March 30, 2007

Mammals Didn't Branch Out As Soon As Dinosaurs Perished: So What?

Yeah, I know this sounds like a victory for creationists because if science is wrong about one thing, then all science is wrong. Just like the bible would be wrong if Pi wasn't 3.

It now looks like mammals branched out a little 65 million years ago, but waited another 10-15 million years to really diversify.

Science assumed that mammals evolved as soon as dinosaurs perished. This was based on the facts that mammals did branch out after the dinosaurs perished, and dinosaurs weren't around to stop the mammals from evolving. However, evolution usually only happens when it is needed to happen, so that species can increase their chance of survival.

What we do know is no animal larger than a house cat survived very long past the meteorite hit, or hits of around 65 million years ago. We do know that oxygen levels on earth were much higher than they are now, as well.

A large meteorite hit would most likely cut off sunlight (which is a big part of current theory), and most of the plant life on the planet died.

All that were left on land, were small detritivores (cool, I learned a new word). Food was a plenty for these animals, which included insects and little rodent like mammals.

When food is plentiful, and the environment stays somewhat stable, there is no need to evolve. Also, because the larger animals perished, what most likely happened is that large plants and trees died, causing large herbivores to die, causing large carnivores to have nothing to eat. They couldn't survive on the smaller animals who already knew how to hide from the big guys, more or less.

I don't think loss of trees and large plants was all there was to the dinosaurs demise, because they weren't quite cold blooded reptiles, and many small reptiles did survive. Studies have shown their body temperatures varied with size.
Body temperature and the abrupt change in oxygen content most likely was the greatest contributor to dinosaur extinction, but science doesn't know for sure YET. The jury is still out to why small dinosaurs also perished, or did they evolve into birds after the meteorite hit, or something else that went extinct?

Not knowing YET doesn't mean that God exists. And it definitely doesn't mean that because science doesn't know YET, that the earth is less than 10,000 years old and evolution didn't happen.

There is a good chance that the atmosphere slowly changed, or maybe abruptly changed around 50 million years ago, causing plants to get bigger and trees to grow again, which led to different food sources and a need for some animals to get bigger to have a greater chance of species survival.

Many headlines for the above story make it seem that the dinosaur's demise had no bearing on allowing mammals to evolve. The thing they are missing is that without the dinosaur's extinction, mammals would most likely never have got bigger than a small cat, or they would have been easy targets for snacking.

If the meteorite missed, dinosaurs would most likely be still dominating the planet, and only small mammals might still be here. Except for the free-range large mammals, the now highly intelligent dinosaurs bred on farms, for food.

I added these tectonics maps showing continental drift at three crucial times. Remember, placental mammals and marsupial mammals branched out around 110 million years ago. Placental mammals didn't make it to Australia for quite some time after the big asteroid hit.

Isolation of the marsupial mammals, coupled with plenty of food and shelter, probably had something to do with the fact that no Aussie animal developed their intelligence into anything that resembled man or bonobo or dolphin. Maybe next meteorite crash, the Australian little rodents that survive, will be the ones that lead to the most intelligent species on the planet, eventually.

For real science from real scientists on this topic, check out Sandwalk and Pharyngula.

March 28, 2007

God Mysteriously Appears In My Latest Youtube Video

And apparently God is a straight purple (or violet) light and he is living in my attic.

I did this video a couple of nights ago in my bathroom. Now, I know I didn't see a purple light while filming. Yet, when I uploaded the video to Youtube, the purple light apparently was coming down from my attic and through the light bulb, and it stayed for the entire time I filmed.

I made the video as a response to why I make Atheist related Youtube videos, and why my blog is Atheist related. God must be trying to give me a sign. Ok, here is the video and please take my word for it, the purple light was not there. I swear to Darwin, I did not do this on purpose

Maybe God doesn't want me preaching about an ancient earth and evolution. He knows my blog and videos might influence young Fundies or people with open minds. Maybe he just wanted to see me shave. Maybe he was checking out the Shick Quattro. But I didn't see any hair in the light. Maybe he wants the Quattro for his wife or girlfriend. Maybe it is for his male lover. I better watch what I say about God for now on. He might be a wrathful light.

I'm still not 100% that the purple light is God, but what other explanation could there be?

March 26, 2007

When Will Fundies Start Boycotting The Simpsons?

I normally blink and miss the couch scenes at the beginning of each Simpsons episode. For some reason, I turned my head from my computer and saw the one from last night.
I wonder if their pro-evolution attitude is starting to piss off the Religious Right.
Last year they did a Scopes trial spoof, called the Monkey Suit (see bottom of this post). To think, Fundy children might be watching these episodes, and then they may ask their parents some tough questions. Fundies can't like these confrontations because it forces them to lie (yeah, deep down, most Fundies know they are lying, it is part of their mental illness). Anyway, this is the most educational Simpsons piece ever. It is the longest couch scene as well, as it runs over one minute:

They really did their homework for the scene.

