Category Archives: Fish

Struth! Auzzy Stout!… Coopers Best Extra Stout.

auzzy stout 003

Coopers Best extra Stout… having been recommended this Auzzy Stout by an Eternal Vigilante… my team of Highly experienced Analysts and affectionados are putting this Brew through strenuous scientific tests…. using the most Flash Gear.
The result will indisputably… conclusively…. Unquestionably be the most Clinical, Objective, Authorotive, and up to date evaluation of any Beer ever!
Here it comes…. ditditditditditditdit….ditdit… My assistant Borek has just handed me the printout…


All Righty Then!
Now This Beer comes in a Manly sized 750ml bottle! It gets a big tick for that.
It was on special at the best Beer outlet on either side of the Mighty Waikato…West Hamilton’s New World Te Rapa… for less than $6, normally about $6.50 which is still ‘Crickey Dick’ Cheep…. esp for a 6.3% Brew! …another two big ticks there!
And as for the taste???? ???? ????
Not Bad! Surprisingly Drinkable!
It’s not as nice as the Renaissance Elemental Porter I had the other night, or as nice as the Pitch Black Stout on Tap at the House Bar on Hood st Hamilton, or as nice as Geeks Cocoanut Porter ale, or as nice as a Boundary Rd’s Chocolate Porter… but still Its very Good.

What is very nice is the kick! 😀

Tie Me Kangaroo down Sport! Coopers Best Extra Stout Redeems Auzzy piss somewhat!
At that Price… It’s Bloody Good, and I am Stoked that I gave it a try!
It’s a winner.
Chur Bro! (Mark) 😀

Evidence for Evolutionism #1. The recurrent laryngeal nerve.


In a comment on Tim’s post The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP? Kiwi Dave says

Our recurrent laryngeal nerve inefficiently loops round our hearts instead of directly connecting to the brain stem; this, like cleft palates are a consequence of our fish ancestry.

I plan to post evidence for Evolutionism as I find it, to balance my pro-Creationist rants.

This is the first piece of evidence I’ve found worth posting.


The recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of the vagus nerve (tenth cranial nerve) that supplies motor function and sensation to the larynx (voice box). It branches from the vagus nerve in the chest cavity before it loops around the aorta and then back up to the larynx. Why doesn’t it take a more direct route? That it takes this circuitous detour is cited as evidence of evolution.

The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve’s route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.

giraffe recurrent laryngeal nerve

If we (and the giraffes) did indeed evolve from fish, then the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve has a simple explanation. Its course is less simple to explain if we (and the giraffes) are products of special creation. Thus, the course of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is not merely evidence of evolutionism, but evidence for evolutionism.

I have a question. How difficult would it be to genetically re-engineer a giraffe (or a human) so that the recurrent laryngeal nerve passes directly from the brain to the larynx?

You’re no fun(ction) any more


This post continues the discussion on Tim’s post The Ludicrous Claims of Evolution! Why not ESP?

In comments on Tim’s post, Terry (who is both an Evolutionist and an Objectivist) says

a camera is NOT an eye (nor is an audio recorder an ear, etc). A camera is a piece of equipment used to record images, whereas an eye is an organ of sight. The former mimics the functions of the latter, but apart from that they are worlds apart.

simply because human technology [has] been built so as to mimic certain biological functions does not justify grounds for claiming that the reverse applies and that biology can therefore ‘possibly’ mimic human inventions via the process of evolution. … Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process, which means that new functionality only develops and is maintained in response to the need to survive.

Terry has just committed Objectivism’s “stolen concept” fallacy and violated a fundamental tenet of Evolutionism! Doubleplusungood!

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological functions. The eye, for example, is an organ of sight, but the eye has no purpose. Its function is not to see. It has no function.

According to Evolutionism, there are no biological malfunctions, either. A blind eye, by definition, is not an organ of sight. A blind eye has not malfunctioned, because there is nothing it is supposed to do. An eye has no purpose to be fit for.

If it’s the case that the eye was designed for a purpose, as Creationists claim, then we can say that the function of the eye is to see, and that there is something wrong with an eye that does not see. It ain’t doing what it’s supposed to do, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. But Evolutionism is quite explicit that no biological organ is designed for any purpose. As Dawkins says

Biology is the study of complicated things which give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose

and, as Terry himself puts it, “Evolution is not a creative process – it is an entirely responsive process.”

Evolution according to Evolutionists is a blind, stochastic process. Any appearance of design, purpose or function is just an appearance. The reason that we have eyes that see is simply because having eyes that see helped our ancestors to survive. But eyes do not, in virtue of their evolutionary history, ever acquire a purpose or a proper function.

All talk of biological functions is pre-Darwinian. Consistent Evolutionists should not talk of biological functions. If they do, they must explain that their use of the word ‘function’ is just shorthand for facts about an organism’s evolutionary history. If they don’t, they are guilty of Ayn Rand’s stolen concept fallacy.

The “stolen concept” fallacy, first identified by Ayn Rand, is the fallacy of using a concept while denying the validity of its genetic roots, i.e., of an earlier concept(s) on which it logically depends.

