As the title says, this entry will address what a worthless party the Democrats are, briefly, because there is nothing else to do right now.  Another name I like to call them by is the “I want to take money from your Dad and give you nothing in exchange party.”  The Democrats are completely worthless, all they do is suck up a federal paycheck and give us nothing in exchange.  My dog could do a better job in any government position than any Democrat does. 

How do the Democrats get into power?  Simple, they garner votes by throwing out welfare money and other types of social programs.  They are literally bribing people to vote for them.  They also represent (or at least style themselves as representing) self gratification for the baser sorts of people.  People who don’t want to work, who want to have unmitigated sex without facing the consequences, and so on and so forth.  They also represent the interests of atheists and people in general who hate America.  Let’s look at some of the things the Democrats have spent my Dad’s money on:

1. Welfare–work hard, because all sorts of other people are counting on you for support.

2. Evolutionism–nothing like spending money to breast feed a dying religion, forcing it on the kids, and wasting money to research the idea that the whole universe is self creating, which runs contrary to empirical science.  Why not just stick to empirical science?

3. Donating money to countries that hate us–I have a better idea, let’s not donate money to foriegn countries, most of them hate us anyways and we don’t get anything for investing money in backwards and/or underdevolped countries.  When you get nothing in return for your money, then you have a poor investment.

Now let’s look at some of the things they don’t want to spend money on:

Space Exploration–why spend money on that, theres no natural resources in space, and it’s better to just kill of the surplus population, right?  Money would be better invested in giving everyone free abortions, and then people could have sex more! (Personally, I think that free steralizations would be a better investment.)

Military–nobody needs a cumbersome military, it just gets in the way.  It’s better to punish the military and just let the UN protect us.  After all, we ought to be subject to the UN anways, right?  (Wrong)

The Democrats really do nothing of value, except look for ways to make the country weaker, the UN stronger, contain or eliminate Christianity, and to punish the people who work hard. 

I wanted to inform everyone about the racial discrimination that exists against the white male, and briefly state what I think the cause of it may be.  First of all, racism ultimately exists because of sin, but more immediately it can be caused by a natural fear of the unknown or the “different” that most people have.  The propitiation of modern evolutionism also has something to do with racism, but anyone can be racist.  Most people are sadly unaware of the FACT that racism exists against white males, and white males are just as capable of being discriminated against, and suffering from it, as anyone else.  The difference is, that when it happens to a white male there is little or no sympathy from the few people who even acknowledge that it happens, because quite frequently the attitude is that we deserve it, or that it is “payback.”  I place the blame squarely on liberals for the proliferation of these beliefs.  The liberals people the public universities and high schools, choosing humanist curriculum, and when they arent attacking Christianity, they choose to attack white males.  They tell students that only white people can be racist, and that the white male has more of a tendancy towards it than the white female.  They also enjoy running on about how white males have oppressed everyone else in the world throughout all of history (someone must have fallen asleep in history class), and how all social ills are attributable to the white male.  While all this might be one step above blaming the Jews for everything, it’s still ridiculous and discriminatory.  Which brings up another good point.  Why is it that on those few occasions which discrimination against a white male is acknowledged that it’s almost invariably referred to as reverse discrimintation?  Simple, because the basis behind the idea is that discrimination against white males is somehow provoked or earned, hence the prefix.  Calling something “reverse discrimination” is stupid and dishonest.  Why not just call it “revenge,” because that’ts the idea behind it.  No, if someone is treating you worse, harrassing, or bullying you because you’re different, then that is DISCRIMINATION. 

This ideology allows people to run over white males in the workplace, and this happens frequently.  Suppose I was conspicuously not white, and I lost my job over racial discrimination.  I would have the federal courts on my side to make sure that I was compensated for my loss, and then some.  Now suppose I lose my job on the grounds of racial discrimination.  Most people are not going to believe me when I tell them the cause, there will be no court case resulting in positive gains for me, and the only person that would help me, would be my dad.  And in the meantime, the government is taking about 30% to 40% of his paycheck.  It might be 40% now.

I suppose that what I want is for the liberals to wise up enough and to tone down some of their bigoted propaganda towards white males, both in the sphere of public education, and in the media, but it’s probably overly presumptuious of me to expect any kind of fairness and rationality from moral subjectivists. 

