter Ward aka “Screed”

July 24, 2010 4 comments

The global warming hysteria continues: Tonight and into the morning Art Bell of Coast to Coast AM has on a ranting grand liberal poobah moron named Peter Douglas Ward (2) (3). Peter Ward is a narcissistic fruity mainstream scientist and a bigot. Besides laughing hysterically at things that aren’t funny, he indirectly implies that scientists are only people who practice science (which most likely is the stereotypical lie of what scientists are: people who experiment with “natural sciences”) and that no creationists are scientists and that scientists who don’t believe in global warming are not scientists. What he is implying is like someone implying that blacks are inferior to whites, or that blacks can’t be scientists, it’s similar because both are discrimination not based on evidence, and therefore hateful. Peter was also pushing the over population myth, claiming that the world’s population must go in reverse in order to raise everyone’s standard of living, which is circular reasoning. His reasoning goes like this:

“The population must be reduced to raise the standard of living, the standard of living must raise by lowering the population.” There is no evidence in the statement. Further, he said, “Everyone has the right to have a high standard of living.” Says who? Who made you God Peter? What is the evidence for this claims? Peter, obey the Bible which says to ask the rich to be generous to the poor, and which teaches the rich to use their money to help the needy, not kill “the burden of these extra mouths” as you said.

Peter also made the crazy statement on this show that increasing carbon dioxide would reduce plant growth, specifically, crops. Uh Peter the “scientists”, the “professor”: plants become healthier and grow better with carbon dioxide. No one has ever shown a crop dying from too much carbon dioxide. No marijuana plant has ever died from too march carbon dioxide. You’re deluded, your common sense buried under a flood of delusions just as God once flooded the world and buried it’s wisdom, so yours is deep under lies, covered in oil.

Art Bell is pandering to this moron as I write this, and earlier on this same show pretentiously claimed that he could understand why certain people were denying Global Warming, which was that it was for political reasons or they were tied into an oil company, but not for the average person, but just a few minutes earlier said that it was because people didn’t want to change their life style and so were in denial, which was evidence that he was pandering and making up stuff like a little kid as he went along. Art Bell, also on this show, said, “People just don’t like change”, an obviously false comment, which he seems to have noticed as he then tried to qualify it by saying, “they don’t like negative change.” Art then made the rhetorical question (and Peter chimed in after) “in there’s an infinite supply of oil” then “why are we drilling” “in dangerous places” to get oil and straining to get it. Here stupid: BECAUSE THE POPULATION OF THE PLANET KEEPS GROWING. You can’t support a planet full of people on one oil well you idiot. And who said it was infinite you liar? Though the Bible does imply that it will last a long time since it prophecied that the children of Ishmael (the Arabs) would make their profit from the blood of the earth (and live by war). Peter also agreed with Art’s reasoning parroting the same type of rhetorical question and also asked why people were using coal when it was easier to turn oil into electricity. Easy: To create more jobs, and because the U.S. government doesn’t always make it easy to drill for oil, and bans various people from drilling or pays them not to. There are national parks with oil but you can’t drill for it and there are environmentalists constantly trying to make it illegal for people to drill for oil in certain places, that includes on dry land, like in Alaska. Further, it’s not as simple as you try to make it seem: not everyone has easy access to oil, like South Africa, so they convert their coal to oil. Further, the cost simply isn’t in the conversion of coal or oil to electricity, there is also the cost of drilling and digging, and depending on the location of the coal and oil, it can be more or less expensive. Further, countries are constantly in a struggle with being energy independent or taking money from various energy companies to take their energy instead (for example the U.S.A. relies heavily on oil from the Middle East because of “price wars” and that includes using bribes).

Oil supplies are also used like weapon (besides being used to run weaponized machinery), for example you can flood a market with it at low prices to lower its price and by doing so lower the income those profiting from it. So if a country that was relying on oil from another country decided to hurt that country, or the oil company they were relying on, they would go exploring for oil, and after finding it, use it for themselves and sell it themselves. And you use coal for war too. Which reminds me: Germany also relied heavily on coal during WWII, converting it to oil and Japan went to war with America over President F.D.R. withholding it from them.

Here’s some advice for you Art: stop ranting, stop being mentally lazy by resorting to stupid cliches, CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.

