Mimicry (A Theory That's Obvious Nonsense)

0

Here's a problem with the theory of "Mimicry".
Just because it looks like a rattlesnake during a very short phase during its lifespan, doesn't mean anything. Snakes.. all of them have lots of stripes, spots, and in fact, even some trained snake experts have trouble distinguishing between them, so how could a dumb animal?? When I saw it, of course, "rattlesnake" came to mind, but *why* doesn't it retain those features since they're beneficial during their entire lifespan?

Ask yourself that. Why lose features, which would be beneficial through your entire lifespan?

(**)Mimicry doesn't explain anything. Nature happens... so, natural selection happens and there's nothing but randomness and coincidence, and Darwinists made the "leap of faith" and extrapolation that there's actually anything "intelligent" in nature, that one species would try to mimick another, out of self-protection... Darwinist nonsense. Its only coincidence that it turned out that way.

Who is it looking for "Design" in the choas, catastrophism, and seeking "intelligence" where there is none?
Ah, none but the Darwinists... and Atheists. It "just" turned out that way. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes things happen, they just turn out that way and there's no explanation for it. No design, no thought-process, just random coincidence.

**(Mimicry, resembling a rattlesnake really assisted the eastern hognose in keeping my cat away from this species, didn't it? So much for the Mimicry theory nonsense).


Photo 1 LAWA Juvenile - pattern, coloration and body form bears resemblance to a Pygmy Rattlesnake - perhaps some protection is afforded.
Photo 3 JONE Juvenile hog nosed snake in red color phase similar to pigmy
rattlesnake.

> The cat dragged this one up. Eager to identify it. Its around a ft in
> length... very small snake.
>

On 8/27/2010 1:24:13 PM, Jeff wrote:
> Too bad I can't see much of the head in that shot, but I'll bet it's an
> Eastern Hognose. Really too bad the cat killed it, as hognose snakes are
> totally harmless to people and really cool snakes!
>
> Some are nearly black, but some are quite colorful, and yours matches this
> baby hognose I found a few years ago pretty well. Scroll down:

You're absolutely correct.

Thanks for the link. I looked this one up by species name, and found an identical one that matches mine (now in a jar of alcohol).

Photo 1 LAWA Juvenile - pattern, coloration and body form bears resemblance to a Pygmy Rattlesnake - perhaps some protection is afforded.
Photo 3 JONE Juvenile hog nosed snake in red color phase similar to pigmy rattlesnake.
Heterodon platirhinos, Eastern Hognose Snake

The hognose is also the snake that will roll over and pretend its dead and produce a bad odor, as though it were dead to discourage predators from eating it, isn't it?
A scent like its been deceased for a few days... so one documentary claimed.. showing a coyote losing interest in the hognose snake, because it stank.

They produce a perfume of death when they're playing dead, right?

>
> http://www.duke.edu/~jspippen/herps/easternhognosesnake.htm
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

On 8/27/2010 8:22:27 PM, Jeff wrote:
> Yep,
> that's the one!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

Read More »

Black Hole Sun Lyrics Meaning - Neil DeGrasse Explains

0

Seeing the video on youtube, yields amazing presumptions on the meaning of Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun".

Neil DeGrasse the Astrophysicist and colleagues explain.

People will go to amazing lengths to deny the simplest and most obvious things.

This song isnt even about a black hole though.

Never mind that "Black Hole (Sun)" is the title of the song.

"Black holes will never get anywhere near us, because by the time they do, we will have been long gone."

Precisely, that's why scientists added Black Holes as #7 greatest threat to life on earth.

'Last Days on Earth' mini-series
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319986
These are organized from least likely to most likely:
7a. Death of a Star: Gamma-Ray Burst
7b. Death of a Star: Black Hole
Number seven was actually two alternate views of what could happen to a star and how it could destroy life on earth.
6. Intelligent Machines
5. Supervolcano
4. Asteroid
3. Nuclear War
2. Plague
1. Climate Change

"The sun would have already died."

Our sun (a star) has nothing to do with a rogue black hole roaming into our solar system.

"And a black hole would be nothing like this video, the earth would be stretched flat before the black hole got anywhere near this close."

Where does this joker get his information? See end of video. The Earth, subjected to the gravitational pull of a Black Hole retains the shape of a sphere, until the last remnants of Earth's core are vaccuumed into oblivion.



