OBLIGATORY 666 POST

Since Atheists are believed to the sons and daughters of Satan by many fruitcakes out there, I feel compelled to dedicate a post to 666.

I've decided to take a different approach to 666. This is not the first time the year or date 666 has been upon us. The first time was the Hebrew year 666, but nobody had a clue about Christianity or the concept of a calendar back then. It was still around 990 years before Noah saved 2 of every animal on this planet, except for dinosaurs. He watched all the dinosaurs drown, the heartless basturd. I still can't believe he would do such a thing.

Then came the Roman calendar. I don't know how or if they recorded year dates, and I'm not interested in making this my lifes work to find out. I know they didn't use BC unless they were really clairvoyant. The Julian Caesar started in the year 46 BC, but again, I have no idea if Julias started with year 1. The man or myth Jesus was born in the Gregorian calendar year of 0-4 AD, which would mean he was a toddler or maybe a kindergartner June 6th, 06, if he existed at all. Of course they didn't call it that back then.

The year 1268 AD coincides with the Islamic calendar for the 666. It was a time in history that the Mongolians were starting to try to steal the land that the Muslims stole a few centuries earlier.

Ok, enough already. Here is where I'm going with this. I'm not too sure when the relevance of the Mark of the Beast scared the Jeebus out of certain people. But if it was known during the Gregorian year of 1006, May 1st 1006 would have been a sure sign the end was 35 days away. Unfortunately, the Gregorian calendar didn't come into affect until 1582. But on May 1st, 1006, the brightest Supernova ever was seen by mankind in recorded history. It must have scared everyone regardless.

Watch this video and see why May 1st, 1006 was a date that many astronomers would love to go back to if they could use a time machine.

Gay Marriage Amendment Blows

George Bush will eat the corn out of the Christian Right's feces it seems, in order to get votes. If it ever passed, it would just be a sad day for humanity and one giant leap into the theocratic abyss.



Here are some of my thoughts:

In prehistoric times, a man and a woman had sex, the woman got pregnant and the man hunted and gathered for a couple of years until the child was able to stand. Then he went to spread his genes elsewhere.

Churches didn't become involved in marriages until the 9th Century. And prior to the 6th Century, all people had to do was say they were married.

Marriage is just a way to celebrate the union of two people who think they will be together until one of them croaks.

Divorce rates are high, even amongst Evangelicals. Many marriages are crocks or turn into them.

It has only been a very short time since studies have confirmed that most gays aren't gay by choice. It is genetic, even in women, studies show that the tendency toward lesbianism occurs during fetal development.

Marriage is about two people who think they love each other and want to have children in many cases.

Weddings are a way to get families together to celebrate the union of two people who think they love each other.

What happens when a man and a woman marry and the man or woman goes through a sex change if same sex marriage is banned?

What about hermaphrodites? Can they get married?

Anyone who is stupid enough to get married, should be allowed to.

Sex with children and animals is wrong, it is like killing a person for absolutely no reason. Someone who does this should be locked up and has his/her genitals removed. Pedophelia and beastiality are choices and/or sicknesses. Homosexuality is not a sickness and in most cases, not a choice. Homosexuality is not a criminal offense. Beastiality and pedophelia are, or at least should be always.

Why does it matter so much to some people if two gays want to call their union a marriage? Get a life.

When a male Fundy gets a divorce or his wife dies, who does he spend eternity with? Are you allowed to have many wives in heaven. Is it just one big orgy because the wives too could have been married once or twice before.

This whole thing is just about bible thumpers being against homosexuality period. They can say that the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but if they want to go by the bible, the only marriages were arranged. Maybe we should go back to those days.

One final thought. I still don't like seeing two men kiss, not even when Tony Soprano kisses another mobster on the cheek as a greeting.

Revelation: All Life Evolved From Bacteria

Warning: I am not a biologist.


I read a story a couple of days on Yahoo News: "Gene Expert Says We Are Not Entirely Human", and in that article it goes on to say that "We are somehow like an amalgam, a mix of bacteria and human cells. There are some estimates that say 90 percent of the cells on our body are actually bacteria," Steven Gill, a molecular biologist formerly at TIGR and now at the State University of New York in Buffalo, said in a telephone interview.