Also misleading about Peter’s comment on oil being easier to convert to electricity to coal was that he didn’t mention that oil isn’t simply used for energy (and neither is coal when it is converted to oil only used for energy). It’s used for many other things other than energy, including vaseline.

I can see and hear why Peter is being used as a front for evolution and Big Bang propaganda: he has an appearance of wisdom (physically and from his educational record), but sounds like a liberal 2o-year-old. If only he would accept the fact that his head puppeteers, the rich globalists with the help of their fanatical nature worshipers (hippies), manipulate his anti-petrol propaganda in an attempt to get rid of the middle class, destroy Christianity, and keep third world countries poor and easy to take advantage of.

There is another Peter Ward, a “Peter L. Ward”  of Teton Tectonics who claims that the main cause of global warming is sulfur dioxide from volcanic eruptions, and uses the mythical evidence from the mythical time from before 6,500 years ago as evidence.

I have a message specifically for you Peter:

You said on Coast to Coast AM this morning, when asked by a caller how oil got down thousands of miles deep below the earth into the ocean if it was from plants, simply repeated, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that it was from plants that were under great pressure. Peter how does that answer how the plants got down there? You didn’t answer the question, you bullshitted because you had no answer. You basically said, “It just is.” So who has the “God of the Gaps”, who is teaching anti-science Mr. It Just Is. Plants get eaten by bacteria and weathered away and burned away for fuel, they don’t magically pile up and rot into oil anymore than the plants of today do.

The Bible is true as is clear from the evidence: http://20questions.tk (scroll down to the links). You would be aware of this if you weren’t always dwelling on yourself and how you feel about things. As you are supposed to remember: truth is not determined by how you personally feel about it. You can talk all day long about the Earth being underwater, but God already flooded it, as you can see, as anyone can see from the jumble of sea fossils scattered all over the world’s dry land masses, including on the tops of mountains. There is no nice neat organized strata showing an imaginary steady gradual evolution from little “primitive” crystal fairy beings to “big advanced complex” beings. That’s all in your head, which you’ve chosen to fill with fanciful delusions. You are the absurd one to pretend TO SAY THAT YOU SPEAK FOR ALL SCIENTISTS IN YOUR FIELD LET ALONE ALL SCIENTISTS, that is a narcissist talking, not someone who is mentally sound. Who the Hell are you Mr. Liberal Friends Gave Me Fancy Sounding Degrees, to say a creationist isn’t a scientist or that a Christian is not one? Or that “bigger is righter”? What a fool, ignoring the obvious so that you can have fun getting everyone to listen to your drama queenery. “Oh look everyone the world is flooding, oh don’t believe that God Bible man in the sky which said the world could be flooded, that’s fairy toilet paper, but listen to us modern day evolutionist atheists and anti-Christian theists who were the only scientists and came up with all the inventions in the world and are non stop charities (yeah right): the world’s gonna be flooded again!” Is that what God reveals in any prophecies in Revelation? No. But what does it say after the flood occurred: THAT GOD WOULD NOT FLOOD THE WORLD AGAIN AND THAT THE RAINBOW WOULD BE A CONSTANT SIGN OF THIS. MAN IS NOT IN CONTROL OF THE WORLD: GOD IS. And wow, so you know what happened billions of years ago, 15 billion huh? But we Christians are the absurd ones for believing what happened 6,500? Insane much? Backwards much? You’re backwards. The primitive one is you and those who think backwards like you, who accuse others of the very hypocrisy you resort to just to look right, despite being an obvious liar. Listen to God false prophet, not your feelings. He made it convenient for you to learn what he taught, but you come up with every and any arbitrary excuse not to study. “Waaaah, I have to learn more after getting a thorough brainwashing from my evolutionist friends?! No thanks Daniel Knight I’ll stick with my way! No one can change my beliefs!” Yes, I know you’re a religious fanatic, what about it? How can someone with so many degrees be ignoring so much evidence against his insane ranting? You’re corrupt. You should have learned logic and studied morality and religion: life is not livable no matter how many numbers you fill your head with and no matter how many physics facts you learn, if you forget logic and moral laws. The scientific method is not a substitute for do not lie at all It’s not a commandment warning people about the danger of Hell. And if it helps, read Judges, and see if you can spot where it reveals the scientific method. And if it makes you feel any better, God made everyone a scientists. You’re not the only one who 1) Imagines 2) Tries 3) Tries again 4) Gives up or succeeds. That’s programmed into us all genius. Did you know that? Maybe if you weren’t so busy playing follow-my-liberal-feelings-preacher you would have noticed that Mr. I’m a Scientist Haha You’re Not. And Peter, you said you would take on arguments against global warming, why then did you reply with “that’s just a load of crap”, “that’s screed” when you were told that the eugenics movement was apart of the depopulation movement you’re supporting? You’re a liar. And what a hypocrite and weasel: You said on Art’s show this morning that the booing you got from creationists when you spoke scared your eight-year-old, awww poor you and poor eight-year-old, what about the millions of Christian kids murdered by the pagans of Rome, then millions more by the Catholics of Rome, then many millions more and more than just Christians killed by atheists in the name of “progress” and using “evolution” as justification? What about the endless bullying of Christians in atheist dominated countries like China, Russia and it’s former states and Vietnam, the endless tortures and imprisonments and enslaving of Christians in those countries? What about the babies you encourage mothers to murder in their womb, cut up without anesthetics? But yeah: poor you, you got booed when you spoke to endorse TORTURE, BULLYING, AND MURDER OF KIDS, OF BABIES EVEN, and your kid was scared. If you had taught your kid to fear God, and not you, then he wouldn’t have feared his idol dad being boed. What a self-centered, insulting, arrogant, hateful, ignorant wimp. You’re a babbling, gullible sophist, not a professor, and not a “Doctor” as Art and others pretentiously call you.

