“Ask Him Why He Doesn’t Believe in Science” Using Children in Proxy Wars

I thought this a fitting import in the “all is fair in ‘love’ and ‘POLITICS'” aspect of the above video.

How to Use Your Children to Annoy a Liberal

One of the best ways to use your children to annoy liberals is to have a lot of them.

….One of the best ways to use your children in this regard is to have a lot of them.  Liberals, being generally misinformed and detached from reality, don’t know that the Western world faces a population implosion, and the exercise of fecundity isn’t a choice they appreciate.  You know, if they see a gaggle of boys and girls following someone mother-goose style, they think carbon footprints, Malthusian nightmares and about how the “wrong” people are breeding. 

And think about the fun you could have.  For example, a nice touch would be to sport a bumper sticker saying, “My seven kids can beat up your one Ritalin-addled C-student.”  Also, when the size of your family is raised in conversation, you can casually mention how the Bible instructs us to be fruitful and multiply.  Judeo-Christian references move a liberal like nothing else.

How you raise your children matters, too.  Make sure they not only play with toy guns but that they do it publicly.  And it helps if they audibly say things such as “Bang, bang, you’re dead!”  Liberals view this the way a normal person would view the exposure of a child to pornography.  This is especially effective with the subspecies of liberals known as the suburban soccer mom. 

You see, liberals hate guns.  They feel guns are scary.  They feel that guns “teach violence” (that violence has to be taught is a notion I debunked irrefutably, undeniably and completely here).  They just plain feel.  They seem to worry that letting their son play with guns will turn him into a murderer even though they never wonder if allowing him to play with trains will turn him into a conductor.

To ensure this technique has maximum impact, you must choose the correct toy guns.  Vintage is the word, because the guns you find in stores today look like they were designed by Michael Jackson’s effeminate twin.  They sometimes come in Barbie doll colors and, at best, have at least a little red piece at the end of the barrel.  This toy-land abomination arose because undisciplined liberal children started pointing realistic-looking toy guns at police officers.  Somehow liberals don’t view this as Darwinian natural selection.

As an example of this technique, I’ll relate a story involving someone I know.  This father had given his sons some truly cool-looking toy guns from his youth, and one day he and his family ventured down to the community pool bearing these arms.  When all the liberals’ non-sex stereotyped, wearing-a-feminine-straightjacket sons saw these symbols of authentic boyhood, their eyes got wide; exclamations such as “wow” could be heard.  This also has the very positive effect of confirming in deprived liberal children’s minds that their parents really are dorks.  Oh, and you don’t have to worry about further alienating them from their (probably divorced, perhaps same-sex) parents/guardians.  Unless liberal children can be reformed, they will push the old folks into a nursing home first chance they get no matter what you do.

I also should mention that you needn’t fear liberals’ self-righteous, didactic proclamations.  Should they choose to say something to you, it only provides you the opportunity to put the icing on the cake.  If, for instance, they say, “I’m really surprised you give your son toy guns to play with” just respond, “Well, let’s be realistic.  He’s still a bit too young to have a real one.”  This upsets liberals intensely.

….

Yet liberals don’t like such things.  They bristle at the idea of treating children “like animals” even though they believe we’re just highly-evolved apes.  Letting your child run around someone else’s establishment like an animal is okay, though.

Lastly, if a liberal asks you why you have so many kids, you can just explain how survival of the fittest ensures that the right members of a species breed and inherit the Earth.  And be sure to follow up with, “Besides, every time I have another child, there’s one more person in this world to pray for you.”

Now, some may wonder why anyone would suggest using children to annoy liberals.  Well, we must properly train the young in the way they should go.  Just as importantly, we should always deal with people on their own level.

 

 

Eye Evolution Challenged Anew

This latest news from Creation-Evolution News in regards to some challenges to an old hypothesis — not theory:

Whoops, eye[I] was wrong:  “Eye evolution questioned” was the headline on a report in The Scientist.  “Invertebrates with vertebrate-like vision challenge the idea that the two groups of organisms have distinctly different visual receptors.”  Will Darwin concede, then?  After all, he’s pressed against the wall: “The standing dogma of eye evolution is challenged with the discovery of an invertebrate that sees light like vertebrates do, rather than like their more closely related cousins, according to a study published today (March 1) in EvoDevo.”  Dogma is a strange bedfellow in a science article, but this one, a “standing dogma,” must have been sleepwalking in the lab.

One possible Darwinian escape is obfuscation: “Now the story is more complicated than it was before, when we thought there was a clear-cut division between vertebrates and invertebrates.”  One outsider noted that evolutionary expectations had influenced prior work: “No one has looked for opsins in many animals, and this is exactly what we should be doing.”  Should implies moral responsibility.

Rather than concede the argument to intelligent design, The Scientist offered more ways out for Darwin, such as bluffing: “Now it’s unclear which photoreceptor originally gave animals sight, and which kind evolved to sense light later.  Or, perhaps an ancestor used both receptors to see, and over the millennia, one variety or the other lost its visual function.”  The reporter did not seem to notice this answer only multiplies problems for evolutionary theory.  Instead, Amy Maxmen cheerfully noted that ciliary opsin genes have even been found in sightless brachiopod embryos.  Parrying that surprise into a win for evolution (02/25/2010), she ended, “brachiopods may provide key insights into how vision first evolved.

…(read more)…

So-So-Story in drawings:

Here is the evolutionary story… all of it based on supposition:

 

Study Finds Bees’ Tiny Brains Beat Computers

A great story showing the majesty of the Creator.

Bees can solve complex mathematical problems which keep computers busy for days, research has shown

Bees can solve complex mathematical problems which keep computers busy for days, research has shown.

The insects learn to fly the shortest route between flowers discovered in random order, effectively solving the “travelling salesman problem” , said scientists at Royal Holloway, University of London.

The conundrum involves finding the shortest route that allows a travelling salesman to call at all the locations he has to visit. Computers solve the problem by comparing the length of all possible routes and choosing the one that is shortest.

Bees manage to reach the same solution using a brain the size of a grass seed.

…(read more)…