Archive for April, 2010

Kyrgyzstan Citizens Rebel Against Their Government and Create a New Government

April 28, 2010 2 comments

To the one whose IP address is, why do you keep looking at this page? It’s almost 40 times in two days you’ve come here now!

Kyrgyzstan, a country I didn’t even know existed, and thought Gerald Celente on the Alex Jones Show pronounced wrong (and may have) when I heard him mention it about two days ago:

Kyrgyzstan opposition sets up ‘people’s government’ 
April 8, 2010/6:49 GMT/7:49 UK

The opposition in Kyrgyzstan says it is setting up a “people’s government” after deadly clashes left some 65 dead.

Ex-Foreign Minister Roza Otunbayeva told the BBC that new defence and interior ministers had been appointed.

The opposition says President Kurmanbek Bakiyev has left the capital, Bishkek, to rally support in his home region of Jalalabad. This has not been confirmed.

There has been no word from Mr Bakiyev since violent clashes spread to the capital on Wednesday.

The scene in Bishkek on Thursday morning was calm, with the opposition apparently in control of the government headquarters.
Speaking at a packed news conference, Ms Otunbayeva said parliament had been dissolved.

She said an interim government – which would remain in power for six months – was fully in control of the country and had appointed new ministers.

Mr Bakiyev had not yet resigned, she said, but was believed to have returned to Jalalabad, in the south of the country, to try to rally support.

“We want to negotiate his resignation,” Reuters news agency quotes her as saying. “His business here is over.” – More here, with a video.

Now if only the wicked gays in our government would be ousted, and yes, that is hate speech, hate speech at hateful people who are destroying this country in their carelessness and arrogance.

Some tour books on KyrgyzstanClick here if you want to book a hotel room in this country.

George Noory Does Some Good: Noah’s Ark Discovery and the Team Who Rediscovered Some of Its Remains Discussed on Coast to Coast AM

April 28, 2010 3 comments

This post can be reached at

George Noory just had two guests, Joe Kovacs and curator Richard Rives, who are associates of the Biblical archaeologist Ron Wyatt, the same Ron Wyatt who discovered, with his wife and some other helpers, the Ark of the Covenant, and some blood that Jesus left behind when he was crucified. I had last year told Ian Punnet to mention Ron Wyatt, and that he should have when a heretic blasphemed against the Bible’s claims, but Ian never replied or did as I said. They were on to discuss the recent findings of more remains of Noah’s Ark found on Mt. Arat  (video here).

Here’s more evidence of Noah’s Ark:’s%20ark2.htm

What might confuse some, as it did me for a while, is why Noah’s Ark is apparently in two locations: the top of the mountain and the bottom. It can’t be both I thought, and speculated that it broke apart, but it looks like the whole Ark is on the bottom, so what is the stuff on top, which is broken in two? But then I realized something a few minutes ago while looking at the picture of the Ark again, on the arkdiscovery site, and realize the Ark looked upside down, meaning the bottom and top split apart, which is why the top is missing, and instead found, on the top of Mount Arat. I was thinking before that time that maybe it broke vertically only, but that didn’t make sense to me since clearly the Ark shown at the foot of the mountains was not vertically split.

Why Teachers Requiring Students to Write Essays and Book Reports is Stupid

April 27, 2010 4 comments

I think about how teachers require their students to write an essay on some written-about-to-death topic or book report on some reviewed-to-death book. It’s massively stupid, massively dumb and teachers who require that should be fired, especially liberal ones because they are stupid in general.

Just imagine a teacher asks a student to write a book report, and the student is allowed to write about some book in the Hairy Pothead series, all the student has to do is go to Wikipedia or combine reviews from Amazon or, switch sentences around, replace words with synonyms like, “good” in place of “great” and in case anyone hadn’t figured out how to “cheat” using Wikipedia very stealthily, all you have to do is click the history tab on whatever topic you are asked to write about and rip off one of the versions far back into it’s history, and which is very different from the latest version of that article that exists. It’s very unlikely a teacher is going to look through hundreds of different versions of the article to see if you copied, and it will be even harder for them to spot or accuse you of copying if you also switched sentences around and replaced certain words with synonyms. Now someone might say, “Well it’s not stupid cuz it helps the student to think for themselves and just bcuz u can cheat doesn’t make that stupid,” but that argument doesn’t work if the subject the teacher asks the student to write about has already been written about thoroughly in many different ways and excellent ways already, if there are already many good explanations, especially thousands of them and already written as books. A teacher is tempting the student to “cheat” by asking them to write again about that subject and to ask for “originality” or to say to the student “you must be original” deserves a hard punch to the teachers face for asking such a stupid thing. The student should say to such a request, politely with good intent to the teacher, “How can I be original if the topic you’re asking me to write about has already been written about well in many different ways?” And NOT comply with the teachers request, and to sue the teacher if necessary for making an unreasonable request.

