Goofballs to the Left of Me, Nut Jobs to the Right

I’m not a religious person, but I’m happy to acknowledge that those who have boundless faith are often the salt of the earth. So if they choose to interpret the six days of Creation as different from the 24-hour variety the rest of us are familiar with, I can live with it. I don’t even have a problem with accepting that God managed evolution, fine-tuning what He had created in the first place.

But I’m afraid that when it comes to believing that the earth is only a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs and saber-toothed tigers prowled the planet that recently, a belief that contradicts fossils, carbon-dating and common sense, I find it as preposterous as I do Islamic fundamentalists who insist that some schmuck who turns himself into a bomb and blows up innocent people gets a one-way ticket on the Paradise Express, and when he arrives at the depot, there are 72 virgins waiting to greet him and help him with his luggage.

Recently, when my friend Bernard Goldberg told Bill O’Reilly that he didn’t believe that the earth was a mere 6,000 years old, he received a ton of email from angry Fox viewers. The nicer ones simply dismissed him as a fool. In most cases, though, they used language you wouldn’t expect to hear in church or even a saloon.

When I say I will vote for anyone but Obama, I mean it. But if “anyone” turns out to be someone who lacks the intelligence to find a little breathing room in his theology for basic science, I won’t be happy about it. In carrying out his duties, it probably doesn’t matter how long the President of the United States believes the planet has been around. But if he’s convinced that Adam ate the apple that recently, God only knows what other nonsense fills his cranium.

Moving on, I am surprised that Muammar Gaddafi still hasn’t been discovered. I mean, how hard can it be to spot someone who dresses like that? I can only assume he’s found a way to blend in. So, either he’s performing as a Vegas lounge act, is employed as the head usher at the Radio City Music Hall or he’s strutting his stuff on a fashion runway in Paris or Milan.

For years now, the liberals have tried to turn the federal government into one huge Mary Poppins, the world’s most invasive nanny. What I hadn’t been aware of until being alerted by S.E. Cupp is that Manhattan’s District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr., has taken it upon himself to banish not only guns, but switchblades and gravity knives from his jurisdiction.

Mr. Vance, whose father was Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State, who helped usher in 30 years of Islamic terrorism by welcoming the Ayatollah Khomeini back into Iran, obviously didn’t fall too far from the family tree. Over the past year, under threat of prosecution, Vance has forced a number of retail outlets, including Home Depot, to remove the knives from their stores and to forfeit the prior four years of profits they’d derived from selling them.

I have no doubt that this campaign has upset Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has spent the past several years taking bows for banishing trans fats from New York City. Bloomberg has to be worried that D.A. Vance will ride his glorious victory over sharp objects right straight into Gracie Mansion.

In order to ward off the challenge, rumor has it that Bloomberg has now set his sights on those New Yorkers he has reason to suspect have family-size containers of toothpaste, mouthwash and shampoo, in their bathrooms. After all, if these items are lethal at 35,000 feet, how harmless can they possibly be at sea level?


©2011 Burt Prelutsky.
Comments? Write Burt!
Get your personally autographed copy of Liberals: America’s Termites or Portraits of Success for just $19.95, shipping included.   Get both for just $39.90. Liberals: America’s Termites Profiles of Success (60 candid conversations with 60 Over-Achievers)

Author Bio:

Burt Prelutsky, a very nice person once you get to know him, has been a humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine. As a freelancer, he has written for the New York Times, Washington Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Emmy, Holiday, American Film, and Sports Illustrated. For television, he has written for Dragnet, McMillan & Wife, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, Rhoda, Bob Newhart, Family Ties, Dr. Quinn and Diagnosis Murder. In addition, he has written a batch of terrific TV movies. View Burt’s IMDB profile. Talk about being well-rounded, he plays tennis and poker... and rarely cheats at either. He lives in the San Fernando Valley, where he takes his marching orders from a wife named Yvonne and a dog named Angel.
Author website: http://www.burtprelutsky.com/
  • Pingback: Goofballs to the Left of Me, Nut Jobs to the Right | Louis Sanchez Info

  • Shirl

    I little girl asked her mother where did we come from and she told her God made us. She said, Daddy told me we came from apes. Her mom said, oh that’s easy, I was talking about my side of the family. (joke from Joel Osteen)

  • Burt Prelutsky

    Phlymgrym: Welcome to the sensible middle. I appreciate the company.

