Category Archives: Intelligent Design

Did Aaron the High Priest smoke? || The biblical roots of Jews and marijuana:

Aaron… The ‘High’ Priest. 🙂

Doctor, mohel, and former IDF lieutenant Yosef Glassman finds surprising links between controversial plant and ancient Judaism.
“Also, one will beautify [Shabbat candle lighting] when the wick is made from cotton, flax or cannabis…”

That’s right, cannabis.

This dictate, found in the Shulchan Aruch (Code of Jewish Law), piqued the curiosity of Boston geriatrician Yosef Glassman when he was reading about Sabbath rituals on a religious quest nearly two decades ago.

The future doctor decided to embark on a project to learn whether cannabis was also used for medicinal purposes in ancient Jewish times. At first, he proceeded hesitantly — the federal ban on marijuana stigmatizes even library research on the drug, he said.

But in recent years, with medical marijuana’s legalization in several states, Glassman felt more comfortable delving in. What he found was a wealth of references in the Bible and beyond. Marijuana usage, he contends, is an aspect of Jewish law and tradition that had long been buried, and one that deserves “resurfacing and exploration.”

“There is no question that the plant has a holy source, God himself, and is thus mentioned for several ritualistic purposes,” said Glassman, who is also a mohel and a former Israel Defense Force lieutenant. He lives in Newton, Mass. with his family.


Glassman also found many references to non-medicinal uses of marijuana. “It is clear that using cannabis for clothing and accessories was very common, according to the Talmud,” he said. It was used for making tallitot and tzitzit, as well as “schach” (Sukkot roof coverings).

Glassman also found that cannabis fit into the category of kitnyos on Passover, meaning that Ashkenazi Jews were prohibited from using it on the holiday. “One thus might assume that it was also consumed, perhaps as food, during the remainder of the year,” he said, noting that hemp seeds are a non-intoxicating form of protein.

Glassman first presented his findings in late October during grand rounds — a medical teaching session — at the New England Sinai Hospital in Stoughton, Mass., where he is a physician. He has since gone on to give the same lecture to lay and medical professional audiences. “The goal is to educate practitioners on the rich cultural history behind the use of cannabis as a medicine, explain its mechanism of action, and dispel myths about its safety profile,” he said at one such presentation open to the public in Brookline, Mass. in November.

He explained that he had received no commercial support for his research, that no exhibitors were present, and sorry, but there were no free samples. “Not even in those brownies in the back?” joked one audience member.

In the talk, Glassman described finding several biblical references to the herb that include Book of Numbers 17:12-13, where Aaron the High Priest, “no pun intended,” probably burned marijuana as an incense offering “during a time of turmoil.” Other passages include God’s instructions to Moses to “take for yourself herbs b’samim” — herbs of medicinal quality — and instructions in Exodus to “take spices of the finest sort, pure myrrh, five hundred shekels, fragrant cinnamon, and ‘keneh bosem,’” which literally means “sweet cane,” but possibly refers to cannabis, said Glassman. “Keneh bosem” is also mentioned in the Song of Songs 4:14, Isaiah 43:24, Jeremiah 6:20 and Ezekiel 27:19. Another pronunciation is the Aramaic “kene busma,” which, perhaps unsurprisingly, is also the name of a modern reggae musician.

Glassman’s research revealed that cannabis may have been used as an anesthetic during childbirth in ancient Israel; he described an archaeological discovery of hashish in the stomach of the 1,623-year-old remains of a 14-year-old girl in Beit Shemesh. Maimonides was also an advocate of using cannabis oil for ailments such as colds and ear problems. “There are complex laws of plant mixing and hybridizing from the Talmud, which Maimonides comments on,” said Glassman. “Cannabis specifically was taken especially seriously in terms of mixing … and could, in fact, incur the death penalty. This shows me that apparently, cannabis was treated quite seriously.”

