Epidemic Insanity

It doesn’t require much observation to see that there is an appalling and seriously frightening contagion of virtual insanity spreading throughout the West today. It’s worse than any black plague because it destroys lives in much more subtle ways and because it impoverishes and destroys societies.  Over the past decade or so, this phenomenon has spread like wildfire, infecting every level of society.  More and more psychologists are speaking up against the insane ideas being pushed on society – invariably by the liberal-minded media and it’s disciples of posthumanism. Many are saying that liberalism is a mental illness in itself while other say that liberalism creates mental illness. And of course, they are right. Insanity starts with the denial of reality. Denial of reality is everywhere today.

What is the evidence for this?

  • The wide spreading of ideas that are entirely contrary to reality

    • Take the whole transgender fad.  Biology, Mother Nature, dictates gender and always has. Gender cannot be simply decided by the human being. DNA, chromosomes, determine gender in an irreversible and undeniable manner. A man pretending to be a woman trapped in a man’s body or vice-versa is not only bucking reality – demonstrated en masse by modern scientific research – but they are engaging themselves in a serious psychological delusion and confusion that will cause them endless suffering. Their DNA tells their gender in no uncertain terms.The only way to change gender would be to re-write ones’ genetic code, one’s DNA. And even then, it is a fraud that Nature itself will resist because of all the genetic mechanisms in place in the genome that detect and correct replication and other errors. Genetic anomalies are quite another issue and they too are known to be ANOMALIES. Not natural or good.
      Human chromosomes, male vs female karyotype, illustration

      And even if that were possible, that in itself would be an act of a delusional person who fails to accept their real genetic nature, their natural identity. In this rising and spreading disease of the mind and soul, it is almost surprising that all those people who vehemently accused creationists and IDists and anyone even just skeptical of neo Darwinian evolution of being “anti-science” are now the ones resisting and denying the very science they claim to support beyond all else. The irony is stunning. As always the materialists contradict themselves everywhere.

      Moreover, any doctors and other medical professionals encouraging any person to go for a so-called “sex-change” operation is an accomplice in increasing that person’s suffering and promoting their confused and delusional state. They know very well that switching out sex organs and such will never rewrite that persons biological sex as recorded in their DNA. Thus, for filthy lucre, these immoral physicians are actually contributing to and multiplying the insanity of such operations and their underlying false beliefs, so contradicted by Nature itself. Shame on them! They are frauds of the worst kind, deceiving already confused and mentally ill people and condemning them to live in a body with sexual organs that do NOT comply with that person’s DNA! It is criminal!

    • Everything that was written above can also be applied to the deluded souls who think they are other species trapped in human bodies.  Like the young woman who claims to be a cat in a human body or all these insane men who act like dogs, being led around on all fours, on leashes and allowing themselves to be abused like animals. The same genetic reasons apply here only on a much larger scale. We have young people getting plastic surgery to alter their appearances to look like “aliens” – though none of them have ever seen an alien and none of them have any clue what an alien may or may not look like- supposing they even exist! It is pure INSANITY. And yet all the mindless liberals push this mental illness as though it were actually healthy.
    • We are seeing more and more denial of known historical facts spreading with a stunning degree of vehemence.  Tearing down and destroying old statues, banning flags that in fact had and have nothing to do with any immoral behavior and on and on the insanity goes.For this, I could name the irrational new racism with all its ugly consequences and ridiculous claims. Nonsense like “white supremacy”, “white privilege” and such.  This is revisionist history, not real history. This is harping away at things that occurred centuries ago and that were well on their way to completely disappearing from Western and European society.

      The truth? Between 620,000 and 750,000 white people died to stop slavery in the American South. Slavery was ended in England in 1833 by white people. Yet this fact is ignored completely and a reversed racism is now in full swing – blacks becoming extreme racists against whites. For this we may blame the Obama’s for their rank and often not so subtle racist comments against whites. We may blame the lying, manipulating lamestream media for fanning every possible flame of racism, perpetually playing the racist card against every little criticism of Obama’s NWO pushing regime. We can blame bigoted hate-mongers like Oprah Winfrey who has openly said that “old white people must die”. That is a murderous spirit. A demon by any other name.  And anyone who is paying attention knows who is really behind all this. The Globalists, the self-proclaimed “elites”, who are, in fact, only “elite” in their treacherous evil scheming for their own power and wealth.

      In an era where racism was coming to be almost non-existent, these people fanned the flames of a new kind of racism – that of blacks against whites. As though any living person today was involved in any of the old conflicts or slave trade. The new racists also completely ignore the fact that Canada was a haven, a refuge for fleeing slaves during all that time. Canadians, majority white, received and helped fleeing slaves reestablish themselves in new lives.

      Racism – as though the measure of melanins in body chemistry has anything at all to do with one’s character or value. More melanin means darker color – be it eyes, hair or skin. Less means lighter color. So all this hate and violence promoted and spread by these diabolical people is all about how much of this chemical is in your body?! Not really. They are using this simply as yet another tool to force the world towards their selfish, egomaniacal NWO.

      One curious and contradictory element in this the fact the slavery, throughout history, and still today, has most especially and abundantly been practiced under Islam! All while the people screaming against racism and complaining of events resolved more a century ago, today are also screaming for more Islamic “refugees” (generally Jihadis pretending to be real refugees).  Islam is radically anti-feminism, yet the Western feminist rally in support of it! This is quite literally insane. It’s like the person who lobbies against rape, rallying in support of more rapists coming into their neighborhood.  The same applies to the whole “gay” agenda. They rally for Islam, all while Islam murders gays by burning them alive or throwing them off buildings. This is literal insanity.

      17309786_1835003630086202_4438704327613876319_n

      Just as bad is the fact that Darwinian evolution is inherently racist in nature. Even though, in the wake of the revelations of Nazi plans for world conquest post-WWI, that their “scientific” justification for the “supreme race” and the “artificial selection” to exterminate the “inferior” races, we still see very few souls courageous enough and knowledgeable enough to speak the truth on this issue. And all the while evolutionism is heralded by both black and white! Hitler called blacks “monstrosities” and he worked closely with Islamic leaders to eliminate the “subhuman” – less evolved – Jews. The contradictions are indeed insane. The evolutionists devised a subtle means of escaping the implications against themselves by making one fundamental adjustment – moving the goal posts – in their theory. They changed it from polyphyletic (all races descended from variously evolved lineages) to monophyletic (all races evolved from a single hominid lineage which split into various races but all equally evolved).  And that is a trick, contested by many more honest evolutionists to this day.