Learn more about broken logic here: http://circularreasoning.tk if you’d like and why it is false that the universe and Earth are older than 6,500 years, why the radiometric dating you rely on is false evidence.

Update:

I asked Peter to fulfill his claim on taking on anti-global warming arguments. Here was my letter to him:

[On Sat, 24 Jul 2010, Daniel Knight wrote:]
You said you would take on the anti-global warming arguments, can you
take on the one here?: http://artbell.tk

What answer could you possibly give other than, “Oh.” ?

As for email being the most hateful form of communication? Is that some
science based claim or your opinion?

God bless you.

And here was his hypocritical, bigoted biased reply:

There is no god.  Wake up.

Professor Peter D Ward
Dept of Biology
The University of Washington
Seattle, 98195
206-543-2962  ( Office )

In other words, this hypocrite atheist sent me the very hate mail he complained about, all because I asked God to bless him. In other words, he booed me for blessing him, but was perfectly happy to accept Art Bell’s, who has emphatically stated that he doesn’t believe in the Big Bang Theory. Someone that gets as easily upset as Ward, isn’t going to have the mental stamina to know much truth, especially if they spend their time obsessing on controlling what others think and say.

“This only have I found: God made mankind upright, but men have gone in search of many schemes.” – Ecclesiastes 7:29

Albuquerque, N.M. U.F.O. Sighting On 7-23-2010

aI saw another UFO at about 4:13 A.M.. It was the second time I’ve seen one other than in a picture or in a video. I remember looking at what I thought was a plane, with red lights, but I could have been imagining that I saw that, but whatever, I saw something that was a bright white light that seemed to going forward as it pulsed into a large bright white star like flash (like when the U.S.S. Enterprise in Star Trek the Next Generation would go into warp). It seemed to produce a short cone-shaped tail, same color as the white pulse of light as it went forward. The pulse of light was much larger than the north star which was visible above me (not farther ahead where the object had been), but it wasn’t so bright that it lit up any rooftops that I could see, and definitely not the ground. It seemed to grow/pulse to a size about five times larger that the north star before vanishing. It didn’t go far before pulsing as far as I could tell, it was very short and whatever the object was, it only flashed for a short moment and I saw nothing more of it to my disgust. I was disgusted because I didn’t get it on video, and knew I had lost a once in a life time opportunity moment (as usual). I flashed my camera afterwards in the direction I saw the object, but I didn’t get a response as far as I could tell, which just disgusted me more. I did notice though that in one of the photos I took with the flash, that there were bright yellow-orange lights where there shouldn’t have been any, but I supposed it was some reflective effects so I deleted it, but realized that was stupid to do right afterwards. I was also disgusted that whoever was in that ship, or whatever was controlling it, probably wasn’t sharing any technology with any humans that it new could help us, as usual. Why bother coming here if you’re just going to stare and not help people in need? It’s really sickening because this has been going on for thousands of years. I wish I could shoot them down for being malicious teases.