I just wanted to make people aware of the following article because it is very important, and I consider it to be good news.  I will repost it here, accompanied by my comments, which will appear in a different font.  The original article can be found here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_sc/nasa_moon

By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Mon Dec 4, 7:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON –

NASA may be going to the same old moon with a ship that looks a lot like a 1960s Apollo capsule, but the space agency said Monday that it’s going to do something dramatically different this time: Stay there.

Unveiling the agency’s bold plan for a return to the moon, NASA said it will establish an international base camp on one of the moon’s poles, permanently staffing it by 2024, four years after astronauts land there.

It is a sweeping departure from the Apollo moon missions of the 1960s and represents a new phase of space exploration after space shuttles are retired in 2010.

                About time, those space shuttles were pieces of junk, and an inefficient use of resources.  I am reminded of something one of my teachers said to the class when I was in middle school, “Space exploration is progress, welfare is regress.”  Space exploration and colonization is the apex of progress.

In 2004, the year after the shuttle Columbia accident that killed seven astronauts,

President Bush announced a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020, and a later mission to Mars. The 16-year-long venture to the moon will take twice as long as NASA’s first trip there took in planning.

            Actually there have been discussion about colonizing and terraforming Mars in Popular Mechanics articles for a while now.  This is also good news, not only does colonization and exploration help us learn more about the universe, but the more we know about the universe the stronger the case for God is.  Furthermore, space exploration is often accompanied by significant technological breakthroughs, which can be beneficial in other areas as well.

Last year, NASA said it would cost $104 billion just to get back to the moon for its first trip, but on Monday NASA officials declined to estimate the larger costs of a permanent lunar program. They just said it would stay within NASA’s budget.

The estimated time frame for NASA’s lunar plans are:

2009 — a first test of one of the lunar spaceships.

2014 — the first manned test flight of the Orion crew exploration vehicle, but no moon landing.

2020 — the first flight of the four-astronaut crew to the moon.

For four years, the lunar base won’t be built up enough for long visits, so astronauts will only spend a week at a time. But after that, NASA envisions people living on the moon for six-month stints.

NASA also hopes that hydrogen, oxygen and other moon resources can be used as supplies for the lunar outpost. Eventually, getting oxygen there may be simple enough that it could be turned over to a commercial supplier, Horowitz said.

                There is actually water on the moon in the form of ice, which could be what they are referring to here.  The water ice on the moon may be leftovers from whatever caused the flood on Earth.  It is very likely that the Biblical flood on Earth may be linked to the flood on Mars, and the cratering on the moon, and perhaps Mercury as well.  Incidentally, scientists believe that there is ice of some form in Mercury’s polar regions.  We could very well end up with a permanent self sustaining Lunar colony, which could be used as a staging point for colonizing other planets.

NASA’s vision for the moon is more than just American astronauts — it includes space travelers from other countries and even commercial interests, if possible.

                The more stuff that gets commercialized the better.

Having other countries sign onto the project would save NASA money, although the United States will design the moon vehicles, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said. And while NASA welcomed its current partners on the international space station — Russia, Europe and Japan — the agency was cagey about its most enigmatic space rival, China, which has made noises about going to the moon.

                Good, communism is the enemy.  I say let China get there on its own.  No good can come out of having close relations with a communist country, especially not on something so vital. 

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was dispatched to China earlier this year, but so far discussions with China are only about earth science and space junk, Dale said. She said including China in lunar plans is “not one of our charges.”

The key decision for NASA in its planning was whether to have a permanent settlement, and that drove other decisions, Dale said. Going with a permanent base was an outcome of NASA asking itself and more than 1,000 experts from 14 nations the questions: “Why are we returning to the moon and what we plan to do when we get there?”

Two key themes, according to NASA, were to prepare for future exploration, with Mars the next stop, and expansion of human civilization. Both NASA’s science and engineering communities agreed on a permanent outpost, an agreement rare for two conflicting sides of the agency, Horowitz said.

                Most excellent, it’s good when policy makers see it my way.  The only way this could be better is if businesses were doing it instead of the government.

The lunar plan calls for a commitment of money over the next three presidential terms, raising questions about future funding. But University of Texas aerospace engineering professor Hans Mark, a former NASA deputy administrator, gives the new plan an 80 percent chance of getting the money to put people on the moon by 2020.

