Mark Levin, Ron Paul, and Donations to Israel and Egypt

Ron Paul Speaks Out Against Meddling (and Donating Money) to Egypt

I was listening to the Mark Levin show, and a substitute host (Tom Marr) said that Ron Paul doesn’t complain when donations are given to Egypt (but does over Israel getting money from the U.S.) and the host implied that the Israelis get most of it via giving money to American Jewish citizens in department of defense jobs. He repeatedly asked the caller for the source of his claim that Ron Paul gets more donations from the military than any other presidential candidate, yet the host gave no source for his donation claim either. The caller however did cite the website opensecrets.com, to which the host immediately responded with a “ahah” type tone saying “aaaaawh” and then said, “the web.” Yeah, and? Is there some better source Mr. “The (TV) Media Lies”? What’s it matter if it’s on the web or not, doesn’t Mark Levin have a website? Yes he does. Doesn’t he teach through it? Yes he does. Further, yesterday, Mark Simone, a hateful liar, cited that Ron Paul “for ten years” made racist statements. No liar, there were a handful of arguments spread throughout the years mixed in to many more statements that weren’t racist. Mark seemed to be twisting that Ron Paul or others argued that these statements were made “ten years ago.” The host right now is using a logical fallacy to claim that because “tons of them out there” (racists) support Ron Paul, that therefore Ron Paul must be bad. So if racists voted for McCain or whites over Obama does that mean that McCain and all the other white presidential candidates were racist too? This is conservatism: arbitrary arguments and using conniving cheap shots when threatened, just like liberals do. Hypocrites. Further, that stupid people support Ron Paul, or illogical people support him, is evidence of? What? In other words: is it a surprise that stupid people don’t check the facts and support the wrong people? Isn’t that what conservatives accuse liberals of doing? But again, arbitrariness: if it’s racists, and if your opponent is winning or threatening your power, forget that liberals or stupid people do stupid things, just change your tune to a sour note and say they are always clear-minded enough to recognize any like-minded person (which is not true as history repeatedly has shown through the repeated failure of pagan governments befriending and supporting people that turned out to be their enemies).

Concerning Ron not speaking against donating to Egypt, false: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjnfHuCrCLc In fact, the host said near time of his “Ron Paul didn’t complain about donations to Egypt” statement, that Hosni Mubarak “was a bad guy, but he was our bad guy.” He said this because of Ron Paul’s policy to NOT intervene in the affairs of MUSLIM nations and to get our bases out of foreign countries like Germany due to not being able to AFFORD IT, AND, perhaps deceptively, because he knew Ron Paul was against arming Muslim dictators which would ENDANGER Israel, as Ron points out on that Youtube link. It’s Ron’s desire to withdraw troops and money from foreign lands that Mark Levin (a Jew, keep that in mind because it can be considered evidence of bias, and keep in mind that I am also Jew, biologically at least half), Mark Simone, and Catholic conservative propagandist and radio show host Shawn Hannity (and maybe Rush Limbaugh), are always complaining about concerning Ron Paul. Michael Savage also recently claimed that RP hates Jews and supports terrorists (good job ruining the last dregs of your reputation Michael Bean). Michele Bachmann also has attacked Ron Paul’s position on the military (and federal donations to foreigners?) as suicidal in her presidential campaign. Something to note is that very recently a top spokesperson for Michele Bachmann withdrew his support for her campaign and is now giving it to Ron Paul. As far back as January 31st! 2011 Ron Paul spoke out against meddling in the affairs of countries like Egypt: Ron Paul on Egypt: U.S. Meddling Leads to Unintended Consequences So, these conservative hosts contradict themselves and are lying.

Concerning Iran: at least, or only one Ron Paul supporter attacked me on my position on attacking Iran. There was a stupid person on a pro Ron Paul Youtube video who made the stupid remark, “Why can’t Iran have nukes? They’re surrounded by them” or something like that, which I said was stupid because Iran has a violent government that oppresses it’s people, which I likened to beating or killing your wife, or family, I said something like that. So, I believe Iran’s government and military should be attacked if they don’t change their stance on attacking Israel or not. But, I also believe Iran should be prayed for, and for an attack on them to not be necessary, for them to be at peace.

Tom? also claimed that Ron Paul said that Martin Luther King seduced black children. Tom then said, “oh yeah, he’s really going to get the black vote.” Even if Ron had said that, so what? It makes no point. And are blacks too stupid to investigate a comment like that? Martin Luther King is known for having been an adulterer, so he was unfaithful and allowed himself to be seduced. That’s a little evidence that he wasn’t someone to simply trust outright. The FBI even tried to blackmail him with the evidence that had on his adultery, but failed. Further, he was a worldly type Christian, NOT saved, and preached a worldly version of Christianity, one that appealed to blacks most I’d imagine. So to say that he (spiritually seduced) black children wouldn’t be wrong. If there was evil sexual implication behind that statement, I don’t know, but not knowing him to be a homosexual or not, have no opinion on that and it’s not a big concern to me, because that was long ago in the past, and there’s plenty of evidence he preached a false “social gospel” which is enough to disregard him as a worthy teacher of the Bible, someone who can be trusted with God’s word.

Related Information:
Ron Paul Ron Paul gives a ‘green light’ to an Israeli attack on Iran in self-defense
12/29/2011: Ron Paul says to Hareetz, Israel has a right to defend herself and QUESTIONS how giving 12 billion to her enemies HELPS her (Tom Marr: you lied about Ron Paul).
‘Racist newsletter’ timeline: What Ron Paul has said

Related Information:
Ron Paul’s Political Positions

Hypocrite and False Scholar Jan Irvin Blinded By Shrooms

Post link: http://shrooms.tk

On Coast to Coast Am is an annoyingly nasal and fake historical expert on Christianity named Jan Irvin (pronounced “Yan”). This person claims that behind Judaism and Christianity is nothing more than mushrooms, forget history, forget the accomplishments of Christians and Jews, thousands of years of work, whether or not they accomplished anything of value, forget about anything specific the Bible says, forget about if any of it makes sense or is useful for anything, like telling people not to lie, murder or be angry at each other in hypocrisy or judge one another in hypocrisy, just say, “It was the mushrooms, because it mentions the color red sometimes.” He claims that there’s very little evidence that Jesus was a historical person, as in a real person, and more evidence that he was a myth. Using that logic, his claim that mushrooms are behind Judaism and Christianity is also a myth, a lie, made up, because there is only very little tenuous highly subjective evidence that mushrooms are behind these religions. An example of one of his evidences is that Santa Claus is red, and that red presents are left under a Christmas tree, and no doubt I’d guess that Rudolph’s nose is red. Jan Irvin, you are an idiot. First, since when do Mushrooms grow in the winter!!!!!!? So much your for your expertise on mushrooms! Second, RED?! How about THE BLOOD OF CHRIST?! HELLO: “CHRIST-MAS”!? Or how about HOLLY BERRIES? ROUND HOLLY BERRIES! Guess where Holly berries come from genius? THE HOLLY TREE. I imagine if he saw white spots on a red-wrapped BOX under a Christmas tree he’d think “SHROOMS!”. No: squares aren’t shrooms, and white dots can be explained away as SNOW, and red as HOLLY BERRIES. He is truly stupid and arbitrary. That would mean that he’s also stereotyping and lumping, meaning calling all Catholics Christians and all Christians Catholics, showing that he is ignorant of the distinction between the different types of Christians. It’s a hypocritical oversight too since atheists arbitrarily trump up the differences while at the same time saying that all (fundamentalist) Christians are the same. He also brought up a supposedly hidden ancient comment that Jesus was born on the same day as other deities and therefore Christ was just a myth. Besides that making no more sense then saying, “People ate apples that day therefore apples are mythical,” this Jan obviously is nothing more than a shallow researcher, because if he looked up that argument he would have found this: <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20090107044516/http://www.kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterThousand.html"http://web.archive.org/web/20090107044516/http://www.kingdavid8.com/Letters/LetterThousand.html

