Genesis and Science

The Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now?

"All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree."
- Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)

The Bible says the Sun moves. Right?

Well, Atheists seem to think the sun is "fixed" in its position but they're wrong. The stars move. Starting with black holes,

Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429120851.htm

Apr 29, 2009 – It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: Rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close.

Curious About Astronomy: How do stars move in the Galaxy?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378

Oct 18, 2005 – The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. ... We can dectect radial motion by looking at the wavelength shifts it creates in the ...

lol.

Yahssir, the exception makes the rule.

Nothing's so simple as those patent "absolute truths" (TM) of Atheism and Theism. The exception makes the rule.

"The second answer is that in a more general sense that stars do move. The simple fact is that due to gravity every object in space moves. The reason that things seem stationary is because of relative motion and frame of reference. Relative motion means that celestial object tend to move at the same speeds. We only notice them moving if their relative velocity is different from ours. Stars move due to being in their own unique orbits around the center of the galaxy. In real time speed the move very quickly but because every other star moves at around the same speed we never notice how quickly we move. The other fact is that as fast as stars move the distance the cover is even bigger. What is fast to us on Earth is a snail’s pace in the larger universe.
In the end we see that the answer to the question “Do stars move?” depends on the frame of reference and our understanding of motion in the wider universe. So when you next time you look up at the night sky know that the stars are moving but not in the way most people think."
~ http://universetoday.com/85730/do-stars-move/

Don't believe Atheists would make such a non-scientific claim?

A creationist asks: "Atheists, how did they earth get here? Why does the sun come up and down? Why do the tides go in and out?"
An Atheist answers:

A singularity and gravity.

The sun doesn't move, the Earth does.

Tides happen because of the gravitational pull from the moon.

Anything else I can explain for you?

Why does the universe need a creator, but your God doesn't?

What? *drum roll please* A non-scientific answer from an Atheist... well there you have it folks. Atheism is a false religion that can not be trusted for science!

Question2011-5-30 14:26:49 PST
Atheists: Why does the sun follow a predictable path around the galaxy?
Answer
Like most of the stars in our galaxy (milky way) our sun is in an orbital path round the centre. Just as the earth moves round the sun. It is due to the balance of forces in the speed that the sun is moving the pull of gravity from the black hole at the centre of our universe. This will go on until something alters which could be the sun running out of fuel (about 5 billion years) or the andromeda galaxy crashes into our galaxy which will happen in a few billion years. This may well disturb our orbit but I doubt if it will bother us.

Ah - What? Are you that thick?
The sun doesn't move, genius, everything else does. Its "path" is nothing more than illusion to us. The sun is the heaviest thing in our solar systerm, thus is the thing that we all go around. It sits still.
Actually pick up a book.

HOLY **** YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
MUST BE JESUS!!!11
CHECKMATE!!!!!1111!!

the sun does not move, we move around it

Turtles all the way down...
lol

Well, there it is! "Atheist Science".

Here's one of the funnier examples

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
May 1, 2011 – What's the problem with the sun standing still for 24 hours?! You don't see a problem?
How about Jesus giving wrong information about the mustard seed?
How about God "repenting"?
How about God having to "come down" to see what's going on so he would know?
How about God making a rainbow to remind himself never to flood the earth again?
[...]
That's because I can't even get a grown up answer on that one verse, let alone others! Even if it were one lonely verse, every word is supposed to be true, right? So, if the sun doesn't move, how could it "stand still" for 24 hours? Is your God a geocentrist too?

Obviously, Mr. Atheist knows the Bible speaks of a movable sun, and is fired up about it. He believes the Sun stands still.

Atheists will swear that the sun is fixed in its position, because they're so fixated themselves on whether the earth moves or not, and what biblical writers might've said in regard to geocentric beliefs. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel... and a lack of interest in actual science to boot. If the biblical writers said the sun moves, well you know, they had a point afterall!!! LOL.

Occasionally, you might actually bump into an Atheist that seems to have a working knowledge of science, and I do note what seems to be (at least at the moment) a more mellow tone to their discussion:

It's very clear to me that this reaction only made me turn away from religion more. I was the sort of kid who, while not being overly badly behaved, constantly questioned everything. The fact that I was being told that I couldn't question this...thing people spent a lot of their lives doing, made me intrigued. What sort of power did this religion hold for people? Why was it intrinsically wrong to even begin to think that some of it might be wrong?

A problem I had at the time (which still plagues me to this day) is that I could not, and still can't, accept anything at face value.

'The earth goes around the sun. The sun doesn't move,' a teacher once told the class in a science lesson. My hand went up.

'Mr H., my book says that the sun moves too. It's got an orbit. Isn't that right?'

I remember the look of mildly amused exasperation on his face. 'Yes, Jodie, that's right. But for now, let's pretend, for the sake of these exams that you're sitting in a few months, and for the rest of the class, that the sun doesn't move. Okay?'

'But...'

'Jodie.'

'Yes, Mr H.....'

That was my issue with religion. Even though my teachers grew exasperated with my questions about the accuracy of their teaching, they never told me that I couldn't ask my questions - just to wait. With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.

Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.

I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.

People often question this assertion. 'You have faith that your family loves you. You have faith that if you are hungry, and you eat something, you'll feel better. You have faith in modern medicine to at least attempt to help you if you're injured or sick.'

No, I don't.

Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF.

The proof that I have for my family loving me is the fact that despite my oftentimes very difficult behaviour, they still continue to give their support, talk to me, provide me with shelter and love. The proof that I have that if I eat food, I'll feel less hungry is the empty bag of crisps I stuck in the bin an hour ago. The proof that I have for the workings of modern medicine is obvious in the thousands of people who are currently better off (or better, still alive) because of the tireless work of people in the NHS and other medical systems around the world.
http://interjection.livejournal.com/9804.html

Interesting indeed. Amazing. There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".

However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people.

rofl...that's so funny. Atheists claiming the sun doesn't move.

ROFL... They're atheists. They're suppose to have "absolute truth" because doesn't atheism = "science"??

Then how can atheist writers be wrong?

How?

It's a religion, not a scientific field of knowledge.

That's how they're wrong. Often. And about a lot of things. No better than those people who wrote the Bible.

"...Atheists never said they were inspired by the author of the cosmos to..."

Oh atheists do claim they're inspired by the author of "Cosmos" and other Scientific Programming, and make a lot of false claims that don't hold water. When put to a simple trick question, the truth spills forth. They're not really that intelligent. They lack the "abstract" thinking required to "think outside the box".

A matter of IQ.

Repeating myself for posterity:
"...There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People, as a whole, tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".
However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people."

And if you're fair about it, you'll accept that, because its the truth.

"...write about it, and that only one book contains the true inspiration of what atheism is all about."

Atheists don't need a book. They just need a daily regimen of blaspheme to keep their "intellectual" faculties in check. Astronomy & Chemistry & Physics... are not Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Science. Not one scientific field has proven or disproven anything about God.

Atheism is completely useless in the realm of science.

Perhaps Paranormal investigators... I hear that's some kind of voodoo "scientific study" which has produced no significant results. Perhaps they're taking applications to deal with things that don't apply to the empirical world. Perhaps some Atheists can become gainfully employed among paranormal investigators or other pseudo-scientific fields of knowledge. Yet, Atheism has no bearing on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Botany, Paleontology, Archaeology, etc etc etc... and all we call Legitimate science.

Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame was an agnostic.

Nobody disputes Sagan's knowledge on science. Does that mean his Agnosticism or Atheism brought humanity one inch closer to knowing yea or nay about God? No, his Agnosticism was his own personal belief, not a scientific discovery. Obviously, from the getgo of saying he was Agnostic proves he had zero knowledge of God... at least he didn't confuse his personal opinions about God with his science, in the series Cosmos. I doubt PBS would've aired the program had it spent 99% of the episodes railing against people of faith, and 1% about science, and flawed science, like most Atheists tend to do.
True scientists, know the difference.
Charles Darwin was the smartest of all... he never breathed a word of his true opinion, and generations after he's dead in the ground still battle over whether he was Atheist or believed in God. Does it matter?!? Why is it, his science is overshadowed by the stupidity of Atheists and Theists?? Again, science is dismissed because Atheists' bad attitude, no love for the science, and Theistic ignorance.

I emphasize, DOES IT MATTER whether Darwin was Christian or Atheist? If he were one or the other, would it somehow invalidate his scientific research, theories, conclusions? Would it make his theory any less appealing or appalling if he were Christian or Atheist?

I don't care to know. I do know with certainty, he was a scientist. That's all that matters. Atheism or Theist aspect of his "Science" is irrelevant. If Darwin had felt the matter were pertinent to his scientific theories, he'd surely thought to share his little secret. But he didn't. Because religion (atheism and theism) are philosophical issues and have nothing to do with science.

And in so far as heated discussions between theists and atheists go, also don't forget to visit places on the web where Catholics are tearing at Protestants and vice versa, or where Fundamentalists are tearing at Charismatics/Pentecostals and vice versa, or where Christians are tearing at each other's interpretations of Genesis or Revelation.

CHRISTIANS FIRING CHRISTIANS
"Hardly a month goes by without me hearing directly or indirectly of a professor [at an academic Christian institution] who was precipitously dismissed or forced to resign with little warning and without given an appropriate and fair venue (i.e., consistent with Christian morality) for adjudicating grievances. The situation is reaching epidemic proportions." Moreover, “No major doctrine [had been] called into question [by the fired prof.], no denial of any item of historic Christian faith, no moral lapse, no criticism of teaching effectiveness, just a charge of having stepped out of the party line on any one of a number of matters undifferentiated as to importance.”

Atheists and Theists can't live together, and can't live without each other, because all they want to do is fight like rabble over pointless squabbles that will never be resolved beyond one's own personal opinion. Put the science in the waste bucket, and proceed to attacking somebody's philosophical views which seems rather pea-brained in my opinion.

grass... yes... grass

I saw on the stats where somebody out there was scouring this page, and probably an ANTI-THEIST trying to seek out a theist they can attack... and on that page, I knew I had visualized some strange, "grasslike" extinct organism... green = photosynthetic.