    • And what shall we say of morality? This is truly amazing. We have seen a complete reversal of moral values in less than 40 years. That which was known to morally wrong for centuries is now morally good and that which was known to be morally sound for centuries is now called evil. It is stunning to behold. All well-informed people know the cause – materialism with its religion of Secular Humanism – the new creation myth called evolutionism and the many branches that have been spawned and spread based upon these godless and in fact, irrational beliefs based entirely on rebellion against Nature itself and against God.
  • The troubling phenomenon of people who cannot think for themselves and seem to have poor logical coherence in their ideas as well as the blatant spread of what I call “educated illiteracy”.It is all too obvious, just by scanning through social media sites like Facebook, Twitter et al, that far too many people (including the educated) do not know how to spell well, do not grasp plain English well, cannot seem to reason beyond 1st-degree inferences and embark in ludicrous beliefs like the Flat Earth.  A nonsense belief that is itself spreading across the West as though it had any credibility. That in itself is another proof of epidemic insanity – the underlying causes of which are materialism, a deliberately twisted education system specifically designed for  “dumbing us down” and persistent public education as indoctrination into secular humanist religion with evolutionism as its prime, centerpiece axiom. The schools are now the temples of secular humanism, not functioning to produce independent thinkers but brainwashed, sheep, slaves of the governing, oligarch elite, easy to manipulate by mass media propaganda.

    John Dewey stated clearly enough,
    You can’t make Socialists out of individualists — children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.” (tip of the iceberg)

    “Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American school is a school of humanism. What can a theistic Sunday school’s meeting for an hour once a week and teaching only a fraction of the children do to stem the tide of the five-day program of humanistic teaching?”
    – Charles F. Potter, “Humanism: A New Religion,” 1930

  • The inversion of normal judicial practice. 
    • How many more cases of judiciary insanity do we need to see before recognizing this contagion, this epidemic?  We see violent rapists and killers being set free by idiot, criminally negligent judges because “In his culture sex with children is approved and rape is normal” or “he was not aware that our laws forbid such behavior and his culture approves it”, or “beating women is not morally wrong in his religion”. Of course all this applies only to Islam! We see the same insane behavior when an investigative reporter is the one been hauled over the proverbial coals of injustice for having exposed the insanely wicked and inhumane practice of Planned Parenthood’s murdering of babies to sell their body parts on the black market. The hero is now the villain and the sick psycho villains are now protected. Again a reversal of sanity. ALL based on the relativism and stupidity of materialism, the evil agenda of the billion dollar abortion industry – follow the money.
    • Then, lastly, for now, I should mention the fact that so many wonderful new technologies are literally being stifled and deliberately kept out of the market all for the sake of big industries that make billions of bucks per year and keeping the old technologies going. The oil industry that too often halts new technologies that would have liberated the world from oil dependence decades ago. The pharmaceutical industry that deliberately stifles and suppresses cures and preventions of wide-spread disease – like cancer – all so it can continue to make billions per year and harmful “cures” that kill more patients than they cure – the radio-chemical treatments that actually destroy the human immune system causing more deaths than the disease itself.  All conveniently kept out of the mainstream spotlight. This too is insanity.

One could go on and on about the epidemic insanity taking hold of the world. It is not difficult to see. One does not need to search high and low to observe it or realize it just with a bit of effort of mind.

God help us.

humanism-apple

The lovely looking but poisoned apple of humanism

 

What Kind of World would Convince us that Atheism is True?

“What kind of world would convince you that there is no God?”

This is a question posed a while back by atheist Jerry Coyne and one that pops up once in a while in debates on theism vs atheism.

And the answer is very simple.

No world at all.
Indeed, no worlds at all, no universe at all – nothing.

That’s the only rational answer. If literally nothing existed then there would be no one to posit either theism or atheism or anything at all and atheism would be true by default since absolute nothing would also mean no God. However, as soon as you have something, atheism becomes untenable. It can never explain the existence of anything and thus it is too weak a proposition to have any use or credibility.

“Nothingness” is atheism in a nutshell. Atheism is the intellectual black hole of the universe.

Nothing made everything in atheism. Some of them try to pretend that atheism does not really make such a preposterous claim. And yet, they will point to Lawrence Krauss who wrote the book, A Universe from Nothing!  And then they will claim that nothing doesn’t really mean nothing. Um, what?! Say again?

To escape the stupidity of his claims Krauss tries to redefine nothing to mean something. In fact, militant atheists like that are always seeking escape tactics like this to hide the insanity of what they’re saying.  But even in their curious definitions of “nothing” their foolish arguments fail miserably. Since they have defined nothing as something, they still must explain how that something that they call nothing (I’m not making this up) came to exist.  Of course. They cannot do any such thing.

Thankfully the hard sciences and math tell us that the energetic potential of nothing is always nothing. This is the most obvious thing in the ‘world’. Indeed, and using atheist “logic”, we could think that 10^1000 x 0 does not equal 0 but some humongous positive number.

Why is there something rather than nothing is something that blind atheism can never explain. Atheism has its own god. The great god Nothing. It is their posited creator and to their creator they think they are going when they die.

You’ve probably heard the ancient proverb that “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”.  Well, in the inverse, atheism is the beginning of insanity.  Why? Because it is nothing but denial of reality and wishful thinking. And all the laughable and ill-reasoned, junk philosophy of a Coyne or a Dawkins will never change that.

As Voltaire stated, “The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..” – Philosophical Dictionary

 

brain-on-atheism

Atheism is True?

I came across a Facebook page called “Atheism is true”, today. I couldn’t believe it. Even knowing how clueless most modern atheists are I could barely believe that anyone could possibly be that stupid.

The phrase, “atheism is true” is, in fact, a claim to knowledge of a universal negative.
All knowledge claims carry an intrinsic burden of proof. And,

“in truth-directed enquiries, the burden of proof is on all of us alike”
– Putting the Burden of Proof in its Place: When are Differential Allocations Legitimate ? Tim Dare and Justine Kingsbury, Academia.edu

So, pray tell, where oh where is the proof that Atheism is true? Saying “atheism is true” is semantically identical to saying “it is true that there is no God”.
Proof, please? Oops.
Proof of atheism is always AWOL.  And that since the beginning of time.