This Jan was also questioned on Coast by a guest caller asking him what he thought about the Shroud of Turin, and he said that the arguments made for it are “arbitrary” and “salacious”. LOL. A guy who argues that the color red, and shapes and a spurious single comment disproves Christianity talks about arbitrary and salacious? He also claimed that many shrouds appeared in Europe and that it’s been well debunked. HUH? Since when? He also claimed with a very annoyed tone that it’s merely “arguing the arbitrary” when people bring up “all these little questions” (DAMN THOSE PESKY LITTLE QUESTION ASKERS!) and that the “onus is on them” to prove these things, and that he can’t prove a negative (wrong) and yet said they need to “study logic”. Wow, what a hypocritical evidence-hater. A caller merely asked his opinion on it and he gets angry a few minutes later. And studying logic? He didn’t even know that it’s a fallacy that you can’t disprove a negative, and yet he himself ARBITRARILY thew up false arguments against the Shroud. What a hypocrite. When another caller brought up Josephus, he claimed that some flow of Josephus’ writing was, uh, unflowed? where Jesus is mentioned, and that if you remove it (oh wouldn’t he love to remove ANCIENT text? just like that supposedly hidden comment about Jesus being born on a day of other deities? Talk about arbitrary and hypocrisy!) that it would flow again. Oh but that’s not all of the arbitrary logic of Jan: During the above statements at some point he also made this nonsensical argument against the Shroud (and it shows how arbitrary he was being), “…unless you want to study the History Channel, and it’s credentials have been damaged by all the questionable stuff they’ve been putting out over the years” OH BUT NOT COAST TO COAST AM THE VERY SHOW YOU ARE SPEAKING ON? JAN: GIORGIO TSOUKALOUS HAS BEEN A REPEAT GUEST ON COAST TO COAST AM AND ENDORSED BY GEORGE NOORY, ART BELL AND GEORGE KNAPP, all of whom are hosts of the show. They’ve also had the other “UFO experts” on Coast BEFORE they were on the History Channel. And how is it a valid argument to merely say, “Oh they had some questionable stuff on there over the years.” BUT YOU’RE SILLY CLAIMS THAT CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON SHROOMS ISN’T? SO THE HISTORY CHANNEL DOESN’T PUT OUT ANYTHING HISTORICALLY RELIABLE IN COMPARISON TO YOU!? SHUT UP!!!!!! THERE WAS AN GLOBAL WARMING SCAREMONGER ASTROLOGER FALSE PROPHET ON COAST JUST BEFORE YOU GOT ON! Can anyone give me a “WOW”!? Who in the world doesn’t know that Coast to Coast AM is a mouth for New Age babbling idiots and every arbitrary ranting parrot and ignorant out there? The History Channel is miles away from Coast to Coast AM! Though sadly the gap is closed a little by putting on Giorgio Tsoukalos, who claims that UFOs are what is behind the Bible. Now if Jan were more intelligent, he would have said, “Well UFOs look like mushroom because they are round and dome-shaped, so clearly the writers of the Bible were seeing mushrooms while high on mushrooms.” But instead he decided to get angry right away and shoot himself in the foot with an arbitrary argument. And as if YOU were more credible than Tsoukalos? TSOUKALOS IS LIGHT YEARS MORE CREDIBLE THAN YOU! At least he does come up with evidence for some of his theories, but you, asking, “Why are presents put under a Christmas tree,” think you are spurious with a stupid “proof” like that, that you should be taken seriously?! You’re either an arrogant liar or blind.

Oh but that’s not all: after giving a speech about the JFK assassination, he criticizes those who don’t think it’s a conspiracy for “not having critical judgment and not being able to see when someone is trying to deceive them.” Jan, “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

I have a question for you Jan: If Christianity was based on Shamanism and mushrooms, why does Christianity, all the way back to when it was supposedly “Judaism” (which is a myth that you perpetuate), why then does it forbid magic? Second: why did you laugh when a moron caller called in saying that he WAS going to make a religion (as if he knew the future) based on shrooms and listening to Jimmy Hendrix, Pink Floyd and the Beatles, and that he wasn’t going to include doctrine because it was creepy. You laughed and said “really” in agreement, but then after the host, Rob Simone mentioned recreational drug use, contradicted your arbitrary hatred by then saying that recreational drug usage, which you implied was bad, was bad because it was devoid of religion which it had been stripped of? As for “the owness” is on us, Jan, another question: the owness is also on you to prove your claim that Christianity is based on the visions of people who hate psychedelic mushrooms, and you haven’t come up with any except for a little of your opinions which you speak of as facts.

A few minutes later, still going on about the JFK assassination still 40 minutes away from the end of the show (wow: nothing more to say about the theory of Christianity and shrooms? Big surprise!” he said concerning someone’s conspiracy theory on JFK’s murder: “I would need more proof before I would settle on anything positive about that.” But with the most subjective evidence and nonsensical evidence you’ve decided that Christianity is just babble from people high on mushrooms, and that the Shroud of Turin is just a cloth that was made by lying it on someone’s body (lol, hence why it’s been controversial and repeatedly attempted to be shown to be not miraculous for decades?! HUH?)

Another question for you Jan: how are you credible when you advise people to have false visions (hallucinations) based on drugs? Can the truth be based on lies and imaginary things? How about using “critical thinking” and “studying logic” which you advise with your mouth but refuse to do yourself when it comes to the Bible and the usefulness of having hallucinations? Write after I asked that question I’ve now heard him say to a caller, “unless you have evidence coming in through your five senses you’re arguing the arbitrary”. And you have evidence coming in through all five of your senses that the Bible is false? You can smell that the Bible is false?! Are you high on shrooms? And no, arguing something without having evidence “coming in” through all five of your senses isn’t defined as “arbitrary”. Wow: as I was typing that previous sentence Jan mentioned “logical fallacies”. What in the world does Jan know about logical fallacies? You can’t make sense when arguing against the greatest most time-tested book in the world yet speak like you have knowledge of logical fallacies? What astounding arrogance. What a blasphemer. … Wow, now he said that if you read the work of some guy, who went line by line over the evidence for the historical Jesus, and, “If we remove the logical fallacies” that we’ll know the truth, which is that Jesus wasn’t real. Wow, stupid. So it’s logical to selective take the work of one obscure man, and say, “Therefore that’s evidence Jesus wasn’t real.” You can’t present any strong evidence of your own? No you can’t, hence why you have to weasel your way out of arguing against Jesus being real. It is you who are being ARBITRARY with your logic and your “proof”.

THE OWNESS IS ON YOU, not the other way around, because hundreds of millions of people who’ve died promoting real evidence for Christ and hundreds of millions more who are living who promote the same and more outnumber your “many” fake scholars. And this man you say who went through the proof for Christ by going through it “line by line” (and Christians don’t go through the Bible line by line, or arbitrary arguments from morons like you – I’ve been through 500 of them Jan, I wrote them down, no matter how stupid and grammatically nonsensical), Jan: the entire Bible is evidence for Christ, he endorsed it all, it’s not just “the gospels” as you seem to believe. You seem to believe it’s just the gospels and a few historical references to him: NO IT’S NOT. And you really think that one many can disprove thousands of years of scholars and the hundred thousand archeologists and theologians living today? The evidence is the entire Bible and all the historical references to him outside the Bible, and the archeological evidence, and the prophecies that have come true, and the experiences of all those who have been saved by him, and the miracles that still occur today. Haven’t you ever heard of “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”? For someone to say that one many going “line by line” through the evidence and having found evidence against it all, is utterly stupid and a plain lie. You have to know you are lying, and if not, you’re extremely ignorant and argue out of ignorance, which is what you say is, “arbitrary arguing.”

And Jan: the prophecies are clear, that the Old Testament spoke of him. Only someone stupid and deluded who after CAREFULLY examining the evidence for these prophecies would deny that they are true. And why wouldn’t you believe being that you believe in magic and religion? And you refer to “many” scholars who side with you: WHO? AND WHAT IS THEIR MAIN AND/OR SECONDARY FIELD OF STUDY? Who Jan? Carl Sagan? Julia Childs? Martha Stewart? Paris Hilton? Ted Turner? Bill Gates? Donald Trump? There are more scholars in opposition to yours, real scholars of Biblical archeology, real scholars of the Shroud of Turin, real theologians, who don’t get high on drugs as a main method of learning the truth, who stay in their right mind and don’t rely on false visions and hallucinations, yet you act like because you merely say “many” that that is proof enough. The Bible says not to be filled with wine, but with the Spirit, not “mushrooms”. The “owness” is on you, you “owe” us the proof that mere mushrooms are at the core of Christianity.

May God unblind him, remove his hypocrisy from him, and save him.

More Information:

The Shroud of Turin (This site is very extensive).
Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Volume 1: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith

Kenneth Miller’s (of Brown.edu) Evolution Propaganda Fails

Post link: http://delusional.tk

Evolutionary Biology is very much like the pseudoscience Phrenology

Professor or former Professor Kenneth R. Miller, of Brown University, said, “Though some insist that life as we know it sprang from a Grand Designer’s Original blueprints, Biology offers new evidence that organisms were cobbled together layer upon layer by a timeless tinkerer called evolution.”

An Evolutionary Tree Made by the Fraud Scientist and Evolutionist Ernst Haeckel

A weird coincidence, after posting this article on the 27th,
and then this morning looking for evolution trees, found
this circular version, but then looking to the right noticed
a smaller version, placed against this phrenology looking ad!

Here’s yet another evolution tree I found before the one on New Scientist,
and is in conflict with the others. Interesting to note that this comes from
the nih.gov website (a US government website), and that on the page it is
described as a “Phylogeny showing evolutionary relationships”.
Very strange how much that sounds like phrenology!

Question: why do evolutionists keep resorting to flowery speech and poetry? Can they talk plainly and straight for once instead of like narcissist goof balls? That evolutionists keep talking like that is a clue that many narcissists take to this stupid theory, the reason being that it frees man from having to be responsible to God and makes out man to be the Intelligent One for revealing and understanding evolution (which is a weak way of trying to come close to being the Designer) and opens up the possibility for man to be a Creator himself by genetic engineering and finding out how to create life (which evolutionists imagine they will one day learn, because they tie in evolution to how life was created yet hypocritically accuse creationists as being the only ones who do that).

Second question: Why is Kenneth likening evolution to being a designer? Evolution isn’t a designer of anything, it’s a natural process according to the definition, just like the wind and space dust eroding a rock away. The wind and space dust aren’t designing anything by eroding away a rock.

