Naturalistic Atheism: Religious Worship At The Feet Of An Apostate Preacher

Atheism is a religious faith.

Unlike Christianity, atheism doesn’t have the luxury of God’s special revelation to unbelievers and so it’s down to its devoted proponents to force it upon others, any which way. 

Intimidation works well enough at the heights of the academy but the masses are largely ignorant and uninterested in a detailed study of not only biology, but also geology, history, physics, mathematics, language, and human nature itself: things that when explored sincerely totally undermine naturalism, Darwinian molecules-to-man evolution, and the atheistic religious hope and belief that somehow humanity will do whatever we please and get away with it. 

Naturally, the masses will buy something if the sales technique is convincing. It also doesn’t hurt that Darwinian evolution ensures subjective morality at best, permitting you to do whatever you please without accountability, bar to the state and your own seared conscience. 

Consider Don Boys great article below – sure, it’s preaching to the choir but when today’s Big Brother is pressing down with the 2+2=5 routine, it doesn’t hurt to be reminded that actually, it doesn’t.

Evidently the three college professors who wrote to the Chattanooga newspaper were not well-read in the current literature. They seem to be where they were during their college days but those days are long gone. Let me provide some up-to-date information that will help honest and inquiring minds make a judgment on the controversy of origins.

Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position.

In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is science while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster-plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.

Science means to know and systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc. It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don’t “know” anything about man’s origins. They guess, suppose, speculate, etc., but they don’t know. Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted, and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rush to defend Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

World famous scientist G. G. Simpson stated, “It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything…or at the very best, they are not science.” Neither creationism nor evolution can be observed or tested.

Need I remind my readers of the many incredible mistakes made by evolutionists because of their faith: Haeckel’s recapitulation theory that only third-rate scientists believe; also the vestigial organ error; the failure of the fossil record (that no informed evolutionist uses to prove his position), etc.

Let me dwell on the fossil record since most people assume it supports evolution. It does not.

Dr. David Kitts, professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma, said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them….” And Lord Zuckerman admitted there are no “fossil traces” of transformation from an ape-like creature to man! I assume that all college professors know that Darwin admitted the same fact. I also assume they know that Darwin was not trained as a scientist but for the ministry, so evolutionists are worshipping at the feet of an apostate preacher!

Famous fossil expert, Niles Eldredge confessed, “…geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” Dr. Eldredge further said, “…no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures.”

World famous paleontologist Colin Patterson agreed saying, “there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.” Not one.

All the alleged transitional fossils, that were so dear to the hearts of evolutionists a generation ago, are now an embarrassment to them. Breaks my heart! Archaeopteryx is now considered only a bird, not an intermediate fossil. The famous horse series that is still found in some textbooks and museums has been discarded and is considered a phantom and illusion because it is not proof of evolution. In fact, the first horse in the series is no longer thought to be a horse! And when a horse can’t be counted on being a horse then of course we’ve got trouble, real trouble right here in River City.

Surely it is not necessary for me to remind college professors that Piltdown Man was a total fraud and Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig’s tooth, not an ape man! And in recent years we have discovered that Neanderthal Man was simply a man with rickets and arthritis, not the much desired “ape man.” Need I go on? The truth is that only a fool says evolution is a fact as compared to gravity, and to equate scientific creationists with flat earthers as some evolutionists do is outrageous irresponsibility.

Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Professor of Zoo-physiology at the University of Umea in Sweden, wrote, “I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: for a long time now people discuss evolutionary problems in a peculiar ‘Darwinian’ vocabulary…thereby believing that they contribute to the explanation of natural events.” He went on to say, “I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” He also said, “Evolution is ‘anti-science.’” 

And so it is.

Do those who teach evolution know that scientists have characterized Darwinism as speculation, based on faith, similar to theories of little green men, dead, effectively dead, very flimsy, incoherent, and a myth. Hey, with friends like that, evolutionists don’t need scientific creationists to hold their feet to the fire. Nevertheless, our public school textbooks and teachers, even up to most colleges and some universities, are not up to date on current thought. Did you get that–current “thought”?

