Category Archives: Atheism

Square Circles. When Continuity is claimed as Evolution

531849_510620342308541_52481794_n

Read the claims of ‘Hamilton Science Tutor’…

“The flu vaccine would not exist if scientists did not have a firm grasp on the facts of evolution. It is updated yearly to keep up with the evolution of the virus, which changes so much and so quickly that the previous year’s vaccine is no longer effective. How do these changes occur? You might think that the answer is mutation, but that’s only a small part of the process. Mutations are random, but the virus keeps growing more drug-resistant. Clearly there’s something else going on here.

When you get a flu shot, your body gains the ability to produce antibodies to the flu virus; if you are exposed to it afterwards, your body fights it off. The antibodies kill most, but not all of the virus particles. Some virions have genetic variations that allow them to survive the onslaught of your antibodies. They aren’t any better or stronger than the others; it’s just genetic randomness.

Eventually these survivor virions will be passed onto someone else whose body will perform the same process, helping to weed the virus population down to only those virions that are completely resistant to the vaccine. The following year when their descendants return, they will be immune to it. They will be genetically different from the ancestor virus. They will have evolved from a previous state.”

From Facebook Here:

********************************************************************************

^^^^^ There you have the bold claim that *Evolution is an observable Reality*.
Yet I want people to think about this with a bit more depth.
Does the fact that life forms become resistant to chemicals or bugs… or that their genetics can be seen to be in some way different from their parents really mean they are ‘evolving’ ?

I dispute this!
I say when life forms adapt in such ways they are work within the designed parameters of their Species.
They are in no way ‘evolving’.

Thus I say it may be so that a flu virus may ‘change’ so as to become immune to our bodies own artificially enhanced defenses (re via a vaccine) … but it certainly does not *Evolve*….any more than we ‘evolve’ when we get a vaccine and start to manufacture new antibodies.

Let me suggest to you that the shyster Evolutionists have set up a scam.
The scam is they have two definitions for the word evolution… they have legitimized a form of philosophical equivocation and via cunning trickery have managed to deceive people into believing that Evolution is both the Continuity of species… and it’s transmutation.
I am referring to the scam claims of Micro-Evolution.

Real Darwinian Evolution is the claim that species transmutate from one species into a completely *new* and fundamentally *different* species like from Germ to fish. Fish to Mammal, etc.
And while I admit that this is said to be a process which takes place via thousands/ millions of tiny steps, I wish to point out that the so-called evolutionary steps are not like gaining immunity, but are like a flipper slowly turning into a foot via a linear series of fortuitous genetic accidents.

I say this ‘Flu virus argument is completely bogus because it does not involve anything like this linear transition from one specific species into another.
It is completely dishonest to say that when anything becomes immune to something that the thing has evolved.
That is pseudo science and it evidences just how vacuous the theory of evolution is in that they must grasp at straws in attempts to justify their absurd superstition.

So-called Micro-evolution is nothing more than a ruse.
I could say that your nose is turning into beak, or that a birds beak is turning into a nose!
There is *no science* at all in the so-called notion of Micro evolution.
Merely wild conjecture based upon a very doctored and systematically arranged/ cherry picked samples of comparative anatomy… and a heavily ideologically imposed interpretation of everything biological.
*This claim of Flu Virus ‘Evolution’ is a perfect example*
The Virus is not evolving but doing what it has always done… ie it is being a virus!

The reality is that many species have the capacity for a great variation while remaining true to their kinds.
Dogs are a good example.

And this can easily be proven by comparing the so-called ‘latest’ virus with the ‘older one’ and realizing that there is no discernable linear progression from some unknown pre-virus… into some unknown Post-virus life from.
Ask the Evolutionist from what is the virus evolving away from and into what is it transmutating?
The facts are the Virus is going nowhere.
It remains a virus.
It is maintaining it’s ‘Virus-ness’… and this is the exact opposite of evolution… ie it demonstrates a continuity and fundamental integrity of the species.
Tim Wikiriwhi.

Update: 17 June 13. Here is a link to an article which validates my asertions above Re: When bugs become resistant to antibiotics and vaccines they are not evolving. This one is about Bacteria…
Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?
Read about The Ludicrous claims of Evolution Here:

Read about how Russells Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism here:

^^^^ WoW that was Great to hear Live!
Auckland 22 April. Vector Arena.