Third question: what evidence? Kenneth like all other evolutionists are all talk and no substance. On the page from which I got those quotes is NO EVIDENCE. Rather, it’s THEIR DELUSIONS, their day dreaming:

“But evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures, if we can imagine a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simplex to the complex.”

Yes, just imagine it people, and look at a few pictures of made up steps or watch a cartoon of dinosaurs running around on the Discovery or History Channel, or pictures of an angry T-Rex eating meat in Discover Magazine or Scientific American, which never stop preaching Darwinism or Evolution. Talk about “all you say God all the time:” Shut up yourself with your 100% faith-based materialistic preaching. The evidence for evolution is chanting, dreams, poetry, cartoons, coloring books and liberal dandy’s playing dress-up in movies. I have no problem with hypothesizing, with imagining how something might be possible, but if there is no evidence to support it, and there is none to support evolution theory hypothesis, then it’s not something you can truthfully teach as being factual or proven or evident, especially if there’s evidence against it, and there is plenty, easily found, on my journal, throughout the Internet, books in libraries all over the world, and from what can be observed of nature.

Keep your cult out of God’s universe and shut up with that stupid vain “keep your religion out of my science” line. It’s “my twisted reality disguised as science so that I don’t have to admit responsibility for my actions and how completely not good I am” that should be used in place of “science.” May I ignore you evolutionists now, or are you going to break “your” logical fallacy lists again and leave me a comment appealing to emotion, ad hominem, mere rhetoric, or concluding before examining the evidence, like this one which commits all four fallacies at once: “You idiot. You know evolution is right and creation wrong, right?” Or how about begging the question: “Just look at this website right here about how bacteria learned to eat citrus fruits which it could never do before.” And your point is? It would have to be: therefore God wasn’t needed to make the universe, life, lightning and mud can come to life, and mud can turn into men. If we can just imagine it, just have faith, it will be true, and the Christians will finally disappear. Just name it, and claim it.

Update 12/30/2011: A blog I found while looking for evolutionary tree pictures. Notice the description of the blogger here, “Callan draws cartoons.” Third story on the blog of this geology teacher: “19 December 2011Video book review: cartoon books”. Can you smell the science? I checked out Alexa (an unreliable site for statistics on websites when if they have a small amount of traffic) and saw that it says mostly 65 year olds and older with no kids go to this website mostly from some location at school. Can anyone say, “Old evolutionists stuck in their ways”?

Related Information:

Unique Fungal RNA Splicing Mechanism Strikes a Blow Against Darwinian Evolution

Ian Punnet Heaps Up Another False Teacher on Coast to Coast AM

Dr. Judith Orloff, a New Ager, who calls herself an intuitive and psychiatrist, is scheduled to be a guest on Coast to Coast AM tonight. Her website slogan is,

“You possess an intuitive intelligence so powerful it can
help you heal, relieve stress, and find emotional freedom”

Yet we still need Judith to tell us that and help us to use it, even though it’s powerful and we can already know things just by trying and without having to reason. Can someone give me a, “Making money off the gullible.”? And what is “intuitive intelligence”? Like all New Agers, Judith is using catchy New Age cliches. The usual are: evolve (that word copied off materialist and humanist evolutionists who also sometimes or often use the word in a vague way), healing, aura, vibration, vibrational, energy, lower energy, higher energy, higher self, lower self, negative, positive, light, love, abstract, emotional, intuition, inner self, spirit, spirituality, negative forces and positive forces. Such words and phrases are used in vague ways by New Agers, never described precisely, and that is because they are vague and abstract themselves, not thinking carefully and with precision, but carelessly and sloppily, and going with their vague feelings rather than precise and logical reasoning. They assumed that it’s a good thing to think in “abstract” ways rather than to be specific, and by doing so, are easily manipulated by Satan, who pushes and pulls at the hearts of those who are ignorant of and against God. Intuition in the way she most likely used it, means,

“direct perception of truth, fact, etc., SEPARATE from ANY reasoning process”. But when she said “intelligence” she committed a logical fallacy because the word can mean two different things in the way she used it. She wasn’t specific. It can mean, “capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and teaching” or ” a high mental ability” to do those things.

But, either way she’s saying a person has the ability to directly know the truth without reasoning using your mind (Satan would have everyone “think” this way, because by following your heart, you’re bound to fail and sin, because the heart as God says, is desperately wicked. And history shows how unreliable the human heart is for doing what is right and best.)

If however she specifically meant, “ability to know the truth apart from reasoning by a high mental ability to reason” she’d be contradicting herself, and that wouldn’t be surprising to me being that she’s a New Ager who thinks in abstract and vague ways rather than using careful reasoning.

On Facebook she contradicts herself again in a blurb under a picture of a person sitting on the edge of a pointed cliff. It says,

“My job as a psychiatrist is to help others find light in darkness. Don’t let the dark seduce you! The light is always there”

The contradiction is saying that the (bad) darkness has light in it that is good. How can darkness of light in it? That’s nonsensical. Further, if it’s bad how can it have good within it? If she meant, “goodness in a bad situation,” then why not just be specific and clear and say that then? If she meant, “good thoughts among your bad thoughts,” it would be pointless. So what if you have good thoughts among bad thoughts, thoughts of helping the poor among thoughts of murdering them, what about it? Is someone helped by simply saying, “You have thoughts of helping the poor, don’t think about the fact that you also feel like murdering them.” Is that how you help someone, by getting them to think about their “positive” thoughts and pretend they don’t have evil thoughts? Imagine trying to help a murderer or liar by saying, “Don’t think about the fact that you’re always lying/murdered 40 people, focus only on the good you’ve done.” Can a person become good by that, by not confessing their sins to God for forgiveness and repenting of them? To say to someone, “Deal with your evil impulses by thinking only about the good you’ve done,” is the same as saying, “Ignore your never-ending evil desires by thinking about doing honorable things or thinking about honorable things you’ve done, and by doing that, you’ll no longer have evil desires.” But what is the evidence of that? What’s the evidence that ignoring your guilt by thinking of doing good deeds or on your good deeds is healthy, will set you, “emotionally free” whatever that means, and will get rid of “the darkness” whatever that is? Vague, vague, vague, baseless, baseless, baseless! Her “therapy” and “counseling” is useful for turning someone into a psychopath, sociopath or narcissist if it were started early enough on someone, and faciliates the ones who are adults. To say, “It’s good to be emotionally free” is horrible. It’s like saying, “It’s good to do whatever you feel like doing, to be like a wild animal, and to have no self control.”

She described her “help” accurately by claiming that she was someone who could find light in the darkness; she thinks evil (negativity) can produce good, or has goodness (positivity) in it.

Update 10:48 PM: Judith just said “linear knowledge” to solve brain problems isn’t the only way. What does that mean? And then said that “just because something sounds right doesn’t mean it’s true.” But then a few words later contradicted by saying that if it doesn’t feel right it can’t be true. It’s a contradiction because a thing can sound right either based on how you feel, think or all three. It’s a perfect example of how New Agers don’t make sense because they use a word in a way that can have multiple meanings and in this case one of them contradicts her point.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine.
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great
number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Timothy 4:3

2-Year-Old Girl Run Over THREE TIMES and Ignored by EIGHTEEN Passerbys, Rescued by a Scavenger

The girl who was hit and ignored is named Yue Yue (as of 12-23-2011 it seemed over 3,500,000 have seen the video)

“the love of many will grow cold.” -Matthew 24:12

Incredible to see such evil behavior (and from guess who: atheists no doubt), but, I was even more shocked by the one who first picked up the child because she did it in a crude way, but later I found out she was elderly and probably didn’t have the best education being that she was a “trash scavenger.”

“October 13th, afternoon around 5:30, a car accident occurred at the Guangfo Hardware Market in Huangqi of Foshan. A van hit a 2-year-old little girl and then fled. No passersby reached out to help and then another car ran over her. Over the span of 7 minutes, a total of 17 people passing by failed to extend a hand or call the police, up until the 19th person, a garbage scavenger ayi [older woman], who lifted her up after discovering her but the little girl in her arms was like a noodle, immediately collapsing back onto the ground. The trash scavenger ayi called for help, and the little girl’s mother, who was in the vicinity, immediately rushed over and rushed her to the hospital.”

One Chinese commenter on this video said:

It isn’t ignoring, it’s not daring. If one were to encounter a Nanjing judge, one would be screwed.

[Note: "Nanjing judge" refers to the infamous 2006 case of a man named Peng Yu who helped a woman to the hospital after she had fallen only to have the old woman accuse him of knocking her down. The Nanjing judge in that case ultimately ruled that common sense dictated that only the person who hit her would take her to the hospital, setting a precedent that continues only further discourages and reinforces many Chinese people's wariness to help others in similar situations.]

Another person commented,

I wouldn’t necessarily send her into the hospital, but I would definitely make a call, and call for help. For those people who saw and then made a detour around her, have your consciences all been “eaten by a dog” [lost]? May your own children be the next Yue Yue [name of the 2-year-old girl who was run over in the video].

And another said,

Those people who walked by are animals. No, even some animals have compassion and would at the very least stop to take a look. Those 18 pigs who walked by should also be arrested and taught a lesson with 15 days [in jail]. Instead it was the waste scavenger ayi from other parts [of the country] who had a conscience.

Video and more info here.