In my eyes, in disposed,
In disguise:as no one knows
Hides the face Lies
The snake, the sun
In my disgrace
Boiling heat, Summer stench
'Neath the black
The sky looks dead
Call my name
Through the cream
And I'll hear you
Scream again

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun

Won't you come
Won't you come

Stuttering
Cold and damp
Steal the warm wind
Tired friend
Times are gone
For honest men

And sometimes
Far too long
For snakes
In my shoes
A-walking sleep
And my youth
I pray to keep
Heaven send, Hell away
No one sings
Like you anymore

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Hang my head
Drown my fear
Till you all just
Disappear

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Read More »

Atheists Try To Force Religion Into Classroom

0

I've seen atheists cross the line, but this one is over the top...



You've heard right, an Atheist (philosophy), claims Science and Atheism are the same thing.

"Technically, a religion is a set of beliefs, to be truly atheistic, you'd have to have no beliefs whatsoever. Sience, on the other hand, has beliefs, for example "I belive that this wall is solid" or "I believe that this chemical and this chemical makes one less science lab *explosion* aaargh I was right!" so if you want to get pedantic, then atheism is the statement that nothing is true. If you don't want to get pedantic, on the other hand, then atheism and scientific belief are the same thing."

Over the top!!!

Science and Atheism (worthless philosophy) are completely unrelated.
Science does not have any opinion on Religion, but Atheists are often guilty of spreading wreckless FALSEHOODS. Scientists like Dr. Alan Fedducia had to come out blasting Atheistic Darwinists in the media for propagating their FALSEHOODS such as "feathered dinosaurs evolving into birds". They make so many scientific errors, because... ATHEISM IS NOT "SCIENCE"!
Atheism is classed as a religion, and falls under the uselessness of philosophy.
SCIENCE HAS NOTHING to do with religion.

Seems atheists are rather hypocritical when it comes to the whining about Creationists wanting to superimpose their views on public education. But Creationists are not half as deluded about the definition of "Religion" and "Separation of Church and State," as Atheists have became.

If Atheists want to force their religion down people's throats, let 'em, at their own privately ran "school for Atheists". But keep the Atheist religion (which is not and never will classify as "science"), out of the classroom.

'tis more example how they're dumbing down the nation.

The public education system is failing miserably.

---

This gem widens:

Actually, I have not created, or disproved anything, I merely observed that science has a set of beliefs, for example, 'I believe this wall is solid'. I aklso observed that a religion is simply a set of beliefs, therefore one could argue that science is a religion. To be completely without religion, you would have to be without beliefs. I niether created, nor disproved nothing. Though I could perhapps have put it more clearly to avoid the demented honking from the narrow/closed minded. None, actually, because I'm not in america, I never said sciewnce has anything to do with religion, you're misinterpretting what I wrote."

You are confused. Science deals with FACT. However, quoting you 'atheism and scientific belief are the same thing'. Zat so? Then change your story , 'to be truly atheistic, you'd have to have NO BELIEFS.' But you've already admitted that science has beliefs, by using the term, "scientific belief", then change your story, "..atheism is the statement that nothing is true." hmm.. sir, Science deals with empirical facts, not philosophy.

Another person chimed in:

"You are wrong. You have created your own definition of atheism, and disproved it. Congrats! you have accomplished nothing. Atheism means 'without gods.' That is all that the word means, or will ever mean.

Answer: Anti-Theism, is rabid foam at the mouth hatred and persecution of people of faith and/or religion, and has EVERYTHING to do with obsession over Theism and bigotry and ignorance. Worse than any religion.

Read More »

Can't Tell Who's The Christian and Who's The Atheist Anymore

1

I've managed blogs for an Atheist and Agnostic, and sometimes comments roll in. Including some who argue among themselves. There were 3 comments, and earnestly, I'm unsure which was the Christian and which was the Atheist. I'll alter the names to protect the innocent:

******: has left a new comment on your post:
"I would beg to differ with ***** as to why Christianity is suffering from an "image problem" at the start of the 21st century.
The problem... was that as he became more informed about Christianity he began to doubt. He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing, (much like --- hero, Luther, had done at one time) and found it wanting.
Additionally, when he went to those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance. Compound that with trying to search for his answers in the Bible itself and further not finding them - he turned to outside sources. Most likely the internet. There - of course - he finally found some answers: his faith was based on inconsistencies, myth, plagiarism, historical inaccuracies and in some instances, outright lies. How could he not doubt?"