What would be good is to simply have the students choose an already good explanation or review (etc) about whatever the teacher asks to hear about and to have that student read it allowed.

A Little Review of the New 2009 V Series from Christian’s Perspective

Whoever wrote the new V series is a genius. Not promoting it as morally good, but it’s not shallow. I don’t like how once again Catholics are made out to be the only legitimate Christians or the only ones who know how to be something other than boring (by abusing kids and mass-murdering “heretics”), but the world hates true Christians, so not a surprise to me that they would rather see Barabbas than the real Jesus figuratively speak, and would rather see Jesus perpetually humiliated: naked and nailed to a cross as if he can’t do anything other than stay that way forever, rather than seeing him “risen” (why not show pictures of the Shroud of Turin instead? At least that would hint that he was resurrected and is strong evidence that he was a real person).

I’m not going to risk accidentally ruining the plot and stories for those who haven’t watched it yet, so that’s all I’ll be saying.

Richard Dawkins: A Narcissist Who Requires Christians to Have “Credentials”

April 25, 2010 4 comments

Post link: or

Some stalker-atheists today who’s pride couldn’t take to-the-point criticism decided to pull the very type of tactics I told them they always use, and added some arguments in their harassment that I don’t remember having written arguments against before, but here they are.

Today, an atheist asked me what my professional credentials were for calling him mentally ill (a psychopath and narcissist. Though this person didn’t say I needed them, nor can I say that he implied it either, other anti-theists have implied that such credentials are needed. I gave him my arguments, but here I’ve made it easier to read for everyone, and I’ve given more arguments (refutations/rebuttals), and I’ll include arguments against the “peer review” nonsense tactic which anti-Christians love to use against creationists and Christians:

Sometimes, an anti-theist or a so called agnostic will try and escape examining evidence for God from a Christian, or that the Bible is true from a Christian, or that the universe was created from a creationist, by saying something like, “You’re not a scientist”; “What are your professional credentials (as in degrees from prestigious universities, most likely the top 100 or top 100 in what you got your degree in)”; “You don’t have any credentials”; “You work wasn’t peer reviewed (by real scientists)”; “You need the agreement of liberal scientists for the thing you say is true”.

And for those of you who think I’m making that up, you can find such comments on Yahoo Answers I’m sure, where floods of atheists and agnostics use such arguments against theists and creationists in the Religion and Spirituality section (but I advise you not to participate as the moderators of Y.A. deliberately allow atheists and agnostics to drive theists out by trolling). Here is one example I found in at about 9 AM, April 26 (I bolded the user names and dates of their posts, and the most relevant parts to my article to keep your focus on the main subject here):

Sun May 15, 2005 4:21 am
Lance Kennedy:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.  Since the editor of Scientific American is an advocate of the human caused global warming theories, I doubt he would allow such a description go to a man in the pay of energy concerns. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain.  Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed. […]

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Sun May 15, 2005 6:19 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:

I was talking of the Dr. Richard Lindzen who was discussed in Scientific American and described as one of America’s most respected climate scientists.”

Linkage please.   The SciAm articles I can find that mention him call him “credentialed” and “prominent” and “vocal”.  That is not the same as “most respected”.

If we allow our estimate to include all Ph.D. scientists (not just climate specialists) you might be interested to know that the past president of the USAAS began asking scientists to sign a request for President Bush to reject Kyoto on the grounds that the science was so uncertain. Last time I looked, over 18,000 had signed.”

Linkage?  I can’t even find the “USAAS”.  The Seitz petition (that would be “past president of NAS”, NOT “USAAS” includes everything from bachelors up, not just PhDs.