Good news!: The woman who helped the little girl (Chen Xianmei) was awarded 25,000 Yuan! ($3,945.40 USD)

” When receiving the money she said Chen Xianmei accepting the Nanhai District Civilization Office’s appreciation, thoroughly reluctantly accepting the reward money. As a simple person, she kept repeating, “I didn’t help her for money.” ” This reminds me of this saying from the Messiah “For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” (Matthew 23:12)

Here’s a different story from China with opposite news: Chinese Crowd Lifts SUV to Rescue Run Over Child in Wenzhou. I wonder if these were atheists too.

Euro Isn’t Sustainable Say Experts | Britain Likely to Go Into a Depression

Britain’s GDP growth. Source: ONS

Definition of ‘Liquidity’

1. The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset’s price. Liquidity is characterized by a high level of trading activity. Assets that can be easily bought or sold, are known as liquid assets.

2. The ability to convert an asset to cash quickly. Also known as “marketability”. – From Investopedia

BlueCrest’s Platt Says European Banks Insolvent Amid Crisis – Transcript | Video

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard: euro is ‘unsaveable’
Telegraph columnist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard tells Robert Miller why the single currency cannot work in its current form, and what he believes will happen to the eurozone next. – Audio

Disbanding The Euro – A Worst-Case Scenario

Only time will tell if we are past the worst of the debt crisis in Europe, or simply enjoying a calm amidst the storm. In either case, the crisis in Greece and the fears of its spread into Spain, Italy and Portugal have led many financial analysts and commentators to seriously consider what had once been mostly the domain of crackpots – the notion that the euro could collapse and vanish altogether.This is no small matter. Of the 10 largest economies in the world, four use the euro as their currency. Roughly 330 million Europeans use the euro every day, while nearly 200 million people use currencies that are pegged to the euro (many of them in Africa). It is also the second most-used currency as a reserve currency, with roughly one-quarter of the world’s reserves held in euros. – More here

Economy watch: Is Britain heading back into recession?
By Andrew Oxlade
Last updated at 7:26 PM on 21st December 2011

With 2011 drawing to a close – and a year of feeble recovery for the economy – experts are queuing up to warn that the UK may see a return to recession in early 2012.

Two well regarded bodies have issued worrying recent forecasts: The Organisation of Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) and the National Institute of Economic & Social Research (NIESR).

The NIESR estimates a 70% risk of a double-dip recession (3 November) while the OECD predicts recession for the first-half of the year (28 November). – More here

More Atheists Misleading In Self-Righteous Hypocrisy

“Often, a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself, whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy ” Charles Darwin…Life and Letters 1887 – sandra, Liverpool England, More False Witness Bearing by creationists. Another one breaks the 9th commandment. Dear Sandra, I would ask you and other creationists to stop misrepresenting Darwin and other scientists by mining their quotes. This above comes from a letter to Darwin’s friend, Charles Lyell. The next line is: “Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you (Lyell) and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace.” Darwin, unlike creationists, was intellectually honest and always presented a problem before offering the solution. Creationists usually cut and paste only the problem and try to sully Darwin and science with it. It’s a murky, ugly, untruthful business is quote mining, but desperate creationists are happy to do it in the name of their myth.

- Duster, Canterbury, Kent, 07/6/2010 20:31

Rating   41

And it’s a myth because Duster, part of the group that killed 150,000,000 people in the past 100 years in the name of “I’m God, there is no God” not including millions of aborted babies, which in China atheists forcefully abort and try to stop from being born by sterilizing women after having just one (wow talk about “extremists” and “fanatics” and “kooks”) — because Duster who cares about Darwin being taken out of context, but not the deeds of Christians, creationists, theists or God, said so. Get saved Duster, before it’s too late for you.

James, London said that atheism was: “The belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.” As a faithful Christian, James, i’m sure you live and fear the 10 Commandments and believe that if you break one, you’re off to hell. Well, you’ve broken the 9th: thou shalt not bear false witness. I would fear if I were you. Your false witness here is against non-belief in your god and all gods, and also against science. Atheists only believe in one less god than you, James, and please show me any astronomer who says “nothing magically exploded for no reason”. And for stuff “rearranged itself for no reason”? Again, false witness: there was a reason: reproduction. You’ve broken the 9th Commandment, James. Really…

- Duster, Canterbury, Kent, 07/6/2010 20:20

Rating (-1)

“As a faithful Christian, James, i’m sure you live and fear the 10 Commandments and believe that if you break one, you’re off to hell.” Duster just showed his massive ignorance of Christianity. Duster doesn’t even know the absolute basics of the Bible aka Christian teachings, yet a room full of atheists rushed to vote up his last comment in which he mined creationists for one alleged quote, taking a liar, out of context, a liar who stole credit for his theory, from guess what?: Just a creationist. Just Edward Blyth, a naturist.

Art, Austin, TX, said,: “Please don’t force me to correct you again. We discussed this before, remember? The Earth-Sun system is CLOSED..” The earth is not a closed system: sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth. Even if entropy did occur, evolution does not violate basic physical laws because evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Evolution occured only after life originated – however that happened, either supernaturally (unlikely) or naturally (most probably). Even major creationist orgganisations like Answers in Genesis says the 2nd law of thermodynaimcs should not be used as an argument against evolution.

- Duster, Canterbury, Kent, 07/6/2010 20:09

Rating   18

And even the former atheist Antony Flew had to admit there was at least a God of some kind after carefully examining DNA, but despite all of Duster’s careful examining, he refuses to see anything but arguments that can be used against creationists, despite none of them proving evolution possible, logical, or creationism illogical. Talk about intellectual dishonest and pathological science. Deeply sinful.

“The atheists lunatic belief system: In the beginning there was NOTHING – and absolutely nothing was happening to absolutely nothing. Then, one random day – absolutely nothing exploded and absolutely nothing became… absolutely EVERYTHING. Then the nothing that became everything (for no reason at all) rearranged itself into self-replicating, intricately complex life forms. ” – Michael, Scotland, 5/6/2010 11:21 Or your version…. One day there was an omnipotent being who decided to create the most enormous universe full of stars and planets… he chose one little one, put some stuff on it and then did nothing but watch as they killed themselves for millenia… so he sent his ‘son’ to die for us. A bunch of (uneducated) guys in huts 2000 years ago wrote a book about it which has spawned countless wars and even though we’ve made huge scientific steps since then, people still believe what’s written in that old book…. that make more sense? As it doesn’t to me!

- Oli, Braintree, Englishland, 07/6/2010 13:43

Rating   60

“Or your version….”

Whose version?

“One day there was an omnipotent being”

Another person (atheist? agnostic?) who doesn’t know Bible basics: it Bible doesn’t say God suddenly one day appeared, nor that the day appeared at the same time as God. Truly stupid. Truly ignorant.

“who decided to create the most enormous universe full of stars and planets…”

You committed logical fallacy “begging the question”: what does enormity and being full of stars and planets (actually mainstream scientists claim that most of the universe is empty. Millions of people have already been told that. it seems to me you’re not very informed as me and don’t keep up with the latest science. Further “the most enormous universe” in comparison to what other universe? The little imaginary one that exploded one in your skull? Did you read some book about parallel universes or dote on mainstream science fictional tales in the few news articles you read about how “there’s a giant gap in the universe, billions of light years of an expanse with nothing there and scientists think it might be the entrance to another universe” and then all the sudden it’s as real as a billions and billions of years old Carl Sagan big bang that you saw exploding?

“he chose one little one,”

Where does the Bible say he chose one place to put life on, when throughout the Bible it talks about angels? You also made a strawman argument: do all Christians say God only made life in one area of the universe? Further, even if it were true, you committed the fallacy of begging the question again: what is your point? You’re point, because you are a morally blind and morally backwards person, is that it’s arrogant to think God would do so, as if you are God of all, or greater than him or his judge to say, “How arrogant of you to choose one place to make life.” Huh? Because? Confused much? And as if you know the future? And read all the atheists here railing against me for pointing out THE NEARLY MILITANT ATHEIST CARL SAGAN’S ABSURD IMPLICATION THAT THE ONLY LIFE THAT EXISTS IS ON EARTH! BUT, “DAMN THEM CHRISTIANS NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY! GOD MADE ME MAD AND DIDN’T GIVE ME MY WAY! HE LETS BAD THINGS HAPPEN! UH UH UH HE DOESN’T LET ME EXPERIENCE WHATEVER I WANT TO! LIKE BAD THINGS! UH UH UH…” Endless contradictions and arbitrary circular reasoning. When will, it end? When will atheists who protest against Christianity no matter what good they see coming from Christians concede they are wrong about God not existing? Pride comes before a fall.