63154_10151428605368667_711001074_n

Update:
My blogpost generated immediate debate.
In the process of looking for supportive sources for my position I came across several interesting sites…
………………………………………………..
Has the HIV Virus Demonstrated Evolution In Any Way?

No! Many false claims have been made. Here are the facts.

#1 If we had an example of new information being added by a random mutation, by random chance (though we do not have any example of new information being added by random chance, neither in HIV nor anywhere else), we would not have any evidence that evolution ever took place causing one kind of plant or animal to become another kind of plant or animal. If there were such an example, which there is not, in HIV or anywhere, then we would have shown that such addition of new information could possibly happen, (though present observation implies that it is absolutely impossible, but, if an example were to be be found, which it has not, then such an observation (which is only imagined at present) would only show that such a thing would be possible.

“Viruses can have no evolutionary relationship to any other form, and so whatever may have happened to say, the AIDS virus, has no relevance to the supposed history of truly living organisms in any case. An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity…. Long after this article was published, the PBS/SBS Evolution series used HIV/AIDS as ‘proof’ of evolution. Yet the new data has done nothing to make the principles in this article obsolete. Rather, in one case, HIV resistance to drugs was clearly caused by a deleterious mutation, as shown by their inability to cope with the ‘wild’ type when the drugs were removed; and immunity to AIDS can be conferred by a mutation that causes loss of certain receptors on the immune cells preventing the HIV from docking on them.” ~ Creation.com

Read more here:

And here is an interesting you tube vid which confirms my point about Evolution’s ‘Equivocation’ and non-falsifiable pseudo scientific nature.

Update 2. 26-4-13

007_flies

Thinking about this more… the most important aspect of this is Mutation and *the question of new Genetic information* Ie In what way do random mutations bring ‘Change over time’?
And anyone knowledgeable on this subject understands that *Mutation does not add improved codes but destroys portions of code…adds errors etc and I… though no geneticist can easily see how such a random degenerative step caused by an error in replication of a virus could fortuitously render it capable of escaping detection by our immune system… yet in itself clearly not represent any thing that can be described as an evolutionary change.
An example I have used in my arguments is the creation in the Lab of the Wingless fly.
Scientists bombarded flies with radiation and caused various mutations in their young.
One was the Wingless Fly.
Now clearly it’s genetics have been altered and a ‘new’ type of fly created… yet it is still a fly… a grotesquely deformed fly.
Other ‘mutations’ to the genes occurred too that were not as detrimental to the fly as this heinous deformity, yet none can be said to have been the addition/ writing in of ‘advanced’ DNA which can vindicate the claims of the evolutionists that mutation is the mechanism by which Germs became people… the transmutation of species… and lets not forget that that is what the theory of evolution is!
do not be smoked into thinking that ‘any’ change is evidence of evolution… or proof that the theory has merit.
Mutation is in reality a degenerative force, and the Math is so far against the wild conjecture that Mutations can be used to advance Evolution that it ranks up there with the ‘Spontaneous generation of life’ in statistical absurdities.
This is the extreme unscientific basis Atheist Naturalist evolutionist must go to deny Intelligent design and the existence of God!
Life indeed has all the hallmarks of having been designed for a purpose!

Random accidents cant draw up blueprints… cannot write turn a Model A into a Bugatti Veyron!

Raed more about that here:

“Why I am Not a Communist” by Bertrand Russell

“Why I am Not a Communist”
by Bertrand Russell

russell

“I am completely at a loss to understand how it came about that some people who are both humane and intelligent could find something to admire in the vast slave camp produced by Stalin.”

In relation to any political doctrine there are two questions to be asked: (1) Are its theoretical tenets true? (2) Is its practical policy likely to increase human happiness? For my part, I think the theoretical tenets of Communism are false, and I think its practical maxims are such as to produce an immeasurable increase of human misery.