“Of the 15,000 signers of the petition, … about 2,100 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists and meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.”

That’s from the physicist that helped write the article associated with the petition.. which is the infamous Soon/Baliumas crud.

Sun May 15, 2005 8:59 pm
Lance Kennedy:

Sorry.  Should have been AAAS (not USAAS)  I’m not an American and don’t know any better.

You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.

Sun May 15, 2005 10:06 pm

No, it’s NAS, and I’m not American either.  :)

“You are correct in that non climate scientists are not to be taken as seriously. I just mentioned it to show that global warming skepticism is common.”

So is creationism.  :shrug:  Last time I checked, argument from popularity was a logical fallacy.

Mon May 16, 2005 1:04 am
Lance Kennedy:

The difference global warming skepticism has to creationism is that creationists are not professional biologists (or any other kind of scientist, with very few exceptions).  Global warming skepticism is alive and well in the climate science community and in the wider scientific community.  While popularity is not ‘proof’ of anything, lack of scientific consensus should be enough to make anyone pause and think.

And a little background about those two:

skepticforum Profile data for Lance Kennedy:
Posts: 1699
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

skepticforum Profile data for Graculus:
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:42 pm
Location: Ontario

Incredibly, I found this by searching for +”creationists are not professional” on Google, the incredible part being that I found this phrase combined with the “credentialed” reference, taken from Scientific American magazine, which is a liberal atheist magazine.

Other related examples:

“… there is no such thing as a christian scientist” – homestarr2, 2009, about 124 days ago (8 months), Yahoo Answers

Question: “Christians, why do monkeys have the same blood type as us? The only process we could have blood types is through genetics, which is passed through evolution. There’s no such thing as a Christian scientist.” – Taylor (apparently a banned member), April 5, 2010, Yahoo Answers

The winning answer by way, by one vote, was “Because God created both them and us. Evolution as a religion has far more holes than Christianity.” – atomzer0

There is no such thing as a Christian scientist. Thats a contradiction of terms. Science is not based on “observation,” it based on hypothesis, and theories. Which would classify it as a “superstition.”

Science: experimentation, The observation[…] – “These have the power to shut heaven” (a theist who likes quoting the Bible, but won’t call himself a Christian, and who was banned from the site he made that comment on, and for other ridiculous comments like that Galileo wasn’t a Christian and that Isaac Newton wasn’t a scientist), Sodahead

And on a “Creationists Exposed” rant at, I discovered on 4/26/2010/12:00 PM, that Richard Dawkins made an absurd (and unprofessional) excuse as to why he would not to reply to a question concerning the evolutionary process, and here it is in this quote:

On September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house in Oxford to film an interview with me. I had agreed to see them, on the misapprehension (as it later turned out) that they were from a respectable Australian broadcasting company. I had no idea they were a creationist front and I would not have granted them an interview had I known this, because of my policy as mentioned above.

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time – that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences – in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out, and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did. […]

On this website in which this excuse is quoted, it says below it,

“[…] they [the alleged creationists] are not engaged in scientific research, and thus cannot hope to succeed on the scientific level, they resort to ad hominem attacks on the genuine scientists who have exposed their myths.

[Me: But calling people “creationists” and equating with “people who waste time” and equating them to flat-earthers over a harmless question and deciding to kick them out of your house for it and calling them unprofessional a isn’t anything close to an “ad hominem” attack? What a hypocrite.]

What are the effects?

What effects will the dissemination of this particularly egregious example of that tactic have in the real world? What effect would it have, for example, on Richard Dawkins’ professional reputation among his scientific peers? We would suspect practically none, because no professional biologist, nor any other competent scientist, would be hoodwinked for a moment into thinking that Prof Dawkins had been baffled by such a crudely easy question.”

On a side note, note this ratbag’s pretentious word “egregious” in the context of this “that question was just too crudely simple for Master Dawkins, no professional scientists would believe Master Dawkins was fooled” (a sign of a narcissist). And what is “crudely easy“? That doesn’t even make sense. And how was calling alleged creationsts unprofessional for no logical reason other than asking a question that was too low for the his royal highness King William Dawkins the III, Imperial Lord of the Scientists, who may not be bothered with so called “not complex enough” questions? Just imagine if Dawkins had said, “You dare ask me such a simple question! You must be creationists you unprofessional fools!” And speaking of “unprofessional”, what kind of name for a website is “ratbags”? Ridiculous. Narcissists should be put away in mental institutions.