“put some stuff on it”

Listen to that idiot atheist rant. So you have Carl Sagan, an idol among most atheists, seems to me at least, and many atheists trouncing all over Christians with words like, “There’s just this one pale blue dot we know about, precious life all over, glory and beauty all over, look at all the beautiful billions and BIILLLIOOONS of stars my children! Weeee look at me run through the beautiful evolved grass and the beautiful invisible wind that no one can see rushing through my hair but trust me the wind exists even though you can’t directly see it weeee look at me run! Look how I evolved to be able to out run the monstrous dinosaurs and other humans to survive and because my DNA wanted to replicate! Weeee, oh look at the glorious flowers and beautiful everything you crazy evil wicked sinful theists who causes wars and misery and death everywhere due to YOUR gods YOUR God YOUR beliefs (and says very quickly) NOT MINE! and weeee loooook at meeeeeeeeeeeee… you only have one life to live you twists see how awesome the universe is don’t waste your life!” But, you, an idiot, a typical atheist, coming up with an arbitrary argument in smugness and hate and bitterness, have to say the opposite of what you know to be false, just to, “get the Christian to chase his tail” and out of spite for God. The very same group that faults Christians for being stupid for wasting their precious life by not experiencing the “wonderful and beautiful” universe by not “living life to the fullest” (meaning agreeing with whatever an atheist says is fun and good, not the Christians’ version), just say, “stuff” now, because oh: it’s just a stupid Christian ur talkin’ too. Talk about hypocrites. Conniving, evil, wicked, lying, deceptive, time-wasting, hypocrites. How much more of atheist “bullshit” do theists have to listen to before locking them up for temporary insanity, hopefully temporary. Lock those war-starting atheists away. Yes: you are the ones who start wars: 150 million dead in hundred years thanks to atheist communists. And being that atheists lie so much you can’t even trust that they aren’t just using communism as propaganda to get their way, to, how do you say it, “using religion as a tool to control people.”

“and then did nothing but watch as they killed themselves for millenia…”

Wow, really, did not even read page one of the Bible. Here we go again with atheists coming up with arbitrary arguments, committing the fallacy of “circular reasoning”, another damn God if he does damn God if doesn’t argument. Fault: 1) I thought atheists DON’T want God getting involved in every single little thing they do because, “Look how he’s CONSTANTLY ANGRY AT EVERYONE, KILLING LEFT AND RIGHT AND COMMITTING GENOCIDE”, but now, switcharoo: God “don’t do nothin, he just made stuff and watches without feelin’”. What a provoker.

“so he sent his ‘son’ to die for us.”

But wait: you just said he sat and watched, as if he felt nothin’, but all the sudden he sent his (ONLY, PERFECT, AT-ONE-WITH-HIM) son to DIE (WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ETERNITY COMPRESSED INTO THREE DAYS SUFFERING FOR COUNTLESS SINNERS WITH COUNTLESS SINS!?!? WHAT AN ARROGANT DECEPTIVE TRIVIALIZER! YOU SOUND LIKE SATAN MAN!) for us, to DIE for US, THE ENTIRE PLANET(?), but now all the sudden, according to you, God decides, “I’ll send my son to die for them.” Wow you are no story teller, no Bible-story writer. You can’t tell a story that make sense like God can, or those “primitives living in huts” could/. And what happened to the “caves” myth/cliche?. First humans only lived in caves now they only lived in huts.

And despite God dying for “us” you still hate him, even if he died for over 50 billion people, with countless sins. And really?: you care about “millions” of people (theists) dying let alone one, Mr.: “I See No Communist Atheists Muderin’ No One,” Mr. “I Was Around For the Past 6,500 Years to Be Tormented at All the Millions of Deaths I Saw Just as I Was Around To See Evolution First Happen 12 Billion Years Ago and Before that When I Saw the Big Bang Happen!” — huh? just millions? No: over a billion people have died over thousands of years, and over billions more if we really were around for millions and billions of years. You speak CARE-LESS-LY, without care, without care for the truth, just like all atheists. You’re sloppy-minded, like a drunk person, drunk on your delusions of grandeur, thinking you’re superior to God, as if God was just a cloud floating in the sky even though that doesn’t come anything close to the definition of “God.”

“A bunch of (uneducated) guys in huts 2000 years ago”

Wow I’m reading the words of a major moron: You still haven’t seen these things called “pyramids”? Where u been man? Living in a cave, Mr. Uneducated? You haven’t even seen a National Geographic propaganda movie of any kind, no commercials, no magazine covers of the “primitives” you’re talking about? Speed up your education guy who lives in a house superior to a hut (cuz don’t you know what you live in is a definite sign of your intelligence, uh, no): http://ooparts.tk, http://forbiddenarch.tk. Or, you could just look up “pyramids” in Wikipedia, dominated by your fellow nerdier-and-living-in-a-darker-danker-basement-than-you atheists friends.

wrote a book about it which has spawned countless wars

Why are you so gullible? Why do you keep repeating a myth? Biased much? Ignorant of history much? You can’t even check the atheist controlled Wikipedia? What “countless” wars moron? Count some for us: which wars? Are you going to refer to the CATHOLICS? Are all Catholics “Christian”? Are all Christians Catholic? And listen to what an idiot this person is: he’s said “all wars are bad.” So no war is fought for a just reason? No fight is fought for a good reason? You might as well have said, “all defending is bad,” “all attacking is bad”, and you do both with your words. Yet another example of how illogical anti-Christians are, yet another overgeneralizing, sterotyping, assuming, hypocritical, simplelton.

and even though we’ve made huge scientific steps since then,

Like what idiot? This is another moron who thinks atheists paved the way for scientific advancements and that atheists came up with all the great scientific advancements and that evolutionism was the cherry on top (despite it only being shown as having been useful for COUNTLESS MURDERS: STALIN, HITLER, POL POT, KIM IL JUNG, AMERICAN EUGENICISTS, and other serial killers. See how hypocritical atheist-defenders are? Their accusations apply to them, not the Christians they lump in together with the fakes in their arrogance and carelessness. It’s the atheist Bible that spawns countless fights and deaths and endless strife. The “spawning of evil” comes from those who worship false gods, and multiply them, those who worship themselves and other humans, comic book characters and animals, and out of HATRED for God’s word is evil spawned, from atheists included, not THE BIBLE, you spawn of Satan. “Your father is the devil, and he was a liar and murderer from the beginning.” Satan, the accuser, the hypocrite accuser and judge, who condemns God throughout the day, just like his children do, yet do the very things they accuse the righteous of.

people still believe what’s written in that old book….

Look how stupid this guy is; he’s so dumb he commits one of the most obvious logical fallacies: “Age Fallacy”. “It’s old therefore it must no longer be useful.” Cool so all I have to do is wait for you to turn some “old” age for you to be wrong about whatever you’ve said, all I have to do is say, “Darwin is dead and old and so is evolution babble.” So many contradictions in atheist ranting. Oh and, since “don’t murder” and “don’t lie” is “old” (ancient even), it must not matter if I lie to or murder you, right Mr. “I’m New”? Or is that what you just believe for yourself and fellow Christian-haters? You sure are “new.”

people still believe what’s written in that old book…. that make more sense?

No Mr. New Drama Dots, that doesn’t make sense. You’re grammar is nonsensical, which is typical of an atheist.

As it doesn’t to me!

Not only does that sentence not make sense to me, it doesn’t make sense at all. What an idiot. But this idiot, got 60 votes up, no doubt mainly from atheists. There were sixty votes up for this rant, this stupid, childish, oaf’s rant. If that isn’t an awesome sign of how stupid anti-Christians and atheists are, if that isn’t evidence of proof, then what is? Do they need to be seen punching themselves in the mouth or running into brick walls over and over saying, “I can defeat you!” til they drop dead?

I belive in the planet god Staurnius. He says that all life is of him and within him. Without him there is nothing. He declares his existance through our belief in him, shun science, burn your books of evil and worship at his orbit. His physical manifestation can be seen with a telescope, the planet you call saturn.

- Saturnius Priest, omnipitent, 07/6/2010 13:17
Rating   10

A moron atheist gets ten votes up because he compared the most influential helpful religion and book in the world, tested against 4000 years of time, and lasted, and bested all other books after all that time, is still used as an archeological guide even by atheists, and used for studying ancient languages, to his little rant about about worshiping a planet. And even though they knew that the Bible says not to worship material things, as do true Christians (not talking about “Pentecostal” Arminian idiots), to use reason, to have evidence for what you believe and not to assume and not to lie, they compare it to a priest worshiping a planet and to the “superior” “logical” atheists whose lives are based on science and worship science (so they claim) yet when it’s pointed out that they use emotional ranting in place of science, they ask you, “what u talkin’ bout science for?” Uhhhhh: because you idiots keep including it in your attacks and basing your claims on your so called science? Just like this Saturn rant? “Duh”? Yet you make fun of “retards” and claim Christians and theists are “retards”? BLIND, DUMB, IGNORANT, ARROGANT, HYPOCRITES. No atheists, it’s not the lovers of Christ or the God who created all the planets and matter in the universe that are apart of an obscure and bizarre anti-reasoning cult, that’s you Mainstreamers who believe you saw a big bang billions and billions of Carl Sagan years ago, saw gas turning into planets and stars, saw energy turning into rocks, saw magic soup puddles giving birth to little animals when hit with Dr. Frankenstein’s lightning, saw evolution over billions and billions of years of these little animals turning into laughing, dancing, singing, sexual humans, turning into male and females subduing their environment and choosing to worship an invisible creator, who think you see transitional fossils, a bag full as proof that these things happened, who think you still see stars forming from gas and planets from rocks floating around billions and billions of light years away, who think that moths being born with spots is proof that laughing, dancing, singing, sex-having, exploring, God-worshiping humans, came from little living thingies that you can’t see and can’t even describe, and can’t show to anyone. Talk about believers in the “invisible”. Talk about “deluded”. Talk about “kooks” and “cranks” and “crackpots”. Talk about mere faith and needing faith and talking about faith all the time because of zero evidence for what you believe in. Your cult even is a perfect description of how you think: “Mainstream” as in “Because we’re the authority, majority, most popular and most accepted, we’re the right and good ones!” Wow! What happened to those logical fallacy lists that you hijacked and spread all over the Internet in the name of “no gods no guilt”? You’re similar to the false pastors Jesus described, you jump over the sheep gate rather than come in through the Gate with permission, pretending to be a shepherd, rob the sheep, then jump over the gate like a thief in the night after doing damage. You repeat logical fallacies while committing them, because you could care less about them in the first place, and just want to appear wise without having to do the work to truly be wise. You are blind guides leading the blind trying to lead the sighted as well, but you fall into a pit while trying.