I came to the realization, later, relying on fossil evidence that is, after I'd already made the page, and it was too late, that it should be photosynthetic BACTERIA and non-photosynthetic fungi organisms... i.e., ancestors of mushrooms.

But I got to thinking... wait.

That's an extinct ecosystem. Right?

When do the evolutionary lines blur and cross over from "proto-plant" to animal organism anyway, i.e., Euglena and Volvox. Consider the sponge, namely, the glass sponge.

A Glass Sponge

Evolutionary theorists will confess themselves, how its theorized there were life, and then nature destroys it all, and it evolves from scratch, all over again.

So anything's possible, including these weirdo things I quickly threw together, to symoblize soft-body organisms -- and photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents, before the Cambrian.

Look at my pic and think "Common Ancestor to Sponge" -- and "Euglena and Volvox" -- photosynthesizing near some hydrothermal vent during the past 1.5 billion-500 million years ago.

You know what. There could have been an organism just like that in the picture. ANYTHING was possible. Just because there's no fossil evidence, doesn't mean it didn't exist. So the paleo-botanists caution.

Yes, green, and like a glass sponge, but not a sponge, some kind of volvox-like ancestor -- like in the photo, before animal life learned to form complex multi-cellular organisms.

Volvox and Volvox with daughter colonies

britannica.com/.../topic/... /protozoan/... /Evolution-and-paleonto... Protists were a dominant form of life on Earth 1.5 billion years ago. While protozoans ...

PROTOZOA
cladocera.de/protozoa/protozoa.html
Oct 8, 2004 – The taxonomy of protozoa is a difficult task. Protozoa are thought to be the origin for the evolution of all multi-cellular organisms to which belong ...

My religion? I dislike Atheists and Creationists in equal measure.

My distaste how they'll make "any argument" no matter how absurd to defend their pitiful religions reviles my deepest senses. So, in my "religious view" -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and almost anything can be proven, at least hypothetically with science.

They're ALL wrong.

Some Afterthoughts... The Next Day

Propaganda Techniques - Library library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is ...

BTW..if you say "Bible" or even hint at any belief... or your reader has you stereotyped (like atheists often do to me -- they presume everything I discuss, is out of interest in the Bible, when the truth is 9/10 of the time, I'm more interested in natural world science), but atheists rush in with 1001 "scientific" reasons why this or that "couldn't" have ever happened. Typical for Atheists, and their "Glass Half Empty" "everything is death and cataclysm" attitude rooted in nihilism and anarchy.

But the problem here is: it COULD have happened. That's no lie. About the primitive life forms on early earth... and how there could have been some early organisms that _looked just like_ those green stalks in my image -- preceding sponges, and something that spawned from protists, drawing light energy from hydrothermal vents. Well, there COULD HAVE BEEN.

When scientists find a trace evidence on a rock they believe came from outer space... they go off in a tangent about how life could exist on other planets, and here's the "proof" they say... they go off on a tangent about how the rock came from Mars (though they have no actual evidence) -- they don't know where the rock even came from! They begin theorizing and hypothesizing... as long as it sounds atheistic -- any theory is fine, with atheists.

So, what has God got to do with Science? Nothing. Atheists say it themselves that the Bible is not a scientific text, then why all the attacks on the Bible using "Science"? Somebody hasn't convinced themselves fully.

The Bible has nothing to do with science. I accept that, most people know its not a "scientific text". Then WHY the "science" used to attack the Bible? I know why. Because Atheists have a religion, and mindlessly, like a hive, seek to convert and assimilate others into their religion. That's what's chaffing my hide with Atheists, really bad. They can't see the forest for the trees, and their hypocrisy is double-edged. They sure preach it, but they don't practice what they preach.

Recently, for simply mis-spelling a word, an atheist barks, "Creationists tend to misspell..." alluding to the misconception that I'm a Creationist, and "only" creationists are "ignorant" to misspell things. Um, excuse me, I've seen my Agnostic and Atheist friends misspell words. I've seen leading scientists misspell a couple words in personal emails, it hardly reflects on their competance or expertees.

It's not like common banter on the web qualifies as "professional papers for publication," I've found misspellings in all sorts of stuff... especially Atheists.

Misspelled words do not tell anything about whether a person is right or wrong about what they believe. Something so miniscule, and an atheist is grabbing at straws for their pitiful strawman argument.

I am not a "Creationist".

Because of their ignorant (uneducated) atheist hatemongering, I politely resigned from that news group. They're wrong about everything. I'll leave science, to the scientists... and has anyone taken notes yet, that they (scientists) are never discussing religion. Did you notice? Darwin also avoided religion, because he was interested in science.

Only the religious always bring religion into their discussions on science... and Atheists are the worst for that bad habit. Wonder why that is... because ATHEISM IS A FORM OF RELIGION... PHILOSOPHY... in other words, bull****, and has nothing to do with actual God (that's personal, and individual) -- and nothing to do with actual science.