I have assumed that the three college professors are familiar with all the world famous scientists I quoted above. All of them! If not, they are really uninformed, and should stay out of the evolution/creation discussion until they spend some time to bring themselves up to date.

So you see evolutionists are dishonest or uninformed when they suggest that creationists are backwoods, snake handling fanatics. In fact, over a thousand scientists with advanced degrees belong to one group that takes a stand for scientific creationism and against the guess of evolution.

Those college professors were correct in stating that Darwin’s book does not deal with the origins of life even though its title was Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. So a book about origins does not deal with the beginning of life!

Later Darwin suggested that life began in a warm little pond, but he never suggested where the pond came from! Most evolutionists teach that life started there also, but scientists have proved conclusively that spontaneous generation is impossible. So where did the first spark of life come from? You think maybe God was involved?

And would it be possible to remind everyone that Darwin and his followers were racists who believed that blacks were closer to the nonexistent ape men than whites? Thomas Huxley, Henry F. Osborne, Professor Edwin Conklin, and others preached white superiority – because of their evolutionary bias. The haters for a hundred years after Darwin can be tied to Darwin starting with Nietzsche (who asserted that God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), followed by Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, Stalin, etc. Evolutionary teachings have resulted in soaking the soil of Europe in innocent blood. After all, evolutionists tell us that man is only a little higher than the animals rather than a little lower than the angels as the Bible teaches, so what’s a few million lives to be concerned about?

I don’t have the space to deal with numerous problems that evolutionists have such as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, origin of the universe, beginning of life from non-living matter, the Cambrian explosion, etc.

Evolution is a guess, a speculation, a hypothesis, a theory, and a faith. Yes, evolution is a religion as I document in my book, Evolution: Fact, Fraud or Faith? And, since it is a faith, it should not be taught in public schools. At least, any thinking, honest person would agree that if it is, then scientific creationism should be taught along with it. After all, we do believe in balance and fairness, don’t we? Or do we?

Sorry, professors, evolution is NOT a fact. It is a fraud, a fake, a farce and a faith, and taxpayers should demand that the religion of evolution be kept out of public schools unless the truth of scientific creationism is taught as well.

The Problem Of The Fragmented Political Right

Great essay.

Why the political right is so fragmented

by MC

The genuine conservative political right is defunct. It no longer exists as a separate entity and is now securely blocked in with the fantasy ‘Nazi’ ‘far right’.

The leftist/collectivist policy of denigrate, divide and destroy has worked beautifully, no doubt assisted by fifth-columnists well able to hide amongst the tolerant liberalism (small L) of conservative (small C) opinion.

The US Republican establishment is now left of centre. With the exception of the Reagan years, it has been drifting steadily leftwards, totally out of contact with grass-roots conservatism. In fact, the modern GOP does not hide its contempt for its supposed conservative roots.

The British ‘Conservative’ Party is a bit of a far-left-of-centre joke. For sick political expediency it has killed justice and allowed a multi-tier system of ‘race/Islamophobia/social cohesion’-driven legal exceptions to prevail. We now have one law for Muslims and their patrons, another law for the man in the street, and a third more draconian law for those who wish to express their freedom, liberty and/or right of free speech. The Conservatives have particularly allowed freedom of speech to become encrusted with so-called ‘hate’ legislation where hate is an ill-defined term, randomly applied and seemingly related to causing offense particularly to Muslims and/or gays and/or general dissent. But where causing offense to Christians or Jews or real conservatives is studiously ignored.

So how did we get here?

I suspect that the contrived association between Nazism and the ‘right’ has much to do with it. However, there is also a failure to understand liberty , racism and nationalism as they apply to traditional liberal conservatism. But there is yet another factor which may also be critical.

There was recently an article at Gates of Vienna about Jewgida, which attracted more than the usual number of comments. Many of those were divisive and intolerant, seeking to emphasize that Jooos are the enemy rather than celebrate the number of Jews who participate in the counterjihad movement.
Personally I am disappointed that Jewgida feels the need to exist outside of any local/national Pegida movement(s), but all the same I would welcome them into the fold.