                This could be a problem, if we get a Democrat president it will be more difficult for the space program to carry on.  Democrats are more concerned about stupid things like welfare, donating money to countries that hate us, increasing UN hegemony, subsidizing Islam, subsidizing abortion, and committing troops to prevent Islamic people groups from being punished by the people they used to oppress.  Democrats love investing money in areas that offer negative returns, and they don’t particularly care much for progress.  So if we get a Democrat president the timeline could be messed up by budget cuts.  After all, progress has this annoying tendency to take up money that could be more irresponsibly allocated elsewhere.

While a more permanent base on the moon makes sense, American University public policy professor Howard McCurdy, who has written several books about NASA, fears the space program may stop there and not continue with President Bush’s plans to continue to Mars.

His concern is based on cost and technology, McCurdy said. NASA doesn’t plan to get additional money for its lunar program and will simply use money that had gone to the space shuttle program; much of the technology is based on expensive Apollo hardware, he said. So NASA has vowed to be creative with spending and technology, he said.

                Cost is one concern, Democrats being in a position to dictate policy is an even bigger concern.

“The tooth fairy is not going to drop $500 to $800 billion on NASA,” McCurdy said. “Being creative on the moon can sometimes get you confined to the moon.”

___

On the Net:

NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html

I was in the store, shopping pretty much with my stomach after lifting and running, and on the way out I encountered a “Time” magazine, with an article advertized in the front called “God vs. Science.”  Of course I immediately knew what that one was going to be all about.  And sure enough, it was…  “A spirited debate between atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and Christian geneticist Francis Collins.” 

I started skimming through it, and after an inner struggle over whether I wanted any of my money to go to something like “Time Magazine,” I elected to buy it anyways.  Although, I am still somewhat chafing at the notion that my money went to sponsor their magazine, but whatever.  It would be nice if the evolutionists would put a lot more of their stuff on the internet so that us Christians who genuinely want to read their stuff and have it for reference can do so without giving them any money.  Anyways, the blatant and unapologetic bias struck me in the face like a wet towel in a college bathroom.  It’s not a matter of “Science vs. God,” it’s a matter of atheism/pantheism vs. the Bible (when Christians are involved on one side), and which religion squares more solidly with empirical data, or science.  Sometimes it’s simply a matter of atheism vs. science, because not everyone on the non-Darwinian side is a Christian and it can be easily restricted to challenging evolutionism to square with scientific laws and empirical data, which it does not.  It’s really quite simple to put evolutionism on the defensive, and technically the burden of proof rests on them anyways.  The whole “science vs God” bit is just a rhetorical device employed by liberal journalists to add an ethos based impetus to their side, and the average person typically falls for it to some degree.

One thing they said in the article that somewhat annoyed me, besides the stuff I already mentioned, I was also annoyed at their use of the word “creationism,” and their statement that all ID movements are simply “creationism” under another title.  First of all, ID (intelligent design) is not a religious hypothesis, it is simply the position that the structure of the universe indicates design.  Many religious creation accounts could be considered forms of ID, but  ID also includes deists who are not necessarily religious but smart enough to recognize that the notion of a self creating universe is ridiculous.  Also, Creation is not an “ism,” because it is not a complete religion or ideology completely by itself.  Creation refers to the Biblical creation account, a person who believes that God (of the Bible) created the Earth in the way the Bible says is a Creationist.  That person could be a Christian, a Samaritan (Similar to traditional Judiasm but only believes the Tora with parts of Exodus and some of the later books slightly altered), a Jew who does not believe in the NT, or a psuedo Christian who believes in Genesis but has heretical views on other books in the Bible.  All of those people would be termed Creationists.  But no Creation is not an ism because it is not a complete and stand alone belief system or religion unto itself.  Evolution IS an ism, because it stands alone, and has a complete set of philosophical and moral implications, as well as an alleged history of the past, and projections for the future.  So they need to watch how they word things.

The cashier lady saw me reading the magazine and whenever I stopped and paid attention to what she was doing she told me that a statistic she saw said that 75% of people in the US go to church.  Hmmm… I though.  That was just a little difficult to believe, although I suppose it could be true.  A lot of people just go to church for social reasons, and a lot of “Churches” arent really Christian. 

I would like to preface by saying that I was very disappointed in the results of this election. Furthermore, why is Bush sucking up to Democrats? He needs to take a hardline stance against all his opponents, both abroad AND domestic (democrats/liberals). Now that we have all those infidels in Congress we are going to have to deal with all sorts of attempts (hopefully nothing more) to pass bad legislation. For years I have felt a growing concern over the fact that the Republicans are becoming too much like their opponents in order to “reach people” or some other nonsense like that. This is one of the major problems with Democracy. Democracy is not conducive to good leadership, it leads to the rise of politicians and tyrants (in the modern sense) rather than actual leaders. A true leader knows what is best and does it, regardless of what popular opinion might think.