What do God and Science have in common? Very little is even known about the cosmos or the elusive God, because God is personal, and its difficult if not impossible to prove "personal truths". Both are mysterious things, and the more you think you know something about either, some new unexpected twist and turn arises that changes all the rules. God is left best to God, to explain. Science is best left to Scientists to explain, and I wish both Creationists and Atheists would butt out of Science and God. Because they're mostly ignorant on both.

I know some Atheists, so obsessed with Atheism, like a mental illness... their entire life goes to pot, and they can only obsess over Atheism. Perhaps Atheism is a form of mental illness? That's the kind of people I'm talking about!! They don't have what I call "A Life"... should I reword that, as "Alife"??

Here's some additional truth: Even if the whole world converted to Athiesm, they'd still find something to whine about. They still wouldn't be happy... because religion/the bible/faith in other people's lives, is not the real source of their misery. Happiness is a state of mind, and comes from within. It's something deeper inside their shallow souls. And the same holds true, for people who become obsessive with religion, there's a deeper problem that's not being addressed. All of them are seeking some kind of inner-happiness, however unfortunately ironic their search for inner-happiness often manifests itself in HATING people who don't believe as they do. Misery loves company indeed.

Atheism will NOT bring the world happiness. I'm through with Athiest whining and the manic depressive hallucinations that everyone who doesn't think just like they do are "mentally ill," "uneducated," "ignorant" and all the ad hominems Athiests can vomit up, to violently intimidate and convert people to their religion. If it were Jehovah Witnesses, I could just avoid answering the door, but on the web Atheists tend to prostelytize with profane vandalism in comment threads and vicious personal insults. I'm not saying Theists don't do the same. HA HA HA .. they do!!! and that's why I say there's no real difference between Atheists and A-Theists.

I'm talking about rude hateful, nasty people -- who go out of their way on the web to spam up youtube with senseless blaspheme and hatemongering against people of faith -- IMAGINARY PEOPLE in their delusions -- they're not actually talking to anyone in particular... they hate indiscriminately.

And who are those phantoms in their head they're lashing at?

I'm not exactly talking about the "affable" professional Agnostic or Atheist who exercise critical reasoning and intelligent dialogue whilst examining scriptures in the Bible, I speak of mindless haters.. but there are mentally disturbed people, out there, that haven't any real knowledge, and think irrationally -- one such person tried recently to tell me they "don't believe in anything." It was surely their attempt to sound "intellectual," but far from it. Their Atheism has warped their reasoning skills.

Can you really believe that? They "don't believe in anything."

Just try to imagine that.
When I asked them if they "believed the sun will rise tomorrow?" Atheism has enabled them to "rationalize anything" in their insanity, to a point they're of an irrational mind. That is, they have became insane. They had their explanation, how they "don't believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I see it for what it is. Whether an Atheist who rationalizes away all belief, or the Theist believing God commanded them to drown their children in the bathtub.

Of course they believe the sun will rise, unless they're mentally deranged and delusional.

Can anyone say,... Religion!!!

Ever known religion to enable people to rationalize and justify any off the wall, strange, unusual; irrational behavior no matter how wretchedly insane it appears to outsiders?

Atheists & Theists are just alike.

BTW, God and Science have a lot to do with another, I'm sure. But that's a matter of my opinion. Some mile long mathematic equation... that's out of my league. If God would explain, the elementary things would be far beyond anything in the scientific world's comprehension, their knowledge is of the most elementary kind, and they admit that. Even Einstein wanted to know "God's mathematics". At least Einstein conceived of a God that would understand great matters of science and mathematics, not tricks to pull rabbits out of magic hats in six days. I'm sure if God appeared in a form perceivable by humans, and spoke on the matter of Physics and laws of the Quantum realm, that even the greatest scientific mind would have trouble comprehending. So there's no need for me even attempting to explain something I know absolutely nothing about that's unexplainable, even for modern science. What?! I confess "I don't know." Well, that's probably because of my predisposition toward having a scientific mind. I'm humble enough to say "I don't know" -- a luxury that religion doesn't afford Atheists and Theists with their Patent Truths. The God Question & many Scientific mysteries will never be solved. So why waste time battling over it? Life is too full of wonderful things. Life is too short to waste it on bickering over things we have no control over. Doesn't mean that science should give up trying to fully explain quantum mechanics or that anyone should stop their curiosity about the nature of God.

Theists, (the Creationist kind) try to murder science, whilst Atheists try to murder God. They are simply idiotically like-minded with narrow minds; hatred, destruction and ignorance.

Death Tolls by Religious Zealots

I vaguely recall where I picked up the following table several years ago. It was whilst I was surfing the web and came across a web site with some interesting information on Communist regimes. So, I wont take credit for compilation of the information.