Ergo – “atheism is true” has to be one of the dumbest claims ever – even by today’s woefully low standards for dumb. It is literally blind faith, the proverbial leap into the dark, the deep dark abyss of human stupidity, the belief without evidence that ignorant atheists wrongly think real faith is. (Real faith is based on good evidence)

And the profile pic is just as clueless.
It’s a photo of the cosmonaut who famously said, “I see no god up here“?
Seriously?
Did anyone expect him to? Nope. Certainly no Xian. (X = the Greel letter chi, not the English x, and the chi was used by early Christians as a symbol of Christ, because the first letter in his Greek title is the chi – X)

The man who did more than any other to put man on the moon, Werner von Braun stated,

“…as I became exposed to the law and order of the universe, I was literally humbled by its unerring perfection. I became convinced that there must be a divine intent behind it all… My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”

“When astronaut Frank Borman returned from his unforgettable Christmas, 1968, flight around the moon with Apollo 8, he was told that a Soviet Cosmonaut recently returned from a space flight had commented that he had seen neither God nor angels on his flight. Had Borman seen God? the reporter inquired. Frank Borman replied, “No, I did not see Him either, but I saw His evidence.”
– Dr. Wernher von Braun

It’s tragic that so many atheists are too blind and too narcissistic to grasp anything greater than themselves and often too lazy to think beyond first-degree inferences. Tragically, atheists are usually their own little gods. And also, all too often, either terrible logicians or just dishonest people – even lying to their own selves. This is one reason why we say that “it’s just 99% of all atheists that give such a bad reputation to the rest”.

newton-bible and atheism

Consensus Science?

I often have Darwinians tell me something like that “98% of all scientists believe in evolution” (the neo Darwinian or the modern synthesis). They think that this is somehow convincing and ought to settle the issue. It doesn’t. Not even remotely close. Indeed, these same people tell me whenever I quote from some scientist, including those in their own camp, that I’m using a fallacy known as “argument from authority” and then they dismiss the quoted statement as though it is meaningless.

What to do? Well, I am forever obliged to remind them that their own claim that “98% of all scientists accept the theory of evolution” is itself an appeal to authority. The blindness (or hypocrisy) is almost comical.  I ask them what authority they themselves are specifically appealing to in claiming that evolution, i.e. neo-Darwinism, has been “as proved as gravity”, as they love to parrot robotically. Invariably they have no good answer.

Occasionally I get a link to say, the Berkley U. page on evolution for laymen or the equivalent. That’s it. Nothing more substantial, specific or genuinely useful. Just the usual empty assertions, just-so stories, terrible logic and baseless leaps of faith Darwinists are so famous for. The reason for this is because almost none of them even know what to point to! Oh, but they are still adamantly sure that proof exists somewhere in science land!

I have noticed over the years that most Darwinian scientists believe that somewhere, some other scientist has proof of the theory. They never have any of their own so they imagine that it must exist in some other scientists’ lab somewhere. Here’s another clue for you all, it doesn’t.

Even the PhDs send me to some peer-reviewed article inevitably demonstrating some trivial, microevolutionary experiment. I have to constantly remind these folks that pointing me to a molehill does not lead me to deduce Mount EverestAnts building ant hills does not justify extrapolation to ants being the constructors of Everest and certainly not the architects of Mount Rushmore, no matter how many gazillions of years you like to add.

micro to macro evolution

There is no leap of sane logic that can take one from say, antibiotic resistance, to “all ~8 million life forms on earth arose from some hypothetical, unobservable LUCA over billions of unobservable years”. If you didn’t recognize that, it is the Darwinian Evolution of the Gaps. Still the most common argument (fallacy) given us by Darwinists everywhere. We must take the leap of blind faith into the deep dark abyss of their fervid imaginations, jumping from the anthill to Everest, to accept the theory.

In decades of discussion and debate they have never given me anything better than trivial examples of microevolution – which all too often isn’t evolution at all but built-in, pre-programmed adaptation mechanisms coded in the species’ DNA – in their futile attempts to prove macroevolution. Macroevolution means major change crossing taxonomic Family boundaries. And don’t be fooled by their recent “moving the goal posts” redefinition of macro as meaning everything above the species level.  If that were true then more than 90% of all evolution is macroevolution and the distinction between macro and micro is virtually useless. Creationists do not even dispute microevolution!

And of course, they did this redefinition because there is not a grain of evidence for any such macroevolution ever occurring. Hence – redefine macro so that it squeezes in – make the data fit the theory rather than accept that the theory does not fit the data.

Note: I received an objection from a Darwinist on this post. Of course, he did not read it correctly since his objection was basically, “lol macroevolution is the same thing as micro over time”. My reaction was, as usual, being disgusted at how these people don’t even read fully and then push the same old baloney with the ubiquitous LOL included, to pretend to themselves that they “gotcha”.

Well, this is just so wrong. The ignorance these people display is stunning. Worse, he added a lame article by poor thinking, disgruntled atheist fanatic Jerry Coyne which is supposed to prove that micro and macro are the same thing, macro being extended micro. These guys have no clue. Coyne’s article is full of really bad logic. It’s like they cannot keep up with the science and perpetually revert to defunct, early Darwinian beliefs that have long since been disproved. One such belief is the myth that macroevolution is just an extrapolation of micro. I addressed this issue here.  So I’ll repeat some of it.

In short, even in 1940 Goldschmidt wrote, “Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations”.

Much more recently, the late evolutionary biology prof, William Provine, an avowed atheist and evolutionist stated,  that “[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:

1. Natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . .
7. Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution.
8. Definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of Dobzhansky and Mayr.
9. Speciation was understood in principle.
10. Evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life..”

– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point # 7 . Provine was correct. We cannot pretend that macro is simply an extension of micro without a scientific warrant – and there is none. Indeed, the evidence tells us it cannot work that way. The genome contains so many restraining factors, error detection & correction mechanisms and poly-constrained data that it always was and still is utter folly to pretend you can just make such gratuitous extrapolations. You can’t.