Why yes... this is true. The church has failed for centuries to teach the truth. In fact, centuries ago falsehoods were circulated, i.e., the Pauline Forgeries, and people like Luther took it upon themselves to attempt translation of a Bible for the common person, and the church wanted to maintain a tight grip on the scriptures, rendering people helpless with the church as intermediator to God... but it was not so. In the midst of this, apocryphal manuscripts circulated... Jesus was the only intermediator between man and God, but the church attempted to superimpose itself into the authority of Jesus Christ.

CONTINUE...

"If --- want to answer him, they would do well to stick with addressing ***** specific problems as opposed to beating the "Here's How I Deal With Stupid Questions" bush. I would submit to ***** that there is a third criteria as a "easily identifiable and telling symptoms of false doctrine": that of obfuscation in answering the intellectual and emotional needs of the fold."

The other person responded, and this person, *****, posted again in response.

"Christians on the whole seem to somehow expect others to take what they have only experienced within the confines of their belief system on faith, for, whether you want to "believe" it or not, there is absolutely no proof that anyone named "Jesus" ever lived."

Testimonies of his existence are preserved in the Bible, and prophecies of the Messiah, but that's beside the point I suppose.

CONTINUE...

"None. Not one shred of evidence - even in the Bible itself - that anyone alive at the time that "Jesus" was supposedly living even ever knew the guy. No scrap of paper, no golden tablet, no stone inscriptions, no burial chamber, no cross, no first-source material (and there certainly seems to be a lot of copies of copies of copies, but not one original torn corner of a papyrus that even indicates that anyone ever knew him), not even any relatives left to give any account of him a generation after the fact! Nothing. Nada. Zip. Pilate: silent. The Sanhedrin: silent. The Romans: silent. On and on and on and on - you'd think that a guy who apparently raised somebody from the dead, fed a multitude on a couple of haddock and shards of bread, turned H20 into Pinot Griggio, got nailed to a cross, died and then came back might have made some form of impression on people. Nope. No one even noticed him apparently amongst the multitudes of other "prophets" of that time.
Not until 70 years later did he even actually start to appear in any meaningful manner, and even then, it doesn't appear that that guy even ever might have known him - just "of him", as it were."

INTERMISSION : Actually it's estimated to have been around 30 years after the death of Jesus, that recorded testimonies came into publication. But continue...

"No, there's nothing "selfish" about questioning the veracity of
Christianity. If anything, I'd say that was a noble endeavor. It is not "egocentric" to want to know - it is the mark of a "God-like" human to seek this so-called "God" out wherever "He" may be, wherever it may lead. It is not selfish or egocentric to admit you don't know something and wish to - it is selfish and egocentric to believe you have the answers when in fact, you don't.

"God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

When Intelligence gives, Ignorance takes over. One could probably bank on that."

And the other person, who posted in the midst of the two comments wrote this,

###### has left a new comment on your post":
"The first problem of doubt stems from the human condition of selfishness, as articulated with "the doubter finds the Christian faith wanting", "the doubter finds God lacking", and "the doubter finds himself need or requiring to know X or Y".
We are an egocentric lot that will forever clash against a God who asks for trust and faith.
God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

God or Intelligence: One has to give??

Am I reading this correctly? One person is denying the existence of God, whilst the other is teaching the falsehood that one must become "ignorant" to be a Christian??

Both appear to be Atheists (or at least, the latter, a Sheep in Wolf Clothing).

Actual scripture states in contrast: King James Bible (Hosea 4:6-9)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings."

Which also brings to mind the very insightful verse, in regard to what the former (presuming, an Atheist(?) stated, which is truly sad:

"He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing... those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance."

INDEED! as it is written,

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/1-18.htm, as it was in Jesus' day, he came teaching the Commandments of God (not the law of Moses), but God's law, and for doing so, the corrupt religious establishment murdered him.