The concepts of ‘function’ and ‘purpose’ logically depend on the concept of a Creator. They are pre-Darwinian. Evolutionists have no right to use them.

Casting the Net


I find this passage curious.

[47] “Once again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was let down into the lake and caught all kinds of fish. [48] When it was full, the fishermen pulled it up on the shore. Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. [49] This is how it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous [50] and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. (NIV)

Verse 47 is about selection. It is about a net. A net selects fish on the basis of size. Fish smaller in size than the apertures in the net pass through it. Fish larger in size than the apertures in the net do not.

Verse 48 is also about selection. The fishermen collect the good fish in baskets, but throw the bad away.

Verse 49 too is about selection. The angels separate the wicked from the righteous and (in verse 50) destroy the wicked by throwing them into the blazing furnace.

I can’t help but think that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has precedents in Scripture.

“Have you understood all these things?” Jesus asked.

“Yes,” they replied.

He said to them, “Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old.” (NIV)

Why can’t you show me evidence?


This is the very latest meme from an Evolutionist friend on Facebook.

It seems to me that both Dawkins and his interlocutor miss the point entirely.

Yes, DNA and fossils are evidence for the theory of evolution! But …

According to Creationism

(1) All living things are DNA-based. We’re carbon-based life-forms. One theoretical reason for this is that we’re all creatures of the same Creator. One practical reason for this is that predators need nutritious prey. Silicon-based prey, say, would be indigestible to a carbon-based predator.

(2) When living things die, their remains (or the remains of the thing that ate them and then later died) end up in the ground, to be dug up millennia later by archaeologists.


So, there is an astonishing amount of evidence for Creationism. You can see it in the DNA and fossils that we found which are in the museums right now …

In one sense, DNA and fossils are evidence for both Evolutionism and Creationism. In another sense, DNA and fossils are evidence for neither, since their mere existence does not help us to determine which is the correct explanation for life on Earth as we know it.

What Dawkins interlocutor seeks is that which Dawkins fails to show, viz., evidence that militates in favour of Evolutionism over Creationism.

Unionists 1, Lawyers 0


Labour List MP Charles Chauvel (pictured top right) has resigned from Parliament (effective 11 March). He’s going to a job at the United Nations where he’ll join his former boss, former Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark (pictured bottom left).

The United Nations is a common penultimate destination for Labour’s troughed-out ex-MPs. (When they die, they go to the great trough in the sky.)

Former Labour List MP Carol Beaumont (pictured top left) is set to return to Parliament as Chauvel’s replacement. We’ll be up a trade unionist abortionist and down a gay lawyer. This minor opposition reshuffle is interesting (to me) for two reasons.

Firstly, Chauvel sponsored a Member’s bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, which would have dealt to scum-of-the-earth usurers.

Ever since I became an MP, an issue that I have supported is the regulation of so called “loan sharks”. Loan sharks prey on the vulnerable with unscrupulous rates of interest and this includes many of our Pacific people. They are the scourge of our community and instead of lending a helping hand keep borrowers in poverty. It is common for payday lenders to charge interest at rates between “only” 8% and 15% per week, compounding well into four figures at a time when mainstream rates have declined.

Chauvel’s Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill was drawn from the ballot in 2009. In early 2010 Beaumont took over responsibility for Chauvel’s bill, which was subsequently defeated at its first reading in July 2010. So, a common interest there, and with Beaumont back in Parliament perhaps we’ll still see some action on loan sharks.

Secondly, three elections in a row Chauvel failed to unseat United Future MP Peter Dunne (pictured bottom right) in the Ōhariu electorate. Dunne gloated tweeted from Dubai airport

Ready to board Melb/Auck flight. After what’s been happening in NZ today certainly seems time to come home and join the fun.

Chauvel did succeed in reducing Dunne’s majority from 12,534 (in 2002) to 7,702 (in 2005) and 1006 (in 2008) but 1392 (in 2011) was a miss as good as a mile. I hope Labour puts up a strong candidate to contest the Ōhariu electorate in 2014. It’s way way wayyyy past time to flush the Dunney!

Indigenous extortionists execute dolphins in revenge for aid default. Solomon Islands.

Photo: NZ Herald.

I must have successfully purged my Facebook friends list of the most Rabid of Green peace supporters!
When I read about this atrosity in the NZ Herald I was expecting my page to be Bombed with outrage!
Yet nothing… not a fart.

It’s ironic that I must post it to facebook myself!
This truely is a henious moral outrage… over stolen loot.
The dolphins are the loosers.
I assume the Facebook Greenies are thwarted by their own contradictions… Indigenous Rights vs Free Willy!
The Islanders have gotta eat.
Dolphin may indeed be an important resourse to them… yet killing 900+ seems like foolishness!
They are depleating their own resourse, and from the story I gather the extent of the slaughter was Pure Politics.

The Love of money is indeed the root of all evil.