    As for Proe Graphique, being lectured about arrogance by a fellow who could give The One a run for his money gives new meaning to chutzpah. In case you hadn’t noticed, I write opinion pieces. That means my opinions, not yours. You are free to disagree, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who wishes you would limit your comments to novella length in the future.

    Sincerely, Burt

    • Proe Graphique

      Burt,

      Perhaps if you studied that to which you base your “opinion” attack pieces with the same degree of detail to which I posted my rebuttals, you might not have been moved to write those attack pieces in the first place.

      I suppose you mean “chutzpah” means publicly disagreeing with you. If so, turn that phrase around on yourself; there is no more of that than attacking Christians and Jews who read the Bible as literal when all Christians and Jews are under attack by Muslim extremists. Please get a clue.

  • phlymgrym

    Burt, you sure seem to bring out the worst in both the goofball and nutjob populations (see the responses for proof). “Here I am, stuck in the middle with you”

    • Proe Graphique

      IMO, the arrogance in the implications of this blog post title is staggering. When Bernie wrote his similarly-titled piece of which this title is an apparent send-up, he was comparing intellect on the left to *courage* on the right. This piece appears to define proper religious thinking in general only as defined by the author, and IMO the condescending swagger is breathtaking.

      Perhaps a better title, IMO, would have been,

      “I Am perfect, Define the Sensible Center of Thought According To What Little I Know, About Which I Have proven Several Points Of Ignorance, And Will Mock All Those With Whom I Disagree Because It Seems They Irritate Me, Aren’t I Wonderful”

      IMO, that seems right for anyone who would attack another person’s Judeo/Christian belief structure, and this piece clearly does. At a time when Muslim extremists are trying to kill Jews and Christians for their religious beliefs, this is an absurdly irresponsible and insensitive hit piece.

      I still contend that the author owes a large proportion of the Judeo-Christian community an apology.

  • Burt Prelutsky

    Proe Graphique: I have nothing to do with what appears or doesn’t appear on this website, so don’t accuse me of disposing of your comment last night. I am only responsible for my articles and my comments to readers. What I noticed about your diatribe is that you spent a great deal of time trying to disprove carbon dating, and no time at all defending the literal truths of the Bible, which was actually what I was writing about. You are apparently the sort of person who, when asked the time of day, conducts a lecture on the history of clocks and watches down through the ages.

    Finally, you should not assume that just because when you get into an argument with someone and his eyes glaze over and he passes out for want of oxygen, you have persuaded him that you’re right.

    Sincerely, Burt

    • http://www.evidencevault.blogspot.com Proe Graphique

      I’m sorry that the lengthy nature of my writing apparently tops out above your concentration level. I’ll try to simplify it.

      You mocked creationists with dripping sarcasm and superior posturing. I gave you detailed examples of part of what informs their belief structure. That’s on-topic.

      You have strongly implied that those who believe in the Bible as a literal historical document are unsophisticated in their thinking, even though the form of the Bible’s structure is that of an historical document and nothing else – it claims the events to be fact, so you either believe it or you don’t, but if you want to split the difference, which is fuzzy and intellectually dishonest thinking based on pop culture convenience, don’t act like you’re being grounded in reality. Before you tear creationists apart for not believing the other alternative, which is the secular science you espouse, you might want to get your facts – like carbon dating which is earth science 101 – correct.