The theoretical doctrines of Communism are for the most part derived from Marx. My objections to Marx are of two sorts: one, that he was muddle-headed; and the other, that his thinking was almost entirely inspired by hatred. The doctrine of surplus value, which is supposed to demonstrate the exploitation of wage-earners under capitalism, is arrived at: (a) by surreptitiously accepting Malthus’s doctrine of population, which Marx and all his disciples explicitly repudiate; (b) by applying Ricardo’s theory of value to wages, but not to the prices of manufactured articles. He is entirely satisfied with the result, not because it is in accordance with the facts or because it is logically coherent, but because it is calculated to rouse fury in wage-earners. Marx’s doctrine that all historical events have been motivated by class conflicts is a rash and untrue extension to world history of certain features prominent in England and France a hundred years ago. His belief that there is a cosmic force called Dialectical Materialism which governs human history independently of human volitions, is mere mythology. His theoretical errors, however, would not have mattered so much but for the fact that, like Tertullian and Carlyle, his chief desire was to see his enemies punished, and he cared little what happened to his friends in the process.

Marx’s doctrine was bad enough, but the developments which it underwent under Lenin and Stalin made it much worse. Marx had taught that there would be a revolutionary transitional period following the victory of the proletariat in a civil war and that during this period the proletariat, in accordance with the usual practice after a civil war, would deprive its vanquished enemies of political power. This period was to be that of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It should not be forgotten that in Marx’s prophetic vision the victory of the proletariat was to come after it had grown to be the vast majority of the population. The dictatorship of the proletariat therefore as conceived by Marx was not essentially anti-democratic. In the Russia of 1917, however, the proletariat was a small percentage of the population, the great majority being peasants. it was decreed that the Bolshevik party was the class-conscious part of the proletariat, and that a small committee of its leaders was the class-conscious part of the Bolshevik party. The dictatorship of the proletariat thus came to be the dictatorship of a small committee, and ultimately of one man – Stalin. As the sole class-conscious proletarian, Stalin condemned millions of peasants to death by starvation and millions of others to forced labour in concentration camps. He even went so far as to decree that the laws of heredity are henceforth to be different from what they used to be, and that the germ-plasm is to obey Soviet decrees but that that reactionary priest Mendel. I am completely at a loss to understand how it came about that some people who are both humane and intelligent could find something to admire in the vast slave camp produced by Stalin.

I have always disagreed with Marx. My first hostile criticism of him was published in 1896. But my objections to modern Communism go deeper than my objections to Marx. It is the abandonment of democracy that I find particularly disastrous. A minority resting its powers upon the activities of secret police is bound to be cruel, oppressive and obscuarantist. The dangers of the irresponsible power cane to be generally recognized during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but those who have forgotten all that was painfully learnt during the days of absolute monarchy, and have gone back to what was worst in the middle ages under the curious delusion that they were in the vanguard of progress.

There are signs that in course of time the Russian régime will become more liberal. But, although this is possible, it is very far from certain. In the meantime, all those who value not only art and science but a sufficiency of bread and freedom from the fear that a careless word by their children to a schoolteacher may condemn them to forced labour in a Siberian wilderness, must do what lies in their power to preserve in their own countries a less servile and more prosperous manner of life.

There are those who, oppressed by the evils of Communism, are led to the conclusion that the only effective way to combat these evils is by means of a world war. I think this a mistake. At one time such a policy might have been possible, but now war has become so terrible and Communism has become so powerful that no one can tell what would be left after a world war, and whatever might be left would probably be at least as bad as present -day Communism. This forecast does not depend upon the inevitable effects of mass destruction by means of hydrogen and cobalt bombs and perhaps of ingeniously propagated plagues. The way to combat Communism is not war. What is needed in addition to such armaments as will deter Communists from attacking the West, is a diminution of the grounds for discontent in the less prosperous parts of the non-communist world. In most of the countries of Asia, there is abject poverty which the West ought to alleviate as far as it lies in its power to do so. There is also a great bitterness which was caused by the centuries of European insolent domination in Asia. This ought to be dealt with by a combination of patient tact with dramatic announcements renouncing such relics of white domination as survive in Asia. Communism is a doctrine bred of poverty, hatred and strife. Its spread can only be arrested by diminishing the area of poverty and hatred.

from Portraits from Memory published in 1956

Copied from this spot here…. http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/opiate/why.html

The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

telepath

“…Extrasensory perception (ESP) involves reception of information not gained through the recognized physical senses but sensed with the mind…”
From Wikipedia here:

This post is in reality the continuation of a discussion following my Blogpost
‘Russell’s Teapot Really refutes Atheism not Theism’

I was inspired to write it in response to an atheist friend of mine whom suggested in the comments/ discussion following after the above Blogpost on Russell’s teapot that because A Flew expressed belief in ESP that this was a clear indication he was of dull intellect.
Now I don’t believe Humans have ‘ESP’, yet I don’t discount the possibility that there may be modes… ‘some completely natural’… of sensing things which in the current state of scientific knowledge we are currently completely oblivious to. Others could be ‘spiritual’ powers…like free will.