And further, indeed: International Standard Version (©2008)
"How terrible it will be for you when everyone says nice things about you, because that's the way their ancestors used to treat the false prophets!"
http://bible.cc/luke/6-26.htm

And yes, if you speak the truth... it will make many enemies, and persecution, which equates to sorrow. The religious establishment (organized religion), the same who murdered Jesus, will turn into a witch-hunt against the righteous, which lead to the Inquisitions and other atrocities against many Saints: Those who keep the Commandments of God, and hold to the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Either way, both contributors failed to contribute any positive light, enlightenment on Christianity, and appear to be on the same side: To make a war on the Truth of God, and Jesus Christ.

There was no Commandment among the 10 which stated, "Thou Shall Not Utilize Thy Brain." But some who claim to be Christian, do indeed teach the false doctrine, and often practice it as well.

King James Bible
Jeremiah 31:34 (Old Testament Prophet): "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Hebrews 10: "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more... By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place. And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

So who is this entity, called the Church (the lie of Organized Religion which Jesus stood against, and was murdered), which with-holds knowledge, teaches falsehoods, endorses scriptural forgeries, pretends you must go through "them," flawed men, to obtain audience with God... what else was the purpose of Jesus' death and sacrifice? So that greedy preachers and televangelists could store up millions in their bank accounts? Men are unfit to teach the truth!. The corrupt and wicked priesthood who taught idolatry, lead to the destruction of Israel and Judah. When Jesus took his stand against them, they murdered the Lord. God alone has the power, the patience, the knowledge, (the Spirit of TRUTH, through grace in Jesus Christ that we may come into the presence of God, and will be taught by God), who are these persons who have usurped the authority of Jesus Christ himself, to teach falsehoods?

Read More »

Why I reject a belief in Satan

2

Here's an old movie clip I ran across tonight and it reminds me of what I strongly believe. There's some Christians (at least they claim to be) that ask me, how can I reject a belief in satan and demons and still believe in the Bible? Well, foremost, those things weren't taught by Moses or the early prophets. In the book of Genesis, there is no mention of a dragon, snake, evil spirit. The earliest (true) books of the Bible are not tainted with false gods. The Hebrews continued to pollute themselves with idolatry. Eventually, false doctrines and forgeries such as the book of Enoch (with many tales of demons), began creeping into Jewish religion. God destroyed Israel and Judah. This clip (assuming) comes from heavy influence of early Old Testament doctrines.


First, the nazis who are heavily influenced by anti-Christian socialist influence attempt to open the ark (with no reverence for God). What they find is "sand," and begin laughing (like the Atheists and non-believers they are). What follows is paranormal activity and then ghosts and other "angelic beings" that swamp the scene, and deceiving the onlookers, eventually to show its "dark powers" and consumes them. Of course Harrison Ford warns, "Don't look at it," and keep her eyes closed. And that's how I feel about "Satan" and "Evil Spirits" and other things that are false gods. You can find in the book of Acts, well, I'll let the verse speak for iself:

King James Bible, Acts 23:8
"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

Competing concepts, such as evil spirits, devils, dragons, et cetera crept into Biblical theology toward the time of the destruction of Israel, because they worshipped such things (idolatry). However, this clip from "Raiders of the Lost Ark," shows paranormal activity, as well as ghosts and other phenomena coming from the most Holy Ark. How could evil, come from Holiness? Easy:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
http://www.bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

The prophets commanded the early Hebrews to abstain from Necromancy, and other paranormal phenomena such as found in witchcraft, but the Hebrews refused. They continued to break the commandment of God which instructs, "Thou shall have no other gods before me."

"The Lost Books of the Bible," The Apocrypha, Commentary (Halo Press, pg. 8)


"Hard Sayings of the Bible", (Intervarsity Press)

Read More »

Cro Magnon, Cave Man and Identity of the Nephalim Giants in Genesis, the Old Testament

5

I won't trouble anyone with all the false explanations from 1) Fee Fi Fo Fum 30 ft tall mythological "Giants," to 2) Fallen Angels / Demons, to ... who knows what other explanations, I'll stick with the reasonable Biblical explanation.

Here's the famous chart of Science' Evolution of Man, showing the line that lead up to Cro-Magnon, and Cro-Magnon was replaced by "Modern Man" who the father of Agriculture (tilling the ground) and the first settlements.