Democracy is appealing to some people because they like the notion of everyone being able to participate in government and, “have a say,” including, and especially, themselves. Democracy fails because it encourages the hive mind/herd mentality, and the average person is very easily manipulated (as evidenced by the recent election results). Also, what most people truly want in their hearts is not true democracy (everyone having an equal say and vote), but they want a strong leader who will accomplish their desired ends and run the country the way they want. They want a tyrant (in the classical sense) who shares their particular ideology. Which is one of the reasons why we see so much whining and accusations of foul play following the election results when a certain party wins and a certain party loses (no need to name names). Now, although I don’t agree with everything this person has done or believed in, but I find this particular comment interesting:

Hitler, Adolf, “Mein Kampf,” translated by Ralph Manheim (New York, NY: Mariner Books 1999).

*Not liberalistic in the modern sense, but in the classical sense meaning free and without reserve. The modern people who tout themselves as liberal are actually more similar to the old Nazi party ideologically than their opponents.

Hitler understood this clearly, which was a major factor contributing to his rise to power. Hitler didn’t come into power against popular consent, he was elected democratically and welcomed into power with cheers. Hitler was a politician and a tyrant (in the classical and modern sense of the word), and he was loved by his people because he knew how to fully capitalize on the innate herd mentality that most people have. Far too many people prefer to delegate the hard work of thinking to others, which makes it dangerous to allow everyone to participate in the government. The media leans left, and it’s pretty evident that people voted the way they did because of the media.

Now back to the Republicans. A good leader is not concerned about popular opinion, because most people quite honestly do not know, because they are incapable and/or unwilling, what is best for them. They generally vote the way they do because their parents vote a certain way, or because of popular opinion (which the media factors into), not even necessarily because they agree with, understand, or even know about the ideological platform of their candidate of choice. Lord Shang Yang once said, supposedly quoting from an older source:

…and…

Shang Yang, “The Art of War Sun Tzu The Book of Lord Shang ‘Shang Yang,’” The Book of Lord Shang. translated by J. J. L. Duyvendak (Ware, Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1998).

The second quote from Lord Shang is referred to as the Law of Kuo Yen, so it’s entirely possible that he is quoting from an older source. While I do not agree with everything Shang Yang has to say, I nevertheless enjoy reading the works of tyrants because I find that, regardless of our ideological differences, their assessment of human behavior is strikingly accurate. This understanding is what allows them to take over so successfully and thoroughly. Also, as my friend mindflenzing, likes to say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” The problem today is that the Republicans are mostly politicians, and politicians are not leaders, they are mob pleasers, and the Democrats are mainly tyrants (but also politicians) with strong tendencies towards atheism. I don’t want a politician for a leader, I want a leader for a leader. So as a word to Republicans who style themselves as Christians (and may actually be), keep in mind what Jesus said:

John 15:18-19.

The next issue I would like to address, is what the Bible says about Democracy. Some might say, “Democracy wasn’t around when the Bible was written.” Well yes it was in some parts of the world, but that’s irrelevant anyways because God being omniscient knows all and he anticipated the formation of the US and our current political situation. The Bible has answers to every major philosophical and ideological issue that we can run across as Christians, it’s just that sometimes you have to dig a bit. It is important to remember that God only established two political systems in the Bible. The first system God set up was anarchy. Prior to the flood there was no government, at least not one established by God. It was not until after the flood that God said:

Genesis 9:6.

This is the first mention in the Bible of any type of police system. It is also important to keep in mind that when God established Israel as an autonomous nation (the first time) there was no formal government that ruled the entire nation. They had a religious style anarchy, or, to put it more aptly at the risk of coining an new term, Theocratic Anarchy.

Judges 18:1

…and…

Judges 18:25

Eventually, a significant portion of the clan leaders in Israel decided that they wanted a King.

And the Lord said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

I Samuel 8:7.

It is important not to lose sight of the fact that God established a monarchy, not a democracy. God in his infinite wisdom saw that monarchy was the best system of government. God also informed them of the price they would pay for having a government, and gave them a chance to change their minds:

Sound familiar?