Of course it is exactly statements like that which cause ‘rationalists’ like my friend to pour scorn against anyone whom suggests things like ESP, or any ‘spiritual powers’ at all may be possible.

Let me place a caveat on my position as enumerated above.
I don’t believe humanity has or ever will develop a ‘Naturalistic’ ESP… why? * because I don’t believe in Evolution!*
To my way of thinking it is the Atheist Evolutionist whom ought not to doubt the possibility of Humans having/ or developing a naturalistic form of ESP as by my reckoning their wild theory seems to give room for every fantastic myth conceivable!
To appreciate this it is only necessary to apprehend just how fantastic are the claims of evolutionists Re the Evolution of Man from a single celled organism.
Let me explain.

Ever seen an X men movie?
All those Fantastic characters… mutants whom are Super-human and have ‘special powers’… but not spiritual powers… they are all advanced Bio tek.
That is what evolution is all about!
Lets talk ‘Naturalistic ESP’.
Now Evolutionists believe that a protozoa type organism slowly developed into the human animal with the five senses, taste, sound, touch, sight, smell… all via the inexorable march of Evolutionary process/progress.
On that basis I cannot see how my friend can insist that an atheist whom claimed decades ago to believe in ESP is some how being ridiculously inconsistent with Naturalistic theory *unless my friend assumes Evolution’ has already exhausted all the possibilities.* …yet it is easy to cast doubt upon this.
I believe I can expose his own inconsistency and in the process expose just how silly belief in evolution really is.

EyeWithPneumaticActuation

Consider these things…
An ear is a microphone.
An eye is a Camera lens.
A nose and mouth are chemical detectors
An hand is a load scale, temperature probe, and compression tester.
Animals have various other senses too eg lateral lines and sonar/radar etc,
My Atheist friend claims unguided ‘Evolution’ designed and built all these Bio tek instruments.
I ask why then he would doubt that evolution has not/ could not also build a biological ‘wireless cell phone/ ‘walky talky’ like device/system’ directly into our Brains so that we could mentally communicate at a vast distance…without speech?… ie a form of ‘Natural’ ESP?
We do today know that such communication is possible via external devices… a reality which not too many generations ago would have been considered ridiculously impossible!
Obviously a race of X human beings with a Bio wireless telecomunication system would have a superior survival advantage over ordinary human beings.
We must ask why ‘Evolution’ which is… Or so we are told… obsessed with ‘Survival’ has not bothered to supply us which such kit?

All evolution has to do is install such a devise inside our bodies and hey presto we have ESP!… not that difficult to grasp… if as you claim Evolution is capable of ‘upgrading a lifeform from a Germ into a human being!

The crux of my arguement is that if you balk at the idea of Evolution creating ‘Bio-cell phones’ then you must also question the rationale that evolution could create sight, sound, taste, etc… for the very same reason.
Ie because these are incredibly sophisticated ‘gadgets’ too!
Thus the evolutionist position really is that Si-fi movies like X Men are believable!
I ask what freakish creatures… via Evolution…are we destined to become?

An atheist whom balks at the Idea of ESP exposes the simplistic level on which they function. ie They redily will tell you it is rational to believe that evolution is capable of installing Cameras… but irrational to suggest it might install cellphones!
Spot the contradiction!???
Does my friend believe Mankind has reached the Zenith of evolution?

Now for some Funny Evolutionary Theory… Our X-Men Post-Religious future! 😀

Obviously I am not suggesting this video is anything other than a ridiculous fraud… what I’m highlighting *is the Atheist evolutionary myth* upon which it is based… is precisely what Atheist believe.

Its funny because Evolutionists actually *Believe this sort of stuff*… yet mock Theists faith in God!
Think about this…. They believe we came from Non-Theistic sub-creatures… evolved into what we are now, whom have been described as ‘The Worshiping Animals’… which they theorise as though being delusional Fables… non-the-less this trait must have had ‘survival advantages’… yet still they insist that Atheism is an ‘Enlightenment’…a progressive step away from ‘Primitive superstition’… so that ‘in the future’ Humanity will abandon ‘all religious superstition’… and be in atheist thinking ‘Fully rational’… fully knowing… without faith… etc etc… so by their reasoning Atheism both Precedes and Follows Theistic faith… all by the blind forces of Nature!