The major difference between Cro Magnon man (40,000-10,000 years ago) is that Cro Magnon did not farm. He was the prehistoric "cave man," nomadic, hunter/gatherers.
Agriculture which enabled man to create settlements, began in Mesopotamia, around 10,000 years ago, the same is described in Genesis 2:5: "...and there was not a man to till the ground.") with the creation of Adam, Agriculture began to flourish and spread throughout the ancient world, and strong emphasis is on how not a man existed, to "till the ground". How that became "no man existed," was through fundamentalists' denial of Paleontology and the fossil record of human evolution.

How ironic, that instead of "denying the Bible," scientists were merely doing the will of God, to explain the mystery of Genesis.

"Tilling the ground," is emphasized and re-emphasized. Many Atheists raised the question, "Where did Mrs. Cain come from?" after Cain fled following the murder of his brother. Cro-Magnon had a heavy population throughout parts of Europe and the ancient near east. That is where "Mrs Cain" came from. It is written, (Genesis 4:11) that God greviously cursed Cain, who was a tiller of the ground,

"...And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth."

How interesting that Cain expressed fear about every man who found him would want to kill him? How odd, if the only man living at the time, aside of his dead brother, were his father Adam. Obviously, it is implied that other men were living at the time, including cro magnon women, from whom Cain took a wife.

"And there were giants in those days..."
Many of these ancient people stood 6 ft. tall on average. The video documentary mentions Ancient Chinese scrolls and cave paintings of figures of "great height" that lend credence to the accounts



(see this video snip on the Silk Road Mummies, from National Geographic, "Mummies: Voices of the Dead" (available on video tape.)



Who the "Sons of God" are,

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
~ Genesis 3:22

Please take note that God mentions nothing of "fallen angels," "demons," or otherwise. The wicked ones in discussion who plundered the "daughters of men," were man... men... modern man, Adam, a son of God, hand-crafted from the earth, by God himself. Adam was the "fallen one," if you please, and "...they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Genesis 6:4
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the 1) sons of God came in unto the 2) daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

The verse is speaking of none other than the ancient Cro-Magnon man, ["men of old"] or "ancient man" which had existed from approximately 40,000-10,000 years ago, and through interbreeding, was replaced by modern man.

A famous museum bust of cro-magnon man

Now that age old question, "Who Was Mrs. Cain?" is answered. A question often asked by those Atheists, whom were reciprocated with their parents being asked not to bring their children back to Sunday School, because they "asked too many questions." That, requested by Sunday School teachers who simply didn't know how to answer simple questions, due to their ignorance about the human fossil record and denial of evolution and science... and what is written in their own Bible. But perhaps that is due to, more often than not, a failure to actually read their Bibles.

Read More »

How to know the Bible is a Divine Authority‏

0

In a letter to an Agnostic, I wrote:

I think I have sent you (and your Agnosticism) overwhelming evidence there is substance to Genesis. It is difficult to believe such a manuscript ended up in the same book with men who praised idolatry and adultery(his highness Solomon, who has a front row seat in hell reserved with his name on it). Yet there is due reason to believe Genesis, to be from a source, that knew very much about the evolution of the Universe and Earth.

Genesis 1:1 - Epoch One, Pt. 1 of 2
In the beginning, the Earth was without form and void...


Genesis 1:2-5 - Epoch One, Pt. 2 of 2
The Creation of Light as in, earth's own volcanic activity


Genesis 1:6-8 - Epoch Two
Early Earth (Volcanic), was surrounded by a thick blanket of hot steam.
The Creation of the Firmament (Troposphere), which divided the waters from water; oceans vs. atmospheric humidity(moisture).


Genesis 1:9-10 - Epoch Three (Pt. 1 of 2)
The Dry Land Appears


Genesis 1:11-13 - Epoch Three (Pt. 2 of 2)
The Earth brings forth plant-life; Algae around hydrothermal vents, non-photosynthetic fungi with "seed" (spores) and fruting fungi "trees".


Genesis 1:14-19 - Epoch Four
The Sun Begins the Nuclear Fusion Process which enabled life to proliferate on earth at an accelerated rate...


Genesis 1:20 - Epoch Five (Pt. 1 of 2)
Sunlight forces former soft-body organisms to adapt, with shells and hard-body designs, or go extinct.