Basically, anti-theists and liberals are saying,

“You must have professional credentials and have your claims in favor of God, the Bible or Intelligent Design peer reviewed and judged by us to for them to be acceptable to us true scientists and for us to decree to the world that they are either right or worth giving their attention to.”

My counter-arguments:

1) Says who? Who made anti-Christians God? Is this a universal commandment from God? Obviously not. If that point isn’t obvious to an adult who can easily use a search engine to do research, or easily go to a bookstore or library to research, than it says a lot about their mental health.

2) Of course, “professional credentials” to an anti-Christian isn’t something you can truly get from another Christian, not a fundamentalist one, especially not one who believes, oh how stupid: that the first things and elements weren’t mindlessly created, but designed, being that they have a design and that there is no such thing as literal “randomness” or “chaos”. It’s similar to when some anti-Christians, when they say, “scientists” or “biologists” say those words and pretend or claim that only non-Christians or non-theists or liberals can be scientists. So when an anti-Christian says, “You must have professional credentials to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed for it to be right”, what they mean is, “You must have professional credentials from anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct” and “You must have your work peer reviewed and approved as as right by anti-Christians or liberals, to be correct.”

3) Did the first humans need professional credentials and peer review of their claims or beliefs? Imagine how little progress would have been made if the first human and humans refrained from believing what they did or making any claims because they had no “professionals” to approve award their beliefs and claims or “peer reviewers” to decree, “Thou mayest believest what you do and claim what you doest because I’m a professional and peer reviewer, Ramen.” Imagine, a Christian decides to imitate the scientific experiment Gideon did to verify whether or not he was talking to God (yes: the Bible does teach science), and concludes God exists, but some atheist comes up to him and says, “Do you have professional credentials to believe what you do or tell me God exists? Was your so called science experiment peer reviewed? I’ll show you what real science is you primitive Christian!” Imagine again, how little progress we would have made if we had to obey the anti-Christian commandments to not believe or claim anything unless it’s approved of by them, and only professionals among the anti-Christian crowd. We’d all be standing out in the rain waiting to eat till some atheist came around to give everyone professional credentials and to peer review their idea to use a tree for shelter or eat a berry for food, and since that would never happen, the human race would have gone extinct, while our unprofessional animal peers continued to devolve into little weak animals, till viruses, harsh weather, starvation and old age finished them all off.

4) It’s really pretentious I think for these haters to say, “peer reviewed” rather than speaking plainly and saying instead, “you work must be judged by and approved of by us”. Instead they use a fancy phrase “peer reviewed” to make sound like they are scientists themselves, and wise.

5) Hypocritical: How convenient that Christians must submit all their claims, scientific or not, for “peer review” to anti-Christians, when these so called “peers” often won’t even bother to look at the claim carefully at the hint that it has something to do with showing evidence for Christianity. It’s like a bully pretending to be honest, by saying to the ones he bullies, “Unless I approve of your beliefs you’re wrong, now give me your work and tell you if you’re wrong or not.” As if  the bully isn’t going to be biased and waste more time.

6) Hypocritical circular reasoning: How convenient that these anti-Christians don’t believe that they need to have their beliefs “peer reviewed” by Christians or that no Christian is a scientist, juz bcuz “Christians believe in God”, and of course God doesn’t exist, juz bcuz the atheist or liberal said so. If anti-Christians really cared about the truth, they wouldn’t hide behind the credentials and peer review lines.

7) It’s circular reasoning to claim that only claims and beliefs by people with professional credentials given by liberals, in what they claim or believe and who’ve had their claims and beliefs peer reviewed by liberals, may make those claims and believe what they do, because, how could the first humans become professionals, let alone “professional peer reviewers” if there was no professionals to begin with? There would be no “professionals” of any kind if there needed to be a human one already in existence. So according to anti-Christians and anti-theist logic, there’s an infinite amount of Professional, University-Degreed, Peer Reviewer Liberal gods whom each got their professional credentials from a previous professional, university-degreed, liberal god. Obviously, you don’t need another human to become wise and trustworthy, you can learn from God, and learn on  your own, with God’s supervision. You don’t need a liberal holding your hand and telling you, “That’s wrong, that’s right” every step of the way.