Talk about a Dung pile of Materialist Fables and superstitions!

It is the theistic position which makes the X men movie an absurdity.
Theism says *Evolution is a Joke!*, and that the blind forces of Nature cannot create life… cannot design new Gadgets/ senses/ biological capacities, etc, and thus the only way a human being could have any form of Naturalistic ESP is if our Creator designed and installed such Gadgetry into our bodies via writing it directly into our DNA… just as he has done with our Eyes, Ears, Etc…all of which are irrefutible testaments to the existance of God!

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:’
St Paul. Romans 1:20

Tim Wikiriwhi
King James Bible believer.
Libertarian. Dispensationalist.

Russell’s Teapot really refutes Atheism not Theism!

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA
Abiogenesis.

It has always amazed me that the atheist world is so enthralled with Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot as a supposed logical argument against the credibility of belief in God.

This argument is routinely deployed by atheists in debates with theists, and so it was on a discussion I am having on face book about Science and belief in the after life.

I was going to simply make a direct reply but then it occurred to me that I ought to blog my answer because of the important place Russell’s teapot (and it’s mate… the flying spaghetti monster) play in the Great controversy between Faith and skepticism.

I don’t know why Russell’s argument is so revered by atheists when it only takes a small amount of contemplation to realize that His argument is actually a refutation of blind faith in Atheistic Evolution, not belief in God.
Let me explain.

The reason we ought to doubt the existence of a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars is simply because we know that Teapots are the product of mind over matter… ie that unless Mankind, or some other intelligence formed a teapot out of china and placed it in that orbit that there is no way Nature could produce such an Object via it’s blind/ unguided forces!

to
The Theory of Evolution. The Illusion of Design.

This is an argument from design, and it makes a mockery of evolutionary theory because atheist evolutionists believe that something far far more complex than a china teapot can and has been made by the pure blind and unguided forces of Nature… I refer to the spectacle of Life on Earth!
For Atheists to believe life could possibly be the result of blind chance, and yet balk at the idea of a Celestial teapot being formed by pure chance exposes their credulous Absurdity!
According to their theory their ought to be all sorts of objects in space which have a quirky resemblance to Designed artifacts… teapots… not a problem!
(I am reminded of ‘The Hitch hikers guide to the Galaxy’ when it mentions the existance of “Casinos, all of which have been formed by the natural erosion of wind and rain…”)
Hilarious!

Well we all know there very much is a problem!
Nature does not work like that!

Russell’s argument is actually a very poor argument given the nature of what he was attempting to disprove… ie religious belief. It is also a great testament to the duplicity of atheists whom Balk at the idea of a Celestial teapots yet will look at you square in the face and tell you they believe life started by accident! That is to strain at a gnat while swallowing a camel!
He has in fact furnished theists with a great argument against atheism… for it would be much easier to believe in a celestial Teapot than in the spontaneous generation and evolution of life…
Not to appreciate this is to be Pig headed indeed.

Thus ends today’s lesson.
Tim Wikiriwhi

Part 2 Here>>> The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

Read about Biomimicry… Plagiarizing God’s designs. Here:

Read about Paley’s other Watch here:

_MakingLife

Russell’s teapot arguement from RationalWiki…
In an unpublished article entitled “Is There a God?”, commissioned in 1952 by Illustrated magazine,[1] Russell suggested the following thought experiment to illustrate the burden of proof and falsifiability:

“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Oh Really Albert? Beware vain philosophy my children, and Science falcely so-called!

Alb

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
St Paul Colossians 2vs8.

*Everything* is energy you say Albert? Why should I believe that *I* am merely energy?
This is an unproven materialistic assumption… not a scientific fact.
Does anyone appreciate the truth of what I am saying?
Albert himself said something to the effect that “Blind submission to Authority is the enemy of truth”.
Does anyone here have the courage to challange the authority of The great Albert Einstein?