      The middle ground that you and many cite to be mainstream thinking (depends on what part of the US you happen to be in) is simply intellectually dishonest. It really is one or the other – Bible or secular – otherwise you are simply making things up for convenience, unless you can prove a case based on the scientific facts. Creationists cite scientific foreknowledge in the Bible which is striking. You seriously need to learn just exactly what the people you are mocking believe before you attack them for believing it. I have a feeling there is a whole world of information of which you have not educated yourself before you mocked their sophistication. IMO, you owe them an apology.

      Do you get it, now?

    • Chester A. Arthur

      “You are APPARENTLY the sort of person who, when asked the time of day, conducts a lecture on the history of clocks and watches down through the ages.

      Finally, you should not ASSUME”

      Emphasis mine.

      It’s priceless.

      • rider237

        where is the ‘like’ button :-)

    • joe from louisiana

      Mr. Prelutsky,
      I am a Christian and when I read you article I’m not necessarily offended. What does offend me when you study the beliefs of those who frown upon Christianity as mythical while swallowing the beliefs of some of our conflicted in interest “scientists”. Their fervor has the same religiosity and rigidity as those they show contempt. There is a rational challenge to what our children are being taught in textbooks. If you do not suscribe to beliefs that are taught as knowledge, then you are automatically a kook. We are in a “catch 22″ because no Christian is allowed to say that is theory, not fact. A young person has the dilemma of believing in contradiction or being ostracized. I personally don’t know what to know but just as in global warming, the fact is in the last 150 years the earth has warmed(.8 degree C). The belief is that man has accelerated it. Science today is too orthodoxical which evokes a bit of irony.

      • Proe Graphique

        Joe,

        In reading only the two responses with which I am familiar with your writing, this and the other to me, I have to say I’m appreciative of your deep thought and superb expression. Thank you.

        I don’t know if the issue interests you – or if you agree with it – but please take a look at our two sister sites,

        http://www.obamafake.blogspot.com
        the activist site

        http://www.evidencevault.blogspot.com
        The evidence repository.

        Please go to the former at least and check it out. You need not join up or give personal info – not even an e-mail – to comment and become active. The fact is that you are making it clear that you’re an uncommon intellect – the author of this post should be so gifted. Our group is small, hopefully similarly comprised and we desperately need more thinkers like you to fully realize the strategies you’ll find there. I wouldn’t ask if I didn’t think it was important.

        Thanks.

        • Proe Graphique

          By the way, that includes Chester Arthur as well.

  • IndependentLasVegas

    God’s time frame is not our time frame…Earth It is a beautiful place oceans, birds, mountains flowers etc..

    The ugliness of earth… politicians,Obama,Pelosi,Reid,Durbin etc etc in three years they changed ecomomy to pay to work to pay to stay home and vote democratic. Believe IT!! tax on the wealthy will be anyone making over 40,000 per yr…

  • http://www.evidencevault.com Proe Graphique

    Burt, I tried this last night, got a message that the post needed moderation, and see that you apparently chose not to publish it. I’m going to try again, I guess because I’m an eternal optimist.

    You will excuse my tone, I’m sure, since you threw the first stone.

    Okay, “Goofball”, get ready for some tough love.

    The way you write this shows you know little if anything more than you were taught in grade school, since you mention “radio carbon dating” in relation to the age of the earth, since as every science junior knows, radio carbon dating tops out at 50,000 years (c-14 has a half life of 5,000 years, so in 50,000 years there is not enough c-14 left in the sample to measure for an accurate dating assessment). Duh. Check it out on any secular university site, as that aspect was predicted correctly by the very inventor of the process, Dr. William Libby. So you are mocking young earthers but mention radio carbon dating in the process. Right, dufus.

    Let me clue you in and yes, I’m also a birther guy, so here is your chance to lump birthers in with young-earthers in one, smooth, intellectually dishonest swoop.

    First, my own armchair opinion, to clarify my opinion which is clearly more educated on the subject than your own: We do not know the earth is billions of years old. We do not know that the earth is thousands of years old. Keeping it real when you look at the larger facts, IMO we know nothing. The questions are so vast that we probably never will know anything substantial on this matter for sure – and secular scientists who say they do are either looking for money or on ego trips or both – before God destroys the earth by fire or we blow ourselves up because as people like you are proving, people, in the aggregate, tend to talk – and believe – way past where their knowledge tops out.