Moving Creatures Emerge in the Cambrian Explosion

Genesis 1:20-23 - Epoch Five (Pt. 2 of 2)
Moving Creatures emerge in and at the WATERS EDGE, just as Science theorized


Genesis 1:24-31 and 2 - Epoch Six and Seven
The creation of cattle, and beasts of the earth and primitive man (Epoch Six), vs. Modern Man/Agriculture "There was not a man to till the ground" (Epoch Seven)

Where anyone got the idea, there were no people living at the time of Adam's creation... ? Where else did Mrs. Cain come from except Mrs. Cro-Magnon. As stated in Genesis 6:4, the descendents of Adam (the fallen ones) took wives of Ancient Man, whose children became the same "...mighty men which were of old."

Cro-Magnon (link includes video documentary clip from National Geographic: "Mummies: Voices of the Dead," discussing ancient "giants," with mummy remains discovered along the ancient "Silk Road" to China). Cro-Magnon were a primitive nomadic race of powerfully built people (lived between 40,000-10,000 y.a.) were hunter-gatherers who did not know how to farm and did not establish permanent settlements and were replaced by Modern Man.
(aka "Cave People"). (Commentary/Video link)

In fact, I'd say it was hand-dictated straight from the mouth of God, by a prophet. It is not mere "Babylonian Mythology". It can only be understood, by one who has acquired an adequate knowledge in the sciences.

I will stand by the opening chapters of Genesis as divinely-inspired, and even by the fragmented gospels (written 30 years after Jesus actually lived). Some things attributed to Jesus sound very much like the original Hebrew teachings that were absent of Persian, Babylonian, Egyptian Tiamat snake/dragon-worship (ye Babylon Mystery Religion: Satan Worship -- Christians love their dragon, like Jews let the serpent slither into their theology at the end of the Old Testament),


NEVER MESS WITH JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN IDOLATRY AND WORSHIP OF SNAKES. They will condemn you to hell, if denying the power and existence of their god. They love their Babylon Mystery Religion. Oooo, it sends shudders down my spine to think of walking into a church and saying, "I don't believe in Satan." they'll have your hide on a fence. An atheist would be better off had they walked in and said, "I don't believe in God." They'd receive a much warmer welcome.

(Matthew 6:13) Jesus taught to pray to the Father, "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Even some of the prophets authored profound truths such as "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7), but much of the Bible are books written by men who rose up and worshipped strange gods. The first commandment of God was, "Thou shall have no other gods before me," Yet, they worship satan which somehow is a snake and dragon at the same time -- which is impossible, but beside the point, does not exist. The prophets taught, (Revelation 14), Fear God, "He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens ..."

Should God speak a prophecy, and it not come to pass?

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake Me, and break My covenant which I have made with them."
~Deuteronomy 31:16

Tiamat the Dragon, Babylonian War in Heaven, Babylonian Myth, Babylon Mystery Religion
Christians love their snake and dragon worship, more than they love God... which includes obeying the first commandment, "Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me". I suppose its indifferent, that God reassured the prophets that Heaven was God's throne, and Earth is God's footstool and that "There is none beside me." But like the Egyptians, the Xtian worship of common beasts like jackals, hyenas and snakes must continue.

That came to pass when they began to worship their snake and dragon myth of 'satan'. God was not the only one furious with their hard-hearted ways, Jesus rebuked them too. "He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." (Matthew 19:8) and why yes, evil of men, like Solomon, ended up in the scriptures itself and praised as "Holy" and "Wise" when he erected temples to strange god and plundered the women of Israel, bringing them to shame and waste... and good to his promise to Solomon, Israel was destroyed, because stiff-necked Solomon refused to keep the commandments of God.

Genesis is constructed by one who had great knowledge of the early earth, and primitive man (Gen.6, "man of old"), the same divine authority spoke, closing the Bible in a patchwork of mythology and anger toward their worship of demons and dragons and spooks in the book of Revelation, and between the lines, the divine truth minimized to a simple, "who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus."

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children."
~ Hosea 4:6

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? ... Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."
~ Matthew 15:3-6

Read More »

Darwin never denied God. Darwin declined association with Toxic Atheists.

0

When Charles Darwin was asked permission to dedicate a book authored by an Atheist to the name of "Charles Darwin," Darwin declined out of respect for his Christian family. He states:

"I should prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing... direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public... It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request"

Darwin himself apparently was enlightened enough on the matter, to understand "Science" itself takes no stand on matters of religion. Even expressing in his written correspondence (above) that the author was seeking "a direct attack on religion," which Darwin would have no part of.
Charles Darwin never denied the existence of God, nor did his theory dismiss the existence of God.