Some might ask, well what happens if the monarch goes bad? I believe that we can find our answer in ancient China. The ancient Chinese believed in a concept called the “Mandate of Heaven,” which meant that the monarchs ruled by the will of Tien/Shangti (God), and if they ruled in an unGodly fashion then God would rescind their right to rule. Regime changes were conducted by intellectuals, not by angry mobs who aren’t even sure of what they want, much less of what they need.

But the ruling elite during the Western Zhou conceived of Heaven as a moral deity who had decreed that the Zhou conquer the Shang because the later Shang Kings were degenerate and corrupt, whereas the Zhou kings were paragons of virtue and benevolent leadership. This belief came to be known as the Mandate of Heaven (tianming), and in the early classical texts is attributed to the Duke of Zhou, brother of King Wu. The fully developed doctrine states that the authority and power to rule are given to a particular family by Heaven based on the family’s virtue (de), and when that virtue declines, the authority to rule is taken away.

p. 27

Adler, Joseph A., “Chinese Religious Traditions,” (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Laurence King Publishing Ltd., 2002)

It was important for the leader to maintain a proper relationship with the Creator, the Chinese emperors acted as priests and intercessors between God and man.

W. A. P. Martin, “The Lore of Cathay or the Intellect of China,” (London: Oliphant, Anderson and Ferrier, 1901).

Through this system the emperor was held accountable by the intelligencia but was also given the freedom to act unilaterally when the situation called for it. If he became too corrupt the intelligent people among the population would replace him. It is hard for someone to lead a country successfully when he has to get approval from unintelligent people before he can do the right thing. More can be done if the leader does not have to worry about elections and reelections. Furthermore, the size of the government can be reduced if the amount of people who are allowed to participate in the government is reduced. A good king does not have to appeal to the “man on the street” because his power base lies with the intellectuals, and he is free to do what is best for the people, even though the majority may not recognize it as such. Since a monarch does not need to give out favors on a large scale in order to garner votes, the activity of the government can be reduced.

Proverbs 28:2.

I recieved the following email from a friend, who I won’t name presently, but I recognize the importance and seriousness of this issue, and I encourage all fellow Christians to get involved here:

I swiftly crafted the following letter and emailed it to all the above addresses:

Greetings, my name is Jonathan Snooks.  I would like to voice my support for the Gideons and their effort continual efforts to peacefully spread the Word of God.

I have been made aware of the situation in the Lebanon public school system between the Gideons and an aggrieved parent. As educated people you and I are both aware of the fact that the issue is not one of legality, but rather a clash of ideologies. Seeing as how the Gideons distribute Bibles (which to my knowledge are not contra-ban the US), and the children are not forced or compelled to accept them I do not see why the issue must be an issue of state. The ability to freely distribute and willfully accept distributed materials of ones own volition is a constitutionally protected freedom. Any impingement upon the freedom of the Gideons to distribute Bibles would actually be in violation of Amendment #1 to the US Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Now, I realize that organizations such as the ACLU enjoy citing the 1^st Amendment (and incorrectly so) to create cases for the removal of all Judeo-Christian vestiges from public life, but they are quite mistaken. If the freedom of the Gideons to distribute Bibles publicly is somehow compromised, then the 1^st Amendment is violated in three ways.

1. The free exercise of religion is violated
2. Freedom of speech is violated
3. Freedom of assembly is violated

The only way in which they could legitimately accuse the Gideons of violating the law is if their activities were subsidized by the government. As it is, this is not an issue which ought to be a matter of legality. What it comes down to is the mother wishes for the government to censor ideologies and belief systems which might influence the beliefs of her children. This sort of censorship one would expect to find in fascist and communist countries, but it has no place in the US, and it violates the principles of freedom of expression, speech, and belief upon which the country was founded. I hope you will make the wiser decision, and choose freedom over censorship. Remember, every time freedom is curtailed, net freedom, collective freedom, is reduced, and typically irrevocably so.

Since I presently find myself with a surplus of freetime with nothing to do, I have elected to critique an article from “National Peongraphic,” I mean, “National Pornographic,” I mean, “National Geographic” (although the other two titles are certainly descriptive and applicable). Anyways, “National Geographic,” is one of those magazines which likes to frequently and unapologetically worship at the altar of evolutionism. Because of this I have decided that it merits my critique. The article I will be critiquing is called “The Dawn of Humans Expanding Worlds.” A very presumptuous title for sure. The middle schoolers will be very impressed. The article is by Rick Gore, the Senior Assistant Editor. This article can be found in Volume 109, Number 5, May 1997. Perhaps they have retracted some of this garbage since the article is old, but then again, probably not seeing as we are talking about liberal journalists, who don’t believe in retractions, or at least not conspicuous ones.