This Saturnian priest is a typical atheist; he doesn’t know what science is. He couldn’t use a spellchecker, but got ten votes up. Or is that his dumb way of saying, “Theists can’t spell”? And what a statement that deserves voting up right? “Theists can’t spell, dey don’t do science, dey not builded no pyramids, no dey builded nuttin, dey uh, um, dey war all dah time so dat why der is none left and why atheists rule da world and why atheists are the most biggerest group in da world and why der is only 4 persent of theists in world now.” Talk about “bigotry”, “hateful” and “war spawning”. And he thinks he’s being scientific by mere mockery. Truly an idiot. It’s typical for atheists to vote up any “old” cliches, any nonsense, as long as it’s directed against theists. Truly stupid. No moron atheists: the idiots are you, because all you do is pretend to be scientific by saying, “Nanny nanny ur not scientific, we’re the scientists.” or good even though you watched without protest, or a little feeble protesting when it came to standing up for your enemies when they were unjustly attacked. You’re no better then the same who watched while the Jews were taken away to be humiliated and brutally murdered under the pretense of being thieves and anti-progress, and no better than those who committed those crimes. No moron atheists, it’s you who “builded” nothing, there are no pyramids standing in your legacy. You are a tiny minority, because you’re bitterly unpleasant, self-destructive, negative (despite that some of you pretend or delude yourself into thinking that atheism is about living life to the fullest and that fullest means, “being morally good while having fun”), hypocrites, plainly not trustworthy, murderous, arrogant, morally shallow, self-centered brutes.

But here’s something that isn’t taken out of context, said by Darwin: he said that evil existed. Now what, is evil? Can the evolution or survival of the fittest god tell us what evil is? Why did Darwin say evil existed if there’s no God whose personality decides what is evil or not? Is evil killing an animal to eat it? Is it killing at all? Is it lying, stealing, murdering, dishonoring your parents, worshiping false gods, blaspheming God, breaking the Sabbath? What is it? Is it animals killing other animals to survive or for fun? Show me the law book of evil, Duster, which one should I obey? Are you God, Duster, to tell me which laws are evil or not? Or is everything just opinions? And there is the ever present problem for atheists: they know there are absolute things which are good and things which are absolutely wrong, but because of their disgust for God, they can’t explain why and leave you with drama dots for their answer, or the truth, “I don’t care.”

“A fool gets no pleasure from understanding anything, but only in airing his opinions.” – from Proverbs of King Solomon

Mormons On Sex and the Intelligence of First Created Beings: More Fatal Flaws In ”Divine” Mormon Doctrine

There was a Mormon couple in my house months ago, and they were, or rather the husband mostly, explaining to me how Adam and Eve were literally like zombies, “just there” as one half-black Mormon missionary put it, till they sinned by eating of the forbidden fruit, and since God wanted them to become gods like him, the sin was actually a good thing. Many true Christians when reading what I just said will no doubt to me recall this verse: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah/Isa 5:20) as they will when anyone does such a thing. Beyond that, the husband told me that Adam and Eve wouldn’t have been able to have children even, had they not done that, because they didn’t know how to have sex (therefore eating it would reveal how to them). I’m guessing their “divine prophet” and narcissist founder Joseph Smith had been asked by someone, probably a follower, about how they learned, and wondered how exactly it happened, and Joseph, knowing it would be awkward to many to say, “God showed them how” or just told them, fobbed it off by basically blaming the fruit for doing it. “The fruit tricked me God!” The husband also said he had wondered for a long time why God would tell them to be fruitful and multiply when they wouldn’t have figured out how unless they ate of the fruit, and gave me the example of it being like a father trying to teach his son a lesson by putting him out alone in a dangerous world and forcing him to sin so that he’d know what it was like to be evil. And this is why those teachings are very wrong and show a lack of common sense:

1) There’s no indication at all that Adam and Eve were just staring blankly into space. It says that God breathed into them a living soul, and that Adam that named various kinds of animals (no atheists, not every single sub-type, so calm down and take a chill pill and try not to burst a vein). And it would be utterly stupid to think God would command A&E to tend the garden when they were just going to lie on their backs despite being alive and Adam having just named dozens or hundreds of animals in hours. So, clearly they were intelligent and acted intelligently and had the ability to learn. If not, they would have repeatedly had to ask God for every single little thing like, “God will it be okay to place my foot in this spot?” and so on. Further, they couldn’t die, which would have protected them from what for us would be deadly mistakes. That’s another indication that had the ability to learn without having to be told everything.

2) If God commanded them to do something, like “be fruitful and multiple” why wouldn’t it be common sense to think they would have asked them, like any curious child (and the Mormons did insist that they were “just children”), that they would ask God what he meant, and like a good and intelligent father, would tell them? There is no indication in the Bible that it was a sin for God to teach them about sex, either directly or indirectly.

3) The Mormons, without evidence for doing so, link adulthood with the ability to learn about sex, or it being morally allowable for them to learn about sex, and linked adulthood with knowledge of right and wrong. There is no evidence at all that a person is only “an adult” if they learn about sex, not is there any evidence that children have an inability to learn about sex in anyway, and there is no evidence that Adam and Eve had no ability to learn about sex. To say “they were just children” like the Mormons said to me is extreme ignorance and as deceptive as Satan was at the garden. They were not merely children at all. To say “they were just children” is childish itself. Children, let alone 1 day old children aren’t born with the ability to speak fluently and use advanced concepts and to know how to garden like Adam and Eve were. They were born adults but without the knowledge of what good and evil were.

4) There’s no evidence that it’s immoral to teach a child about sex like was implied by the Mormons I met. For example, if in a culture where children are allowed to marry at 8 or 12 (Afghanistan and Spain), it wouldn’t be unwise to tell them what to expect. I’m not saying marrying a child off at 8 is wise, but what would be wise if that’s going to be the situation for them. And about half of America would agree, perhaps even most of the world, that it isn’t unreasonable to teach an 11 year old, or even less a 12 year old, what will be possible for their bodies to do within a year or two. But simply, there is no indication in the Bible anywhere that teaching a child about sex is immoral. There is a common sense teaching however, that even though some things are not said to be wrong, that that doesn’t mean they should be done. For example, teaching a child at a very early age (before seven) might hinder their ability to learn well.

5) It’s a contradiction to say that a person who doesn’t know about sex is a child, and because they are a child may not be told how to have it (in that it’s not possible for them to know because it would be immoral for God to do), and yet only become an adult by learning about it. In essence Mormons are saying, “They can’t become adults because God would never teach them about sex because it’s morally wrong for them to learn about it and God wouldn’t do anything immoral, and they became adults when they gained knowledge of it by eating of the fruit he provided for them which he tempted them to eat.” Do you see the contradiction? They are saying God wouldn’t teach them because “they’re just kids” but that he tempted them to find out by telling them to have kids themselves. It’s a plain contradiction and makes God out to be a perverted villain, and someone who tempts people to do wrong like Satan does.

6) The Bible doesn’t say that the forbidden fruit would impart technical knowledge on all subjects let alone sex, God simply said that it would impart the knowledge of good and evil, and he didn’t even say if he meant every single aspect of what good and evil are, or just the basics. If they learned about sex through the fruit then it would be just as reasonable to say that they gained all possible knowledge there was to gain, even knowledge of all future events. Who can believe that that was what happened? A Mormon might then say, “Well just as they only learned basic right and wrong, so also they only learned the basics about sex,” but that would be circular reasoning (the technical definition of it, which is arbitrary reasoning, meaning, “coming up with any explanation” to explain away one problem after another on whatever subject). The fact is, there’s no indication that the fruit imparted any other knowledge then moral knoweldge

7) By linking knowledge of how to have sex by eating the fruit, Mormons are saying that sex in and of itself is an evil thing, which is blasphemous and very absurd. That would mean in order to do what God says is good, that being to have children, they would have to sin. No wonder then that they are comfortable with saying that sinning/doing evil can be a good thing, and why they have no problem with doing what is obviously evil to others (and people can get into all kinds of examples of evil things Mormons do and how they minimize how bad they are by saying that Hell is really Earth, and “out darkness” is just being emotionally tormented, or at the worst, uncomfortable. Most of them will be in for a horrific scare when they wake up from death if they truly believed that upon dying.