I have spent extensive time around Cultists, Atheists, Christians, Theists, and Agnostics.. even had conversations with Muslims and Sikhs, I take a deep interest in unique people with unique views, I know what they believe and always interested to know more. 'Nuff said. I don't need the sermon on "how little I know" about Your World View™...I really don't need the sermon, people. If a theist goes to atheist forum, they are soon made the victim of an unmerciful tyrade of hatred and if atheist goes to a theist forum, they are soon made the victim of an unmerciful tyrade of hatred. Notice the spelling, like the actions are practically the same. The beliefs of a theist vs atheist, aren't much different. I can not tell any difference between atheists and a theist. A lot of you believe the same, whether you're atheist or a theist. Because you hate. That seering hatred keeps you warm aplenty. Your beliefs are founded in hate, and your world view or religion or whatever, is merely your excuse to hate people you know absolutely nothing about. Whatever side people with minds that hate, are on, I'm not there.

...yes, I certainly understand what you believe. It's not that difficult. Those who do not believe as you do, need to be medicated or exterminated. Correct? Very enlightening. Now that's progress. The planet is not big enough for everyone in your little world. I know your beliefs. If in doubt, I'm intelligent enough to ask further questions about an individual's beliefs instead of relying on careless presumptions like religious™ minds do. Atheism, like A Theism, are both very much religious in nature.

A Theist Inquisition and Atheist Inquisitions. Such people are all the same.

The Exodus Decoded, James Cameron

The Exodus Decoded Trailer

See Youtube for Segments of "Exodus Decoded"

Complex yet utterly compelling, The Exodus Decoded is presented by movie director James Cameron (Titanic) but is the passion of Jewish-Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici. Jacobovici has extensively researched evidence that the Biblical account of the Exodus was real, and concludes that it actually took place in 1500 BCE (during the reign of pharaoh Ahmos I), historically known as the Hyksos Expulsion. The Hyksos people were a Semitic race about whom little is known. But their departure from Egypt, following a long enslavement, along with early writings and other physical evidence, make a strong case that they are the Hebrews of lore. Jacobovici suggests the Exodus is also connected to the catastrophic eruption of the Santorini volcano, which ended the Minoan civilization and triggered a limnic eruption (a surge of carbon dioxide) in the Nile river delta. The latter would have killed the river's fish but likely chased out all the frogs, a phenomenon that could have been considered one of the famous plagues in the Exodus story. (Jacobovici makes a case for the other so-called plagues also being a consequence of the eruption.) Whatever one's opinion of The Exodus Decoded as a historical documentary, it is engrossing viewing, shot in some truly exotic locations, often under the highly suspicious eye of Egyptian authorities. Several moments--such as the revelation of a Hyksos slave's rock carving, pleading with God to be rescued--are astonishing. --Tom Keogh

My Least Favorite Atheist - Marilyn Manson

In light of my post, "My Favorite Atheist" which incidentally deals with Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam's meaningful lyrics/video about bullying in the song "Jeremy," I thought I'd post here about my least favorite Atheist, Marilyn Manson. I did not arrive at this conclusion overnight, but after years of observing the effects he has had on people I've known, reading his anti-religious, hateful rhetoric in interviews, and then witnessing his violent tyrades on-stage.

Drummer "Ginger Fish" being carried off stage by roadies after Marilyn Manson, aka birth-name, Brian Warner knocked him unconscience for no apparent reason than a need of anger management classes... some have posted upon seeing such video, that its "fake" or "acting". I'm afraid, this may be Hollyweird, but its real.

This was only one of many, many injurious acts by the on-stage bully and thug, Brian Warner. "Marilyn Manson" or Mr. Warner has made quite the icon of himself among kids who feel they "don't belong," part of the "outside". Kids should wake up to the harsh reality: Marilyn Manson is THE bully... THE jock... THE in-crowd there to pick on, tear down and maim, not the "good guy" who's sticking up for kids who get preyed on by the school-yard thugs. Seems the media ran to Manson for interviews after the Columbine school shootings. Every time there's an issue of bullying the media turns to Manson and ilk, as though they actually had a reasonable answer or solution to the problem of bullying. The shooters expressed feeling of connectedness to Manson's "Goth" music. They were tired of being bullied by the "jocks," but when do you cross the line from being bullied, to becoming the predatorial bully yourself? Do two wrongs, make a right? If anyone is under the delusion that Manson is just a nice guy sticking up for the downtrodden and abused, these visuals should bring to light, what Manson's real world view is about:

According to Wikipedia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ginger_Fish
Kenneth Robert Wilson (born September 28, 1966), known by the stage name Ginger Fish, is an American drummer who is primarily known for playing drums for Marilyn Manson.[1] Like Marilyn Manson, which combines the names of an iconic beauty with a serial killer, his name combines those of Ginger Rogers and Albert Fish.[2]
References
^ "Marilyn Manson Drummer Injured at Concert". Lakeland Ledger. November 29, 2000.

That injury was not a "joke" nor was it acting, nor was it "fake" as some remarked who couldn't believe their own eyes... it's incomprehensible for some to believe Manson is one of his own "horrible people, horrible people..." after so much rhetoric against the bullies, the in crowd, the predators.