It is because of the Prevalent acceptance of this sort of unscientific atheist fundamentalism in the Academic communities of the world that brings into question the existance of Free will and the human soul.
Because Modern infidelity and Rationalism has succeeded in portraying belief in supernaturalism/ spiritual reality as being a hallmark of scientific ignorance, many Christians have been duped into thinking this Materialistic world veiw is a scientific fact rather than an unproven atheist assumption.
These rationalist Christians also tend to follow their atheist brethern and also abandon the Classic Judeo-Christian Morality as being valid… and faith in the reliablity of the scriptures.
They have stepped away from being true theists and have become Deists.

Those Christians whom pride themselves as being the most ‘Educated’ and Ruggedly consistent rationalists will then go further…as a matter of course… and deny the existance of Eternal Damnation, because to their rationale, it would be grossly unfair to Damn someone to eternal torment if they had no freewill choice in the evils they committed or had no freewill in their decision to reject Christ.
I wonder how they can reconcile all this with their voluntarily accepted moral obligation to preach the gospel of God’s grace in Christ to the lost?
Do they believe they have the freewill to actually bother?
Can they justify their own inaction as being materialistically determined and that therefore they are not morally responcible for not bothering to preach?

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
St Paul 1 Tim 6:20

Thus a little leven leveneth the whole lump.
The mind boggles at just how utterly corrosive the Materialist world veiw is.
How effective it is in absolutely destroying faith in the Bible, in particular the classic moraity of a Holy and judging God and Mankind as a fallen yet Free willed and morraly culpible beings.

pomp

It is Sad yet interesting to witness the responce of Humanity to testimonies which dare to suggest that the Bible is the preserved word of God!
Such calls to true theistic faith are met with venimous cursings and accusations of maddness and folly… from all quarters!

The unadulterated arrogance of the skeptics!
They speak with the highest authority!
Human Rationalism!
Kneel Petty theist they command!
How dare you challenge the consensus of High academia?!
Humble thyself before the edifice of Modern scholarship ye unlearned fellow!
We will not yield to that ghastly Bible!

A harmony of outrage, and a choris of ‘rational proofs’ batter the Bible believer From both Atheists and so-called Christians alike.
The Bible believer finds himself alone.
The Rationalist Christians assure the atheists that these Bible believers are deluded fools… Throwbacks from a bygone age….not at all representative of the modern Christian position.

Mankind simply cannot bear the Idea that God’s Pure revelation Exists.
They know that to admit such a thing places them and all their Rationalisms under condemnation… under Judgment.
They don’t want to admit there is a light shining a path in the darkness!
They want to carry on the delusion that ‘nobody knows’…nobody can tell me what I should do, what I should believe, how I should live, why I should change…etc.
And they certainly don’t want to admit that the Great Moral light is that accursed and judgmental Bible!
To the Proud Sinner that is the most unacceptable proposition of all!
The Rationalist Christian doe’s not even want to believe that!
It’s too filled with things which they find repugnant… like Hell!

It is relatively easy to understand why the average sinner does not want to believe in moral culpability and a judgment day.
There is pleasure in sin.
The low road is an easier path to travel than the high steep path, and many Christians prefer to deny the reliability of the scriptures than having the burden of preaching an unpopular message to the lost.
What is truly sad to grasp is that these rationalists Christians have completely smoked themselves!
They have chosen to follow the delusions of the children of Darkness rather than the Light of the word of God.
Professing themselves to be wise they became fools.

I would like to point out that though there may be a cozy bit of kinship between atheists and Modern Rationalist ‘educated’ ‘Christians’ in their mutual hatred of ‘Fanatical Bible believers’, that in reality the Atheists are laughing at the so-called Rationalist Christians whom have abandoned faith in the scriptures, and share the atheist views that the Bible is unreliable.
Atheist laugh when Christians claim to also accept the theory of evolution instead of believing the book of Genesis.
They Laugh because they know they have won!
They have managed to get the Christians to abandon the Bible and instead accept atheist Materialism as the truth!

1_bible-set-free

It is my solemn belief that is is impossible to convert the lost to faith in the truth of the gospel of Christ without preaching and teaching faith in the trustworthiness of the scriptures themselves in which the gospel is found.

News Flash Ye Christians!
Materialism is not a scientific fact!
Belief in the supernatural is not definitive of Ignorance!
Ye of Little Faith!
“ O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”
Jesus Christ. Luke 24:25

Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian
Dispensationalist.
King James Bible believer.