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

“A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large-scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution
cannot be solved conclusively.” (Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24)

Do you know why evolutionists persist in claiming that micro extends into macro? Because they take it as an article of faith, since no evidence exists for it.

Pointing us to any given article, allegedly proving evolution, is itself an argument from authority. They appeal to their own chosen authority, they appeal to consensus – when it fits their prejudice – all while never even noticing that they are being wonderfully fallacious in their logic and doing what they accuse others of doing.

Worse, arguing from authority is NOT always a fallacy at all! Else the judicial courts would have abandoned doing it centuries ago. Lawyers are constantly making appeals to authority in virtually ever criminal case! The authority of the medical examiner, the forensics labs, the specialized scientist or professional. Appeal to authority is only fallacious when all you have is the word of some “expert” no matter the lack of empirical evidence.

It’s too bad PhDs in biology are not obligatorily required to follow some basic logical analysis and critical thinking courses. It could save us all a lot of wasted time, forever having to explain it to them.

“Historically, *the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled*. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.”
“Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
– Michael Crichton, PhD Harvard, postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies

I wish evolutionists would finally wake up to their own spurious and irrational arguments. Science has NOTHING to do with consensus. “Consensus science” is an oxymoron.

berlinski-evolution

 

Theistic Evolution?

 

The truth? “Theistic evolution” is an even bigger farce than materialist Neo-Darwinian evolution. Just as all the materialist Darwinists say when the poor theistic evolutionist has his back turned and they’re being truthful and saying what they really think.

“Theistic evolution” is an insult to Jesus Christ and the gospel. It implies that Christ is the descendant of some ancient extinct ape, and going further back, the descendant of some single-celled, barely more than goo, less than bacteria, unknown entity. This borders on blasphemy.

Darwinian evolution itself is the greatest blunder and shame in the history of science.
It has been proved wrong so many times it isn’t funny. Yet the deeply deceived Darwinians persist in claiming that it’s “as proved as gravity”. By which they mean mere micro-evolution and through which they wrongly pretend that macro-evolution is an extension.

They could not possibly be more wrong, as all the recent evidence tells us loud and clear. Macro, which in the correct definition, occurs above the taxonomic Family, has exactly zero evidence of ever having occurred and less than zero observation in the real world. Macro-evolution is an imaginary tale worthy of the worst fiction.

Indeed, the evidence is utterly lacking, so what have the Darwinians done to save their precious hypothesis? They did what they always do – move the goalposts, redefine the meaning of macro so that it includes everything above the mere species level. Frauds.

Here’s what that means:

darwinian-definition-scale

Seriously? This redefinition of what macro-evolution is, implies that more than 90% of all evolution, is macro-evolution! Which is supposed to mean MAJOR change, not trivial change or mere variation and adaptation within the Family. In other words, the Darwinists have basically redefined macro-evolution almost right out of existence, since it includes virtually everything in the taxonomic classification.

Oh, the dishonesty! And curiously, under the new definition, all creationists are in fact Darwinists. Such slight of hand should make the Darwinians red in the faced ashamed of themselves.  Eliminate the opposition by defining him as part of your own camp. The cowardice and fraud in this are stunning.

The ONLY reasons why Darwinian evolution, by which I mean the Modern Synthesis, persists are religious reasons, not scientific ones. And the only reason theistic evolution has arisen among so many misinformed, misguided Christians and others, is because they can’t handle the peer-pressure of being mocked and ridiculed for claiming special creation is true, or else because they are incompetent in research and poor logicians, failing to see the blatant contradictions.

Or, they simply have been deceived by the way Darwinists are always pulling rabbits out of their magic hat and claiming proof of something. Smoke and mirrors have always been the major evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution. Precious little real evidence exists and all real evidence only supports minor, microevolution. The Darwinians simply gratuitously extrapolate that into macro, and without any scientific warrant for it. Yet much scientific evidence warrants against it.

Theistic evolutionists are the worst in many ways. They are maligned and mocked both by creationists and materialist evolutionists. Poor befuddled souls. They are stuck between the proverbial “rock and a hard place”. Sandwiched between wanting to cling to Christianity and yet not wanting to feel stupid by rejecting what needs to be rejected just because it’s the status quo.

There is a cross to bear for upholding creation and rejecting Darwinism. They will not carry that cross. And that belies their true state of heart.

They have adopted a new religion, all while giving lip service to Christianity. Neo Darwinism is religion and that is why it still remains, in spite of the massive evidence against it and in spite of so many top-level evolutionists abandoning it.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.*” -Michael Ruse (atheist evolutionist), “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post, May 13, 2000, p. B-3

“History will ultimately judge neo-darwinisim as “a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuation of Anglo-Saxon biology.” In her view proponents of the standard theory “wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin – having mistaken him… Neo-Darwinism, which insists on (the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection), is a complete funk.”
– Lynn Margulis – late professor of biology, University of Massachusetts

“Today, many evolutionists assume that a large number of small mutations can account for macroevolution. This conclusion is not based on experimental evidence, but on the assumption that the evidence for microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. The empirical evidence, however, is clear — neither macromutations nor micromutations can provide a significant source of new genetic information.
Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or tissues” (Margulis and Sagan, 2002, 11). What it eventually leads to is sickness and death.”

Margulis, when president of Sigma Xi, added that “many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life. . . . `No!’ I say” (Lynn Margulis, late biologist and member of the National Academy of Sciences, 2006, 194).

She also stated, “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”

Former wife of Carl Sagan, she exposed the truth in her book Acquiring Genomes:
“Many ways to induce mutations are known but none lead to new organisms. . . . Even professional evolutionary biologists are hard put to find mutations, experimentally induced or spontaneous, that lead in a positive way to evolutionary change” (Lynn Margulis, Acquiring Genomes)

Only ignorant and gullible people or stubborn, religiously devout evolutionists still believe in the neo Darwinian fairy tale.

If Darwinian evolution had been treated correctly, treated according to the much-touted but little-practiced claim of science’s self-correction, it would have been relegated to the garbage dump of pseudo-scientific nonsense decades ago.

Theistic evolutionists are in the worst possible position, trying to have God and Darwin simultaneously. Even though Darwinism and the gospel are diametrically opposed. Nothing degrades the value of human life like Darwinism does. The poor misguided theistic evolutionists are obliged to turn a blind eye to that fact. They are obliged to adopt the Darwinian mode while pretending not to know what it means.