If anyone thinks the video is fake, it may or may not be the incident reported by media. Here's an article which pretty much sums up Manson/Brian Warner's true violent-prone, criminal mentality:

The video clip where Manson deliberately threw a mic stand at "Ginger Fish" wasn't an act. That's how Manson is in real life, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. A bonafide self-centered jerk, bully and thug. Those who were in doubt, posting it was "acting" and "fake" for publicity are sadly looking at the obvious: what it is like to be in an ABUSIVE RELATIONSHIP, and thier eyes telling them, "Manson is an abusive bully" but their brain tells them, "It's Hollyweird, therefore it can't be real." A clear case of cognitive dissonance. Behavior so unfathomable, that the brain doesn't want to believe what the eyes are seeing. The camera doesn't lie in this case. It may have been a separate event, but the "Lakeland Ledger" cite on Wikipedia, clearly states his collarbone was broken.

Why does the media (Donahue, et al) keep running to this person, Brian Warner, aka Charles Manson as though he's actually got any kind of positive message in the music mix? Do our eyes deceive us THAT badly, as though he has anything positive to contribute to society? The media are definately under the Anne Frank delusion, that basically, there's good in every human. No, some people are thoroughly nihilist; mind, body, soul, and out to destroy the world and write songs of their love affair with destruction: the total collapse of civilization through amoral, immoral degeneracy.

Looking at the violent scenes on youtube, various individuals filmed of Manson, I began asking myself, "Now, if this were Mel Gibson beating up people, just what would the media say!?" Or, try to imagine if it were any average guy on the street beating up on his wife, or his kids in the manner Manson beats up on his band members... oh, but we think to ourselves, "Boys will be boys!" and excuse this kind of behavior because its male on male violence, therefore "acceptable"? If boys are to ever learn that bullying is not the right way to act, then a clear message needs to be sent across to such people that it is NOT socially acceptable behavior for males to bully males.

From what I gather at Wikipedia, just a few of the people who couldn't stand performing with the verbally and physically abusive Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson... resulting in a revolving door of musicians who could barely tolerate his outbursts, or have left the band over time, include, but not limited to : Twiggy Ramirez • Andy Gerold • Ginger Fish • Chris Vrenna Wes Borland • Rob Holliday • Tim Sköld • Madonna Wayne Gacy • Mark Chaussee • John 5 • Zim Zum • Daisy Berkowitz • Sara Lee Lucas • Gidget Gein • Olivia Newton Bundy • Zsa Zsa Speck )

Manson is teaching the next generation of thugs, how to become the biggest, meanest, nastiest bully on the block. Not coping skills, and certainly not how to make the world a better place, and least of all, Marilyn Manson is not doing a thing about the "bully problem". Marilyn Manson is the epitomy of THE bully problem.

Males beating down and abusing other males... like was done to the Rutgers University kid, Tyler Clementi, who committed suicide. I'm sure Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson in all his Atheist morality thought it was "all in good fun," that "boys will be boys" as one Manson band member had to say, the nicest thing Manson ever said to him was, "Happy birthday, f*gg*t."

Fallout with Marilyn Manson
John 5's reasons for leaving Marilyn Manson were cited as being mutual, despite the mysterious nature of his sudden firing by Manson's manager in 2004. John was quoted at the time as saying about the incident, "I don't know. . . I was nothing but nice to him," he continued. "I never screwed up onstage — well not really badly — and I did everything I could to get along with him. Maybe, just maybe, it had something to do with the fact that I don't drink or do drugs, and he's not like that at all. Maybe he held that against me. I don't know. He never said." John 5 was notorious among fans as being drug and alcohol free. Before the incident, Manson had assaulted John on stage, notably, Manson kicked John in the face during a televised performance, leading to a brief confrontation in front of a packed and roaring audience. This was during the intro to "The Beautiful People", when played at the Rock Am Ring 2003. Also, during the tour John maintains that Manson spoke about matters other than business only once, "It was on my birthday, and he turned to me and said, "Happy birthday, faggot" — then walked away."

Just "making it up"?

Here's clips of Marilyn Manson, aka Brian Warner bullying "John 5".

Another clip of the regular harrassment and bullying of John 5

There's nothing fun about being a victim of male-on-male bullying, whether you're a male or female.

By comparison you can say Manson has done for schoolyard bullying, what Al Gore has done for the environment! Yet the media continues to go to this monster for his opinion on "how to solve the world's male-on-male violence issues"... why just yesterday, I watched a 2 part video on that very subject! None other than Marilyn Manson providing his personal philosophical insights on just that: the root of male-on-male violence. =/ and of course he was blaming religion.

Take a moment and listen to his "wordly wisdom" and blame-game, and more of his anti-bullying spiel, when he himself is in desperate need of a long-look in the mirror of soul-searching and hypocrisy!

Why doesn't Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson take responsibility for his own actions and stop blaming others for his behaviorial issues with bullying? No televangelist put that mic stand in his hand to break his drummer's neck. He's a lowlife bully. A thug. When will the media wake up to the blood and broken bones they can see with their own eyes? Realize almost everything (supposedly philosophical) that ushers from the mouth of this atheist "Marilyn Manson" has been and is, and will be, a lie. In show biz terms, Brian Warner is a SELL OUT on the cause he claimed to defend in the beginning. His rhetoric against bullies? He has proven himself to be one of the music industry's biggest bullies. Mr. Warner is not there to promote any kind of tolerance, social responsibility, morality or solution to male-on-male violence, as can be seen in further clips of Manson's outlandishly childish outbursts and tyrades of flaming uncontrolled temper tantrums against his "friends".