Ancient Jews weren’t the only people to use cannabis medicinally, of course. In his lecture, Glassman noted that cannabis has been used in Chinese medicine, as one of the 50 fundamental herbs, for 4,700 years; ancient Egyptians used it in suppositories and for eye pain; and Greeks made wine steeped with cannabis and used it for inflammation and ear problems.

Read more >>>here<<<

No Free Will = No Moral Responsibility. William Lane Craig

“And God made man in his own image….”
When God made Man he not only formed his body out of matter, He breathed ‘spirit’ into him and he became a living soul… a freewill moral agent capable of making real choices… not a robot slave of Materialistic determinism.


Atheist delusions leave mankind not only without any Objective morality, but also renders him incapable of making moral choices… whether Evil, or Heroic.
Atheism has no explanation for consciousness.

Heroic deeds like that of John Shear only deserve praise because they stem from the heart… ie He chose to endanger himself for the sake of someone else *when he could have just stood by* in safety and watch the Horse do it’s worst.

What is truly shocking is that there are many so-called ‘Educated’ Modern Christians who are embracing this anti-free will Atheist Materialism!
They must have rocks in their heads not to appreciate the fact that Monist Materialist Determinism is absolutely incompatible with Biblical/ Christian morality!
God cant judge sinners who had no choice but to sin.
William Lane Craig makes this point clear.
The Bible is Dualistic…. it is emphatic about the greater Non-material Spiritual Reality.
The Morality Of God and Bible is built upon these Truths.
Free will is a testament to our inner Spiritual Being…. and proof of God almighty!
This is because Freewill is inexplicable in materialistic terms and conditions.

And Libertarianism is utterly dependent upon free will… voluntary acceptance of the Justice of the philosophy of equal God-given inalienable Rights and liberties.
Atheism is fundamentally corrosive to the Philosophy of Liberty.
It is deterministic and Nihilistic… whereas Libertarianism is not Lawlessness, but depends upon Objective moral absolutes.

Monism: Evolutionary Psychology and the Death of Morality, Reason and Freewill.


We are not Robots Ayn Rand. We are Moral Agents.

Atheism has no basis for Rights… or Morals.


Sick Puppies.

dna (1)

Monkey killing Monkey. Tool

How can a Good God exist when there is so much evil in the world? (part1) Atheist Nihilism.

Nyctophilia: Hiding in the Dark….

“Keep things in the shallow end… because I just didn’t want to know…”

Science goes Ga Ga! The Spirit Temple-Material Interface. The Human Brain.

The Rusty Cage: Scientism.

Defunct / Archaic Western Dogma blindly insists : ‘Whatever does not fit the Naturalistic Materialist Paradigm is Illusory’. Entity Attacks


Merely an Attunement? Life after Death.

Christopher Hitchens Dies.



Biological samples are fragile: if they’re not kept at cold temperatures, they quickly degrade. And refrigeration in labs and on trucks, planes, and ships is costly and requires a huge amount of energy.

The company Biomatrica has developed a solution that allows these fragile materials to be stored at room temperature. The technology mimics the microscopic water bear’s survival strategy. The water bear, an arthropod also known as a tardigrade, lumbers across moist surfaces of mosses and lichens. But when those dry up, the water bear goes into a suspended state that could last anywhere from a few months to a century. Other organisms, such as brine shrimp and the resurrection fern, employ similar strategies to survive extreme conditions.

Read more >>>here<<<

Research chemicals


What are research chemicals? Wikipedia says

Research chemicals are chemical substances used by scientists for medical and scientific research purposes. One characteristic of a research chemical is that it is for laboratory research use only. A research chemical is not intended for human or veterinary use.

I first encountered the term on Erowid—the original go-to website for recreational drug users and “a trusted resource for drug information—both positive and negative”—and here’s what Erowid has to say about research chemicals.