    Here are a couple of scintillating facts put forth by young earth/universe creations that, IMO, does not prove their point, but disproves old earth-favoring science, hence my opinion that we know nothing:

    1. A comet is made of ice, and we see the tail as the ice ball swings around in a usually elliptical orbit (in the case of Halley’s, 76 years) and as it gets closer to the sun, and as the heat and solar winds burn off a significant portion of its icy bulk, that burning off vapor is what we see as the tail. So who is making the ice balls that burn off and show as comet tails, because if the universe is billions of years old, those ice-ball comets should have been spent to nothing long, long ago – in only several thousand years. Even a small overall proportion of loss should drive it off its orbit as its mass shrinks and gravity affects it differently, anyway. So who has been making those ice balls for billions of years? There is nothing whatsoever to suggest they they are just drifting into the solar system willy-nilly. Secular since has some fanciful suggestions, but itself admits it has not a clue based on fact.

    2. When the first astronauts landed on the moon they expected to find a few feet of dust on the surface. This is because the earth and moon, as they orbit the sun, every year go through dust clouds in space. On earth those clouds are responsible for the several meteor showers we see every year (we go through them, they do not come to us), as the larger particles hit the atmosphere at an angle at incredible speed and show as bright streaks in the sky. What doesn’t burn up is otherwise absorbed into the soil, etc. However, there is no atmosphere with which to burn the particles and and no rain to muddy the dust on the moon. Gently, imperceptibly falling year after year on the airless moon, that dust remains as dust, hence their expectation at the time of a few feet of dust based on their understanding of how much we catch in each orbit around the sun each year and an assumption of an earth and moon a couple of billion years old . When they got there the moon had only a couple of INCHES of dust, dramatically suggesting a much, much younger moon at least. Why was more not found? They have some interesting math which is clearly based on wishful thinking, but unfortunately, as they themselves often acknowledge, after over 40 years they don’t have a clue. Nobody knows.

    3. The orbital imbalances of the planets, including earth, should have long since played out by now, unless such imbalances were so large billions of years ago that our solar system could not possibly look the way it does now. The imbalances are still there and so are we. Explanation? Nobody knows.

    4. One of the great cases for an old universe is that the speed of light is a constant – if not acted upon by gravity, and therefore we see from measurements that the light from stars and galaxies, pulsars, etc, is coming from many light-years distant, supposedly proving the universe is billions of years old.

    Einstein mathematically predicted that time and matter/gravity were indivisible and scientists have proved it in actuality with a tool Einstein did not have: atomic clocks. Two such clocks are synchronized and one is left on the surface and one goes up in a plane. The difference in that little amount of gravity changes the rate in which actually time operated and the clocks fell out of sync – by only the smallest of atomic-clock measurements, but out of sync nevertheless; the one higher up was running slower while in the air, proving Einstein’s theory in practice. Afterwards, atomic clocks were eventually found to run at a different rates of speed only between the height of a table. In lab tests light has been slowed down to a slow pulse. Einstein was right. It’s been proven practically that time and space are indivisible.

    However, the idea that light traveling through such enormous distances would be unaffected by the passage past black holes and a billion island galaxies, the gravitational influence even mathematical astrophysicists can only barely shrug at – and this does not count the biggie: the utterly unknown geometry of the boundaries of the universe – is a preposterous and simple-minded secular daydream. OF COURSE distant starlight is affected by gravity as it passes through such dense gravitational forces multiplied by the billions that are certain to bend time. However, without a second and ideally third point of reference for triangulation – since our only current vantage point is earth – we have no idea how those gravitational forces effect the light that is traveling toward us. It is certainly effected – it is mathematically impossible for that light/time to NOT be effected as Einstein predicted. How much? Once again, nobody knows, and scientists I have spoken to about it don’t like to talk about it. My guess from the emotions involved is that it frightens them to think they don’t know the basics, and that fear angers them. But their hostility to the questions they can not answer does not change the fact that they can not answer them. We – don’t – know.