Marilyn Manson hurls mic at band member Zim Zum

Marilyn Manson attacks band member Twiggy at :44

More senseless aggressions and violence against drummer Ginger Fish

Just what are we teaching the children by our behavior? Mr. Brian Warner needs to know his actions speak far louder than all his empty words and rhetoric. Male on male aggression and bullying is NOT acceptable, and NOT appropriate as an example to young men. If the Marilyn Mansons of the world cannot be brought under control by their own peers then just how do we expect children to get the schoolyard bullies under control?

Manson's solution is violence: Eye for an eye, from which we end up with a world of blind people.

Now back to Manson's continued attacks on "Christian Morality"...

I wish I could personally ask Marilyn Manson aka Brian Warner, what his definition of socalled "Christian Morality" is? I think he's referring to the hypocrisy of televangelist adultery, two faced crony xtianity that steals from widows for their small pensions and builds gold enamel pipes in mansions, pedophilia and all the sins that have driven people of all walks of life away from faith. These same things Jesus condemned, so Marilyn Manson is confused when he speaks of "Christian Morals". or the problem with hypocrites in "the inner circle" of churches, who prey on the downtrodden, relegating the "untouchables" to the corner of a sunday school room with their mouths shut, carrying the burden of projected inadequacies by those individuals, all to self-exalt a few in positions of staff with thier fine cars, jewelry and social prestige; deacons, there for social-networking, NOT to help the poor, widow, orphan. That is not "christian morals". Those are the attitudes Jesus condemned.
True Christian teachings were as Jesus put it, "Love God with all your soul, and Love your neighbor as yourself." What Manson is pointing his finger at, is neither Christian nor morality.

Footnote

... I want readers to know, I was *personally* of my own free opinion *disgusted* by what I saw of this atheist's abusive tyrades and antics, as he basked in his bully-fest -nobody, irregardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or otherwise deserves to be treated like Manson treats his colleagues. I could see and sense the frustration in John 5, as he had probably dealt with the excessive bullying for the 1000th or more time, on-stage as he'd dealt with it off-stage. Ready to blow. So clearly, John 5 is not a professional boxer or professional wrestler and more importantly, what law says he has to be? Brian Warner was way out of line.
John 5 didn't sign up to street brawl. He's a musician by trade -- but with blockheads like Manson you're stuck deciding between "Do I forfeit the contract, do I throw down, right here, and whip this loser in front of the audience and risk getting my own busted up in the process? or do I do fulfil on my obligation to contract?" For whatever reasons, John 5 chose to compose himself, back off and stick with the contract and keep on playing like the intelligent, talented musician he is. I sensed that, having been bullied, deciding between quitting and my job. Been there myself, trying to hold down a job, and people just keep hacking on ya, hacking on ya, hacking on ya... John 5 is a musician who doesn't want anything to do with street level gang warfare (needless to say has probably went on to much better things, like one of the band members went on to build up "Nine Inch Nails" one of the most successful bands of the past decade). Yet, as expected, all Manson has to offer is more ridicule and ranting against former members.

... I don't care if anyone's homosexual or not, no human being deserves to be treated the way Brian Warner treats his employees. That level of abuse is disgusting, we put up with it on school yards, in the workplace, unfortunately even in some churches to some degree or another. Are we intelligent human beings, or animals? Manson needs to point that finger at himself for a change. Himself is where "Change" must begin.
Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson is somewhat of a hypocrite even bolstering communism, when he regularly abuses his own employees like chattel, in the manner of a typical greedy capitalist. (I am referencing his lyrics "Beautiful People" which speaks against Christianity and Capitalism as "the problem"). Exploitation of workers, is all part and parcel of "the problem".

Unfortunately, when the day is done, Marilyn Manson, aka Brian Warner is not left with a message. And for posterity, who needs Fred Phelps, when you've got abusers like Marilyn Manson to hate on homosexuals and people with differences? According to former band-mate John 5 (regularly abused / bullied by Manson) : "It was on my birthday, and he turned to me and said, "Happy birthday, faggot" — then walked away." From the video footage, I have every reason to believe this description of behavior is well within the norm for Brian Warner, and on the question of the recent suicide of Tyler Clementi the Rutgers University kid, due to bullying and harrassment of homosexual men? I'm sure Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn Manson in all his Atheist morality thought it was "all in good fun," "wholesome amusement," and merely that "boys will be boys".
Manson's perversion is not the solution, he is THE problem with society and THE reason males bully males. Until the Mansons of the world decide to change themselves, bullying will continue, and sadly, kids like Tyler Clementi will continue to commit suicide.

It's not "Adult Entertainment," Mr. Brian Warner, and if you refuse to change, don't expect other bullies to. Don't waste your breath or our time preaching to society, about bullies or the parents of bullies willingness to change, because "Change" begins one person at a time, beginning with yourself.