Chemicals marked on Erowid by our Research Chemical Symbol should be considered experimental chemicals. Although some people are willing to ingest these chemicals for their effects, it is not reasonable to assume that these chemicals are in any way ‘safe’ to use recreationally. Although all psychoactive use involves risk, this class of chemicals has undergone virtually no human or animal toxicity studies and there is little to no data on possible long term problems, addiction potential, allergic reactions, or acute overdoses.

Publication of information by Erowid about human use of these chemicals is not intended to endorse their non-laboratory use.

Consider carefully before choosing to use these substances.

and from their Research Chemical FAQ

What are research chemicals?

When used to describe recreationally used psychoactive drugs, the term “research chemicals” generally refers to substances that haven’t yet been thoroughly studied. The term “research chemical” partially came from the fact that some substances on the recreational markets were drugs that had been discovered in labs and only examined in test-tube (in vitro) or low-level animal studies.

Some are very new, while others may have been around for years but haven’t had adequate enough medical investigation to quantify health risks, have not been consumed by many people over a long period, or had much data accumulated about their use. Little is known about them, and a good deal of what is known is based only on first-hand psychonautical reports. Scant to no research has been completed on the toxicology or human pharmacology of these drugs. Few, if any, formal human or animal studies have been done. Because of this, some have suggested that they would more appropriately be called “unresearched chemicals”. Another term for them is “experimental chemicals”, and this may better communicate the unknown risks associated with ingesting these drugs.

Unlike better-known drugs such as ecstasy (MDMA), which has been taken by millions of people over the last 30+ years, or marijuana which has been used by billions of people over millennia, in some cases the most novel of research chemicals may only have been used by several dozen people for a few months. The risks involved with research chemicals are greater than with many other drugs, since they’re unknowns. …

Are research chemicals safe to ingest?

No! While no drug use can categorically be characterized as “safe”, using research chemicals may be riskier than using older, better-studied drugs. This is not to say that the chemicals themselves are necessarily more dangerous… the risk lies in the fact that very little is known about them. There haven’t been enough people using them in high enough doses for long enough periods of time for us to have an idea what sort of damage the chemicals are capable of producing. When one takes a new and unstudied drug, one makes oneself a human guinea pig. The drug may be perfectly safe. It may even be beneficial. On the other hand, after three uses one might suddenly find one’s body frozen-up with symptoms resembling Parkinson’s disease. If you think this is an exaggeration, do some research on MPTP, a neurotoxic by-product that was produced during underground synthesis of the opioid MPPP, which contributed to the 1984 change in law that allowed the DEA to have “emergency scheduling” powers.

When taking a research chemical, one is stepping into the unknown, and could be the unfortunate person to discover a new drug’s lethal dose. One could find oneself addicted. Or, if one overdoses and ends up at the hospital, the doctors may only be able to guess at the appropriate course of treatment. Some drugs, like Cannabis, LSD, and psilocybin, have a wide safety range over which there is little to no possibility of pharmacologically induced death (perhaps 1,000 times or more the active dose), while other substances become dangerous at much lower amounts such as mescaline (perhaps 24 times the active dose), MDMA (perhaps 16 times the active dose) alcohol (perhaps 10 times the active dose), GHB (perhaps 8 times the active dose) or iv heroin (perhaps 6 times the active dose). Accidental overdoses happen to most people who consume psychoactives for long enough, and overdoses of research chemicals have unknown consequences. One who is not prepared to accept these risks should avoid taking research chemicals.

Believe it or not, a variety of research chemicals, with little to no history of human use, is what the New Zealand government has just approved for sale to the general public. (See here.) I listed some of them in my previous post. Here they are again.

an analogue of ADB-FUBINACA

What do we know about PB-22 (also known as QUPIC)?

No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of QUPIC has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.

The physiological and toxicological properties of this compound are not known.

What do we know about AB-FUBINACA?

It was originally developed by Pfizer in 2009 as an analgesic medication, but was never pursued for human use.

(BTW, it looks like Pfizer has a 2009 international patent on AB-FUBINACA and related indazole derivatives with cannabinoid (CB)1 receptor binding activity. Pfizer and the Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority—working together for a healthier world.)