    We know nothing. Go to the 4th day alliance for some balance in your education and if you meet the two points of view halfway, secular and creationist, as the facts demand, you’ll realize we know nothing. So the mockers are getting a bit too big for their britches.

    In terms of evolution, that silly supposition – not “theory” as a theory demands a predicted outcome under controlled conditions – is falling apart by the day, and secular evolutionists struggle with evermore absurdest ideas. For example, did you know that according to them, turkeys were cold-blooded – then warm blooded, and then became cold blooded again – back and forth? Oh yes, they believe that without a shred of actual evidence to support it: the Discovery Channel devoted a whole hour to it a few years ago, complete with lots of animated dinosaurs.

    I could go on for hours, but this should be enough to suggest you get your act together before shooting your mouth off. Secular science knows as little about these larger issues in actual fact than they did in the middle ages, because despite all the instruments and communication of this “enlightened age” – as they used to say in the Victorian times – secular science continually skips over the tough questions and chooses to ignore them, undermining our general understanding completely. Most of what you are being told is a supposition fantasy.

    On the issue of evolution, for one of many examples, I assume also you never heard of Professor Michael Behe’s famous and revolutionary book, Darwin’s Black Box; Behe is professor of microbiology at Lehigh University, no small accomplishment. Read it, and learn how evolution is – literally, it seems – impossible on a microbiological level, as the very things necessary for evolution as a mechanism could not have evolved without them: the ultimate catch 22/ chicken or the egg scenario, and makes absolute mincemeat of little naturalist Darwin’s absurdly simplistic notions based on superficial observation that he mostly ripped off from Greek and Roman scholars two thousand years before his time, anyway.

    So anyway, “Goofball”, when you get your act together why don’t you write another entirely different article where you prove that you actually did it?

  • Burt Prelutsky

    To be perfectly honest, I understand the usefulness of parables to get certain truths across. But I can not for the life of me understand why anyone would read the Bible in literal fashion. If my religion actually required me to believe that Methuselah lived to be 969 years; that Jonah was swallowed by a whale; that all that begatting took place even though God only created Adam and Eve, who only begat two sons; and that all those pairs of animals were on the Ark–and what exactly did they eat?–I would have to find another religion. Fortunately, Christianity doesn’t really seem to demand that its followers park their brains,common sense and decency, at the curb the way that Islam does.
    And thank God for that!

    Burt

    • Proe Graphique

      Burt,

      Your inability to understand, as you cite, above, does not in any way reflect on the facts more than it reflects on your inability to understand.

      I wrote a nice long rebuttal to your staggeringly intellectually dishonest and insultingly sarcastic article and unless there was a glitch in the bogging software, you chose not to publish it.

      If you want to have a discussion, as your post above suggests, then let’s have a discussion. If you want to type up a growing list of exhibits about your inability to understand larger issues without educating yourself on the specifics, then I apologize for the interruption: please continue.

  • Lucky Carls

    Hello Burt, I always enjoy your columns with my morning coffee. In my old age, I still keep an open mind on most everything. Being raised in a strict Christian household,I was immersed in the Creationist line of thought. After much thinking and research over the years, I now feel that our true beginnings are somewhere in between the two
    beliefs, Creationism and Evolution as neither seems to have all the answers. I will continue looking forward to thoughts and writing. Be well.

  • Will Swoboda

    Hey Burt,
    Enjoyed you article. If Christ didn’t rise from the dead, then he’s just another dead Jew on a tree. I can’t explain the resurrection any better than you can explain time but there were over 500 people who saw Christ after the crucifixtion. Most were not Christians. Most of us, if given some sort of tangible evidence of the existence of God we would wind up worshiping the evidence. Sound familiar?
    Thanks, Will

  • David

    Sir,
    Evidence does indeed exist showing dinosaurs and man walked together. Proof that is carbon dated, x-rayed and mri’ed and cat scanned to prove beyone a shadow of doubt the proof is not a hoax but is real.
    I will be glad to send you the place where you can see, for your self, the evidence, if you are truly interested.