"...two families - including the Vidovics - are suing the school district, claiming their children were bullied to death and the school did nothing to stop it. The lawsuits come after a national spate of high-profile suicides by gay teens and others, and during a time of national soul-searching about what can be done to stop it.
If there has been soul-searching among the bullies in Mentor - a pleasant beachfront community that was voted one of the "100 Best Places to Live" by CNN and Money magazine this year - Sladjana's family saw too little of it at her wake in October 2008.
Suzana Vidovic found her sister's body hanging over the front lawn. The family watched, she said, as the girls who had tormented Sladjana for months walked up to the casket - and laughed.
"They were laughing at the way she looked," Suzana says, crying. "Even though she died."
- AOL News, more on, Bullied to Death

Mimicry (A Theory That's Obvious Nonsense)

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

And the Denial Of Science by Atheists Continues...

This atheist doesn't even understand the fossil record or the types of extinct organisms that lived in it, 500-600 Million years ago. He presumes to know more than scientists do! Non-existent IMAGINARY plants that depended on sunlight, he insists... afterall, in our modern ecosystem, life-forms that evolved over the past 100 million years, today, depend on sunlight don't they?? therefore his Elementary-school level logic concludes "... life-forms in the PreCambrian must have too."

This deluded, imaginary 3rd grade version of the fossil record, presumably complete with horses and cats and dogs and everything we see living in the modern world... lived 500-600 Million years ago, too. IMAGINARY PHOTOSYNTHETIC PLANTS that did not even exist during the PreCambrian or Vendian.
Supposed "dependency on sunlight," in an extinct ecosystem that left few to no fossils? Scientists aren't so bold as to assume they know what the organisms were.
So much for his fairy tale version of a Precambrian and Vendian world "food chain".

All we have to fill in the gaps for "what was," are the earliest life-forms in the fossil record; algae and fungi.

Let's take for example protozoa, which means "first animals"... any Atheist who believes 3rd Grade level elementary school education that "photosynthesis is the 'only' possible way" to supplement a food chain...

...have amply proven themselves completely ignorant.

Protozoa are variegated, and feed through three means:

1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

And, what about bacteria which do not depend on sunlight or organic matter for nutrition? Is it possible? Yes, and these organisms thrive around hydrothermal vents in the total absence of sunlight, where scientists are already theorizing life first began, and for good reason! (The same reasons my entire blog has focused on).

BACTERIA ECOLOGY
http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/ecology.html
"Organisms which do not get their energy from the sun get it from the energy already stored in chemicals. These organisms are called 'chemotrophs' meaning chemical eating. Most bacteria, and Protists as well as all animals and fungi are chemotrophs. If the food chemicals are large, complicated molecules of organic origin (ie they were once organisms), then we call the bacteria and all the other animals that eat them 'Chemoorganotrophs', but if the molecules are small and inorganic (ie iron, sulphur, hydrogen sulphide, etc) we call the bacteria which eat them 'Chemolithotrophs'. Only bacteria are chemolithotrophs, whereas animals, fungi and many protozoa are all chemoorganotrophs. Chemolithotrophic bacteria are unique in our world, and because they require special adaptations to gain their energy they are quite different to the more common chemoorganotrophic bacteria.

So we don't "need" the sun for the first life on Earth, do we?? We can have entire ecosystems evolving and thriving, in the total absence of sunlight and even photosynthetic bacteria deriving energy completely and solely from the light of hydrothermal vents... which was substantiated with the discovery of photosynthetic bacteria thriving (in the absence of sunlight) in the deep sea Pacific... deriving its nutrition solely and entirely from the hydrothermal vent.

Where do these Atheists come from? The education system is in deep trouble.

Your god blah blah blah blah blah blah sounds like a blah blah blah blah blah blah broken record blah blah blah blah blah blah with a poor grasp blah blah blah blah blah blah of biology

erm, you meant Botany, or more specifically, Mycology but continue :

blah blah blah blah blah blah and astronomy. Fungi are not trees

This, is a tree.

~ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prototaxites_Dawson1888.PNG
Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.

So much of a "tree" that scientists themselves classified it as a conifer,

Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued...
~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm

and, don't be confused, but conifers, are trees.

Tree Identification - The Conifers Identification of conifer trees most common to North American by their needles and leaves, fruit and flowers. Use conifer and evergreen tree species ...
~ forestry.about.com/cs/treeid/a/con_tree_id.htm

blah blah blah blah blah blah (or any other type of plant)

Or any other type of "plant" ??

ALGAE...
Although they seem plant-like, scientists have classified them in a group of their own, outside the plant kingdom. They have been classified in a separate kingdom called Protista.
~ naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/plants/crypalga.html

FUNGI
Five Kingdoms of Life: Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia
Scientific classification sorts all life forms on Earth into five kingdoms: monera, protista, fungi, plantae, and animalia. Together they form the tree of ...
biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/five_kingdoms_of_life

Fungi are not "plants" and "plants" did not exist during the earliest period of the fossil record, *rolling eyes*... back during the the Vendian/Pre Cambrian... what are you talking about?

blah blah blah blah blah blah but they are, like virtually all life forms on Earth, still part of a food chain that ultimately depends on photosynthesis.