How convenient and dishonest to dismiss the truth, research and to fob off responsibility to look into the truth yourself, by simply saying to a person, “You need professional credentials”, “You work needs to be peer reviewed”.

There’s nothing evil with learning “on your own”, meaning learning without someone standing somewhere nearby dictating things to you or telling you when you’ve done right or wrong, nothing sinful about it. People learn on their own all the time, out of necessity and to surpass others. There’s even a name for people who gain a large amount of knowledge and understanding of a subject: autodidact.

“an autodidact is someone who is self-taught. It comes from the Greek autodidaktos and entered the English language in 1748.

Many of our most prolific inventors and scientist, men like Thomas Alvin Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, Samuel Morse, Wilbur and Orville Wright, etc were autodidactists. Today most lifelong learners are autodidactists because they are self-directed learners who master many subjects without the benefits of a formal classroom and instructor. My wife, the schoolteacher, loves to tell people that I’m the exemplary autodidactist. I quit school to enlist in the United States Air Force at seventeen where I mastered the art of jet engine mechanic. My excuse was that the only classes that interest me were math, science and shop classes and I was already doing 12th grade work when I was in the 7thgrade. I later received my GED and took some junior college courses. In later years I enrolled in some online college courses but never sought a degree. Over the years I mastered many things as a self directed learner, believe-it-or-not; I actually taught myself electronics and had a successful radio and TV repair business when I was sixteen years old. My only reason for telling you all this personal stuff is to show you that anyone can become an autodactist if they have the desire to learn as a self-directed learner.

Back in those pre World Wide Web days when I undertook the task of educating myself, I was limited to books that I borrowed from the library or purchased from a local bookstore or from some book catalog. Today the self-directed learner has the knowledge of the whole world available at his or her fingertips.” – Jerry Walch, Staff Writer,

Here is a large list of famous autodidactics: Autodidactic Hall of Fame: Self-educated People Who’ve Made a Difference.

So, once again, it’s clear:

if atheists, anti-theists and anti-Christians had their way, if they were in charge of the entire world, if we “imagined no religion”, “imagined no God”, or imagined no Christians, so to speak, in other words God rid of belief in God and stop practicing any religion, there would be no more “science” or human system of any kind, let alone any humans left at all, because eventually, we’d all die out from serevely illogical reasoning.

It’s ironic, but not surprising to me, how the circular anti-Christian argument that, “You must have professional credentials and must have your work peer reviewed by professionals for your claims and beliefs to be worthy of attention and legitimate” requires the existence of God to have made the first professional in order to break the circular reasoning of that argument.

The first teacher, was God, and he continues to teach with the universe he made, and especially with his word.

Related articles:

Circular Reasoning

Begging the Question

Ad Hominem Fallacy

Guilt by Association Fallacy

Fallacy: Circular Reasoning

What Is Circular Reasoning? (a PDF)

Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Biology

Twitter Censors Christian Speech While Promoting Hate Speech Against Muslims

April 24, 2010 7 comments

This post can be reached at

Twitter's CEO, Evan Williams

On April 23rd 2010, Twitter raised it’s evil stupidity to a new low, suspending my account for my religious beliefs and religious speech under the pretense of my account being used for “strange activity” but if anything was strange it was obviously Twitter’s immoral behavior, in other words the CEO and whatever moderator or moderators had persecuted me.

Why did was my account attacked? My profile description was:

“I’m an Eternian: a Christian who believes he has eternal life, unlike others who believe they can negate it with their will.”

(That’s the description of a Calvinist type Christian).

And my last “tweet” which he or she deleted, was at mtdreamaker, which said, as best as I can remember:

“God control’s all things, his will is always done: I 65:12, Dan 4:35, A 4:28, Rm 8:29-30, Ep 1:5,15”

I don’t remember putting “Dan 4:35” but I do remember thinking about it, so I’m guessing I put it in. I remember having to heavily abbreviate the verses like that because I had a hard time fitting them all in.

That last tweet is one I can’t confirm with my own records, my clipboard recorder, because for some reason didn’t record my copies and pastes of it, and actually it looks like my clipboard archive for April 23rd is entirely missing. But mtdreamaker should be able to confirm it (even though she is no doubt the one who libeled me by reporting me for not agreeing with her stupid trite self), because I gave her that verse message twice, though the first part was worded a little differently.