This article got me wondering. It basically says that not only humans can not live without bacteria, but all life forms can't live without bacteria.

The wheels in my puny brain started to turn. If this is true and since bacteria can live without us, bacteria must have been the first life on our planet. Then I found out that lots of people know this most likely true. It is assumed in this 1996 article : "In the first two billion years of life on Earth, bacteria - the only inhabitants - continuously transformed the planet's surface and atmosphere and invented all life's essential, miniaturized chemical systems." Abiogenesis is explained here, but the explanation makes me feel intellectual inferior.

The fossil record for bacteria goes back at least 3.5 billion years. "The first inhabitants of Earth did not need oxygen to breath, in fact oxygen was toxic to them, and this gas was rare in the atmosphere in those days. However the cyanobacteria that inhabited Earth in the Precambrium produced oxygen as a waste gas and so helped establish an aerobic ecosystem."

And this is how evolution works: "bacteria routinely transfer their genes to bacteria very different from themselves. The receiving bacterium can use the visiting, accessory DNA (the cell's genetic material) to perform functions that its own genes cannot mandate. Bacteria can exchange genes quickly and reversibly. Unlike other life forms, all the world's bacteria have access to a single gene pool and hence to the chemical prowess of the entire bacterial kingdom." Here is more on this.

OK, I read all this stuff, some sunk in, and some concepts went whoosh over my head.

Then I read another piece of news this morning: "Ontario Rock Reveals Earth's Earliest Life Form."

This is another missing link discovery. A 2.45 billion year old fossil would expect to be of a primitive bacteria, but instead "higher-order organisms in which each cell has a brain-like nucleus directing its growth and reproduction" were found.

Just as I was finishing off my "research" for this piece, I found this article, to store in my "Wow I didn't know this" section of my brain. Many bacteria have evolved eyespots that allow them to distinguish between food and other stuff.


Now, this leads me to a theistic question. If God created us in his image, is God bacteria? I still can't get over the fact that believers think that man was created in God's image. What about the butt? Does God have a butt? Does he use it the same way we use it? He obviously couldn't come up with a way for humans to go around without defecating every once in a while. This must mean God too defecates. And this has to mean that heaven has toilets. I wonder if they are unisex or if there are long line ups. Maybe a Fundy can tackle these questions.

What Exactly Do Terrorists Like About Non Muslims?

So I wake this morning and find out about this huge terrorist sweep in the Toronto area. I must be completely brainwashed and prejudiced because my first thoughts were those arrested were probably Muslims. In Canada, the media really tries to avoid using the term Muslim or Islam when they discuss terror or terrorist suspects. In fact, as the day progressed the Canadian newscasters kept saying men and teenagers with Al Qaeda ties were arrested, they avoided uttering the M word at all costs.

Finally when they a Canadian Muslim spokesman, the news guy finally fessed up and said that they do go out of their way pointing out the obvious as if it will stop racial intolerance. The Muslim spokesman by the way did state that it is time for Muslims to get angry with terrorists and to quit scapegoating excuses. I thought that was great, but he is just one voice.

Getting back to what transpired. The bulk of the 17 arrested were homegrown Canadian Muslims. Where and how did they learn to hate the West, and especially a country that bends over backwards in being a cultural mosaic state? Maybe we'll find out more soon.

The excuses coming out right now though have to with the worldwide treatment of Muslims. Most of these Jihadists arrested today were from somewhat affluent homes. I guess they can't use the oppression excuse this time. WTF. What doesn't piss these guys off? Lets see, if it isn't Israel, it is Iraq, or maybe cartoons or Afghanistan or restricting Sharia Law. They for sure don't like what is written about them. Maybe my blog will be responible for making some homegrown Canadian Muslim snap and blow up some innocents in a crowded subway.