The right is vapid because it is fragmented. It is fragmented because it has been taught to be intolerant and see the likes of Jewgida as a threat. This is not part of true conservatism or the true right; it is the absorption of leftist principles into the conservative psyche.
Real conservatism has a Judeo-Christian core belief, a belief that leads to trust and tolerance: trust and tolerance in God and in (conservative) man. When that core is deflated, however, then there is only fear and fragmentation. The negative reaction and mudslinging provoked by the publication of Diana West’s book American Betrayal (a MUST-read for ALL those on the right), presumably at the fear/knowledge that the Republican Party had also been thoroughly penetrated by KGB agents of influence, was just too much for the supposed icons of right-Republican thought.

So here is a provocative piece from a UK Nationalist website of dubious origin, which is unconfirmed in any way:

“I learnt some of the plans of the deliberate One World agents at a meeting in Harold Wilson’s [UK Prime Minister in the 60’s] room in University College, Oxford, in October 1940. He explained the organization of the subversive groups in this country, with the biological, economic and political sections as the most important, and with overt left wing organizations such as the Communist Party to divert attention from the three vital sections. He said that the overall head of the subversive organization was the head of the biological section, while he himself was the head of the political section of the subversive organization. Members of his section were to infiltrate the political Parties, A larger proportion were to infiltrate the Labour Party, most of them posing as ‘moderates’ on the right of the Party, but a substantial number were to infiltrate the Conservative Party, these posing as ‘moderates’ on the left of the Party. He explained that they were to pose as ‘moderates’ because the British people tended to distrust ‘extremists.’ At a later stage everyone who is patriotic was to be described as a ‘right wing extremist.’

— Dr. Kitty Little PhD. BSc. MA.

Let me reiterate that this is unconfirmed in any way. Nevertheless, it is thought provoking because what it posits has come true (see the rest of article at the link).

If the ‘right’ has indeed been penetrated, then the brief for the agents of influence would be to divide and render harmless, which has very obviously been achieved. The infighting in the ranks of the right, worldwide, has been sad and destructive.

Margaret Thatcher described Ted Heath as a Conservative éminence grise constantly sowing discord. This is the same Ted Heath who took the UK into the EU (EEC) and lied (by omission) about an “ever-closer union”.

By all appearances the natural Right has now been demolished and removed from the political scene in most of the western world. Thus Geert Wilders’ PVV is deemed ‘far right’ rather than plain ‘right’ because any criticism of ‘immigrants’ means ‘racism’, and ‘racism’ is ‘Nazi’ and thus ‘far right’.

The ‘Socialism’ in National Socialism is rarely emphasised, and it is the ‘National’ that is deemed responsible for all the evils of the Holocaust and the general hatred of Slavs, Africans etc. And, yes, the Nazis were very racist when it suited them. But they accommodated the Japanese, and the Bosnian Muslims and the proto-Palestinians when it was in their interests to so do. We see this same phenomenon too in most socialist regimes, where the real but covert object is to create a feudal state with a party elite ruling over a proletariat of workers whose existence is little more than slavery. All are equal, “but some are more equal than others,” as George Orwell put it. Stalin hated Jews, but he also hated Caucasians and Mongolians, and the Chinese communist nobility hate anybody not of Han descent.

Nationalism is not the same as racism. Nationalism can be precisely defined, but racism is exactly what socialists want it to be, in that it is not necessarily anything to do with ‘race’ but more to do with skin colour or religion. Socialists are obsessed with skin colour in a way that nationalists find strange and revealing. To a nationalist it is ‘culture’ that is important, and particularly the preservation of the national culture. Religion, too, is a socialist paranoia. In the socialists’ view, Christianity is uniquely indicative of ‘white’ supremacy and ‘white’ privilege, and must be purged. The more a Christian is Bible-orientated, the more dangerous he/she is. Any other religion is just a point of leverage which can be used to turn on the faucet of violence at need, and at this Islam has shown itself to be compliant and thus useful.

Socialism is a political religion. It believes that man is god, and that mankind can build a heaven-on-earth utopia based upon equality and social justice, but only if all become believers. This means that pragmatically, dissenters must be isolated and removed (exterminated), whether by using gulags or Konzentrationslager, or just scimitars, is largely academic. This philosophy also means that the party must redefine ‘truth’ because the basic curiosity of a human must be eradicated and replaced by doctrine and propaganda, a process nicknamed ‘brainwashing’.