The Simpsons represent the ideal Christian nuclear family. Neither Homer or Marge came into the marriage from another marriage, and other than the one episode, (The Computer Wore Menace Shoes), when Homer was replaced at home by a double and it was implied that Marg was getting German shlong, there has been no known adultery. They also attend church regularly.
Still the recent acceptance of Marge's gay sister and the evolution episode may just be too much for Fundy parents to handle.

The jury is out about whether Matt Groening, the shows creator, is an Agnostic or Atheist. He says he is Agnostic probably because he knows he would lose a huge percentage of his audience if he admitted to Atheism.
From Celebatheists:

Matt Groening -- the executive producer of "The Simpsons," who pokes a lot of fun at religion -- was asked by The New York Times whether he believed in God and what he considers the most comical story in the Bible.

Said Groening: "I was very disturbed when Jesus found a demon in a guy, and he put the demon in a herd of pigs, then sent them off a cliff. What did the pigs do? I could never figure that out. It just seemed very un-Christian. Technically, I'm an agnostic, but I definitely believe in hell -- especially after watching the fall TV schedule."

Now, if you have another 5 minutes and want to laugh out loud, here is a 5 minute compilation of Family Guy poking fun at religion:

See also, The Simpsons and Family Guy Take On Creation and Evolution for the Monkey Suit video.

March 23, 2007

Times, They Are A Changing

A part-time biology teacher in Oregon was fired for referring to the bible.

Kris Helphinstine 27, also made links between evolution and Planned Parenthood and Nazi Germany. And I doubt it was links to show that evolution has very little to do with either. They were most likely the Fundy links that are all over the internet. You know:
Darwin's evolution is about survival of the fittest (which of course, is not what evolution is all about).
Hitler thought Aryans were the fittest and wanted a world full of only Aryans.
Hitler also thought that Jews were subhuman species and tried to murder as many as he could.
Therefore, evolution is evil.

It is kind of like blaming Newton and gravity for how bullets travel.
Newton's gravity explains why and how things fall to earth (simplified and localized).
Bullets have to go real fast so they don't fall to the earth fast in order to kill people.
Therefore, gravity is evil.

I'm really surprised that the kids were so aware of what he was doing, and even more surprised that some of the parents spoke up.

This is just great news.

Now for another mentally ill creationist on Hitler and evolution. Presenting Reverend Rickey:

H/T Internet Infidels Newswire for the teacher story

March 21, 2007


I am suffering from temporary writer's block. So I decided to repost something I wrote over 2 years ago. I've made a couple of changes, so as not to plagiarize myself.

Being married for 16 loooooooong years, I think I've heard every excuse there is. Let me share some with you:

I have a headache
I have a stomach ache
I think I have the flu
My back is really bothering me today
I'm having chest palpitations
I feel like throwing up
I just had a bath
I didn't have a bath
I'm bleeding tonight
I don't feel like it
It's too early, maybe later
It's too late, you should have asked me earlier
Can't you just massage my back without wanting sex
I don't like you right now
I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow
You were mean to me today
I'm too tired
I just woke up
I just washed the sheets
We'll have sex tomorrow
My twat hurts

And of course there are excuses that are based on the length of the relationship;

When it starts going downhill:
"I really don't like it when you wake me up for sex."

When you know things have changed for good:
"We just had sex yesterday."

After 5 years of marriage:
"We just had sex three days ago."

After 10 years of marriage:
"We just had sex last week."

After 15 years of marriage:
"I can't believe you are watching porn, all you do is think about sex. Grow up."

See also Poor Excuses For Not Having Sex. Funny stuff. Good intelligent analysis.

March 19, 2007

The Atheist Jew Endorses Answers In Creation, Sort Of

Since I'm a believer that man is hardwired to readily accept the concept of God and the supernatural, I don't have a major problem with people who believe in long as they don't deny reality, history, and factual evidence to do so.

I'll argue with any believer if I'm confronted by someone who says there is a God, or if they say that Atheism is a religion or makes no sense. But that is the fighter in me.

It is the people who have to go out of their way to deny an old earth or deny evolution by trying to poke holes in a "scientific" manner that really bothers me (the wilfully ingnorant). It is those people who are the most intolerant too, because they think their religion is so special and the only way to go, and that you have to do this that and the other thing and believe this that or the other thing, or you will rot in hell.
I don't mind the few YECs who just admit that they believe in their bible and they don't try to argue why they are right scientifically (the honest wilful ignorant).

It looks like a group of Christians are fed up with YECs. They are embarrassments to 2007 humanity, and the people at Answers In Creation (Old Earth Ministries) have figured it out. The writers at this site give to YECs better than I ever could. Here is an exerpt from their FAQ page:

1. If you say it doesn’t matter what position you believe in (old or young), then why do you attack the young earth position?