The real Darwinians know exactly what it means. As the late William Provine wrote:

“Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.”

“As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.”

“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented. ~ William Provine

How can it get more obvious? It cannot. Yet theistic evolutionists love to lie to themselves pretending that this is not the case at all!

Ruse and Wilson wrote it more clearly (my Caps):

“The time has come to take seriously the fact that we humans are modified monkeys, not the favored Creation of a Benevolent God on the Sixth Day. In particular, we must recognize our biological past in trying to understand our interactions with others. We must think again especially about our so-called ‘ethical principles.’ The question is not whether biology—specifically, our evolution—is connected with ethics, but how. As evolutionists, we see that no justification of the traditional kind is possible. Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will… In an important sense, ETHICS AS WE UNDERSTAND IT IS AN ILLUSION fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding… ETHICS IS ILLUSORY inasmuch as it persuades us that it has an objective reference. This is the crux of the biological position. Once it is grasped, everything falls into place. – Michael Ruse & E. O. Wilson, “The Evolution of Ethics,” Religion and the Natural Sciences: The Range of Engagement, , ed. J. E. Hutchingson, Orlando, Fl.:Harcourt and Brace, 1991.

The crux of the evolutionary biology position indeed.

Even Niles Eldridge stated,

“Darwin did more to secularize the Western world than any other single thinker in history.” – Niles Eldredge

For sure. Let the dishonest theistic evolutionists wake up and smell the lies they are pushing for Darwin, all contrary to the truth of their alleged Christianity.

 

 

An Atheist Claims that Personal Testimony is Invalid

In response to a Christian posting a personal testimony as a reason for their faith an atheist wrote,

“personal testimony is also invalid. People are quite capable of being delusional”.

Really? This is yet another example of the atheists’ inability to reason correctly and to thus contradict himself in the most glaring manner.

The courts of justice everywhere on earth rely enormously on personal testimony for solving cases from theft to fraud to murder.  Remove the eyewitness personal testimony and you have demolished a humongous part of the entire legal system.  Worse, if personal testimony is invalid, then this atheists’ own personal testimony is also invalid and should not be considered worthy of credence. If personal testimony is invalid then we have little or no reason to believe anything at all, including scientific discovery, and of course including the atheist delusion.

The entire world of reality is based on personal testimony. Scientific knowledge – that which is considered fact – is based on personal testimony as well.  No personal testimony equals no belief in anything historic events and no belief in anything scientific. Since all of it is transmitted through personal testimony, in the form of words, books, …

Thus with this claim the, theist just destroyed every possibility for real knowledge. How do we know anything in the history books is factual? Personal testimonies.
How do we know anything that scientists claim is factual? Personal testimonies of many scientists.

0511-1002-2402-5224_Trial_Judge_Listening_to_a_Witness_on_the_Stand_clipart_image

 

We can never prove much without some degree of personal testimony.  If personal testimony is invalid then we can NEVER convince anyone of anything anyone claims happened in their own life, based on their own personal testimony.

“People are quite capable of being delusional,”

Indeed. But of course, the poor atheist here forgets that he may be quite delusional himself. He forgets that we may justifiably consider him to be delusional.  Why should anyone, therefore, believe anything the atheist say?!

How foolish can you get? Typically new atheist foolish that’s how. This poor befuddled atheist just ruined all possibility of debate on any issue s8ince all debate is verbal or written testimony to ones’ knowledge.  It is irrational to exclude a major means of obtaining knowledge in the world without excluding oneself in the process.

This is so typical of the skeptics’ arrogance, so visible in discussion forums these days. Always so sure of their own intelligence, all while making blatant errors of reason like this poor soul did, shooting himself in the foot in the process.

brain-on-atheism

Abiogenesis is impossible

Abiogenesis is basically the belief that life arose from non-life through some unknown, theoritcal, hypothetical, unobservable, untestable and unfalsifiable chemical process.  I call it a belief  because it certainly isn’t science or scientific in any way at all.

World renown scientist, synthetic organic chemist, James Tour refutes every idea that the materialists and evolutionists have come up with that attempts to turn rocks into life by magic. In this lecture video,

Dr. Tour makes it abundantly clear why abiogenesis does not and cannot ever explain the origin of life.

I have always thought that abiogenesis was nothing more than yet another lame attempt by neo Darwinain fundamentalists, and other materialist evolutionists, to throw quack science smoke and mirrors at the world to try to fool us into believing that you can life from “the backs of crystals”, as Daniel Dennett so naively and ignorantly believes (without a shadow of evidence).  Abiogenesis is simply the old defunct “spontaneous generation” minus the spontaneous part. What a crock! And yet so many people have swallowed that pseudo-scientific codswallop!

It’s truly amazing to witness the mental twists, somersaults and pseudo-intellectual acrobatics that Darwinists and atheists will contort themselves into just to preach anything at all, no matter how ridiculous and risible, as long as it isn’t God.

Thank God it doesn’t work. It never has and never will. If you can prove that 1 + 1 can equal something other than 2, then maybe someday you’ll be able to show that an unguided, chance, material origin of life is possible, … in some other imaginary universe where 1 + 1 might = 3.5 for unknown and inexplicable (and dubious) reasons. Atheists are always inventing imaginary universes where their bland and naive dreams come true and nothing creates everything.

 

 

Who Invented the Macro vs Micro Evolution Terms?

Many times when discussing evolution with avid neo Darwinists online, I encounter the claim that “there’s no such thing as micro vs macro, they’re both the same, and it was dishonest creationists who invented the false distinction”. This is so common that I feel obliged to comment on it.

The reality is this:

“Yuri Filipchenko (Russian: Юрий Филипченко; sometimes spelled Philipchenko) (1882 — 1930) was a Russian entomologist who coined the terms microevolution and macroevolution, as well as the mentor of geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky”
– wikipedia

So there you have it. Macroevolution and microevolution are two terms coined by a Darwinian evolutionist.