The political right has thus been brainwashed out of the common perception, and an Antifa movement has been established to make sure it stays there. Antifas are interesting as well as oxymoronic: these are the Sturmabteilung of the Nazis rehashed as enforcers of socialism, which implies that it was always the socialism of the Nazis that was important, and that every howl of antifa rage is to give voice to an opinion that both Stalin and Hitler were correct.

There is no political ‘far right’, because in reality the Right’s policy is for small government and minimum interference with individual liberty. Therefore, to interpolate ‘far right’ is to contemplate a state with no government at all i.e. anarchy in the truest sense of the word (anarchy = without government).

The ‘right’ is often closely associated with capitalism, and we have to be careful here for most people confuse capitalism with cartelism. Capitalism means that everybody has access to the markets subject only to their own financial resources and ability to sell their labour. Cartelism means that markets are only open to those meeting criteria set by those already controlling that market. In the UK one works for a company and is paid a remuneration which is governed by a salary band. This salary band is an averaging-out of the ‘value’ of all the workers in that pay band, so the good, profitable workers have to subsidize those in their band who are unprofitable, This is called ‘Social Justice’, and is just another expression of cartelism.

The ultimate in cartelism is in the full socialist agenda, where the state is in absolute control of all production of wealth. Communism abhors capitalism, but enforces absolute state-run cartelism. That is not to say that capitalism is perfect, but it is like democracy: it is the best we have, despite its faults. There was a time when, especially in the USA, if one worked hard and intelligently, then one was almost sure to prosper. This was the American dream. But cartelism has turned that dream into a worldwide nightmare. No longer can lemonade be sold from the front yard — the cartel just can’t stand the competition.

The big selling point of socialism is ‘welfare’, and I suspect that the major criticism of rightist politics is that the balance of welfare to work is too much on the side of ‘work’ and an ethic of ‘no work, no pay’. But the incredible ability of ‘right’ politics to create jobs and distribute wealth and therefore to promote wellbeing is rarely discussed, as is the profound reciprocal ability of socialist ‘welfare’ to promote poverty. When, in the UK, I smashed my leg (high-energy pilon fracture type 3), I had a choice: I could live on welfare for the rest of my life, or I could try to hold down a job as a cripple. I chose the latter, but in doing so, had to give up all access to the former because this was an all-or-nothing inflexible type of welfare designed not to help the patient but to be able to tick a box on a political welfare agenda sheet.

Socialism tends to be very physicalist. Whilst it looks after the injury, in doing so it wants to also own the mind. It has no room for the metaphysical, which says I want to be free and to decide for myself and take responsibility for my decisions.

Because socialism is essentially a religion, it seeks always to evangelise and sermonise. It is much like Edmund taking the White Witch’s Turkish delight*: not only can one ever get enough of it, but it also puts one into spiritual shackles to the point where one will betray one’s brother and sisters for more of the same.

The opposite of the (political) Left is not National Socialism, as the Left would have us believe. And, yes, there were (and still are) street battles between socialist factions like the BNP and SWP, or even BLM and Trumpeters. The real opposition to socialism is from the liberal conservative right, who, on the whole, don’t realize that they even exist, they are now so isolated.

Although Communist Russia fought National Socialist Germany, that does not make them political opposites — brothers often fight brothers, and sometimes with an extra bitterness which comes from sibling jealousy and rivalry, given their competition for the same finite resources….

Time to make friends, brothers of the right!

Comedians Are The New Prophets And Televangelists Of The Marxist-Atheist Religion

It’s Michael Jensen’s point and man it’s a good one!

If you’re in Australia, it’s anyone at The Project, which features comedians supposedly delivering “the news” but who are actually the equivalent of da’is in the mosque of Marxism, preaching the same old Communist message wrapped up in clever “progressive” doublespeak.

Elsewhere, I’m sure you will recognise them by their incessant obsession with promoting homosexuality, gender theory, or climate change along with a healthy dose of adoring Islam, multiculturalism, and anti-West sentiment.

Anyway, here’s the goods:

If you turn on the television to get a laugh, you’ll probably find yourself getting scolded by a self-righteous prophet of liberal pieties instead, writes Michael Jensen.