There are two reasons why the young earth creation science position is criticized on this website. First and most important, there is a battle to be waged for people's souls. Countless people have abandoned the Christian church today, because they were told that the earth was young, and then after they studied the evidence, they saw that it was old. We seek to reach these people...the ones that have been cast out by young earth creationism. They need to understand that you can be a Christian, and believe that the earth is old. With this goal in mind, we gladly confront the false teachings of young earth creationism.
The second reason we confront the young earth position is because it is wrong. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, and the universe more than 13 billion years old. The scientific evidence to support this claim is accepted by over 99.9 percent of all scientists.1 However, the young earth position teaches that the earth is only 6,000 years old. Because this is against all (100%) of the evidence from God’s creation, the young earth position is not true. Yes, even God's creation argues against young earth creationism. At this website, we seek to expose the young earth position for what it is, a false representation of science and truth. We encourage people to examine God's creation, so that they can discover the truth that the earth is old.
Because what they teach is not the truth, it must be confronted.

They have a page full of testimonials from those who used to believe in the Young Earth but changed their minds based on REAL EVIDENCE.

Their stance on evolution is pretty whacked, only because they understand how YEC's work when it comes to Young Earth "science." I think deep down, or even right under the surface, they KNOW evolution is fact:

4. Do you believe in evolution?

Answers In Creation does not believe in Theistic Evolution. However, there is no reason why Theistic Evolution should not be considered a viable alternative to any other form of creation belief. It is possible to be a Christian, believe in an inerrant Bible, and believe in Theistic Evolution. In fact, you can even be a fundamentalist and believe in evolution. You will see articles on Answers In Creation that are in support of Theistic Evolution. As valid brothers and sisters in Christ, we seek to aid them where we can.
Furthermore, the arguments used against Theistic Evolution by young earth (and old earth) ministries are well-countered by theistic evolutionists. There is a good chance that they are right!

I'm obviously ignoring the word "theistic" because I allow them the belief in God or Jesus' resurrection, as science cannot disprove a negative in these cases, and man is so easily duped by the idea of God, etc.

They lose me when it comes to the flood, as there is lots of evidence that a flood didn't affect ALL mankind, even it was localized (the localized part is the good part at least):

Do you believe in a global flood?

The flood of Noah was a local flood, however, it was universal in effect. God said he would wipe man from the face of the earth, and he did. All locations that were populated in Noah’s day were flooded. Please keep in mind that during Noah’s day, the people all stayed together in one geographic area, and they all spoke the same language (this was prior to the Tower of Babel). Thus, there was no need to flood the entire earth (nor is there any geological evidence of such a flood).
Does this mean the Bible is in error when it says the whole earth was flooded? No, the Bible is accurate. The Bible is written from the frame of reference of man. All the lands known to man were flooded, thus all of man's world was flooded. Noah, viewing the flood, would have claimed the whole world was flooded, even though most of it was not.

They really target the likes of Ken Ham and Kent Hovind. Here is a fairly recent article slamming Ham's book Lie: Evolution.

4. Animals were created as vegetarians. This claim is one that makes absolutely no sense when you consider the lengths to which young earth creationists have to go to in order to justify it. It is true that God addresses man and animals, and tells them to eat plants. This makes sense only if you consider that it is God’s directions for the Garden of Eden, which is the location this edict was given. The Garden was a vision of the new heaven and new earth, which contained no bloodshed. There is no reason so suspect that outside the Garden, life continued on as it had for millions of years. Also, many animals are uniquely designed as predators, and their digestive systems are designed to process meat. Young earth creationists explain this away by saying the curse changed animals...but then again, animals were not cursed.

OK, so it a bit of an apologist site, but it is a move in the right direction. It mostly takes fact and then changes the meanings of the words in the bible to fit the facts (I wonder why they can't do that regarding the Great Flood though).

Here is a paragraph that pretty much illustrates their attitude:

As a progressive creationist, I do not believe in theistic evolution. However, based on Ham’s discussion of 20 reasons against evolution, he presents no valid arguments against theistic evolution. If you prefer to believe in theistic evolution, you are free to continue to do so. One of the greatest evangelical theologians of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis, the author of the Chronicles of Narnia, was a theistic evolutionist. Nobody, not even young earth creationists, questions his devotion to God.

Not accepting evolution (even though they know it is true) allows them to still be intolerant:
"As a conservative Christian myself, I can honestly say that you can still have the same moral positions on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues, and believe that the earth is old."

I guess even if you are an Old Earth Christian, you still gotta hate something.

From Gershwin's Porgy and Bess. I was going to embed the Sammy Davis version from Youtube but it was incomplete.