I have not been able to descover whether or not The Earth Island Institute gets funds from the UN or other governments, yet I would suspect so. If it is a private and absolutely voluntarily funded organistaion I will eat my Hat!
If they are fully legit… ie fully private and voluntarily funded, then why did they default on their deal with the Natives? They have made a grievious error of judgement and goes to show just how good intensions can result in unexpected evils… at least this is the terrible message the islanders are communicating.

Solomon Islands villagers kill 900 dolphins in conservation disputeIslanders claim Berkely-based Earth Island Institute failed to fulfill deal to pay $400,000 to stop hunt

Salmon Rushdie

Imagine that one night, an alien prankster secretly implants electrodes into the brains of an entire country – let’s say Britain. The next day, everyone in Britain discovers that pictures of salmon suddenly give them jolts of painful psychic distress. Every time they see a picture of a salmon, or they hear about someone photographing a salmon, or they even contemplate taking such a picture themselves, they get a feeling of wrongness that ruins their entire day.

I think most decent people would be willing to go to some trouble to avoid taking pictures of salmon if British people politely asked this favor of them. If someone deliberately took lots of salmon photos and waved them in the Brits’ faces, I think it would be fair to say [he] isn’t a nice person. And if the British government banned salmon photography, and refused to allow salmon pictures into the country, well, maybe not everyone would agree but I think most people would at least be able to understand and sympathize with the reasons for such a law.

So why don’t most people extend the same sympathy they would give Brits who don’t like pictures of salmon, to Muslims who don’t like pictures of Mohammed?

Should everybody draw Mohammed?

Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.

A Photo from Face book…

This guy is making a Fatal mistake!
Real Christians do not claim to be good.
The Bible tells us There is none that are Good… no not one.
All fall short of the Glory of God.
Christ came to redeem *sinners*.

What we are seeing in this Photo is an arrogant refusal to admit moral guilt, and because a person must freely choose to receive the Gift of Salvation it is essential that a person first realises they are *not Good*, and that they are Guilty before God.

The self righteous don’t believe they need Salvation…
this guy obviously thinks he’s Good… That’s vanity! That’s self delusion…
That’s his biggest mistake!
It may be true to say that in practical terms he is comparitivly Good/ no worse morally speaking…than the ‘average Christian’. Indeed He may even surpass the moral integrity of the average Christian… never Stealing, he may not tell horrendous lies, He may not be violent, He may be a faithful husband, and care for the oppressed and infirm, etc…yet it is a mistake to think that a Christian is getting into Heaven on his own merits, and that all that is necessary is to be more virtuous than the average Christian… and God will have to let you into heaven.
It does not work like that.
The Moral standard of goodness and acceptiblity unto God is not set by the behavior of the average Christian. It is set by the Holy character of God Almighty… and that is 100% sinlessness.
And No Son of Fallen Adam has ever lived a perfectly holy life.
We are all guilty before God and will be judged for our sins, unless we accept God’s means of Salvation for sinners… Christ’s death on the Cross… as a substitutional sacrifice… payment in full for our Sins.

Now many people will Recoil from this.
Some vain, Egotistical, and self-righteous folk will not believe their sinfulness is serious enough to warrant such an extreme punishment… such an excruciating death as their means of salvation… they will not believe their ‘insignificant indiscretions’ made it necessary for Christ to be crucified on their account.
Others will look at the grotesqueness of the cross and say that
It is offensive to contemplate such a barbaric thing could be the means a good God would utilize for his purposes.
Both these views fail to apprehend that it is God’s sovereign right to set the terms and conditions for salvation, and that one of the reasons he chose this means was not only to demonstrate how seriously he condems all sin, but also so that no one could boast.
To receive Christ is a humbling thing to do.
There is no place for vanity, or Ego… We must accept Salvation on God’s terms and conditions… not ours…and for this reason alone Christ is despised by many.
Yet In the great day of Judgment for sin, Perhapse the greatest sorrow of the Damned of our age will be the realizations that God loved them… that he did everything short of negating their volition to redeem them… and that he made the truth available to the utmost parts of the earth that salvation was Free… yet they were blinded by their own Pride and lusts. They will know utterly that they rejected Christ, and as a consequence have actually Damned themselves!

God is not willing that any should perrish.

So Dear Reader, I hope you have contemplated your own moral condition, and used the correct yardstick in your measurements… 100% holiness… not as this poor Sod has done. I hope you realize your own Moral culpability, and from this realize why Christ died on the cross… Because Hell is for Self-righteous fools… and Contrary to Human Rationalism… Heaven is for sinners whom have humbled themselves enough to call upon the name of the Lord.

Christianity is the only religion where the prerequisite for admission is the unworthiness of the applicant.

Ye Sinners…Heed The Gospel of St Paul!…

“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Rom3vs10

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Rom3vs23

“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom5vs8

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom6vs23
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom10vs13

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1Cor1vs18

St Paul. The Apostle of the Gospel of Grace and the Teacher of us Gentiles.

“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” 1Tim1vs15,16

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Sinner, Libertarian Christian, 1611 King James Bible Believer, Dispensationalist.