What do we know about 5F-PB-22?

No information regarding the in vitro or in vivo activity of 5F-PB-22 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its pharmacology in humans or other animals.

What do we know about CP-55,244?

It has analgesic effects and is used in scientific research.

What do we know about ADB-FUBINACA (or its analogue (S)-N-(1-amino-3, 3dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxamide)?

Nothing is known of the pharmacological activity of ADB-FUBINACA in humans or other animals.

What do we know about AB-005?

No information regarding the in vivo activity of AB-005 has been published, and only anecdotal reports are known of its psychoactivity in humans.

What do we know about 4F-AM-2201? We know its chemical structure. It’s a fluoro analogue of AM-2201.

The toxicity of AM-2201 is still a matter of debate and there may be long term side effects.

What do we know about CL-2201, LDD-3, or any of the chemicals in the SGT series? Nothing whatsoever. In fact, the SGT series might as well be named the SFA series.

Now, please don’t get me wrong.

I’m a psychoactive substances enthusiast and I’ve tested a few research chemicals myself in the past. But I did so fully cognizant of the risks. I exercised due caution. (Mostly.) And I’m unscathed. (Pretty much.)

I’m a libertarian and I think that ALL drugs should be legal. And that what drugs are made widely available to the general public should be decided by a responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry. But what responsible, self-regulating legal highs industry would even dream of peddling untested research chemicals to the general public?

Sadly, what we have now is the polar opposite of my envisaged libertopia. Everything government touches turns to crap. Untested research chemicals are the only psychoactive substances the legal highs industry is allowed to offer for sale. All the safe recreational drugs have been banned. So the legal highs industry is caught between a rock and a hard place. Thanks to the prohibitionist tendencies of the New Zealand government, which is demonstrably unfit to have any involvement whatsoever in regulating the sale and use of psychoactive substances.

The Psychoactive Substances Act is a sick joke. On you.

Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion


Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1

You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.

However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:

I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.

I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:

I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.

Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.

When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.

Read more >>here<<

Creationism or evolutionism: the theory of evolution refuted.



Though I cant profess to being a privileged member of any high society of Academia the responses I have received on two Facebook pages which claim to be forums for discussion on the rationality of the Christian faith and Creationism…. are very telling…

Facebook page 1….

JL wrote… Big Fail by you Tim Wikiriwhi

CRA wrote… I was looking for two facts. Instead I found a video link. Video blogs are almost always both poorly done, and set up by people who are neither able to write nor reason well, so I see no reason to waste time watching.
If you have any actual facts to present, please present a cogent argument with references from credible sources. When speaking on scientific topics such as the theory of evolution, an example of a credible reference would be a link to research published in a peer-reviewed journal. Links to personal or advocacy sites, accounts of personal revelation, unpublished research (or research published anywhere other than in a peer-reviewed journal), scriptures, and personal opinions are not evidence.

Tim Wikiriwhi (me) wrote… 1,2…. non-answers.
The video was very short and presented two facts Cynthia….not personal opinions
yet all you do is make a general smear against ‘video blogs’… and prove you are too lazy to watch the video… yet still feel vindicated making a comment…. sharing with us *your un-referenced personal opinion*.
Sort of hypocritical dont you think?
May I suggest you only comment on things you actually bother to examine?
You waffle on about ‘credible references’… as if an argument requires the signature of one of your ‘priests’ …

ZH wrote…. He makes a series of misrepresentation of evolution. Around 0:24 seconds into the short video, he made his first misrepresentation. He claims that evolution claims life came from non life. This is false, as evolution never claimed to have authority on our origins in a cosmological sense. It’s intent is to explain the complexity of life and what lead up to what it is today.
A second later, he makes the claim that it is a random process. Most of evolution is in fact the complete opposite. Though there is no grand exterior force manipulating what happens, we know that mutation often occurs as the result of natural selection. A process in where traits best suited for one species typically carries on to later generation, as those carrying those traits have a higher likely hood of procreation.