So, where does all the toxic Atheism that is associated with modern Darwinism come from? The man who sent Darwin his book, Das Kapital... Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto. Marxists latched their fangs into Darwin's Origin of the Species, like a vampire... yes, poisoning whatever good may have been in Darwin's studies into actual science and paleontology.

Communist Posters of the Day portray Karl Marx' book, above Charles Darwin, as well as that of Ferdinand Lasalle, a respected social reformer who openly denounced Karl Marx' theories.




Images extracted from video series, "The Bloody History of Communism" which attempts to lay blame on Charles Darwin as the main culprit behind the bloody history of Communism. Evil Atheists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc would have continued on their bloody warmongering path.. with or without Darwin's theory.

One would think Darwinism has became quite like a religion and built on theories, instead of empirical facts... filling in unknowns on faith... with few or even no facts to substantiate some of the wild claims found floating around. Many forget, Darwinists themselves, are not scientists. The theory of Natural Selection was only godless enough to permit Atheists to camouflage their toxic bigotry against God and people of faith, under the guise of "Science".

Quite earnestly, the toxic element comes from Marxists who attempted to latch on to Darwin's theory... distributing misleading posters, portraying Darwin's book, Origin of the Species, alongside that of Karl Marx. Just as these Marxists latched on to the success of the socialist reformer Ferdinand Lassalle, parading posters of Marx alongside Lasalle to give the misleading impression Lassalle supported Marx... but in fact, Lasalle had denounced the violent, murderous revolutionary element in Karl Marx' theories. Ferdinand Lasalle was considered a respectable, progressive thinker of the time, whose mild socialist reforms were embraced and implemented by the German Empire. Karl Marx could not achieve that same respect for his warmongering political theories.

So, we pick up at this interesting piece of history where Charles Darwin was sent a copy of Karl Marx' book, but never even bothered to read it. Darwin's lack of interest in toxic atheism is duly noted.

Marx genuinely admired Darwin's Origin, despite its crude English style. He even sent Darwin a personally inscribed copy of the recently published second edition of Das Kapital in 1873. Darwin's letter of acknowledgment (quoted above) delighted Marx, who used it as proof that the great scientist appreciated his work. In fact, Darwin, ever the gentleman (and no German scholar), was merely being polite: he never read Marx's book, the vast majority of whose pages remained uncut in his library.

Myth Conception
So, how did the dedication story come about? The answer is given, amongst other places, in Francis Wheen's highly readable biography, Karl Marx (Fourth Estate, ISBN: 1-85702-637-3). It all started with a second Darwin letter unearthed amongst Marx's papers, dated 13th October, 1880:

Dear Sir:
I am much obliged for your kind letter & the Enclosure.— The publication in any form of your remarks on my writing really requires no consent on my part, & it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I shd prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing.— Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old & have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much.
I remain Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Ch. Darwin

This letter was published in a Soviet newspaper in 1931, which went on to suggest that the enclosures referred to in the letter might have been chapters from Das Kapital that dealt with evolution. No matter that Das Kapital, a book on economics, could never be considered a direct attack on religion, whatever Marx's well-documented views on the subject.

So what on Earth was going on?

Mystery Solved
The mystery was investigated and solved by Margaret Fay of the University of California, who came across an obscure book published in 1881, entitled The Students' Darwin. This was the second in a series of books sponsored by a pair of evangelical atheists.

The author of the book, Edward Aveling, later became the lover of Marx's daughter, Eleanor. In 1895, he and Eleanor began organising her late father's papers (which she had recently inherited from Engels). Later, in 1897, Aveling wrote an article about Marx and Darwin, in which he mentioned having corresponded with Darwin. Presumably, he then filed Darwin's letter to him along with Marx's papers.

Eventually, a letter from Aveling to Darwin (dated 12th October, 1880) was discovered amongst Darwin's papers at Cambridge University. Enclosed with this letter were sample chapters from The Students' Darwin. The letter requested permission to dedicate the book to Darwin.

So, it wasn't Karl Marx's Das Kapital that Darwin politely declined the dedication of; it was Edward Aveling's The Students' Darwin.

Read More »