It ain't necessarily so, it ain't necessarily so.
De t'ings dat yo' li'ble to read in de Bible,
it ain't necessarily so.

Li'l David was small, but oh my, Li'l David was small, but oh my.
He fought big Goliath who lay down and dieth.
Li'l David was small, but oh my.

Oh, Jonah, he lived in de whale, oh, Jonah, he ived in de whale.
Fo' he made his home in dat fish's abdomen.
Oh, Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Li'l Moses was found in a stream, Li'l Moses was found in a stream.
He floated on water till Ole Pharoah's daughter
she fished him, she says, from that stream.

It ain't necessarily so, it ain't necessarily so.
Dey tell all you chillun de debble's a villun
but 'tain't necessarily so.

To get into Hebben don't snap for a sebben.
Live clean, don have no fault.
Oh, I takes dat gospel whenever it's pos ble
but wid a grain of salt.

Methus lah lived nine hundred years, Methus lah lived nine hundred years.
But who calls dat livin' when no gal will give in
to no man what's nine hundred years?

I'm preachin' dis sermon to show
it ain't nessa, ain't nessa, ain't nessa, ain't nessa,
ain't necessarily so.

- Ira Gershwin

March 17, 2007


Fundies are pretty well convinced that homosexuality is 100% nurture. Especially bible literalists, who "know" that according to the bible that homosexuality is an immoral sin, and sinners can all be cured. If biological, this means that the bible is wrong, which of course it can't be. Also, it means that God created homosexuals, and this too would complicate things immensely for the slack jawed yokel creationists, who believe that God created man in his image. This would literally mean that God likes it up the pooper between one out of 20, to one out of 10 times.
No, Fundies are sure that homosexuality is a mental illness that happens after birth.

After dealing with Fundies in the comment section of various blogs the last couple of days, I have come to the conclusion, that they are in fact mentally ill. It isn't like I've thought about it before, but I finally got completely convinced.
How can people continually make excuses, try to poke holes (and believing hole poking is peer reviewed science), and continually repeat the same lies, convinced that they are truths, over and over again and not be nuts?
How can anyone who opened a science book, watched a nature documentary or read links that are used by people like me to refute their nonsense, in a very educational manner that an 8 year old could understand, still believe the earth is less than 10,000 years old? I realize that evolution is a lot harder for the simple minded to comprehend, but many who argue against it say they have a very good knowledge of science, which of course is a lie, or in fact, they are the craziest of the crazies. These people will go to great lengths to try to explain away scientific fact in order to make their 1900 year old book of myths a total reality.

The only question is whether reality denying is nature or nurture.

Of course, nurture is obvious. Many YECs have been brainwashed since infancy. Now, those who haven't been exposed to real science, thanks to the allowing of home schooling, have an excuse. But these people just stay in their own little world, and they won't be trying to show off how smart they think they are outside of church. Still, a brainwashed person has to be considered mentally ill.

The ones that have opened science books, are still of course brainwashed, but their psychosis runs deeper because they have to overcome major cognitive dissonance, to the point they are actually delusional.

I say man is predisposed to believe in the supernatural, and a lot has to do with our evolution when it comes to invention, innovation and social skills. That being said, I can't say that someone who believes in a higher power is mentally ill. But people who deny real evidence in order to justify their specific beliefs are mentally ill.

It is one thing to embrace reality and add God to the equation. That is acceptable in lieu of our brain's hardwiring due to mostly social evolutionary pressures that modern man has faced.

Could the YECs mental illness be partially natural? Yes. Since the agricultural revolution, man benefitted in staying in one place. With that came getting along with others, and if you didn't, you got kicked out or killed. The best way to control the masses in the past was to instill fear. This is where inventing Gods, and giving Gods spiteful characteristics, worked the best. Keeps many in line. Many Christians think that without the "morality" that "God gave us," they would all be rapists, murderers and thieves.

So those who were believers, had a better chance of survival, and with that, allowed them to have way more children than the infidels too. If you can believe that it is possible that susceptibility to believe in myths can be somewhat inherent, which I do, then two mentally ill (young earth creationists) parents have a better chance of producing an offspring who is more likely to live a life of delusion, than say, the offspring of Atheists.

The question is can we reverse these potentially mentally ill children. The reason I bring this up is because Reverend R. Albert Mohler Jr. has stirred up the bible literalist community with his acceptance that homosexuality most probably occurs during fetal development.

His solution to stop homosexuality intrigues me; "What if a hormone patch during pregnancy will do the job?"

I say, why not prevent mental illness, and give pregnant young earth creationists a hormone patch that looks like this:

Most mentally ill Fundies can function well in society. They can live and die in their blissful ignorance. It is just the ones that want to infest the government or schools with their mentally ill ideas that I see a threat. Because I do believe that their illness is mostly nurture, it is best they aren't allowed to spread their nonsense.