Filipchenko was a Darwinist. Not a creationist. So this bogus claim by fervent Darwinians is just tragically ironic, hypocritical and based on their own willful ignorance. The worst is that the last time this false claim was handed to me I was the one treated as dishonest and worse for drawing the opponents’ attention to the fact that micro does not equal macro and macro is not extended micro. The real problem is all these deeply ignorant Darwinists running around parroting each other without ever bothering to verify their claims. I see this kind of mindless recitation of the Darwinian fundaementalist balony catechism constantly. They often act like mindless robots. Every time they stumble upon some statement from some equally clueless Darwinist site, they run with ball, going to the wrong end of the field and they inevitably score against themselves when better informed people catch them in their incompetence.

It is a sign of indoctrination, of brainwashing, when people do this automatic, verbatim, and thoughtless repetition of ubiquitous catch phrases and buzzwords. Indeed, as one physics professor confessed,

“And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal—without demonstration—to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.”
– Singham, Mark, “Teaching and Propaganda,” Physics Today (vol. 53, June 2000), p. 54.

So he has no problem brainwashing his students?  Seriously? What is wrong with that person? I bet it’s hard to pronounce.

The following depicts how this really works.

Darwinists typically use a bait and switch tactic when attempting to convince people of their pet theory.  While using the word evolution as meaning changes in allele frequencies in a population over time, they will then switch to the major changes above the taxonomic Family level.  The unwary audience thus sees macro in their minds while the actual laboratory evidence that is seen is ever and always only small, trivial variation.  The two different terms exist because there is indeed a distinction, else why bother? What use would such distinctions be if there really were no distinction in reality?

Here I quote the late WllliamProvine,  Cornell University historian of science and evolutionary biologist, stated that

“[e]very assertion of the evolutionary synthesis below is false”:“1. natural selection was the primary mechanism at every level of the evolutionary process. Natural selection caused genetic adaptation . . . .
4. Evolution of phenotypic characters such as eyes and ears, etc, was a good guide to protein evolution: or, protein evolution was expected to mimic phenotypic evolution.
5. Protein evolution was a good guide to DNA sequence evolution. Even Lewontin and Hubby thought, at first, that understanding protein evolution was the key to understanding DNA evolution.
6. Recombination was far more important than mutation in evolution.
7. MACROEVOLUTION WAS A SIMPLE EXTENSION OF MICROEVOLUTION.
8. definition of “species” was clear[–]the biological species concept of dobzhansky and mayr.
9. speciation was understood in principle.
10. evolution is a process of sharing common ancestors back to the origin of life, or in other words, evolution produces a tree of life.

11. Inheritance of acquired characters was impossible in biological organisms.
12. Random genetic drift was a clear concept and invoked constantly whenever population sizes were small, including fossil organisms.
13. The evolutionary synthesis was actually a synthesis.”
– William Provine, Random Drift and the Evolutionary Synthesis, History of Science Society HSS Abstracts.

Notice point 7, which I emphasized with bold, capitalized text. Darwinists would do well to note every point there. No, my Darwinian friends, macro evolution is not a mere extension of microevolution.  Provine is not alone. Today dishonest Darwinists, attempting to perform one of their standard moves – moving the goalposts – have changed the definition of macroevolution so that it is in fact merely microevolution, occurring at the species level. By very definition, macroevolution cannot be mere species level evolution. Macro requires major changes, the creation of new taxonomic familes, not mere variation and adaptation. As Provine noted, the definition species isn’t even clear and speciation is not even fully understood!

“The suggestion that the development in bacteria of resistance to antibiotics as a result of genetic mutations or DNA transposition somehow “proves” organic evolution is flawed. Macroevolution requires change across phylogenetic boundaries. In the case of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, that has not occurred.” – Bert Thompson, Ph.D., microbiology.

“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than that of sheer accumulation of micromutations” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1940).

Large-scale evolutionary phenomena cannot be understood solely on the basis of extrapolation from processes observed at the level of modern populations and species.
Andrew M. Simons, “The continuity of microevolution and macroevolution,”Journal of Evolutionary Biology 15 (2002): 688-701.

A persistent debate in evolutionary biology is one over the continuity of microevolution and macroevolution — whether macroevolutionary trends are governed by the principles of microevolution.”

“The neo-Darwinian theory of evolution claims to be able to explain this type of evolution in terms of random mutations, Mendelian genetics, and natural selection. But even within the mechanistic framework of thought, it is by no means agreed that this type of small-scale or micro-evolution within a species can account for the origin of species themselves, or genera, families and higher taxonomic divisions. One school of thought holds that all large scale or macro-evolution can be explained in terms of long-continued processes of micro-evolution; the other school denies this, and postulates that major jumps occur suddenly in the course of evolution. But while opinions within mechanistic biology differ as to the relative importance of many small mutations or a few large ones in macroevolution, there is general agreement that these mutations are random, and that evolution can be explained by a combination of random mutation and natural selection. However, this theory can never be more than speculative.
The evidence for evolution, primarily provided by the Fossil Record, will always be open to a variety of interpretations. For example, opponents of the mechanistic theory can argue that evolutionary innovations are not entirely explicable in terms of chance events, but are due to the activity of a creative principle unrecognized by mechanistic science. Moreover, the selection pressures which arise from the behaviour and properties of living organisms themselves can be considered to depend on an inner organizing factor which is essentially non-mechanistic. Thus the problem of evolution cannot be solved conclusively.”
– Sheldrake R., “A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Morphic Resonance,” [1981], Park Street Press: Rochester VT, 1995, reprint, p.24

Notice the dates on some of these statements. This is not new. So the question arises, “Why do so many Darwinists still persist in insisting that macro = extended micro?” And the answers to that are of a religious nature and due to gratuitous propaganda – read outright lying – spread by many in the Darwinian camp. Here is the standard taxonomy classification chart example.

Species is at the bottom! So how can these dishonest Darwinists claim that macroevolution occurs AT or above the species level? It’s ludicrous, because under that definition, micro and macro are occurring as exactly the same thing! No distinction. Even the logic is horrible.