8) Has anyone seen animals having sex? Who can deny that children could learn about it from watching the many kinds of animals God made? Furthermore, who except an ignorant person or someone to young to know or tell, that children experiment in ways that they don’t realize lead to learning how to do things which are sexual? Yet these Mormons that told me the sex-fruit story never brought this up, and acted completely ignorant about this. Furthermore, the Mormon claim that Adam and Eve were doing nothing might also be said as, “They were just bored because there wasn’t much for them to do but hang around the Garden.” Not much to do? If there truly wasn’t much to do don’t they think they would have experiment with their bodies and, just use your imagination with plants around them. Do Mormons think that God was just going to eat whatever they grew and leave nothing for them, or that God needed to eat everything? Obviously they would have had things left over to experiment with, and there were already plenty of things around to do it with. Or do the Mormons think God would have suddenly appeared and said, “No don’t use that that way?” Why would he? They were immortal and if they felt severe pain, obviously they would have stopped experimenting in whatever way was causing them severe pain. Further, sexual experimentation or mere experimentation wouldn’t have been evil for them to do because, just as the Mormons themselves say, “They were just children (who) didn’t know right from wrong.” NOT, “They didn’t know how to experiment.” That’s not what the fruit would have given them information about: “How to experiment,” no, it would have given them some basic knowledge about right from wrong, and that’s not “sex”, it would have been some instinctive awareness of what sin was. They would have felt GUILT when doing wrong, rather than NOTHING if they had done something wrong like lie or wound each other out of anger. Just as God said, it was the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, not “of the understanding of good and evil and how to have sex and how to experiment.” No, it wasn’t as Satan said, who said, “You’ll be like God” or “gods”, no, they wouldn’t have become like gods or God because that fruit/s didn’t impart technical knowledge let alone extensive tech knowledge let alone all-knowingness and and perfect understanding like God has. Does anyone know what God said to Job? Remember when he asked Job if he could do certain things or knew where certain things where? He was showing that Job EVEN WITH ALL HIS DECADES OF KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING, EVEN AS A GOOD MAN (and for a man to be called “good” is a very rare thing, rarer than finding a super beautiful woman), that even with all that Job was not even close to being a god. How much less would Adam and Eve have been then, who were just children? Do the Mormons seriously want the world to believe they suddenly became adults just because they ate of the fruit? Clearly they merely obtained basic instinctive knowledge, hence why they covered themselves up in guilt – they instinctively realized through their new knowledge, that their sins would somehow be seen by God when he was present, hence why they did the strange thing of trying to cover their bodies when there was no need to – covering themselves with leaves. Did they try to rush to make a gun to scare God away, or to make a spear or arrow to shoot the snake with, or did they try to build a little fort to hide in? Did they try to dig for precious minerals and try to carve or refine them to appease God with, or did they try to sacrifice an animal to appease him with? No: because they didn’t gain that kind of technical knowledge. They didn’t suddenly have knowledge of the Bible, or suddenly know the Law of Moses, or “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” If they did, surely they would have started writing those things down and would have suddenly become instant super wisemen. And would God really allow “children” to all the sudden at that time in history to gain the knowledge and wisdom that takes a decades or a thousand years to learn? That would sure be awkward if suddenly Adam and Eve knew the physiology of all animals, knew what every mineral was, what they were composed of, where to find them, how to craft metals into tools, how to make any recipe worth making, knew all there was to know about economics, and sex – no, that’s not what they gain from eating the fruits. So what more needs to be said about this? Mormonism is clearly wrong and an obvious cult to anyone who hasn’t been brainwashed since childhood or who didn’t allow themselves to be sleep deprived day after day for weeks being told the same lies and being told to repeat them.

9) How did animals learn about sex? Various animals are “stupid” (in comparison to humans when humans get to be a certain young age) according to God (though not entirely stupid of course, God programmed them with clever ways to survive). Did animals need to eat of the forbidden fruit? Did God cut up little pieces for them all to eat, did he stick a molecule of each fruit in their mouths? Mormons imply that God would be some sort of evil pervert to teach a young person about sex, how much more if he had deliberately fed the animals this fruit? And supposing he did let them eat of it, why was there no restriction on them? And wouldn’t that have made the animals super wise and intelligent as Mormons imply it made Adam and Eve when they ate of it? So this Mormon doctrine of how Adam and Eve “needed” to eat the fruit in order to have life and “not be zombies” or “just there” is full of holes.

10) Mormons claim that Adam and Eve couldn’t have found out about sex because the were just kids/children. Think about that, seriously pause and think about why that would be true. Problem: it will get you no where because it’s a non-nonsensical statement. Why? Most kids do learn about sex, so it’s a known fact that they CAN learn about sex even if kids. Besides that revealed type error, the statement is also a logical fallacy known as “begging the question”, because, it makes no point. It’s just as meaningful if I were to say that adults can’t learn about sex, and the reason being: because they are adults. See what I mean? There is no explanation, just a mere claim. Some would call that circular reasoning but that doesn’t seem to be the right term for just a statement like that, it actually means to repeatedly give a different answer (as if any answer is a right one), but that seems to be a poor term for what is simply someone being careless, literally having no concern for the truth. Further, the Mormons are contradicting themselves, because Adam and Eve learned about sex before even having lived seven days! They weren’t even “kids” using Mormon logic: THEY WERE BABIES! And you who say, “Oh what’s wrong with cults, as long as they are happy,” but does being that blind, blind to the utter in-your-face obvious, while defending such lies bring happiness, or lasting happiness? The more they learn about the truth, the unhappier they will be, and with truth all around them, Mormon adults can hardly be among the happiest of people, and from my observations, are one of the most uncomfortable.

11) Mormons imply that God would be a sexual pervert or sexually immoral if he were to teach kids about sex, so, they reason that he put the knowledge in a tree, and that he got around this/had a way of not being one by simply putting the knowledge in the tree, near to them, knowing they would eat of it anyways so that they would learn and be able to procreate like he commanded them. One Mormon said to me that he couldn’t understand why (why did he even have to try to figure out why? Shouldn’t the many so called prophets the Mormons have had come up with an answer by now, after about 100 years and as many prophets, still no answer from all these righteous and superior real Christians who have the keys to Heaven and us just being sinful misinformed ignorants? But, does their answer make moral sense? “I God want you to have sex so you can procreate, but I God cannot teach you about sex because it would be wrong, so then here’s a book on how so that you can learn from me without having to listen to me with your ears, but: don’t read it or you’ll figure out what sex is. Stay away from the book or I’ll kill you one day and trouble you and your children forever, figuratively and literally.” How is that a solution? It makes God, instead, insane, because he’s given a command that must be obeyed or Adam and Eve a command that can’t be fulfilled unless they disobeyed God in some way. Perhaps at the moment they bit into the fruit they wouldn’t have been guilty, as in having committed sin, but the instant they realized or felt right from wrong, and the moment their teeth sunk in further past that point, or the moment it went down their throats, they would have then been aware they were doing something that was not good, and guilty. According to the Mormon, God was teaching them a lesson about how hard life was as sinners, though his example was more detailed and was nonsensical, but I’ll skip over that for now. But does that make sense, that to “teach them how bad sin was AND to teach, or rather allow them to know about sex, in order to procreate (but not for pleasure?), he FORBADE them to learn how? It actually is true in that God made laws in order that mankind would have laws to break so that God could prove himself to be truthful and mankind to be inferior, not invincible, lie-prone, and (after having lied) to be liars in comparison to him. But, does their explanation about why God would command them to do something they couldn’t do, make sense? No it doesn’t. Here’s why: if God were to tell someone to do something, they were to do it WITHOUT disobeying him to do so. For example if God said, “Get the sword across from you,” but a person was in your way at that moment, but God said not to murder anyone, you wouldn’t need to murder a person to get the sword, you would just wait till they moved, or tell God about the problem. Same with A&E, if there was something hindering them from procreating, they could have simply told him. God has the right to test, and if he had given them an at-the-moment impossible task to fulfill, A and E, with their rational intelligent minds, could have simply said, “But God, how?” And if they didn’t know how God could have simply said, “See those bigfoot creatures over there,” or “Watch the monkeys and dogs, watch what they are about to do.” And like Genesis said, they had nothing to be ashamed of, they were sinless, guilty of nothing, no reason to be embarrassed or ashamed at having any sexual thoughts or watching animals do anything sexual.