To preface my critique, I would like to emphasize the fact that in order for something to be history in the technical sense, it has to be recorded, and as usual the evolutionists are trying to construct a story about what happened before there was any actual observation. This goes entirely against the historic method, but to lend the illusion of credibility to their contrived account of the past, they have coined the term “pre-history,” which is functionally synonymous with “make-believe,” “pretend,” “wishful thinking,” etc. In order for something to be history it has to be recorded, therefore any “pre-history” is nothing more than conjecture at the very best. The same is true for science, in order for something to be a part of science actual observation must be conducted. Evolutionism can be instantaneously refuted by pointing out these two facts, but for the evolutionary believer additional counter-arguments are occasionally required.

“For months now I have been exploring the controversial terrain of human evolution, retracing the steps early members of the genus Homo made as the spread throughout Africa, Europe, and Asia.” P. 86

Well, one part of this statement is certainly correct, evolutionism is certainly controversial. I object to the use of the term “genus Homo,” on the grounds that we know through direct observation of only one kind of human life. When evolutionism was popularized the existence of primates (monkeys, apes, chimps) were trumped up as evidence that human life descended from lower organisms. The grounds were not any record of an actual progression, but the assumption that there must be a common ancestor based on the bipedal locomotion and similar amounts of digits between humans and primates. So from the get-go, evolutionism was based on assumption rather than any real evidence. And like their Victorian predecessors modern evolutionists maintain the tradition of interpreting and even altering the evidence in the light of presuppositions. So “Genus Homo” includes groups such as Neanderthals (which were actually fully human) and “Homo Erectus,” which functions as a catch all group for bone skeletal fragments which the evolutionists are not quite sure how to classify. Basically they all end up being used to trump up the case for yet another fictitious intermediate category between man and apes, or sorry, “primitive ape-like primates,” whatever. Anyways, I object to it, the only human organisms we have seen are human organisms, perhaps if we ever get out of the solar system and find alien life we could meet humanoid life of some other kind, but they still could not be classified along with any kind of earth life, so no, there is not, nor can there technically be, any “Genus Homo.” Furthermore, I object to the placement of Africa as the starting point of humanity, when clearly all the evidence points to the Middle East as the starting point of humanity. If Africa were the starting point then we would see proliferation of inventions, ideas, agriculture, live stock, and tools, etc. from the region. The oldest human records would also be centralized in and around Africa. Instead what we find is that the oldest surviving human records are from the Middle East. We also find that agriculture and civilization began in the Middle East, and slowly spread outwards from there. The Indus Valley civilization and Chinese civilization were also very advanced at an early period, but they are still antedated by Middle Eastern civilizations. Furthermore, human diversity emanates in a radial pattern from the Middle East, with parts of the Middle East and surrounding regions (such as central Asia and the Sahara Desert, for example) forming a gradient between areas of different human phenotypes. The patterns of human diversity, in terms of phenotype, are indicative of a radial immigration pattern centering around the Middle East, not Africa. At any rate, the “Out of Africa” theory remains an assumption.

“By a million years ago—perhaps much earlier—at least one species of Homo, Homo erectus, had made it as far as Indonesia.” P. 86.

Right, and they know this for a fact because whenever he got there he punched in his time card, no wait, he carved his name on the inside of a cave, “GolOg wuZ hEEr.” With the politically correct date attached of 2,000,000 BCE. Again, these things don’t come with name tags, the evolutionists arbitrarily assign dates based on presupposition. The “Homo Erectus” is an entirely fictitious construct, which includes bones from a variety of creatures, including humans, which evolutionist are either unwilling or unable to distinctly identify.

I also find it amusing that the author mentions Eugene Dubois, and his “discovery” of “Javaman.” P. 87.

“In his first two years he found what he was looking for…”

Of course he found what he was looking for, he was looking within the construct of his own presuppositions, and fabricating evidence haphazardly.

“—a skullcap, a demur, and a molar that came to be known as Java Man. He labeled his discovery Pithecanthropus erectus, meaning “upright ape man.” P. 87.