  • Shirl

    Sometimes it seems the whole world has gone nuts. Good to see common sense still prevails since it also seems to be in short supply these days.

  • PRO GRAPHICS

    Okay, Goofball, get read for some tough love.

    The way you write this shows you know little if anything more than you were taught in grade school, since you mention “radio carbon dating” in relation to the age of the earth, since as every science junior knows, radio carbon dating tops out at 50,000 years (c-14 has a half life of 5,000 years, so in 50,000 years there is not enough c-14 left in the sample to measure for an accurate dating assessment). Duh. Check it out on any secular university site, as that aspect was predicted correctly by the very inventor of the process, Dr. William Libby. So you are mocking young earthers but mention radio carbon dating in the process. Right, dufus.

    Let me clue you in and yes, I’m also a birther guy, so here is your chance to lump birthers in with young-earthers in one, smooth, intellectually dishonest swoop.

    First, my own armchair opinion, to clarify my opinion which is clearly more educated on the subject than your own: We do not know the earth is billions of years old. We do not know that the earth is thousands of years old. Keeping it real when you look at the larger facts, IMO we know nothing. The questions are so vast that we probably never will know anything substantial on this matter for sure – and secular scientists who say they do are either looking for money or on ego trips or both – before God destroys the earth by fire or we blow ourselves up because as people like you are proving, people, in the aggregate, tend to talk – and believe – way past where their knowledge tops out.

    Here are a couple of scintillating facts put forth by young earth/universe creations that, IMO, does not prove their point, but disproves old earth-favoring science, hence my opinion that we know nothing:

    1. A comet is made of ice, and we see the tail as the ice ball swings around in a usually elliptical orbit (in the case of Halley’s, 76 years) and as it gets closer to the sun, and the heat and solar winds burn off a significant portion of its bulk, that burning off vapor is what we see as the tail. So who is making the ice balls that burn off and show as comet tails, because if the universe is billions of years old, those ice-ball comets should have been spent to nothing long, long ago, in only several thousand years. Even a small overall proportion of loss should drive it off its orbit as its mass shrinks and gravity affects it differently, anyway. So who has been making those ice balls for billions of years? There is nothing whatsoever to suggest they they are just drifting into the solar system willy-nilly. Secular since has some fanciful suggestions, but itself admits it has not a clue based on fact.

    2. When the first astronauts landed on the moon they expected to find a few feet of dust on the surface. This is because the earth and moon, as they orbit the sun, every year go through dust clouds in space. On earth those clouds are responsible for the several meteor showers we see every year (we go through them, they do not come to us), as the larger particles hit the atmosphere at an angle at incredible speed and show as bright streaks in the sky. What doesn’t burn up is otherwise absorbed into the soil, etc. However, there is no atmosphere with which to burn the particles and and no rain to muddy the dust on the moon. Gently, imperceptibly falling year after year on the airless moon, that dust should remain as dust, hence their expectation at the time of a few feet of dust based on their understanding of how much we catch in each orbit around the sun each year and an assumption of an earth and moon a couple of billion years old . When they got there the moon had only a couple of INCHES of dust, dramatically suggesting a much, much younger moon at least. Why was more not found? They have some interesting math which is clearly based on wishful thinking, but unfortunately, as they themselves often acknowledge, after over 40 years they don’t have a clue. Nobody knows.

    3. The orbital imbalances of the planets, including earth, should have long since played out by now, unless such imbalances were so large billions of years ago that our solar system could not possibly look the way it does now. The imbalances are still there and so are we. Explanation? Nobody knows.