12) Further, Mormons even seem to claim God commanded them to care for his garden with them being ignorant as to how to do so too. Now how stupid is that? In other words, they were mindless, nothing was going through their heads no matter what God said to them. But Genesis says just the opposite. The Mormon claim that Adam and Eve were “just there” as one missionary told me, or like zombies, is stupid and shows ignorance of the Bible, or is a deliberate denial of what it says. Because it clearly shows they were smarter than “the average” person, especially for how old they were, which was just a few days. Examples of extremely complex thought BEFORE having eaten the forbidden fruit:

Gen 2:21 …Yahweh God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.
Gen 2:22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.“
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?”
Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”
Gen 3:4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Gen 3:6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise

So, does that show Adam and Eve were just blank-minded, just there, standing around or lying on the ground doing nothing, without any wisdom or understanding, unable to move or reach for a rake or little trowel to shift anything around with, unable to pick up fallen fruit and move it anywhere or eat it, without knowledge of WOMBS or what goes in or out of them? Now think about this: these few sentences are in the first three pages of the Bible, which Mormons are born with, raised with, carry around all day, or sit with all day for sometimes hours in their “stakes” (churches, but what an appropriate name to call them stakes instead, like something that pierces there ground and used to skew the blind and defeated enemies on), and even into old age, they still aren’t aware of these things, don’t mention them, or deny them, the most astounding being, not being aware even into old age. One Mormon I met, who had been raised one, and was about the age of 16, said he’d never read the Bible before, as in, having read it for himself. That is what Mormons truly think of the Bible, how useless they think it is despite their, “We believe it to be God’s word,” despite their later doubling back after hooking you in and telling you it has mistakes and gaps and was only as perfect as the writers, BUT, their Book of Mormon conveniently is beyond mistakes or with so few, that it doesn’t matter if you believe the entire Book of Mormon, because the mistake would be so small and God would correct you later on. To them, the Bible is a husk, the Book of Mormon the filler, hence their general extreme ignorance of even simple teachings in the Bible. As soon as they read it it’s forgotten, or mixed up and buried under Joseph Smith’s ranting babble in the Book of Mormon and his Doctrines and Covenants. Should they seriously study the Bible using logical thinking rather than basing their logic based on their dead cult leader’s mere claims, their thick delusion would quickly fade away, and they’d start to have trouble socializing at church and feeling bad about saying “yes” to whatever their leaders and deluded friends and family told them was true. And they can’t have that, because they think they’d have no friends if they started to doubt, that their family would punish or abandon them, and would have no one else to go to for help except for “the bad world out there where no one is good except the Mormons.”

11) How would it make God a pervert to teach Adam and Eve about sex, or give animals instinctive knowledge of how? Was God a pervert for making Adam and Eve fully adult humans that could procreate as soon as they both had each other to mate with? Was he a pervert for not giving them clothing, but letting them walk around naked with fully formed genitals? Is he a pervert for giving people natural attraction? Yet Mormons make God out to be one by what they imply. Obviously being that people can be easily deluded, and be isolated so as to be so ignorant as to not know basic things in life, they can say such things without realizing what they are implying, so I don’t fault them all as deliberate liars, but they are still lying, and it’s not lies that set you free, not Satan who set Adam and Eve free (which some Mormons actually teach, and actually believe Adam and Eve disobeying God was a good thing, and seemingly are praising Satan by doing so), it’s truth that sets you free.

After getting up to point 6 in this post, I later read this in a Google search result at 9:30 PM yesterday: “Are you kidding me? Come on! You don’t have to know anything about sex to know how to have it! Naked guy… naked girl… things start to rise” I hadn’t thought of that. Clearly Adam and Eve, like animals, could have had instinctual reactions, especially God had made them perfectly attractive in some design he chose, and with their unhindered intelligence could have learned more through the desire to touch each other and experimentation just as all “kids” do, programmed to act in a scientific way, and often repeating new experiments til they obtain a pleasing result.

Wait, the Mormons have evidence that I’m all wrong and that you can just ignore all my points: It’s “Everything Knight says is lies because he speaks against The Prophet. He’s just an apostate Mormon. Everyone who attacks Prophet Smith is just Satan’s zombie robots repeating whatever he says to them. They’re just anti-Mormon. You don’t need to think or question Mormonism, just believe our Prophet. He makes everything all better. What he says is true because we know so in our hearts. We got a confirmation and it says he’s an honest man and can do no wrong and would never lie to us. Our feelings say so. Plus, I read the Book of Mormon and listen to it all the time, and I’ve never found any mistakes in it, and I’m an expert in English grammar and American history. Plus  the Prophet’s one and only wife divine golden plates that she showed to everyone, even his wife.” No, didn’t show them to anything close to everyone, and not even his wife saw them. Mormons believe it’s we Christians who are the robots with no free will, as do other ignorant people and chronic doubters, but it’s obvious to anyone who studies cults and brainwashing and psychology that they are the “brainwashed” ones.

It’s the truth that sets free, not lies and blindly or willfully following feelings. Lies lead to abuse of all kinds, including child abuse. And the FLDS, (which is another branch of Mormonism that follows Joseph’s original requirement to have more than one wife in order to become a powerful god), showed a little of how far it can go to trust in a man more than God.

Mike Dawkins, Richard Shermer: Creationists Disproved by E. Coli

Once upon a time there were two men living in a building together who were passionately in love. They spent their time looking into petri dishes in which they were feeding E. Coli. “We will disprove these creationists easily,” said Mike with great confidence in his voice to his lover, Richard. Richard replied, “Yes we shall, for we are scientists and they believe in a magic sky daddy. They waste their time singing all day long to an imaginary sky daddy.” “Ho ho ho,” laughed Mike as he lifted his head up to laugh “You are so funny and scientific.” “I am indeed my lover,” replied Richard. Richard reached into his pocket and pulled out a gold pocket watch and flipped it open to look at the time and admire the watch. As Richard gently caressed the watch Mike looked at him with adoration. “Blind people can make pocket watches you know?” said Richard to Mike has he petted the watch, looking at it with adoration. “It’s so beautiful,” said Richard. “Beautiful like you, my handsome lover,” replied Mike. “Yes, I am beautiful, and so are you my Mikey.” They then ran at each other to kiss passionately. Suddenly Mike pulled away, “I must get back to my research to help shut these homophobes up once and for all. For all they care about is making life miserable for people who won’t believe in their invisible magic sky daddy.” “Yes my dear,” replied Richard. “Help me find my citrus powder, I want to see if my deadly E. Coli friends will eat it.” Richard walked to a cupboard to look for the powder. “Found it my dear,” said Richard as he reached up for the canister of citrus powder. “Good, bring it to be my cutems bootems.” “Yes my winky wankums.” Richard then pranced over to Mike like a young doe and stuck out the canister so Mike could grab it.” “Thank you dear.” Mike then poured the powder into the petri dish. These E. Coli can adapt to eat anything. They have no ability to eat this powder now, but they will in a little while I am sure. This shall prove the creationists are stupid sky daddy worshipers who are full of bigotry and sick hate for homosexuals and people who want to kill their fetuses which are a drain on the world and which remind them of rapists.” Richard raised his right eyebrow as he bent his head down to look at the dish. “Indeed,” said Richard. “Well, nothing is going to happen right now most likely, so lets go to bed and wait the next day to see what happens.” “Oh you’re so…” said Richard, “Shut up lets go to bed immediately, I want you more than anything.” And they both ran off to get in the bed together in the next room.

The next day Mike got out of bed and put on his white lab coat and went to look at the dish through his pink glitter-covered microscope with gold star stickers covering the eye tube. “Oh my imaginary sky daddy!” shouted Mike. “RICHARD! THEY’RE EATING THE CITRUS POWDER! THIS IS THE PROOF WE’VE BEEN WAITING FOR!” Richard slowly opened his eyes as he awoke from his sleep. “What? What’s going on?” Mike ran over to Richard and jumped into bed. “Richard, Richard they’re eating the powder!” said Mike with his hands on Richard’s chest. He then pulled Richard up and hugged him tightly, and then kissed his cheek.” “Richard, we have defeated them.” Mike began to cry tears of joy. I’m going to write up my dissertation now to shame them. He immediately let Richard go and Richard plopped backwards back into bed and quickly turn to his side to go back to sleep.

Mike then went to write in his reasonablepeopleforloveandtruthwiki.com:

I’ve spent 20 years researching E. Coli, and have shown that life forms can indeed evolve to do things they could never do before. For I have poured citrus powder into a petri dish of E. Coli that could not eat citrus powder, and the next day I observed them eating the powder. I’m going to show it to my unbiased colleague Dr. Shermer who has no personal reason to be interested in my experiments later on and he will peer review it and finalize this proof. Again: the E. Coli had no ability to eat this powder, and then the next day they then had the ability to eat it: PROOF OF EVOLUTION! BACTERIA CAN INDEED TURN INTO MEN! AND IF BACTERIA, THEN HOW MUCH MORE CAN FISH WALK AND TURN INTO MEN! YES! FISH CAN TURN INTO MEN, THIS IS PROOF INDEED! SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS MY FELLOW SCIENTISTS. FOR WE ARE NOW ON OUR WAY TO TOTAL SEXUAL FREEDOM. WE SHALL BRAKE THE CHAINS AROUND OUR PELVISES AND MOUTHS OF THE EVIL SKY DADDY AND HIS JEEBUS! WE SHALL NO LONGER HAVE TO SIT AT THE BACK OF BUSES! WE SHALL SIT AT THE FRONT, EVEN IN THE DRIVER’S SEATS! YES! WE SHALL DRIVE THE BUSES FOR NOW ON!”

Problems that Plague Creationists:

Creationists believe in a magical sky daddy that magically just makes things that magically just have the ability to do things and for which they offer no explanation as to how they gained their abilities. In addition to being homophobes and prostitute-haters they are truly are unscientific and anti-scientific, practisers of pseudoscience, much like the pagans who once practiced sorcery whom these zealot CHRISTians would set fire to in their jealousness over not being able to control the thoughts of others. They can’t explain anything rationally and resort to demonization, vilification and mockery in the place of scientific proofs like I have presented to you here.

(So Lenski’s e. coli experiment is evidence for evolution is it? After reading the site at this link you’ll hopefully realize how they twisted the facts if my story didn’t.)