As science philosopher, Michael Ruse wrote,

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality… Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” ~ Michael Ruse, How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000

Anyone who has had the displeasure of attempting to reason with staunch evolutionists knows all too well the religious zeal that characterizes the Darwinian fundamentalist today. Thus, giving credence to Ruse’s statement. A very honest and open comment indeed from an atheist evolutionist! The worst is that even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp, they still cling tightly to their sacred creeds like the poor befuddled soul that clings to his seat on a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

Back when I was a flight instructor, I was flying an ultralight aicraft, with a student learning to fly.  On that day the lesson was stalls. Basic stalling of a fixed-wing aircraft is usually taught by means of cutting power and then pulling the back on the joy stick, thus raising the plane’s nose.  When the aircraft reaches about a 16 degree angle of attack, the wing is no longer able to create enough lift to keep the plane flying. Then the nose of the plane dips suddenly and radically downward.  It’s kind of like the sensation of falling in one of amusement park rides.  If the stall is done with lots of power on, the results are far more dramatic with a violent nose dive.

Ultralight aircraft – Eipper, MX2

Well, I was leading the student through his first stall, explaninig what I was doing and such until the nose was nicely up and the speed lowered to where the stall occurred and the nose of the plane dropped suddenly earthward.  The student was so frightened by the sudden drop and plunge towards dear mother earth (remember that this is an early ultralight aircraft where you’re basically sitting on a lawn chair, 2000 feet up, with no doors, no floor, right out in midair, strapped to a simple airframe, two wings and a small motor) that he panicked and grabbed onto one of the structural beams of the plane, holding on for dear life, with a face as white as snow.  I couldn’t help but chuckle a bit.  It seems that sometimes flight instructors have a  slight saddistic joy in seeing students turn white as ghosts – just like we did ourselves in the beginning. It kind of “smells like victory” and feels like conquest.

Back on the ground, I explained to the student that it was not a dangerous move and that clinging to structual compenent would never save him in a real fall, since he was hanging on to a part of the falling plane. It was a useless act. One of panic and not of intelligence.

Now this example is very similar to Darwinists who, even in the face of testimony from highly regarded scientists in the evolutionism camp (not creationists), still cling tightly to their doctrine like the poor befuddled student clinging to a falling aircraft, in desperation thinking it will save him.

It won’t. Macro is not an extrapolation of micro. Get over it Darwinists.

 

 

 

 

Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction

The book “Intelligent Religion: it’s not a contradiction”, is available on Amazon:

Canadian site: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B073ZKGD73
USA site: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B073ZKGD73

Religion is blamed for almost everything wrong in the world these days. Is that justified? Religion has a very bad name but is that deserved? Sometimes it is, but only when referring to man-made, organized religion. Otherwise, everyone is inherently religious in the sense of having a worldview, a set of beleifs about “life, the universe and everything”, a set of moral principles and ideological convictions.

Is religion, in itselfm a human folly? Did man create God in his own image?
Or are religion, faith, spirituality as natural a phenomenon as breathing?

Is it all madness based on fairy tales and myths or something intelligent based on reality and facts?
I’ve offered concrete, well researched, logic, sciecne and history based answers in this book.

It’s full of great information for theistic apologists, skeptics looking for honest answers and even atheists ready to look honestly at the facts.
The information will understand much better the logical and simple explanations that will remove the confusion. The book covers, for example,

• Why the world has been religious since the dawn of time
• The true sources of what people think about it today, often without realizing it
• A simple and universal definition of what religion is that everyone can agree on
• The unavoidable relationship between politics and religion
• Why the creation of a completely secular society is impossible
• Logical and scientific evidence of the existence of a supreme being
• Why atheism can never be a substitute for real religion
• The function of humanitarian aid which must be a main function of any valid religion
• Has God really acted in human history?
• And more !

Chapter summary:

Chapter 1
What is religion, exactly?
Definitions
Let’s be logical
A religion of love
Chapter 2
Religion and atheism
Does a universal morality exist?
Is atheism a religion?
Atheism is a belief
Atheism is concerned with the existence of God
Atheism contradicts itself
Real atheism or religion, you must choose
Chapter 3
If there is a God, Religion makes sense
Typical evidence of the existence of God
The cosmological argument based on the beginning of the universe
The argument based on information
Information and symbols
Genetics and algorithms
Genetics and arithmetic
Origin of life and evolution
The argument from morality
The error of relativism
Origin of the moral law
Other arguments
Evidence of the non-existence of God
Chapter 4Religion and politics? God forbid!
Wars of religion?
Is a purely secular government possible?
God and the State according to the Bible
Chapter 5
God and Religion in history: Divine interventions?
Joshua and the long day
The prayer of General Patton
Bullet-proof George Washington
The face of the Lamb
Life after death: Diane Komp , Carl Jung, Howard Storm and many others
Chapter 6
Religion and Education
Secular humanism
The hidden face of school programs
Chapter 7
Religion and Social Missions
HELLISH HOLLAND
Conclusion
ANNEXES

Check it out, in either digital or hard copy. It’s priced low to make this ifnormation available to even the lowest budget.

 

 

No Creationist Scientists with Real Credentials?

I’ve been told that there are no creationist scientists with real credentials so many times I wish I had a buck for every one.

The truth is quite the contrary and atheist TV evangelists preaching, proselytizing and indoctrinating others with this kind of spurious codswallop ought to be severely reprimanded.

The truth about this is presented briefly here. It would take days and a load of space here to list every creationist scientist with earned degrees from reputable universities so this is a small sample.

Creationists developed and established the scientific method – not atheists.  Virtually no atheists were even involved. Historical fact.  Indeed, atheists, under atheist assumptions about the universe, could never have developed the method.  Why? Because they have no reason at all for believing in an ordered and comprehensible universe. Under atheism, the universe should be chaotic and incomprehensible. It is neither.

Bishop Robert Grosseteste, a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar Roger Bacon. Both predicted that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge–a result which followed.  Bacon especially enumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.

So the greatest scientists in past history, all creationists of some sort, did not believe the materialist definition of science.  How then can the atheists claim, as they ubiquitously do, that creationism or even mere intelligent design (which leaves the question of God and holy books out of the issues) will lead to the ruin of science when in fact all the great scientists that led us to where we are today were themselves creationists? Utterly ridiculous and in fact a downright evil lie.

Modern science was born and raised in theistic world views and would have never been born in atheism.  Modern science was cradled in Christianity and it is the environment of Christianity and theism that fueled and nurtured its birth and maturing. Not atheism. http://www.ldolphin.org/bumbulis/#anchor5343749

Atheism has never brought any good to humanity whatsoever. In fact, quite the contrary with more than 170 million murders perpetrated by atheists under officially atheist governments in the 20th century alone.