I find it slightly overzealous and presumptuous to construct a whole creature, and base a whole species or “transitional stage” off of three bone fragments, which probably came from entirely different organisms to begin with. What we see here is nothing other than imaginative story telling. Of course this is a frequent method employed by evolutionists. They often paste together random bone fragments and trump it up as some type of extinct organism which conveniently supports their beliefs. Anyway, I find it amusing how the author mentions “Java man” as if it were relevant, when Eugene Dubois himself admitted that he was wrong. Dubois admitted that the bones were probably from an organism similar the gibbons, and not any kind of ancestor to modern man, yet the “Java man” continues to be used by evolutionists. If evolutionists would stay current on the material their own people are putting out they would make fewer embarrassing errors.

“The skeleton, named Turkana boy, is stored in boxes in a dark, air-conditioned room, sometimes called the Chapel at the National Museums of Kenya in Nairobi. When I visited most recently, an aura of reverence filled the quite room…” p. 91

The evolutionist is at least just as religious as anyone else. They might be amoral but they are still religious. Putting that aside however, the Turkana boy is still fully within the range of human. His brain capacity was a little small but still larger than that of some contemporary children, and he walked fully upright.

On page 93 we have a “reconstruction” of a “Homo Erectus” female. And as usual, the missing link is given dark skin and negroid features. If I was black I would be very upset with the implications of that, and very upset with the evolutionists. Actually, I am fairly upset with the implications as it is. In the 1900’s it was openly stated that black people were an inferior subspecies of the “Genus Homo” and sometimes put on display next to actual primates. Again, the way in which evolutionists classify things is, and always has been, arbitrary and subjective.

On page 95 there is a whole jawbone belonging to “Homo Erectus” which was constructed from only two teeth and a small bone fragment from the jaw. Never mind what it actually might be, it has to be a “Homo Erectus” bone fragment because the drawing says so.

“Teeth from the Longgupo cave are tearing at the prehistory of China. Their discoverers call them Homo Erectus. Other scientists say they could be from an earlier hominid, the first in Asia. Still others, comparing features such as cusps—marked by red dots—argue that they belonged to an ape.” P. 95

Another possibility is that we will never know what it is because the original evolutionists who “discovered” it could have chiseled away at it or doctored it in some other way. Evolutionists do this from time to time. It’s really not evidence for anything, except that the evolutionists continually find it difficult to get their story strait.

The points in this article are fairly redundant, and the article is rife with ridiculous unsubstantiated suppositions, but I did find the following excerpt amusing:

“’The idea that all homonids originated in Africa is a myth created by people working in Africa,’ one primatologist told me. ‘Sure they’ve found a lot there, but if we’d invested that much time and money in Asia we would find fossil homonids just as old there too.” P. 101-102

I believe I have touched on all the main points in this article. If someone has read the article and thinks that there are points that I should still address then by all means bring them up.

This is not going to be very long, but for a while I have considered addressing the issue of overpopulation.  When I was a kid I actually watched “Captain Planet” from time to time, not because I agreed with their views but because I liked superhero stuff in general.  In spite of my age, it didn’t take me very long to realize how foolish and backwards the views propounded by that show actually were.  Especially when they had one episode where the main quote/point was “Don’t let your world become overpopulated.”    So the question is, is overpopulation really something we need to be concerned about?  Most liberals seem to think it is.  According to evolutionism, which forms the religious basis for the political left, humanity, and all living things are a product of the earth, or “Mother Nature.”  Given that paradigm many leftists place what the presume to be the welfare of Mother Nature/the earth/the environment, etc. above human prosperity and well being.  One of the reasons, probably the main reason, why leftists advocate population control and abortion is because they wish to reduce the human population. 

Since I am not a leftist, or a telepath, I am going to speculate that they are afraid that if humanity destroys the earth then the next sentient species to mystically grow up from the mud might not have a nice place to live in.  Obviously they are not concerned with human life or they would not advocate population control, but why then would they care another sentient species if they don’t care about their own?  One possibility is that they only think they would care about another sentient species, but more likely than not if they met another sentient species they would probably see them as villains and despoilers of mother nature, who’s population also needs to be reduced or eliminated.  Another possibility is that they confuse “crowded” with “overpopulated.”  This view makes more sense in empirical terms considering that leftists tend to congregate in large urban centers.  In support of my position, I submit the two following maps.  The first map shows how each county in the US voted during the 2004 election.  The second map shows the population density of the US.  With the exception of Texas, the large urban centers in most states voted Democrat. 