The rest of my tweets for the 23rd were:

@HeidiBylsma animals could talk then most likely, and/or Eve didn’t realize it was strange, since she’d only had a few hours of life.

I really like clustrmaps, but i wish they would update my stats every 6 hours.

@secupp yet another hypocritical irony

@MABaker2009 Something tells me that “tyranny” isn’t censoring a foul-mouthed paper-cut-out cartoon for immature adults.

@CarolineMueller you shud replace “LORD” with what it was meant to say, “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”, bcuz we’re to glorify God’s name, not hide it

@delwilliams I wonder if any of the abusers were Catholics.

@oschambers Who is “we” Mr. Condemn Every Single Person on Earth, Including Christians?

@oschambers Yes: damn all people who talk about their inabilities, damn those blind men, crippled and lame who dare ask Jesus for healing.

@johncmaxwell Teresa was a false Christian who doubted God’s existance making all her works worthless:

@WSJ man that is junk

@timothywhitley There is NO excuse 4 perpetuating the global warming my when anyone can use a search engine 2 learn the truth. No excuse.

@timothywhitley And Huffington removed Jesse Ventura’s claims for also being a hoax by the “the rest of us, a cabal of corrupt scientists”.

@AndreaSweets86 There is NO excuse 4 perpetuating the global warming myth when anyone can use a search engine 2 learn the truth. No excuse.

@AndreaSweets86 And Huffington removed Jesse Ventura’s claims for also being a hoax by the “the rest of us, a cabal of corrupt scientists”.

@allanharden Now there’s a verse to remember.

@Gen315 C.S. Lewis was an Arminian heretic who thought Christ told lies, you should quote him in that context.

@KarynBrownlee “And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east: and his voice was like a noise of many waters…”

@KarynBrownlee “The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.”

@KarynBrownlee “Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.”

@KarynBrownlee “Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I to this hour.”

@travelermom Shakespeare was an evil foul-mouthed man (or men).

And if you look at my twitter archive here, you can hopefully find where an atheist, Monicks, said:

Everybody Draw #Mohammed Day! | Slog | The Stranger, Seattle’s Only Newspaper #atheism #atheist”
(about 23 hours ago via HootSuite, Retweeted by lippard and 2 others).

She looks like she’s using a picture of Buffy the Vampire slayer. Her profile description says:

  • Name Monica
  • Location This Pale Blue Dot.
  • Web
  • Bio Atheist, FreeThinker, Humanist, Twitaholic, with a passion for friends & laughter, movies junkie, a bit of a geek & BlackBerry addict. I follow awesome people.
  • So it’s okay to try and provoke worldwide riots and the destruction of the world with suicide bombings and nuclear war, but not to teach that God controls everything.

    And does anyone see any spam from me, and flood of links? And my account SHOULDN’T have been suspended for “agressive following” if that is one of Twitter’s excuses because I was only following about 700, which is way below Twitter’s following limit, including for how many you can add for a single day, and I’d even come across one person who was following over 44,000 people AND was advertising links like crazy (big surprise that a person following 44,000 people was doing that).

    So, it very much looks like my account was suspended because I was a Calvinist and a clear fundamentalist who was vocal, and that I was targeted for not being a man-pleasing, world-panderer, or a Rick Warren (a guy who makes trite and obvious remarks, like “Adopt a child and there’ll be none left” or “The Bible says not to lie, if we stopped lying the world would be full of truth”) or a “random” verse flooder.  Banned for not flooding useless or childish remarks or verses anyone could read in the Bible for themselves, but instead suspended for being concise and to the point.

    A saved archive of my last Twitter posts on April 23, 2010 can be found here:

    Here is a study that shows Twitter is about half useless and stupid, and no wonder with a stupid CEO in charge of Twitter.

    All Muslims and Christians should boycott Twitter.

    Related Post: The Insanity of Atheism

    Cat Brains are 83 Times Faster than a Modern Super Computer

    April 19, 2010 2 comments

    University of Michigan computer that learns

    and recognizes uses cat brain as model

    by Rosemary Black

    4/19/2010/2:16 PM

    You knew cats had nine lives, but did you know they’re also smarter than sophisticated supercomputers?