The lawyers and family who were interviewed pissed me off. They were saying things like this sweep was unwarranted and that lawsuits will probably spring up over this, and that this whole sweep happened because of fear. No, it was because CSIS discovered a major attack was imminent.

Thanks you Jihadists, now the borders with the USA will be even tighter. Canada now has a reputation that we can grow our own terrorists, so we don't have to worry so much who we let in. They are already here. And the USA doens't want them, and either do I. And so much for oppression, most of those arrested today were from pretty afluent homes.

Enough is enough. Shit or get off the pot. No more excuses for this from the Muslims or their Moonbat sympathisers. This time I will not accept anything but a never seen before major campaign denouncing terrorism. No silence, no yeah buts, I want to see marches with more than 25 people and I want to see it in writing too.

Response To Another Muslim Who Doesn't Get It

I must admit the writer of the Avari blog seems very literate and intelligent, at least on the surface, but sadly he is no different in the way he spins, deflects and cherry picks what is written as criticisms against Islam and Muslims.

He dedicated half a blog post to me and my question about Muslims using the term pigs and apes to describe Jews and possibly Christians.

Essentially he is defending the Koran by stating it is foolish to interpret apes and swine in a literal way, and he implies I'm foolish and uneducated for even bringing up the literal translation as a possibility.

I wonder if he bothered opening any of the links I provided in my post. It is a fact that some Arab Muslims, at least, interpret apes and pigs in a literal way when pertaining to Jews and Christians. Whether it is the right or wrong interpretation, it is reality that this idea is being taught to Arab Muslims at a very young age. Sure it is foolish, I find all literal interpretation, of all bibles foolish, but it doesn't stop many Muslims, Jews, and Christians, etc. from believing fully in literal interpretations. It was very juvenile of him to shoot the messenger.

He goes on to relevant points to defend the Koran. But then calls me an idiot as if I'm interpretting the Koran in the most negative way. I am not. But many Muslims are. That was the point of my post.

He says that he disproved me in his post. I have no idea what he thinks my post said. Maybe he needs an interpreter. I know I won't get an apology.

He goes on about my the questions for Muslims. And he uses one Christians Palestinian terrorist as proof that Christian Palestinian terrorists exist. How lame.

And again, he allows me to lump all Muslims together by his unsubstantiated support of the Palestinians and his obsession with Israel. On his sidebar he has a section called "Palestein" with 13 links (including one on the USS Liberty). Of course not even one link that specifically is about Darfur. Does anyone else notice a pattern here? Why is a Pakistani Muslim so interested in Israel but hardly focuses on Darfur(at least he did write a couple of posts on Darfur to his credit).

He even admits why Darfur is hardly mentioned, and it makes total sense:

...I think that there is another reason at work, which is also predicated on the problems we Muslims have with dealing with crimes and wrongs committed by fellow Muslims. When it comes to Iraq vs. America, or Israel vs. Palestine, it is easier to put things down into black and white. It's not just Muslim racism then, but a Muslim cowardice, an inability to face up to our own acts. Believe you me, if America attacked a predominantly black Muslim country, there would be demonstrations everywhere. People would be, quite literally, up in arms. People would be angry. Because it would be a case of a Muslim people suffering a non-Muslim assault.

Notice the sympathies that are expressed throughout the Muslim world for causes that one would not otherwise expect the people to sympathize with, except that the perceived aggressors are not Muslim, and the perceived victims are. Hence, that Muslims are allegedly "silent" (or relatively silent) over Darfur may be attributed, in some measure, to racism, which is a real disease plaguing our society. More accurately, however, our silence is stupefaction, looking into the mirror and seeing ourselves responsible for evil and oppression. We, as humans, do not like to know that persons of our group, our type, our clan, tribe, family or nationality, whatever it may be, are capable of such acts. We are instead hopeful, always, that it is the outsider -- in this case, the non-Muslim -- who is the bad guy.

When the facts prove otherwise, we become embarrassingly silent....

He seems very reasonable, but something blocked him from understanding the point of my post. I would also like to see him write a piece on why he thinks Israel is on Arab and/or Muslim land.