    4. One of the great cases for an old universe is that the speed of light is a constant – if not acted upon by gravity, and therefore we see from measurements that the light from stars and galaxies, pulsars, etc, is coming from many light-years distant, supposedly proving the universe is billions of years old. Einstein mathematically predicted that time and matter/gravity were indivisible and scientists have proved it actuality with a tool Einstein did not have: atomic clocks. Two such clocks are synchronized and one is left on the surface and one goes up in a plane. The difference in that little amount of gravity changes the rate in which actually time operated and the clocks fell out of sync – by only the smallest of atomic-clock measurements, but out of sync nevertheless; the one higher up was running slower while in the air, proving Einstein’s theory in practice. Afterwards, atomic clocks were eventually found to run at a different rates of speed only between the height of a table. In lab tests light has been slowed down to a slow pulse. Therefore, the idea that light traveling through such enormous distances would be unaffected by the passage past black holes and a billion galaxies, the gravitational influence even mathematical astrophysicists can only barely shrug at – and this does not count the biggie: the unknown geometry of the boundaries of the universe – is a preposterous and simple-minded secular daydream. OF COURSE distant starlight is affected by gavity as it passes through such dense gravitational forces that are certain to bend time. However, without a second and ideal third point of reference – since our only current vantage point is earth – we have no idea how those gravitational forces effect the light that is traveling toward us. It is certainly effected – it is mathematically impossible for that light/time to NOT be effected as Einstein predicted. How much? Once again, nobody knows, and scientist I have spoken to about it don’t like to talk about it. My guess from the emotions involved is that it frightens them to think they don’t know that basics, and that fear angers them. But their hostility to the questions they can not answer does not change the fact that they can not answer them. We don’t know.

    We know nothing. Go to the 4th day alliance for some balance in your education and if you meet the two points of view halfway, as the facts demand, you’ll realize we know nothing.

    In terms of evolution, that silly supposition – not “theory” as a theory demands a predicted outcome under controlled conditions – is falling apart by the day, and secular evolutionists struggle with evermore absurdest ideas. For example, did you know that according to them, turkeys were cold-blooded – then warm blooded, and then became cold blooded again – back and forth? Oh yes, they believe that without a shred of actual evidence to support it: the Discovery Channel devoted a whole hour to it a few years ago, complete with lots of animated dinosaurs.

    I could go on for hours, but this should be enough to suggest you get your act together before shooting your mouth off. Secular science knows as little about these larger issues in actual fact than they did in the middle ages, because despite all the instruments and communication of this “enlightened age”, as they used to say in the Victorian times, science continually skips over the tough questions and chooses to ignore them. Most of what you are being told is a supposition fantasy.

    On that latter part, for example, in the beginning of the 20th century paleontologists knew the mathematics of metabolism, and knew that dinosaurs could not sustain their own weight as cold-blooded creatures. But careers were at stake so the fix was in place: they invented lifestyle scenarios for the cold blooded dinosaurs and we grew up being taught that b*llshit as kids, otherwise knows as a pack of lies, because knowing the mechanics of metabolism, they knew the difference, and instead of admitting the dinosaurs must have been warm-blooded, they created stupid scenarios of t-Rex walking around balancing on his tail like a tripod, heedless of the facts that if he ever lay down to go to sleep, he would not have the metabolic wherewithal to get back up again – literally. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the obvious warm-blooded aspects allowed the dinosaurs to move freely was accepted – when evolution-based acreers could be sustained by connecting dinosaurian evolution to the development of birds (forgetting the fact that there is no evolutionary transition in the fossil record, though some dinosaurs did have feather-like distended scales)

    I assume also you never heard of Professor Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s black box – Behe is professor of microbiology at Lehigh University. Read it, and learn how evolution is – literally, it seems – impossible on a microbiological level, as the very things necessary for evolution as a mechanism could not have evolved without them; the ultimate which came first, the chicken or the egg scenario, and makes absolute mincemeat of naturalist Darwin absurdly simplistic notions that he mostly ripped off from Greek and Roman scholars two thousand years before his time, anyway.

    So anyway, “Goofball”, when you get your act together why don’t you write another entirely different article where you prove that you actually did it?