“The founders of modern science were all bunched into a particular geographical location dominated by a Judeo-Christian world view. I’m thinking of men like Louis Aggasiz (founder of glacial science and perhaps paleontology); Charles Babbage (often said to be the creator of the computer); Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Robert Boyle (father of modern chemistry); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); John Dalton (father of modern atomic theory); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); John Ambrose Fleming (some call him the founder of modern electronics/inventor of the diode); James Joule (discoverer of the first law of thermodynamics); William Thomson Kelvin (perhaps the first to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics); Johannes Kepler (discoverer of the laws of planetary motion); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); James Clerk Maxwell (formulator of the electromagnetic theory of light); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics); Isaac Newton (discoverer of the universal laws of gravitation); Blaise Pascal (major contributor to probability studies and hydrostatics); Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).” … Gregor Mendel (genetics), Sir William Herschel (galactic astronomy), John Woodward (paleantology), Sir Humphrey Davy (thermokinetics), Lord John Rayleigh (dimensional analysis)….

The great christian (ex-atheist) philosopher and author C.S. Lewis said,

“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.” – C. S. Lewis on Mere Science  1998 First Things 86 (October, 1998): 16-18.

Atheism would never have given birth to modern science at all. It is perfectly at home with all kinds of  idiocy, superstition and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”.

All the people in the above list were creationists and all scientists and responsible for virtually every convenience and health benefit you enjoy today including internet, cell phones, television, radio, flight, space flight, calculus, and on and on it goes.

And yet atheist fanatics are all running around slandering and whining against them and their followers and successors.

How about if we denied them access to everything that was invented or founded upon creationist science and inventions? No cell phones, no airplanes, no television, no radio, no computers, no penicillin, no flights to the moon, no lasers, masers or anything built on laser technology – and on and on the list goes.

The ironic thing is that all these irrational ignorant atheists these days, that think they’re so smart and highly educated, are virtually all educated in schools, colleges and universities founded by creationists : Yale, Princeton, Oberlin College, Harvard, Dartmouth, McGill, Laval, Oxford, Cambridge, McMaster, Cornell, and almost all the great universities of Europe and the West. Not to mention hundreds in Africa, South America and Indonesia where it is Christian missionaries that started the school systems there as well as the hospitals!

“According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize (2005) a review of Nobel prizes award between 1901 and 2000 reveals that (65.4%) of Nobel Prizes Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference (423 prize).  Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics[8] and 49.5% of all Literature awards.

The three primary divisions of Christianity are Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates 32% have identified Protestant in its various forms (210 prize),[9] 20.3% were Christians (no information about their denominations) (133 prize),[9] (11.6%) have identified as Catholic[9] and (1.6%) have identified as Eastern Orthodox.

According to study that was done by University of Nebraska–Lincoln in 1998 found that 60% of Nobel prize laureates in physics from 1901 to 1990 had a Christian background.

Alfred Nobel who established the prizes in 1895, through baptism and confirmation Alfred Nobel was Lutheran and he frequented regularly the Church of Sweden Abroad.

Christians make up over 33.2% of the worlds population and have earned 65.4% of Nobel prizes.”

References
Davis & Falconer, J.J. Thomson and the Discovery of the Electron
“The Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine 1904 Ivan Pavlov”. Nobelmedia. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
“Gov’t Rejects Newspaper Story”. The News 2014-05-07. Accessed 2014-05-09.
Martin 2008, p. 30
“Nobel Prize” (2007), in Encyclopædia Britannica, accessed 14 November 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online:
“All Nobel Laureates”. Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2010-03-01.
Baruch A. Shalev‏, 100 Years of Nobel Prizes (2003),Atlantic Publishers & Distributors , p.57: between 1901 and 2000 reveals that 654 Laureates belong to 28 different religion Most 65.4% have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference.
“Alfred Nobel, hans far och hans bröder”. March 2013. Retrieved 9 December 2013. “(swe: Genom dop och konfirmation var Alfred Nobel lutheran -en: Alfred Nobel was through baptism and confirmation a Lutheran)”
33.2% of 6.7 billion world population (under the section ‘People’) “World”. CIA world facts.
“The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions”. foreignpolicy.com. March 2007. Retrieved 2010-01-04.
“Major Religions Ranked by Size”. Adherents.com. Retrieved 2009-05-05.
ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.

Take Dr. AE Wilder Smith for example – a young earth creationist – with 3 earned PhDs :

AEWilder-Smith# Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)

# Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich

# D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)

# F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 “Golden Apple” awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.

# Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company

# Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford

# Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages

# NATO three-star general

How’s that for real credentials?

The list of theist and creationist scientists with real earned degrees is extremely long. The atheists, once again, are lying to you, and to themselves. All because of their own fanatical religious beliefs that impede them from acknowledging the facts.

 “Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest growing controversial minorities… Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.” – Larry Hatfield, “Educators Against Darwin”. Science Digest Special, Winter, pp. 94-96

And what of Copernicus, Galileo, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Kelvin, Faraday, Pasteur, Townes, Godel, Marconi, Pupin, von Braun, … these were all men of strong religious beliefs. They were all theists and mostly full fledged creationists.

Next time you here an ignorant atheist tell you that there are no creationist scientists, or that religion makes people dumb or that Christianity is anti-science, point them to the historical FACTS, the schools, hospitals, charities, inventions, and the scientific method itself and tell them to get informed and get a proper education in the history of science.

The atheists have done nothing but cripple the scientific method with their groundless, a priori insistence that only the natural can explain the natural. And how exactly, do they know this? They don’t. That claim is a metaphysical, materialist presumption, and total bollocks. For if you cannot see beyond the material world how in the world can you predicate, with embarrassing certitude as atheists do, that there is nothing outside the material world?

Excluding ANY possibility from science is idiocy. Excluding metaphysical existences from science is nothing but a religious prejudice. We should always seek material explanations, but not where no such explanations suffice and design is the only “Occam’s Razor” answer possible. The beginning of the universe is precisely one such case.

Creationists number among the greatest scientific minds in all history. And today’s creationist scientists are very well educated in their scientific domains in major universities.  Don’t swallow the atheist propaganda, its pure bull.