Unlike homosexuality, YECism is treatable and curable in many cases. Check out Dr. Stephen Meyers' story. And I do believe, as I've said before, the Young Earth Creationist movement will die within 25 years, and it has to do with their spokespeople attempting to spew their lies and falsities on the internet. They can only make themselves foolish. Many YEC bloggers and message boards have already started trying to censor those who easily cut through and refute their bullshit.

I love this paragraph from Dangerous Intersections (I found this blog today, and it looks great):
It seems that schizoid tendencies are revered in Christianity. You couldn’t be a Saint unless you demonstrate what are now known to be several symptoms of Schizophrenia: Hearing voices and knowing them to be real, projective charisma, supernormal strength or agility, preternatural sensitivity to other’s thoughts, and so on. The bible and chronology of Saints document many textbook cases of schizophrenia. It usually manifests in women at the onset of adolescence (e.g: Joan of Arc) or men at the end of adolescence (pick anyone from Moses forward).

Further reading about cognitive dissonace: Cognitive Dissonance, regarding Marcus Ross, "a geologist who recently completed a doctoral dissertation at the University of Rhode Island. The subject of his dissertation was “the abundance and spread of mosasaurs, marine reptiles that, as he wrote, vanished at the end of the Cretaceous era about 65 million years ago.” According to his supervisor, his work was flawless - a brilliant piece of scientific research." Ross believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old. Either he has an agenda (and is slightly mentally ill), or he is completely off his rocker and certifiably insane.

Fun link:
Check out the sidebar at The Generator Blog if you want to add a little humour to your blog posts. That is where I found the Bart Chalk Board generator.

March 14, 2007


I am a champion of the gay cause, even though I have no close friends who are gay (that I know of), and I don't have one gay bone in my body.

I've made many posts on this issue. So let me recap:

Homosexuality occurs during fetal development in most cases
It is not a choice almost all of the time. Sure, nurture may create a few homosexuals.
Priests and Reverands seem to be able to find future homosexuals to abuse. Maybe they just have phenomenal gaydar. Rev. Alber Mohler Jr., a Southern Baptist is in the news today, acknowledging that homosexuality most probably occurs in the womb, but he wants science to help. He still considers homosexuality to be a sin, and he wants potential gay babies to be cured in the womb.
This has upset both gays and Fundidiots. Gays of course, because he is calling homosexuality a sin regardless. And Fundidiots are pissed because he is admitting that God turns fetuses into homos, and this of course means gayness isn't a curable choice. HAHAHAHAHAHA

Homosexuality is rampant in the animal kingdom
Animals have no bibles to tell them right from wrong. So Fundidiots who claim it is a moral issue are screwed. Why would their God create animals that engage in gay behavior? God must be OK with gay animals. Unless of course, gay animals engage in gay behavior just to piss off their parents. They don't have priests or revs so abuse by the clergy doesn't happen in the non human animal kingdom.

Gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone.
Except it bothers homophobic Godidiots because either they are too retarded to understand that homosexuality is natural or they themselves have homosexual urges that they are fighting. And fundidiots will do whatever it takes to put the bible into the public system.

Homosexuals do not hurt anyone who wishes not to participate. By my definition of morality and immorality, homosexuality is completely moral.
Fundies argue that beastiality and pedophelia are just as moral as homosexuality. This is incorrect because children and animals are not willing adults.

I could never be a member of the ACLU because I believe in racial profiling and I think governments should have extra priviledge when it comes to tapping phones of terrorist suspects and things like that. But I can't support the Stop The ACLU crowd either, because they are for the most part, a bunch of Godidiots who wouldn't know separation of church and state if it bit them in the ass. They are almost as theocratic in belief as the rulers of Saudi Arabia, but they are too stupid to realize it.

Today's bashing of gay bashers started here at Developing Your Web Presence
, where Amy Proctor called my handle "sickening." I decided to pay her blog, Bottom Line Up Front a visit, where I proceded to make minced meat out of her Godidiot homophobic followers. That took me to the Stop the ACLU Fundretard site. Oh, looks like my last comment got deleted. Luckily cocomment saved it for me. Praise cocomment:

Lobo, sure Wikipedia is criticized, but if you check out the links from their page, you will see they link to actual scientific studies. And I said that modern science tends to believe that most homosexuals are created during fetal development. Your cut and paste is juvenile at best.

Homosexuality is not immoral, because most homosexuals are born that way, and they aren't hurting anyone with their actions, if protection and proper precautions are taken. And it is between 2 (or more in some cases) willing people.

Again, if a man who makes military decisions is a religious loon who believes in the Rapture and End Times, he should be forced to resign, because his mythological ridiculous beliefs could sway his decision making.

Why are sheep gay? Did someone teach them to be gay or are they just trying to get back at their parents?