    Since computers are slower than a cat’s brain, a new computer project involving the University of Michigan will use a feline brain as a model, reports.

    University of Michigan computer engineer Wei Lu, who already has built a “memristor,” a machine that can remember past voltages it was subjected to, now is working toward developing a revolutionary computer capable of learning and recognizing.

    “We are building a computer in the same way that nature builds a brain,” Lu told the Web site. “The idea is to use a completely different paradigm compared to conventional computers. The cat brain sets a realistic goal because it is much simpler than a human brain but still extremely difficult to replicate in complexity and efficiency.”

    Most sophisticated computers may be able to perform some jobs with the equivalent of a cat’s brain functionality, but instead of being a 10-pound mouse catcher, these are huge machines with more than 140,000 central processing units and their own dedicated power supply.

    Despite all the bells and whistles, the computer, Lu wrote in his paper (online in Nano Letters) still performs 83 times more slowly than a cat’s brain. And that’s really the cat’s meow. – Source

    It’s amazing how even after 6,400 years of devolving and being subjected to countless toxins in the environment, that God’s creatures are still highly functional and very intelligent. Truly, God’s creatures are far from “simple” or “primitive” despite what many God-hating Darwinists say when babbling about evolution.

    More amazing facts about cats:

    Related Stories:

    ‘Brain’ in a dish flies flight simulator
    11/4/2004/1:56 P.M. EST/1856 GMT

    A Florida scientist has developed a “brain” in a glass dish that is capable of flying a virtual fighter plane and could enhance medical understanding of neural disorders such as epilepsy.

    The “living computer” was grown from 25,000 neurons extracted from a rat’s brain and arranged over a grid of 60 electrodes in a Petri dish.

    The brain cells then started to reconnect themselves, forming microscopic interconnections, said Thomas DeMarse, professor of biomedical engineering at the University of Florida.

    “It’s essentially a dish with 60 electrodes arranged in a dish at the bottom,” explained DeMarse, who designed the study.

    “Over that we put the living cortical neurons from rats, which rapidly begin to reconnect themselves, forming a living neural network — a brain.”

    Although such living networks could one day be used to fly unmanned aircraft, DeMarse said the study was of more immediate relevance as an experimental aid to understanding how the human brain performs and learns computational tasks at a cellular level.

    “We’re interested in studying how brains compute,” said DeMarse. – More here.

    Mouse brain simulated on computer
    4/27/2007/23:59 GMT/00:59 UK

    US researchers have simulated half a virtual mouse brain on a supercomputer.

    The scientists ran a “cortical simulator” that was as big and as complex as half of a mouse brain on the BlueGene L supercomputer.

    In other smaller simulations the researchers say they have seen characteristics of thought patterns observed in real mouse brains.

    Now the team is tuning the simulation to make it run faster and to make it more like a real mouse brain.

    Life signs

    Brain tissue presents a huge problem for simulation because of its complexity and the sheer number of potential interactions between the elements involved.

    The three researchers, James Frye, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, and Dharmendra S Modha, laid out how they went about it in a very short research note entitled “Towards Real-Time, Mouse-Scale Cortical Simulations”.

    Half a real mouse brain is thought to have about eight million neurons each one of which can have up to 8,000 synapses, or connections, with other nerve fibres.

    Modelling such a system, the trio wrote, puts “tremendous constraints on computation, communication and memory capacity of any computing platform”.

    The team, from the IBM Almaden Research Lab and the University of Nevada, ran the simulation on a BlueGene L supercomputer that had 4,096 processors, each one of which used 256MB of memory.

    Using this machine the researchers created half a virtual mouse brain that had 8,000,000 neurons that had up to 6,300 synapses.

    The vast complexity of the simulation meant that it was only run for 10 seconds at a speed ten times slower than real life – the equivalent of one second in a real mouse brain. – More here.

    Digital Rat Brain Spontaneously Develops Organized Neuron Patterns
    Researchers hope the breakthrough could lead to a fully virtual human brain within ten years
    by Stuart Fox

    Blue Brain This image is a 3-D model of what the connections in Blue Brain would look like if they were flesh and blood neurons, not computer code. Blue Brain Project, via The Wall Street Journal

    Four years ago, a team of researchers at the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland switched on Blue Brain, a computer designed to mimic a functioning slice of a rat’s brain. At first, the virtual neurons fired only when prodded by a simulated electrical current. But recently, that has changed.