Is it just me, or have the comics of Australia turned into preachers, moralisers, and puritanical do-gooders, whose mission in life is not to make us laugh but to tell us what to think?

Now, at one level, this is exactly what good comedy does. It exposes folly, and helps us to see with moral clarity what is right and what is wrong.

But when it comes with a veneer of hip – from a dude in torn jeans and dreads, or from a guy in a natty suit on a yoof program sponsored by the government – then it feels like a bait-and-switch tactic.

Turn on, tune in for a laugh, and find yourself laughing at those with whom you disagree because, apparently, they are scum. They aren’t cool, like us. You know, you and me, who just know so much better. Ha ha.

Exhibit A is Tim Minchin. Minchin is fancied by his fans as a latter-day William Gilbert. But doggerel sung to piano by a man trying to look like a waif is still doggerel. Rhyming it and singing it doesn’t make it true, or even witty. He picks an easy target – Cardinal Pell – and heaps invective on him. Well, maybe it was deserved, but it was scarcely courageous, or radical, or outlandish, and it was as strong a piece of sanctimony as heard from any pulpit.

Exhibit B is Charlie Pickering. Pickering has recently moved from hosting Ten’s newsfotainment show The Project to hosting his own ABC show The Weekly, from which he pontificates, well, weekly. In this recent piece on marriage redefinition, he moralised his way through six minutes of self-righteous sermonising, with an adoring studio audience bah-hahing at his every sly dig against those idiots who disagree with him.

This is Pickering’s stock in trade. Let’s not pretend he’s doing anything less than scolding us, and preaching to us. He’s a self-appointed prophet of liberal pieties.

Exhibit C is Adam Hills. Adam Hills has gone to England to make it big with his show The Last Leg. The Last Leg is more preachy than a televangelist’s early morning show. The more moralistic it is, the less amusing it is.

The funniest thing Hills does is to call people with whom he disagrees ‘dicks’. In fact, he seems to have given up on comedy altogether, and to have made his show a crash course in sweetly pious soft-liberal values. Want to know what to think, and how not to be a dick? Hills has got a half hour just for you. It is about as funny as a government pamphlet.

What’s the problem with this moralising? The issue is not the piety per se, but the pretence that that’s not what’s going on. Why don’t they all call themselves ‘Reverend’ and be done with? At least that would be honest. The pose of being an iconoclast, which adds to the comic an aura of authenticity, simply isn’t convincing. These three aren’t naughty boys, they are would-be messiahs.

They are actually deeply conservative, with a strong sense of universal and objective right and wrong, and a feeling of deep injustice when this sense is offended. They do not challenge the establishment and its values; they work for it, and preach them.

Only, it is not cool to own that out loud. You have to cover that with an ironic veneer if you want to be popular.

Naturalistic Evolution: Faith-Based Religion

We live in a world at ideological war.

There are thousands of religions but they all really break down into about five categories.

Evolution puts its foot down on one side of the scales, unbalancing itself to claim that all that exists is the observable, physical world and natural means of creation.

Christianity makes the claim that creation is comprised of the unseen spiritual realm (note: not corporeal or non-physical) and the observable natural realm and there is a necessary but presently diminished interaction between the two.

There is a whole lot of evidence to be found but how you interpret it determines what religion you adopt.

Consider some of the evidence against naturalistic evolution in Michael Snyder’s excellent article:

For someone that is supposedly so “brilliant”, Stephen Hawking really doesn’t have a clue. In a recent interview with Spain’s El Mundo, Hawking publicly declared that God doesn’t exist, that he is an atheist, and that science provides a better explanation of where the universe came from than the Bible does. While I certainly respect much of the great work that Hawking has done throughout the years, I don’t think that he has thought through these issues very clearly. As you will see below, it takes a ridiculous amount of blind faith to believe that the theory of evolution is true, and the cold, hard evidence clearly points to a Creator. Unfortunately, to be a respected member of the scientific establishment today one must fully embrace an evolutionary model for the origin of life, and at this point Stephen Hawking has left no doubt as to where he stands.