JP wrote… What facts did your video present?

BB wrote… Yes what facts were those Tim Wikiriwhi?

“IF living organism cannot produce new genetic information.’

IF. Which is an assumption.

Life has never been observed to come from non-life?

Is that the other one?

CRA wrote…. Unlike you, Tim, I’m haven’t made any claims about presenting “facts” that supposedly refute an established scientific theory. When a person makes such claims, he must be prepared to be held to a high standard. You would seem to be lacking in that preparation.
I promise you that if I ever claim to have scientific information to offer, it will be backed with credible references. At the moment, I am quite comfortable with the knowledge that the lack of communication skills and coherence displayed on your comment are wholly consistent with my overall opinion of most video bloggers. You fail to provide the promised “facts,” instead attacking someone who has expressed a willingness to read them if you will but write them out and show your proof.

ZH wrote… XXXXX: I noticed he made no attempts at explaining why what he perceived about evolution to be true. He uses instead vague generalization and intentional misrepresentations of evolution, to undermine the complexity of evolution . Thus shallowly “winning” without having to actually say anything.

SH wrote… What exactly do they mean by “new genetic information”? The term is always defined very vaguely in these arguments.

Also, even if all current models of Abiogenesis were proven unworkable, populations will still change over successive generations. Evolution will still happen.

To be clear, Evolution-theory does not need Abiogenesis(life coming from non-life), it just needs living organisms.

Face book page 2….

TBI said… OMG! That two minute vid just disproved evolution with its deep insight into scientific theory!!! Oh, wait… No, it didn ‘t.

AM said … LOL!

AM said… I watched it. As a Christian, it disturbed me. Dishonesty (especially lying about science and terminology) is not good for the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The video was a sad rehash of the usual pseudo-science factoids/myths. Truly pathetic.

ACC says… Shaw Wow. That video just made me devolve. Nonsense.

SW says…. that’s an impressive amount of lies and stupidity crammed into a single 2 minute video.

JA say’s…. Seen that video some time ago – it is as crassly ignorant now as it was the first time.

TB says… Even the title of the video demonstrates a logical fallacy; false dichotomy.

****My answer***** which follows I submitted to FB2 yet exposes all these replies from both FB pages…

Tim Wikiriwhi….
“Hahaha… 1,2,3,4,5,6,7… replies All devoid of rebuttal!
This is when you Atheists are supposed to say…. “Oh here is an example of life from Dead matter…. and here is proof of how A fish got the genes to grow lungs and legs…”
You all are Emperors with no clothes….”

….And that folks is how the Atheists deal with two absolute scientific facts they cant refute….
By Slander and denial.
Evolution cannot even get to first base… let alone second base…

The Zombie God Of Atheist Evolution. Re: Math Magic and Ultimate Mythical Power…..Infinite Probability.

law if infinite probablility.

Still believe your own existence is the result of a series of fortuitous accidents????
I have one word to describe your position….. *Foolishness*.

Read more…

Multiplying Absurdities Equals Certainty… The Math Magic of Modern Atheist Astrologers!

The False Deity Called Evolution.

No sooner did I post this Blog to an anti-Christian Forum I was met with comments…. “Stop Spamming! you’re just using this page for self promotion”…. ‘This post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Evolution….

My Reply to Atheists:
“Ha! That’s not an argument. just more hot air.
Definitively Ad Hominem …. Instead of addressing the argument you say I am engaged in ‘Self promotion’… Nor is there any need to expand on what I have presented.
It is a simple demonstration of reality.
What makes you cringe is that you know that you are now supposed to argue that what that you believe that what the photo shows…. is possible.
That no matter how this goes against common sense that Math says it is possible….. though improbable….. And yet we all know that this will never happen…. Blind forces of Nature don’t fold washing…. don’t Generate life…. dont turn Germs into people…. You are utterly undone.