Why would he delete this? Why are Fundidiots so insecure about their beliefs? I know why, because deep down they know they have nothing.

Now, Wake Up Americans had the best monitor and argument, though the basis was flawed as I pointed out. Gays are not treated equal or perceived as equals.

NOTE: My post on the Jesus Myth and the Long Lost Tomb of Jesus made the Skeptics Circle #56 at Scientia Natura

March 13, 2007

The Atheist Jew Justifies Israel Part Deux

I could easily do a Part Three, but I won't, I promise:

This 2 minute brief animation out does me. But what can I do?:

The Birth of a Nation video looks pretty good and factual. I only watched part one so far. Here it is, with links to the other parts available here:

No nation has been formed with everyone being happy. Israel has been under attack since the day it became a sovereign country. No country is perfect, and especially when attacked for 59 years. The chances that a country does everything right is zero. Yet Paliphiles must think that Israel should behave perfectly. They hold Israel to much higher standards than they hold anyone else in the region. Paliphiles must think Arab Muslims are extremely inferior.

If the Muslim Arabs dropped their arms, there would be peace in Israel and the Palestinians would have a state.

March 8, 2007

Visual DNA and The Uncyclopedia

H/T Lemons and Lollipops

I really didn't like the fact that gambling was represented with a picture of a slot machine. Slot machines are for mindless creationists, while horse racing, poker and blackjack require thought.
Many of my selections were low ranked as far as popularity is concerned. This makes me unique like a platypus.


This is a lampoon version of the Wikipedia. They demand humor. Anyone can edit. Lots of fun.

The page on Atheism is hilarious. Apparently, our blue haired God, Athe is extremely hot. Yep, Atheism is the first "religion" on this planet where many followers want to get into God's pants.

I added my Moonbat Dictionary to the Uncyclopedia. It was easy to join and easy to copy and paste it from my blog.

Funny entry about God (who was named Herschel Goldstein at birth) and make sure you read How To Start A Religion.

We can debate which is funnier, the Conservapedia or the Uncyclopedia. I vote for the Conservapedia because it is not intentially trying to be funny.


I saw a fair bit of the Lost Tomb Of Jesus on Tuesday night (the first day it was available on Canadian TV). It was boring and surely could have been a half hour instead of over 2 hours.
This finding doesn't shatter my disbeliefs in any way, whether the discovery is genuine or not. In fact, if true, this discovery only reinforces my Jesus theory.

In case you haven't been paying attention to my blog posts on the Jesus myth, I'll briefly summarize:

Around 50 AD, there were many common myths, common stories, and even common expectations (of a Messiah) going around in the land of Judea.
The Jews were getting their butts kicked around by those pesky Romans (a situation that peaked 70 AD).

Paul had a vision. Now Paul may or may not have existed, but someone definitely got the ball rolling around the time Paul supposedly had his dream. Paul's writings predate those of the Gospels by anywhere from 20-80 plus years. He never mentions the virgin birth, in fact the only thing he mentions about Jesus as a person, is that he was crucified and he was resurrected, which he stole from the Dionysus story.

Paul's story came at a great time, as mentioned above, the Jews were getting fed up at their tyrannical egomaniacal God, who seemed to be allowing their life on earth to be crap despite their faith. A loving God and Messiah was just what many of these people needed and the focus on an eternal heaven where death was better than life worked great in the sales pitch.

As the years went by, lots of juicy tidbits were added. I can see the Jon (Morgan Fairchild, Yeah that's the ticket) Lovitz's of the time, coming up with all sorts of answers to fill in the gaps of the mythological figure Jesus' life. And of course, they weren't the most creative people on the planet either, as they just usurped more from Dionysus, added some Mithra stuff, some sun god theory, and a bunch of others, until finally, the New Testament was written.

It makes sense that they used common names and maybe even along the way, Jesus' whole family was based on the findings from that tomb that was recently rediscovered. There was lots of time from Paul's dream to when the Gospels were written to use those names, and even drop or ignore the supposed child of Jesus and Mary.

Again, 42 historians were alive between 1 and 37 AD, and not one contemporary word was mentioned about the miracle man Jesus. Zero contemporary evidence. Zero secular evidence. And since 37 AD, there has been no secular reason to believe in him either.

Now here are a couple of short Youtube videos on the Myth of Jesus. The first one is very informative, the second is more for entertainment, but it does make some interesting points:

One more thing: Being a Jew, I don't want it to seem that I'm just picking on Christianity, so let me add, the Exodus never happened either.

March 6, 2007

Video Response To "Israel Shouldn't Exist" Rhetoric

I was going to make this a two-parter, but I decided, so far at least, that this gets most of my message out:

I am using the video to respond on Youtube to anti-Israel rhetoric and hopefully it will change a few minds as well.