    Apparently, the simulated neurons have begun spontaneously coordinating, and organizing themselves into a more complex pattern that resembles a wave. According to the scientists, this is the beginning of the self-organizing neurological patterns that eventually, in more complex mammal brains, become personality.

    The computer simulation utilizes an IBM supercomputer capable of performing 22.8 trillion operations in a second. And that’s just barely enough to simulate one part of a rat’s brain. Each individual neuron requires the computing power of a high-end desktop computer, and the small area of the brain that Blue Brain simulates contains 10,000 neurons. – More here.

    Tiny Insect Brains Solve Big Problems
    Insects have scientists re-thinking an age-old question: Are bigger brains better?
    by Emily Sohn
    11/16/ 2009/12:00 PM ET

    Smaller brains do not necessarily mean less intelligence, as some insects have proven.

    Insects may have tiny brains, but they can perform some seriously impressive feats of mental gymnastics.

    According to a growing number of studies, some insects can count, categorize objects, even recognize human faces — all with brains the size of pinheads.

    Despite many attempts to link the volume of an animal’s brain with the depth of its intelligence, scientists now propose that it’s the complexity of connections between brain cells that matters most. Studying those connections — a more manageable task in a little brain than in a big one — could help researchers understand how bigger brains, including those of humans, work.

    Figuring out how a relatively small number of cells work together to process complex concepts could also lead to “smarter” computers that do some of the same tasks.

    “The question is: If these insects can do these things with such little brains, what does anything need a big brain for?” said Lars Chittka of Queen Mary University of London, who presented his arguments along with colleague Jeremy Niven in the journal Current Biology. “Bigger isn’t necessarily better, and in some cases it could be quite the opposite.”

    Because we are intelligent animals with big brains, people have long assumed that big brains are smarter brains. Yet, scientists have found scant evidence to support that view, Chittka said. Studies that have made those connections are fraught with problems. “If you try many measurements,” he said, “Eventually you will find one that shows a correlation.”

    There’s a lot of evidence, on the other hand, that overall size is irrelevant when it comes to brain power. Among humans, individuals with larger noggins don’t have higher IQs. Whales, with brains that weigh up to 20 pounds and have more than 200 billion neurons, are no smarter than people, with our measly 3-pound brains that have just 85 billion neurons.

    Instead of contributing intelligence, big brains might just help support bigger bodies, which have larger muscles to coordinate and more sensory information coming in. Like computers, Chittka said, size might add storage capacity but necessarily speed or usefulness. At the same time, it takes a lot of energy to support a big brain.

    On a smaller scale, scientists are finally moving past the idea that locusts, ants, bees and other insects are simple machines that respond to events in predictable ways, said Sarah Farris, an evolutionary neurobiologist at West Virginia University in Morgantown. Study after study now shows that insects can, in fact, change their behavior depending on the circumstances.

    Honeybees, which have been the focus of Chittka’s work, have tiny brains with fewer than a million neurons. Yet, the insects can classify shapes as symmetrical or asymmetrical. They can pick objects based on concepts like “same” or “different.” They can also learn to stop flying after a prescribed number of landmarks rather than after a certain distance.

    Ants and bees have notoriously complex social systems. Along with other insects, they can move in a surprising number of ways to communicate or get around.

    Bees, for example, can sting, scout for food, guard the hive and fan their wings for ventilation, along with more than 50 other behaviors. The insect’s behavioral repertoire, in fact, surpasses that of some vertebrates.”

    “They are fantastically smart,” Chittka said. – More here.

    There are four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise:

    The ants are a people not strong, yet they stack meat in the summer;

    The hyrax are not powerful, yet make they their houses in the rocks;

    The locusts have no king, yet all them go they forth by bands;

    The spider takes hold with her hands, and is in kings’ palaces.

    There are three things which go beautifully, yes, four are beautiful in walking:

    A lion which is the most valiant among beasts, who doesn’t turn away out of fear from anyone; a greyhound; a he goat also; and a king, whom there is no rising against. – Proverbs 30:24-31 (my translation)

    This post can be reached at