Update 7-26-2010: Yesterday, about midday, I was talking with a girl that lived near me. She told me that she had seen a UFO “a few days ago (where we live) and from what she said it would have been to the right of where I saw the one I saw. She said it was white and made a sign with her hand that indicated it was pear-shaped, but pointed on top, though she may have just have been making a rough quick example. She didn’t indicate that it flashed like the one I saw did, but said it just vanished. Too bad neither of us were able to get pictures. Aliens sure are annoying.

Spinning a DNA Tale: Evolutionists Lie About Neanderthals Again

July 22, 2010 2 comments

Post link: http:/neander.tk

By Daniel Knight, Science Editor

Below is an article by a guy named Mark, awesomely dubbed “Science Editor” making him a reliable source of truth on the topic of science. It’s an article by a Christian-hating evolutionists (as evolutionists usually are) helping other evolutionists to put a spin on evidence for the Bible, so that it appears to be evidence against the Bible. In other words, a lie. It spins the finding that Neanderthal DNA is apart of human DNA (BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NEANDERTHALS ARE HUMANS) is a result of interbreeding with Neanderthals, conveniently not mentioning that the odds of two creatures evolving to be genetically compatible IS NOT POSSIBLE, and would take a string of coincidences that occurred for billions of years. That’s like telling someone something like, “I won 1 billion dollars once a minute by playing a lottery with 100 trillion other players for 15 billions years in a row.” No, I don’t think so. What is OBVIOUS is that if Neanderthals and humans are genetically compatible, and had offspring, is that THEY WERE HUMAN. Cats can’t have babies with dogs and dogs can’t have babies with cats, and whales can’t have kids with eels and eels can’t have kids with whales. But magically, thanks to the Fly Magical Big-Bang Evolution Spaghetti God of the Gaps, you can cross Neanderthals and Humans, yeah right:

Neanderthal gene found in human DNA of people living out of Africa
by Mark Henderson, [EVOLUTIONIST] Science Editor (sounds impressive doesn’t it?)
5/7/2010

They have been extinct for 30,000 years [JUST TRUST US EVOLUTIONIST WHEN WE MAKE MERE CLAIMS], but a small part of the Neanderthals lives on in the DNA of every person with ancestors outside Africa.

The genetic code of Neanderthal Man has revealed that Homo sapiens mated with our closest evolutionary relatives soon after migrating out of Africa, leaving traces that can still be detected in human DNA.

A comparison of the genomes of the two human species has shown that between 1 and 4 per cent of the DNA of modern non-Africans has a Neanderthal origin, while no Neanderthal genes can be detected in Africans today. This indicates that the first modern humans to leave the continent must have interbred with Neanderthals they encountered, probably in the Middle East. Their descendants went on to populate the other continents.

“Those of us who live outside Africa carry a little Neanderthal DNA,” said Svante Pääbo, of the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany, who led the research. “What we find is that Neanderthals are slightly more similar in their genome to people outside Africa, no matter whether they live in Europe, Asia or Papua New Guinea. This shows that there has been gene flow between Neanderthals and populations ancestral to humans,” he added.

The findings, published in the [EVOLUTIONIST] journal Science, settle a long-running controversy over whether Neanderthals bred with modern humans or made any lasting contribution to the human gene pool.

This article is also contradictory, it says that DNA can still be “detected in human DNA” but a few words after says “human species”. Why do evolutionists refer to humans singularly and then in the next breath say they are a species (meaning more than one kind?). Yes, there are types of humans: Caucasian, Negretic and Semetic, and subtypes under them, but SPECIES? Huh? What’s that even mean? A species isn’t a race or subtype of race, so what do evolutionists mean with that magically conveniently vague word? As idiotic and heretical anti-Trinitarians love to say: How can one be three? In this case, one can’t be three because a human is a human like a cat is a cat and cats can’t have offspring from dogs. There are no two species of dogs anymore than there are two species of humans. It’s evolutionist misdirection confusion babble.

Also, as usual, where is the evidence that we evolved from little thingies, whatever these magic thingies were? When will evolutionists stop being gullible, deceiving themselves and deliberately lying to others? Money, temporary pleasure and (evil) friends don’t matter more than eternal peace and eternally good friends. When will the world heed that?

Related article:

Evidence that some Neanderthals were Homo sapiens deformed by disease

Related Book:

What evidence lists try to bury: Buried Alive

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 54 other followers