                It is important to differentiate between ‘crowded’ and ‘overpopulated.’  Crowded is personal and subjective, whereas overpopulated is empirical.  Some people say that three is a crowd whereas others might view the conditions of a Tokyo railway car as their personal litmus test for what constitutes crowded.  Crowded is relative, subjective, and personal.  If I can walk through the FYE store at the mall without having to alter my trajectory to avoid people, and I don’t have to worry about UPS (Unwanted Physical Contact) while browsing through the movies, then it’s not crowded.  Now, if those people are all inside my apartment simultaneously, then all of a sudden it’s crowded and miserable.  On the other hand, there are people who don’t mind having 20+ guests over to their house at one time, it’s just that I am most certainly not one of them.  Overpopulation should not be confused with crowded, or population density.  In the technical sense an area is not overpopulated unless the resource availability is inadequate to sustain the population.  This of course varies from area to area.  For instance, Germany is very densely populated,  and living quarters are more expensive than say, South Georgia, but people in Germany still have what they need.  India happens to be the most populous country in the world, and many people across the political spectrum posit that it is overpopulated.  As far as I am concerned, the overpopulation of India is negligible, India has a great many poor people because of the caste system, and people with no money cannot buy food anywhere in the world, regardless of how much food there is.  But the point I wish to make, is that the geographic area of India is capable of supporting a large population, so the threshold for what constitutes overpopulation in India is quite high.  Now, if the same amount of people were placed in the Sahara then they would most certainly be overpopulated, because the inhospitable nature of the Sahara greatly reduces the amount of people that it is capable of supporting, and it takes far fewer people to cross that threshold.

                To sum it up, there are reasons why some areas have many more people than others.  If liberals are feeling crowded living in then I recommend moving.  My preferred living place is the suburbs, but there is plenty more room available in the country.  Also, liberals could cut down on probably a fourth or a third of the population growth in the US by getting themselves sterilized.  As an added bonus they wouldn’t have to complain about how conservatives are mean because we try to stop them from killing their babies in the abortion clinics.  That’s another issue, the liberals totally misconstrue why we are against abortion.  We aren’t against it just to make them unhappy, it would actually be hugely in our advantage to allow them to abort themselves, the issue is that we believe human life is sacred and don’t condone killing children who have not yet done anything wrong.

This weekend I was out of town for my brothers wedding.  Right now he’s at Lake Lanier having fun with my dads boat.  I think they should name their first son after me but to each his own.  So go congratulate jtsnooks.  But that was not the main thing I wanted to discuss at this time.  Now for the topics:

Faith:

The pastor (parents church) said that faith is not emotionalism, it is trust.  One need not be emotional to trust someone, the logician is more likely to make accurate assessments of character and trustworthiness than someone who is all muddled with emotions.  I thought it was great, and the logic was impeccable.

Perfume:

One thing that I find consistantly irritating is how frequently my allergies flare up in church.  I believe that the heightened symptoms are attributable to perfumes, mainly because when I smell perfume in church, it is often the last thing I smell for a while, and the more women that are around me the worse my allergies are.  Men typically don’t wear perfume.  I hate having to run out of the sanctuary because my nose sprung a leak (everyone knows what’s going on when you rise up with a hand covering everything from the bridge of your nose down), I don’t like disrupting the sermon with frequent and/or continual sneezing, or nose blowing.  Not only is it distracting, but I also miss part of church.  I know that people with allergies as bad as mine are a minority, but we are a considerable minority, and what purpose does the perfume serve?  Thinking about it analytically I can only come up with 2 possibilities:

1. To mask a stench.

2. To make onesself more attractive

If there are other possibilities than please enlighten me.

At any rate, if the problem is #1 then I reccomend taking a shower.  This is America, not France, and in the US it is considered taboo to walk around covered in your own filth, take a shower.

If it is #2 then I am going to have to say, the overpowering smell does absolutely nothing for you.  Most guys don’t care about how you smell as long as it isnt bad, and the guys with allergies won’t be able to smell you for more than a few seconds anyways because your caustic fumes are brutally ripping apart their sinuses.  If the women are truly concerned with how they look it wouldnt hurt to get in shape and/or grow the hair out longer.  At any rate, the church isnt the place where one should try to play up their sex appeal, so keep the biohazards to yourself.

(and people wonder why I like to sit in the back row)

This is an email I got, and since I believe that it makes some good points, and I enjoy stepping on some toes, I have decided to post it here: