Thursday, 8 October 2009


I live in hell; I know what I am talking about!
"Evolution" is not science but philosophy, dogma, religion, Satanic politics!

Destruction of the Theory of Evolution in 11 minutes by a world famous Geneticist.

Pr M. Giertych (Poland) 

Destruction de la théorie de l'évolution en 11 Minutes, par un généticien renommé mondial.



Pr M. Giertych (Poland)


Friday, 23 March 2012


 David Berlinski - Evolution destroyed in under 5 minutes


Avoir raison contre tous ? C'est possible.

Vincent Reynouard

I knocked Pr Richard Dawkins out many times with my elementary knowledge of Molecular Biology and Genetics, which even his racist and misogynist god Charles Darwin did not have!


BBC RADIO (Vicar?): Richard, if I said to you: What is the full title of “The Origins of Species”; I am sure you could tell me that.

Richard Dawkins: Yes, I could.

BBC RADIO: Go on then.

Richard Dawkins: On the origins of species … uh … with … uh … (OH MY) GOD … uh … On the Origins of Species … em … there is … there is a subtitle … uh … th … with respect to the pre … preservation of favoured races and the fight in (and) the struggle for life”.  

The exact title is:
“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”


Dawkins refuses even to acknowledge receipt of my many emails. I have caught him lying many times, making nonsensical, unscientific, bigoted and racist statements.

 I heard the fanatical Atheist say once that he had "vowed not to debate" (just like Dr Albert Einstein was said to avoid debates with other scientists!), but he spends his time and our tax money debating with only people who agree with him and with kids who know little about the subject.

Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Battenburg), Oxford University and the Zionist controlled media are complicit in his anti-God, anti-religion and anti-Islamic campaigns.

8th of October 2009


Richard Dawkins: if I meet god when I die.

Published on 15 Sep 2012
SUBSCRIBE to my channel here:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins on his experience with Darwinism and why creationists "don't know anything."

I think we should look at the history of religion, be fascinated by it, just if you look at the history of art and so on. But I don't think that religion has anything useful to teach us.

One of the main reasons why people are religious is because they are persuaded by the apparent design of living things and that's completely destroyed by Darwin. If you actually read any book by a biologist about evolution, it's hard to see how you could fail to be persuaded of it, the evidence is just absolutely pact. There is no doubt about it. It's not a controversial issue. History is completely certain. It's as certain as the fact that the earth and the other planets, orbit the sun.

More than 40% of the American population, if opinion polls to be believed, think that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that's a shocking figure. It shows deep profound ignorance. It sounds very laudable to teach the controversy, to teach both theories. But there aren't two theories, there is only one theory around, there is only one game in town as far as theory of science is concerned. Of course you get negative reactions from creationists, but who cares about creationists, they don't know anything.

I think it was my father who first introduced me to Darwin and Evolution. I was immensely moved by it and it did start a rollercoaster in a way and then I started to become really quite antireligious after that. I went through a sort of middle ground of what you might call Deism. I think I gave up Christianity before I finally gave up the idea of a sort of creative designer of some kind.

Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist
. Before that you could be an atheist, he was for example, but it was quite difficult because you had no good explanation for why living things look so well designed, Darwin provided that.

There are other reasons for being religious like moral reasons or people sometimes feel they have a personal relationship with God or with Jesus or with Mohammed or whatever it is and that kind of reason for being religious would not in itself be undermined by Darwinism, but it's quite wrong to believe that science reduces humanity, that science somehow gives you a bleak, cold, empty, barren view of the universe and of life, quite the contrary, sounds as enriching and fulfilling.

What's going to happen when I die, if I met god in the unlikely event after I died, I think the first thing I would say is well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which god are you? And why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us?

"I don't think religion has anything useful to teach us"!

Another idiotic and fanatical statement by that extremist IGNORAMUS Dawkins, a militant Atheist bigot devoid of human compassion and with absolutely no heart or soul!

"us"?  Who? 
How many are they? 
In which countries?

That Ape Brain Dawkins has still not yet understood that we, HUMANS, do not need God to exist to have and respect GODLY VALUESGod may not exist as most of us imagine HIM, but GOD IS A REALITY FOR NEARLY HALF OF HUMANKIND, excluding Ape or Rat Dawkins, of course! 

The GODLESS State has replaced God and all Godly values, but Dawkins find nothing wrong with a STATE-GOD and STATE VALUES (Prince Charles', for example!) that allows no FREEDOM, where TRUTH is banned, where there is no JUSTICE, and where the only "values" or "ethics" they admit of are those concocted by the despotic rulers, the savage corporations, the monstrous Judaics, the Satanic Freemasons (Illuminati), and PERVERTS of all kinds and for usurious profits alone - and ultimately for the complete destruction of our Humnity, Nature, life and the world as we know it ! 



Science vs Evolution - Documentary - Evolution: fact or Belief - Condensed


Destruction de la théorie de l'évolution en 11 Minutes, par un généticien renommé mondial.

Pr M. Giertych (Pologne) 


General / 2009-10-01

Certain publications in Turkey have recently been reporting statements directed at the Atlas of Creation at a conference given by Richard Dawkins a year ago as if they were something new.
Dawkins Has Suffered a Huge Defeat, and That Is the Reason for His Refusal to Meet Mr. Adnan Oktar:
In making imputations regarding Adnan Oktar, Dawkins forgets his own intellectual father, Darwin. It is Darwin whose ideas he defends to the hilt, the ignoramus who was unaware of the existence even of the sciences of biology, zoology, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, geology, molecular biology and paleoanthropology, who was expelled from all the schools he entered and had no other aim than to spend times with drunken mariners. Dawkins acts as supporter of a theory launched by Darwin, who was totally ignorant of science, in the outdated atmosphere of the 19th century, a theory that today even children find laughable.
In addition to all this, Dawkins proposes the claim that Mr. Oktar does not have any knowledge of zoology as an excuse for not meeting with him. Yet at the same time he never lets go of the Atlas of Creation, Mr. Oktar’s work that has rocked the entire world. At every available opportunity he personally arranges conferences on the very subject, participates in conferences held by others, makes a special issue out of the book, and collects people around him as he comments upon it. He does all in his power to criticize, at least in his own eyes, the author’s works, yet he absolutely refuses a face-to-face meeting with him. Dawkins’s huge reluctance to enter into a debate with Adnan Oktar, despite all the latter’s calls, and his electing instead to respond, again in his own eyes, to the authors‘ ideas and his analyses on the subject all go to show how disturbing he finds the author’s activities. The only reason why Dawkins refuses a face-to-face encounter with Mr. Oktar IS THAT HE HAS BEEN COMPLETELY ROUTED AND HAS NO ANSWER TO GIVE.
Adnan Oktar’s statement on the subject during one interview runs as follows:
Adnan Oktar: Dawkins says he refuses to debate with me because I have received no biological training. My friend, what can I say? What about your forefather Darwin? Did he receive any training, any training in zoology or biology? He was kicked out of all his schools. But he was certainly an expert when it came to drinking wine. He could tell you what vintage a wine was and where it came from and all that, but nothing about the matter at hand. Do you still believe in his nonsense? You do, even though you know how ignorant he was. Do you believe in the unscientific claims he made in the light of the backward science and deficient scientific understanding of the time? Yes, you do. That is one point. The second is, do you not debate with high school and middle school students wherever you go? Yes, you do. Have they received any training in biology? No, they have not. Do you debate with clergymen? Yes, you do. Have they had any training? No. That means you debate with people you calculate cannot beat you. With people you believe cannot defeat you. You would be devastated in a debate with me—in minutes, and even in seconds. Let me challenge you again. But your forefather [Darwin] lies dead, while you weep at his graveside. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV broadcast on 28 September, 2009.)
Dawkins Has Taken the Bait and Hooked by a Picture of an Insect on the Hook
The picture of an insect on the hook in the Atlas of Creation, which Dawkins imagines to represent a major discovery, is one of an insect showing that a life form whose fossil remains date back millions of years is still alive today. Whether or not it is a model makes absolutely no difference. What matters is that this insect that lived millions of years ago is still in existence in the same form and living today.
Dawkins entered into a state of huge stress and panic following the manifest revelation in the Atlas of Creation of hundreds of pieces of evidence that obliterate evolution. For some reason, he says not a word about the thousands of different fossils in the various volumes of the Atlas of Creation, but displays his own ignorance in talking about a picture of a model everywhere he goes, as if this was some major discovery of genius. It is easy to see that Dawkins has nothing to say in the face of the fact that this life form, as well as all the others, is still alive today and has never changed over the course of millions of years.
Dawkins’s futile efforts just go to show how true and influential the Atlas of Creation is. It is also an indication of the terrible collapse suffered by evolution all around the world in which the Atlas has been instrumental.
In addition to all this, although Dawkins regards a single picture of a model as some kind of trump card, he himself uses nothing but models, drawings and reconstructions in all his own articles and conferences. AND THAT IS BECAUSE HE CANNOT PRODUCE ONE SINGLE FOSSIL THAT REPRESENTS EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. While he deceives people with models, he attempts to use a picture of a model in the Atlas of Creation, that consists entirely of scientific evidence, one that scientifically documents how a life form that existed millions of years ago is still alive today, against the Atlas. This shows that, like all other Darwinists, Dawkins has nothing to do with being scientific and lives in a state of profound ignorance.
It is impossible for Dawkins, and for all other Darwinists, to have anything to do with being scientific, because SCIENCE FURTHER DEMOLISHES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION WITH EVERY PASSING DAY.
Statements by Adnan Oktar on the subject read:
Adnan Oktar: I used a plastic model of an animal in one place in the Atlas of Creation. This person then made a huge fuss, as if he had discovered something. Daily Vatan then took it up, wondering why we had used a plastic model instead of an original animal. Yet he has no qualms about using drawings and pictures that are totally irrelevant, but we do not hold them against you. Since the plastic model is identical to a picture of the living life form in question of course I can use whatever I wish.
Presenter: That is a bit of very fine detail. There is the question of declining a debate but closely following your every move. He must have read the whole thing in order to pick it up.