Tension In The Canadian Blogosphere

Anti-semite in denial assmonkey blogger Robert McCLelland got his ass handed to recently for comments he made on one of his crappy posts a few days ago. First he defended the Stormfront-like spewing from retarded poster Arthurdeccco. See comment #2.

Then, later in the thread, Robert showed his intelligence and love of Jews but stating:
Quoting fellow imbecile Tri-Guy:
"When the State starts rounding up my Jewish neighbours, I’ll speak up."

Robert stated:

Not me. People like Klownsella, Chernyuk and Smeagol the Jew have taught me it’s not worth getting involved. When next they come for the Jews I doubt I’ll even be able to muster up a “what a shame”.

I've written about My Blahg and Robert Mclelland before. He and his flock are politically impotent screwballs, but it is fun to watch them implode and throw feces in their cages.

Shlemazl makes a great comparison to McCLelland and his flock of Left Wing anti-semites and Nazis.

The biggest efforts came from Jason Cherniak (Cherniak on Politics) and Steve (Fluid Mind), who through their pens, got the NDP to disassociate themselves with McClelland.

I followed Cherniaks lead and removed Ontario Blogs (administered by McClelland) from my sidebar. Here are Cherniaks posts on the subject:

Blogging Dippers Should Revolt

NDP Condemns McClelland

Why I Did It

McClelland Off Progressive Bloggers

Cherniak is a smart guy. He is a Canadian Liberal though, most probably because his family have a proud Liberal party history. I am confident he will become a Conservative though. After all, OBL would want the Liberals to be in control of Canada right now. He'd really want the NDP's, but they have no shot. The Liberal party in Canada today has evolved into a party that attracts those who support terrorism.

One more thing:

I got an email to participate and have my readers participate too, if they wish on a blog called Blog To America.

Basically it is what is states; write a letter to America and it will most likely get published there. My letter. It is open to anyone from anywhere. Cal from Oman posted a negative letter that pretty much blamed Jews and support for Israel on why he didn't like America. I like the comments left there. He got bitch slapped severely. At least in the first 10 comments to date. Fun reading the comments.

March 4, 2007


Click on cartoon to enlarge it:

From Memri:
'the Kuwaiti education ministry plans to delete Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from the high school curriculum. This article states that everyone has the right to freedom of religion, including the freedom to change his religion and beliefs. Dr. Rashid Al-'Anzi, chairman of the committee on human rights curricula, explained that the article was deleted "because it is contrary to the Islamic shari'a… and is not in accordance with what we want the pupils to learn."'

Sound familiar? Isn't that why many on the Christian Right want evolution out of science classes, or why they pull their child from school altogether so they can homeschool the Godidit version of science?

Here is what Dr. Ahmad Al-Baghdad, a Kuwaiti reformist, states when it comes to secular science and education:
"It is no coincidence…that education is failing in all Arab countries. Is it reasonable for everyone to ignore the fact that education cannot be religious in its content and orientation? Unfortunately, everyone is disregarding the fact that education cannot work, in any society, unless the contents of the curricula are secular, or at least modern

"Introducing religion into every scientific field [of study] causes a drop in the level of scientific teaching. I ask the minister of education to have a look in one of the elementary school arithmetic books, which have been infused with religious contents that do not belong in them…

"We are not permitted to adopt the secular teaching methods, although we know that the secular Western or Japanese education is much more effective, pedagogically and scientifically, than the quasi-religious education [that exists] in the Arab states… Secularism is a way of life which is completely impossible [for us] to implement in our education [system]… The best proof of the [religious] orientation [of Arab education] is the deletion of articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they are contrary to Islam.

"The expected result of this hodgepodge method of teaching human rights in Kuwaiti schools is that pupils will acquire a deficient and distorted understanding of the truth, and will also learn things that are false. The balanced approach that the Arab education ministries are aiming for - [an approach] that combines religion and secular sciences - has not been realized in a satisfactory manner, or to be more precise, has failed completely.

"Until the Arab governments decide on their pedagogical philosophy - [and adopt] a purely religious philosophy or a purely secular one - scientific education will remain a tattered hodgepodge [of conflicting notions], and will produce graduates that have diplomas instead of people with a [true] love of knowledge.

"Anyone who believes he can walk a tightrope for very long is deluding himself and will end up failing abysmally. This is what happens to anyone who places himself under the control of the religious groups, who have never brought humanity anything but misery."

He'll probably wind up in the West. This is what happens to Arab/Muslim intellectuals. Good for the Western gene pools though. We need smart guys like this procreating in the West.

I don't know how true it is, but according to some recent articles, the braintrust in Saudi Arabia is considering banning the letter X, because it is a cross.