Somehow most of us have become convinced that it is not “intellectual” to believe that God created all things. And a big reason for this is due to the public pronouncements of big name scientists such as Hawking. The following excerpt comes from an article that was posted on, and I was very disappointed when I first read this…

He gave an interview to Spain’s El Mundo in which he expressed his firm belief that el mundo was the work of scientifically explainable phenomena, not of a supreme being.

Hawking said: “Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation.”

I’m not sure whether there was a specific moment in which science overtook the deistic explanation of existence. However, El Mundo pressed him on the suggestion in “A Brief History of Time” that a unifying theory of science would help mankind “know the mind of God.”

Hawking now explained: “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”
He added: “Religion believes in miracles, but these aren’t compatible with science.”

In the end, Hawking can believe whatever he wants to believe, but he should at least be honest about the fact that he is making a faith choice as well.

You see, the truth is that the theory of evolution is not backed up by hard science. I will go into this much more below. In fact, when you choose to “believe” in evolution, you are doing so in spite of the evidence.

So why would anyone do this?

Why would anyone believe something as ridiculous as the theory of evolution

Well, in my experience most people believe exactly what they want to believe. And what Stephen Hawking apparently wants to believe is that there is no God and that our existence is some sort of great cosmic accident.

Recently someone asked Coach Dave Daubenmire if he “believed” in evolution, and after reflecting on that question for a while he wrote an entire article in which he shared his thoughts on the matter. The following excerpt is the part that I enjoyed the most…
Why did he ask me if I “believed” in evolution? I thought evolution was, ahem, settled science. Science, I had always been taught, was based on the scientific method and the veracity of the topic was no longer in doubt. Examples began to rumble through my head.
Why has no one ever asked me if I “believed” in gravity? Do you “believe” in darkness? Does one “believe” in grass? Do you “believe” in the wind? Does one “believe” in fire?” Of course not. Seeing is believing, they tell us. Fire proves itself. So does gravity, and wind, and grass. If macro-evolution is true, why did my friend ask me if I “believed” in it?

We are taught that it takes faith to “believe” in God, or angels, or your spouse. But the truth is; faith is required in order to ‘believe” anything. Christianity is a religion that requires faith to believe. So are Hinduism, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, and Santa Claus.
But evolution and climate change are religions as well. Macro-evolution is a faith-based belief system regarding the origins of the species. Global warming is a faith-based system regarding the ebb and flow of the climate. Macro-evolution and climate change are far less fact-based than a belief in Jesus.

But these days, many prominent religious leaders are caving in to the immense pressure from the scientific community to accept the theory of evolution. For example, Pope Francis has made headlines all over the globe for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution. The following are some of the Pope’s statements that have appeared in newspapers worldwide…
-“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”
-“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”
-“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”
In 2015, most people consider the Pope to be the number one representative of the Christian faith on the entire planet, and so it is quite alarming that he is making statements such as these.
Other prominent members of the Catholic clergy are making even stronger statements.
For instance, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that a belief in young earth creationism is “almost blasphemous theology”…
As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.
“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”
I simply do not understand how anyone can look at the evidence and come to that sort of conclusion.
Just look at our DNA. It is a self-replicating information system that utilizes a code that is so incredibly complex that we are only just now starting to understand it a little bit. The amount of information that would be contained in just one pinhead of DNA would completely fill a stack of books that could stretch from our planet to the moon about 500 times.
So where did such a complex and remarkably efficient information system come from?

DNA is both a code and a language, and the truth is that codes and languages don’t just pop into existence out of nothing. There is always an intellect behind every code and every language.

So where did DNA come from, and who designed it?

This is just one of the exceedingly important questions that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

For those that are interested in learning more, I would like to share a list of 44 points about the creation vs. evolution debate that I included in a previous article. Unless you have really looked into these things on your own, you may have never encountered some of these points before. The next time that someone tries to convince you that evolution isn’t just a fairy tale for adults, share this list with them…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered…

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following…

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs. But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature. In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature. The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.”