“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
St Paul 1 Thes2:13

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”
St Paul 2 Tim 2vs 15

“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”
St Paul 2 Tim 3:15

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
Jesus Christ John17:17

“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
Jesus Christ Matt 24:35

“…So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
St Paul Rom 10:17

UPDATE: Did Albert Really say that?
Thanks to Eternal Vigilance commenter and Libertarian ‘Terry’ I have been made aware that there is a dispute as to whether this Meme has a genuine Einsten quote or whether it is an evil deception. It is a testament to the sickness of Humanity that unfortunately there are millions of unscrupulous liars out there whom manufacture Frauds either to push their own agendas or simply to cause chaos and destruction. I must Therefore warn readers that there is doubt as to this quotes reliability. I will leave the blogpost up because even if the quote is a fraud, my argument against Materialism still holds good, and it may be discovered that Albert did in fact say this. Thus the controversy! Check out this discussion here… http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=583449
Keep Vigilant!

Update 2: Pondering further upon the problem about the verasity of this Meme raises a very interesting dilemma, very similar to the basic premise behind the Face book page ‘Did Abraham Lincoln really exist?’ https://www.facebook.com/alincolnism.
Ie that is is impossible to say with certainty that Einstein did not say this quotation…even if no reference to it can be found in the common places one looks (eg Google)
All that skeptics can claim is that *they cannot find sufficient evidence to convince them in their own minds that Einstein did say this.

The reality is that this could very well be a genuine quote from an obscure source… ie It may be a record of a conversation, or a lecture he gave which does not enjoy fame.
And this is a very common reality!
Not everything famous people say becomes common knowledge.
The majority of their sayings actually get quicky forgotten.

I find this dilemma very interesting because it also relates to arguments used by textual critics in their attacks against the trustworthyness of the King James bible because according to them it includes portions of scripture the authenticity of which they dispute.
What is of grave concern is that all valid and truthful historic records can be undermined via such devious rationalisms which only need to caste doubt to destroy faith… and what sort of Malevolent spirit loves to caste doubt against the truth?
The Thinking person must navigate this Dominion of Devils filled with snares and stumbling blocks deliberately engineered to keep people in the dark.

The Rock of Divine Revelation.

jesus-christ
“Oh Fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!”

As a King James AV believer it amazes me how many Christians don’t believe we have the perfect preserved and inspired word of God today.
The vast majority of ‘educated’ Christians have bought into all the rationalism and textual criticism of Infidels whom teach that the Bible is not a supernatural book, and that it suffers from the same human failings as every other ancient text and ought to be treated the same way.
My Theistic belief is looked upon as Batshit crazy.
Yet these Christians whom have abandoned faith in the inerrancy of the word of God turn instead to modern scholarship for their final authority… which is a patently unchristian/ non-theistic basis of faith. They are Deists.

This is a reversal of the Biblical doctrine of ‘Let God be true but every man a liar’.
‘Trust in the Lord with all thine heart and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy Paths”.
“The words of the Lord are pure words. As silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them O Lord. Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”

We now have the situation where the veracity of verses like when Christ said “Let he who is without sin caste the first stone” are disputed upon the most flimsy of grounds and the most poor evaluation of the so-called evidence.
All it takes is for a single piece of evidence to be dated by some ‘expert’ as ‘the earliest’ and for it to not contain the said verse, and that is enough to undermine the faith of millions as to its integrity!

sand-house
The foolish man builds his house upon the vain sands of Human rationalism and ‘schollarship’.

These Christians whom have abandoned the faith in God’s supernatural preservation of the scriptures are actually endorsing the Atheist evaluation of the bible, ie that it cant be trusted!
They also tend to be Anti-super naturalism/ pro naturalism types whom also embrace things like the theory of evolution, and say stories like Noah’s flood and Balaam’s talking ass are merely fables.
Again they side with atheistic Rationalism against faith in the scriptures.
This Naturalism insulates them from the derision of their School peers which is the burden of those of us whom maintain faith in the supernatural.
This infidelity is what passes as a ‘Bold stand for Christ’
lighthouse
“Thy word is Truth… It is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my Path… I will fear no Evil”

I ask how they can have boldness in preaching the Gospel when they themselves do not have faith in the reliability of the Bible in which their gospel is found?
For me faith in the Revelation of God as the Rock on which my faith is built and is absolutely not negotiable.
It was the realization that the Bible was true which converted me to Christianity in the first place 25 years ago, and I have walked with Christ ever since with my eyes open… ie facing every challenge which claimed to be able to prove my bible was full of errors, yet Gods word has weathered that storm and every time an infidels argument has been defeated, my faith has grown stronger.
The King James Bible is my Rock.
I preach with full assurance from a conviction of it’s absolute trustworthyness.
I will go to my grave believing Jesus has saved me from my sins because it is written in those blessed pages… not because of the wisdom of men.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Christian Libertarian.
Dispensationalist.
1611 King James Bible believer.
Sinner saved by St Pauls preaching of Christ according to the gospel of grace.

Portions of 1Corinthians1+2

1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
3 Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;
5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;….
10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Chapter 2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Why a new Constitution for New Zealand must protect the Individual from Mobocracy.

16681_10152406180440515_1332293287_n

Because I have failed in the attempt to organise an association of ‘Heavy hitting’ Libertarian minds to directly challenge the governments appointed Committee which is currently running a Mickey Mouse commission looking to entrench Waitangi Racism and Socialist Democratic tyranny, I am attempting to put together a ‘condensed’ submission advocating the institution of a New constitution embodying Libertarian principles for New Zealand to be submitted to Muriel Newman’s the independent Constitutional review panel.
Go Here: http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/independent-constitution-group-invites-submissions/5/148407

This panel is primarily concerned with insuring any new Constitution guarantees Racial equality before the Law, and does not entrench the current Apartheid doctrines and institutions of Radical Indigenous racism and treaty separatism.
This independent Panel is to be highly praised for this work.
It is absolutely essential that the Government be prevented from establishing an Apartheid constitution, yet I fear the scope of this Independent lobby is not broad enough to challenge the many other injustices and usurpations perpetrated against the people of New Zealand in the name of ‘Social Democracy’ which is the prevailing ideology of 99% of MPs and their parties whom populate our parliament.

The difficulty for me is not only that I despair having to sit out and watch everything unfold from the sideline as a spectator rather than a participant in this process.
I despair of being able to do justice to this ‘Mother of all Political Institutions’ in a brief submission.

482315_313655552096008_1763279491_n

One of the most important jobs of a Constitution is to protect the Rights and liberties of Minorities and individuals from Mob Rule.
Living in an age in which Atheist Materialism and Moral relativism dominate the thinking in academic circles it is difficult to speak of ‘Higher Law’… Moral absolutes which trump the mere whims or Legislators in large numbers.
It is difficult to get support for Ideals which set limits to the pseudo-moral justification of Legislation founded upon the mandate of the majority.
In Today’s world I cannot make appeals to Individual rights as being inalienable because they are ‘God given’… which was in times past a perfectly acceptable and rational position to take for the simple reason that so many intellectuals have tragically abandoned belief in God.
Thus I must make appeals to other arguments, in secular terms which embody arguments which such mentalities will not dismiss because of personal bias against theistic Ideas.
And most essentially these arguments must be powerful enough to expose the evil delusion that Humanitarian sentiments can justify tyrannical and oppressive political means.

The Little video below was posted on Face book by a friend (Hat tip Mark Casey) and I share it with you here because it does a very good Job or presenting the distinction between real charity and Socialism/ forced welfare…. and the travesty of that pseudo-moral justification… ‘the democratic mandate of the Majority’…
In so doing this video embodies one of the important attributes my submission to the Independent Panel must encompass.

Watch and enjoy.

This video also makes me wonder if my submission could somehow included such streaming Media?
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Libertarian Independent.

Are your Facebook friends demonically possessed?

terminator3

Are your Facebook friends demonically possessed?

Here’s one way to find out.

Comment on your Facebook friend’s status and start up a conversation. Part way through the conversation, say

You know what you need, Facebook friend? An exorcism!
http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2012/05/objectivism-is-a-form-of-demonic-possession/

If you get a a volley of comments like this in response

YOU know What YOU need Goode.. !00 pounds of knickled plated ass fuck delivered on your Mommas fist …then hard way! Go away and cry till Im ready to deal with your pimply ass…bitch!

Yep…Im angry….piss off and cry about that…

Piss off ass hole…

Bad time

You know what You need asshole…? Someone to take you on your fascist filth….fuck off and die…..cunt!

You are gone…go molest kids else where.

followed by unfriending and deletion of the entire conversation, then it is likely that your (former) Facebook friend is demonically possessed.

[Facebook friend’s real name redacted.]