Here is a gem from the land of intellectual darkness:

Saudi Arabia's commission issued this 'famed 1974 fatwa — issued by its blind leader at the time, Sheik Abdul Aziz Ben Baz — which declared that the Earth was flat and immobile. In a book issued by the Islamic University of Medina, the sheik argued: "If the earth is rotating, as they claim, the countries, the mountains, the trees, the rivers, and the oceans will have no bottom.'

In a university book? Don't count on the cure for cancer coming from an Islamic state.

But don't expect it come from the American Bible Belt either. Just look at the recent words of Marshall Hall of Cornelia, Ga., is a retired schoolteacher who has spent the last 30 years protesting the teaching of evolution. His books argue not only that Darwin was wrong but also that science has been wrong ever since Copernicus and that the idea of Earth turning is a "carefully crafted Bible-bashing lie."

A teacher? I feel sorry for his former students.

Before I get flack from modern Christians who will say this fixed earth guy is not representative of the American education system, I would like to draw attention to the new source of information for reality deniers: The Conservapedia.

Their mission:
Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. Read a list of many Examples of Bias in Wikipedia.

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. Conservapedia has easy-to-use indexes to facilitate review of topics. You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Yep, the Fundies have found another way to try to dumb down America. Again, I'm convinced that the more they expose their beliefs on the internet, the more they are shooting themselves in the foot. YEC's cannot withstand scientific confrontation.

I really don't mind their page on Atheism. It actually looks like it was written by an Atheist.

But check out their "kangaroo" entry:

According to the origins model used by creation scientists, modern kangaroos, like all modern animals, originated in the Middle East[1] and are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.

Also according to creation science, after the Flood, kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land[2] -- as Australia was still for a time connected to the Middle East before the supercontinent of Pangea broke apart[3] -- or if they rafted on mats of vegetation torn up by the receding flood waters[2].

I wanted to edit it and add a third possibility (but I wasn't able to sign in and open an account for some reason):

Kangaroos could have floated on the back of crocodiles from the Middle East to Australia. Since there was plenty of fresh dead people and animals in the water, and crocodiles live in the water, they were full, and had plenty of leftover food. So they didn't have to eat living animals, and even thought ahead (probably God inspired), to bring living animals with them to Australia so that crocodiles in the future would have something to eat.

A Qur'anic version of the Consvervapedia would probably do very well in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

On the Conservapedia see also Thoughts From Kansas, Boing Boing, and Librocrats.

March 2, 2007

Only 60 Out Of 500 Canadian Muslims Think Cutting Off Harper's Head Is Justifiable

This is how I picture how moderate Canadian Muslims pray:

Environics recently published a survey which questioned 500 Muslims living in Canada about their views on various issues.
The overwhelming majority of Canadian Muslims surveyed like living here, and do not support terrorist activity (at least within Canada).
The disturbing part of the poll is that 12 percent of Canadian Muslims believe the foiled terrorist attacks a cell of Muslim radicals were plotting for southern Ontario last summer were justified. That plot included cutting off Stephen Harper's head. I wonder if 12% or even 1% of any group in Canada can justify domestic terrorism other than Muslims. And who knows how many of the Muslims interviewed justify international terrorism. Lets just say that is is more than 12%.

Lets see, 12% isn't really a big number if those are the chances that the football team you are betting will win the game, but it is a big number when you are talking about those among us who are supporters of assmonkey terrorism. 700,000 Canadian Muslims multiplied by .12 equals 84,000 potential terrorists or potential terrorist enablers.

The Liberals and the Canadian Joke Party (The NDP) recently got together to make it easy for those 84,000 Muslims to fuck up Canada by voting against two provisions to the Anti-terrorism act.

Like I said before, if extra time was spent on me at the border because I look semitic or I have a semitic sounding name, I have no problem with it. We shouldn't make it harder to prevent terrorism. There is no sign that terrorists have given up.

CSIS identified over 50 possible terror cells in Canada and we are very close to the Islamic capital of North America: Dearborn.

Screw the Liberal party and of course the NDP. Is Stephane Dion courting the terrorist vote? You decide. He is courting the Muslims, that is for sure. Especially the Muslims, who put their head in the sand when hate is taught at Mosques and those who deny the reality of why Islam is perceived the way it is in the West.

The sad thing is that the moderate Canadian Muslim population is pretty much completely silent and overwhelmingly impotent when it comes to dismantling the radical element. The allow the radical element to be their spokepeople.

Only 7% of Canadian Muslims vote Conservative. Now that is a low number, and it is very telling. It means that 650,000 out of 700,000 Muslims don't mind making it easier for terrorists to do their thing in Canada.

I've always said that The Conservative Party in Canada is the lesser of three evils.
Islam (yeah, I know I can say "radical Islam," but I'm not) is the biggest potential danger to humanity other than natural disasters. The Conservatives understand this and haven't backed down on bit.

Oh, you don't believe me about Islam being the greatest threat to humanity? Here is a pretty cool site:

See also Disturbing Reality Buried