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College…

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves. It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no detectable radiocarbon in it whatsoever. But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones. This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense…

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about. The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself? This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth. Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago. It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago. But it still exists today. So why hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer. This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff. The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex. The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically. As explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal? No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information. One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way…

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers. This simply is not true at all…

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly. This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them? The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves? The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten…

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were. They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed. And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you. Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from non-life, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

The Climate Change Religion Is Gearing Up To Burn The Heretics

If only we all bow to government, we shall be purged of our sinful, climate-changing ways and ushered into the promised land.

The UN serves as the papacy of this watermelon religion and they have placed their Cardinal Obama particularly well so that the “land of the free” need not be bothered anymore by that whole pesky freedom thing.

In a scenario chillingly reminiscent of the story about Galileo’s punishment for going against the scientific orthodoxy of his day, a Democratic senator and a posse of enraged climate scientists are looking to string up anyone who denies their vision of climate change.

Not literally string them up, just criminalize them, investigate them, fine them, possibly jail them and certainly ruin their careers and lives.

Twenty scientists, mostly from universities, signed a letter to President Obama supporting Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s call to use the RICO racketeering laws to shut up anyone who disagrees with the warmistas.

In the letter, the scientists compared global warming “deniers,” that is anyone with common sense, to the evil tobacco industry that allegedly hid information about cancer from the public to sell their product.

The shadowy villains in this scenario are the omni-evil oil companies, environmentalists’ favorite bogeyman.

“If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done,” the self-appointed inquisitors wrote in the letter, which was addressed to President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren.

All three of them are probably drooling at the prospect of persecuting us benighted souls who think the planet can take care of itself and global warming is a fraud.

Even supposing for one moment that there was something to the whole global warming thing, that the Earth’s climate never varied according to natural forces like solar cycles, volcanic activity, cyclical ocean current shifts, etc., didn’t I read something in the Constitution about the government not being able to restrict free speech?

I’m sure the proponents of using RICO to enforce leftist dogma would counter that this tactic would only ever be used against big, bad companies that are trying to wring out profits from the gullible.

But we all know that’s a bunch of bull hockey. This is an intimidation tactic. If it were to actually be deployed, it would be to say to the world, “Look what we can do to the big companies that don’t get in line, now what are you little people going to do?”

It would really have nothing to do with saving the planet because the planet doesn’t need saving. It’s all about pushing a Marxist Progressive agenda of increasing control over the populace of the United States.

Progressivism, which goes back to President Woodrow Wilson, has only ever successfully moved forward when there has been a sense of dire emergency fixed in voters’ minds. In Wilson’s case, the excuse was World War I, and his Administration planted the seeds of fascism in American soil, providing a model of a regimented and planned society that fanatical leftists looked to around the world. You may recognize some of the guys who cited Wilson as a role model — guys with names like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, etc.

Yes, it can happen here because it did already. It’s just been whitewashed out of history books that Wilson was a raging dictator, who was very into things like speech codes and punishing dissidents.

Ever since then, whenever an Administration, on the Left or the Right, wants to advance a Progressive agenda and doesn’t have a war, it’s time to manufacture a crisis, like health care or a gas attack in Syria or a flood of illegal immigrants or …

Now we have an Administration that aspires to the Wilson model but hasn’t got half the brain power, and it’s embarked on a project to create an existential terror, a threat to the very planet itself.

Granted, the global warming scam didn’t start with the Obama Administration, it’s been a project for decades. But Obama wants to be the one who can finally eliminate the opposition and bring the long-awaited scheme to fruition by shackling the common folk and swelling the bank accounts of the rich who are lurking in the wings for their chance to gamble in “carbon credits” and “alternative” power.

There are a lot of problems with the anthropogenic theory of global warming, obvious problems, but we live in an age where the average person seems to be crippled in his capacity for logical reasoning. And just to add insult to injury, people who are most lacking in that faculty have been trained to ape their masters and label political opponents as being “anti-science,” a cry which then gets picked up and repeated in the equally irrational media.

The warmistas have nothing to support their pseudo-scientific cause, and they know it. So now it comes to the phase of persecuting dissidents through the authority of government, rights be damned.

And real science takes the hit.

Using RICO to force the global warming agenda is the last refuge for scoundrels hoping to find their place at the public trough.

If anyone promises to save you and they ain’t Jesus, don’t trust ’em.