Monthly Archives: "June, 2018"

Richard Dawkins cannot answer a simple question


Richard is trying to push the idea that being similar is unique and only applies to evolution period. That genes being almost alike is mutually exclusive to the evolution idea and could never apply to Creation or a Creator.

In engineering where intelligent designers create things, build things etc… When things are made that serve one purpose, are they really really that much different even though it maybe an original creation? Examples:

1) Cars. Made and created by intelligent designers, do they really differ that much from the original design even with technologies changing everyday?

2) Bridges. Made and created by intelligent designers, do they really differ that much from the first bridge even with all the technology changes?

3) Houses. Do they really change much from the original first house design?

The problem that Dawkins refuses to see with his answer is that DNA is required baseline for all life. So all life (like the car, bridge and house), are similar because with DNA how far could you really go from the original code that allowed life to exist?

If you think about it, evolving with no direction from intelligence would really produce a non-similar code instead of a related code where all life has code that is related.

The idea is basically lame and Dawkins is promoting a falsehood of an idea. Intelligent design of physical things prove over and over and over again. That the original was the base, and the base will “always” be part of any upgrades, new technologies, or even redesigns.

Let’s take programming for computer operating systems for example. Whether it’s Windows, Linux, Apple or whatever. Is not all the designs based on the first one aka DOS? And regardless of how they upgrade it, does not all still require some type of BIOS programming to help the hardware communicate with the software?

And where did DOS go? I bet many of you still think that Windows 10 does not have DOS. Well it does it’s just hidden. I repair hardware, software, and build computers. I also design website like the one you are on. So I’m going to bring up a DOS screen in my Windows 10 just to show you the programming never really got rid of it. The pic of the DOS screen is below.

The Dos is the black screen and I put the system information screen in front to show that it’s really Windows 10. I can type commands in the DOS and it will execute them. Did computer coding for operating system evolve naturally, or were they designed?

So saying or claiming similarities = evolution only is about as lame as the picture above is funny. Because randomness has no direction therefore cannot produce similar things. That’s why in biology…

You don’t stray much from the base programming because a designer original design is the template for everything else.

And you don’t get program without a programmer. In programming the programmer often leaves the mark aka signature to show who programmed this program. Who do you think was the first to do that? God was.

So no Dawkins, it’s not that we don’t listen and have our fingers in our ears going la la la, I can’t hear you. It’s you and those like you that do this.

FaceBook trolls

This is a page to report FaceBook trolls aka those who love yo stir up trouble. Know a trouble maker? Send me a message about the person and the link and if this person fits the bill. I’ll post hie FB account here.

How do you report them? Next to the message button in the main picture at the top of the page. There are 3 dots (…). You click on that and select “Report this profie” in the drop down menu. Then you select what applies. If you are not sure select “This is a fake account”. Then in the next screen select to report to FaceBook.

His name is just a play on saying God D*M without actually saying it. So click on his picture to go to his account and report him.

Professor defends evolution and uses several fallacies


Learning how to debate an atheist often requires learning their tactics. Below I will list the tactics and provide some memes that can be used to combat them when you run into them while debating.

1) The girl mentioned what Darwin said in his book. So the professor does not like what he hears so he denies this was said. This tactic is called: Destroying the messenger in order to destroy the message so you don’t really have to address the message to the degree that they should.

2) He questions the claim that evolution is just a theory. Another atheist tactic which is called Semantics aka a Play on words. The problem with semantics using the word theory is that a theory is neither a truth or a lie. This is because with a theory nothing has to be absolute. And you cannot define what a truth is of a lie because to have either without absolutes is a oxymoron.

3) Comparing several theory that everyone can “see”, observe and can be repeated daily along with it’s effects, to another that over 99% cannot be seen due to time constraints. Example: Gravitational and germ theory. The 2 do not compare to evolution because the claims made about evolution are in the 10’s of thousands. While the other theories have less then fifty and do not have the same problem of no observation due to time constraints.

Evolution is more comparable to theories like the Big Bang, abiopgenesis etc… Which also have a lot of assuming, and a problem with no observation due to time constraints. And does not require someone defending it to use what’s known as a divine fallacy. Where you want something to be true so bad, that you;ll compare it to something that is, then claim that these 2 things are the same. This one has several fallacies that apply.

4) The evolution is a fact not a theory claim. Facts require truth. And truth requires absolutes and observational evidence where the claims made can be observed. Example: If you dig up a bone and date it. Then observe it and make claims to what it is. That;s about all there is to observe.

But when you claim that it evolved, ate certain foods, lived a certain way etc… You then make the evidence and claims a interpretation. And you can’t prove or observe a interpretation. Because if you could, the interpretation would not be needed.

5) Next he is referring to experts as if experts are infallible. That’s another fallacy. And he is using partisan sources as well.

Here is a video that demonstrates how biased atheists are. It does not matter how educated you are, the only evidence you are allowed to find is evidence that supports evolution. Not only did the guy below find creation evidence, but he got published on it and was fired for it.


6) Now he goes into a salesman rant. Where he using the argument that because the smartest and very best people in science agree and research all this, that this makes it all true. Well the question I would ask is: Are they all atheists? Of course he will say: Christians are allowed in science. Which I would respond: In the ratio of 99% compared to 1% right? And when do they get to talk about their beliefs in science, and when is this ever approved of?

6) The critical argument. LOL, I laugh every time I hear it. Oh we are so critical on ourselves. Nope, if you were critical you would have a panel of non-biased people making sure decisions were not based on the majorities worldviews of the evolutionist group which is 99% atheists. And you would also allow several ideas to run along side of evolution in competition to keep tabs on all claims.

But instead only one theory is allowed to run the race, and only one theory is allowed to win the race.

If evolution were the name of a horse in a horse race. It would be the only one allowed in the starting gates, the only one allowed to run the race, which would always insure it to be the only one allowed to win and never be beaten. And that how evolution is allowed to be top dog theory because nothing is allowed to challenge it because nothing is allowed to be researched that would ever challenge it? If you disagree, send me a message and name 10 things allowed to Challenge evolution. It should be easy if evolution were falsifiable like all theories are supposed to be< I;ll post the list on this page if any atheist can come up with it.

7) Then he goes into the human skull evolution idea. As if the skull alone explains the whole body aka how it looked and how evolved the human was aka a whole bunch of assuming. But skulls proving evolution is easily debunked. Picture below shows how.

Yep, it’s just that easy. If I dug up graves at a crematory I bet I could line up some skulls of all those humans and find some that make it look like we evolved from primate, to human. Yet they would all be human skulls but that does not matter does it?

Debating atheists is a mind and word game more than an evidence game. You have to learn how to play if you want to keep up. Learn what all the fallacies are, learn the tricks and tactics. Learn how to expose and combat extreme biases.

Proof that Climate Change and Global Warming is nothing more than money scams.

Here is one of the mechanics I listen to on YouTube because I used to repair cars for a living.

He says the new Freon to replace the 134a which is what currently goes into car AC systems has several disadvantages:

1) It’s flammable unlike the 134a. Which means in accidents it can cause a better chance of a person being blown to bits or burned up.
2) When it burns it creates very toxic fumes.
3) It will be so expensive to fix it will almost cost as much as a good used car
4) Your mechanic will have to buy all new equipment costing 10’s of thousands of dollars to service this type of AC that to make up for his loss he’ll have to charge so much more it will make your head spin.

Watch the video and see for yourself.

Follow the money!!!