Adnan Oktar: He will say, how could he debate with the author of this book? Because he will be unable to respond even to 10 pages of it. Not even 5 pages. I am now in the course of preparing the 4th and 5th volumes of the work, and I have used plastic models of frogs, for instance. They look different and nice, and there is also a bit of a jest in them. I have led that person to take the bait. This is the only subject he criticizes. I deliberately put the hook. There was a hook there, clearly visible. I put the insect on the hook and he went for it. He is now talking about it everywhere, showing people the insect on the hook.
It is an honor for us that this person should so avoid us. In the ring a wrestler comes out and waits for his opponent. If that opponent fails to show, then he is declared as the winner to great applause. This is something far greater than a technical knockout, as he was too afraid even to turn up. But I would have liked to inflict a knockout as well. Let him show up, but he cannot because I would crush him in a single moment. (From Adnan Oktar’s interview with Tempo TV and Kral Karadeniz TV on 28 September, 2009.)
There Are No Transitional Fossils between the Crocodile and the Squirrel, because “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS”
Darwinists make the nonsensical claim that the whole current diversity of life sprang from a single cell. The transition from squirrel to bird or from chimpanzee to human being so fanatically espoused by Dawkins is just as nonsensical as the transition from crocodile to squirrel that Dawkins criticizes in his own eyes. The claim made by Dawkins’s intellectual father Darwin, who was a total ignoramus devoid of any understanding of biology, zoology or paleontology, that whales evolved from bears is the product of the same perverted logic. It is therefore utterly ludicrous for Dawkins to say “we never claimed there was any transition from crocodile to squirrel,” AS IF EVOLUTION HAD ANY LOGICAL CLAIM.
Someone witnessing Dawkins’s claim on this subject might well form the impression that transitional fossils from such an imaginary transition of the kind maintained by Dawkins actually exist. And that is just what Dawkins is aiming for. He aims to deceive people with no knowledge about transitional fossils by means of these words of demagoguery. It will therefore be of use to reiterate here some important information, the scientific evidence for which we have already provided hundreds of times before. In summary, that information is as follows:
Contrary to what Dawkins and all other Darwinists maintain,
No matter what Dawkins may maintain and no matter what kind of a transition he may espouse, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FOSSIL EXISTS that might confirm it.
And therein lies Dawkins’s difficulty. That fact has now been announced to the whole world for the very first time since Darwin’s “Origin of Species” deception 150 years ago. The Atlas of Creation, a significant work of reference revealing this, has therefore become Dawkins’s number one target. Dawkins HAS TAKEN THE BAIT when he least expected it. It is because he knows there is nothing to be done, because he refuses a face-to-face debate with Mr. Oktar in the knowledge that he will be utterly routed, that he instead resorts to such pitiful, pathetic and childish methods. And this is a declaration of the Darwinist defeat.

Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s

December 3rd, 2014 | by Bob Flanagan
Smithsonian Admits to Destruction of Thousands of Giant Human Skeletons in Early 1900′s


A US Supreme Court ruling has forced the Smithsonian institution to release classified papers dating from the early 1900′s that proves the organization was involved in a major historical cover up of evidence showing giants human remains in the tens of thousands had been uncovered all across America and were ordered to be destroyed by high level administrators to protect the mainstream chronology of human evolution at the time.

The allegations stemming from the American Institution of Alternative Archeology (AIAA) that the Smithsonian Institution had destroyed thousands of giant human remains during the early 1900′s was not taken lightly by the Smithsonian who responded by suing the organization for defamation and trying to damage the reputation of the 168-year old institution.
During the court case, new elements were brought to light as several Smithsonian whistle blowers admitted to the existence of documents that allegedly proved the destruction of tens of thousands of human skeletons reaching between 6 feet and 12 feet in height, a reality mainstream archeology can not admit to for different reasons, claims AIAA spokesman, James Churward.

«There has been a major cover up by western archaeological institutions since the early 1900′s to make us believe that America was first colonized by Asian peoples migrating through the Bering Strait 15,000 years ago, when in fact, there are hundreds of thousands of burial mounds all over America which the Natives claim were there a long time before them, and that show traces of a highly developed civilization, complex use of metal alloys and where giant human skeleton remains are frequently found but still go unreported in the media and news outlets» he explains.

A giant human femur uncovered in Ohio in 2011 by the American Association for Alternative Archeology, similar to the evidence presented in court
A turning point of the court case was when a 1.3 meter long human femur bone was shown as evidence in court of the existence of such giant human bones. The evidence came as a blow to the Smithsonian’s lawyers as the bone had been stolen from the Smithsonian by one of their high level curators in the mid 1930′s who had kept the bone all his life and which had admitted on his deathbed in writing of the undercover operations of the Smithsonian.

«It is a terrible thing that is being done to the American people» he wrote in the letter. «We are hiding the truth about the forefathers of humanity, our ancestors, the giants who roamed the earth as recalled in the Bible and ancient texts of the world».

The US Supreme Court has since forced the Smithsonian Institution to publicly release classified information about anything related to the “destruction of evidence pertaining to the mound builder culture” and to elements “relative to human skeletons of greater height than usual”, a ruling the AIAA is extremely enthused about.

«The public release of these documents will help archaeologists and historians to reevaluate current theories about human evolution and help us greater our understanding of the mound builder culture in America and around the world» explains AIAA director, Hans Guttenberg. «Finally, after over a century of lies, the truth about our giant ancestors shall be revealed to the world» he acknowledges, visibly satisfied by the court ruling.

The documents are scheduled to be released in 2015 and the operation will be coordinated by an independent scientific organization to assure political neutrality.
By Mike King

Once upon a time, the Evolutionists theorize, a “simple single-cell life form” spontaneously emerged out of a protein-rich “primordial soup” which, they theorize, had also existed. Through the process of binary fission, they theorize, single bacterial cells divided and regrouped into multi-cellular organisms.
Over billions of years, the family tree theoretically branched out to include all living things; from blades of grass, to birds, to maggots, to Marilyn Monroe. It’s amazing what a “simple” cell can theoretically do! We emphasize the word "theory" because not one of these amazing events has ever been actually observed, and nor can any be duplicated by experimentation.
Charles Darwin had proposed that the very first cell, the "universal common ancestor" of all life forms, could have formed "in some warm little pond." One of Darwin's supporters and colleagues, the German biologist (and proven forger) Ernst Haeckel, examined a mixture of mud removed from the sea-bed and claimed that it was a non-living substance that turned into a living one. This so-called "mud that came to life," is an indication of just how basic and how simple that living cells were thought to be by the founding fools and falsifiers of "The Theory of Evolution" TM (bow your head in solemn reverence as you say that).
   Shhh! Please don't tell anyone that Haeckel and I are frauds."

By invoking the "simplicity" of that original simple cell, Evolution TM is made to sound somewhat plausible to those who are easily-impressed by the diploma-decorated dickheads of egghead academia. The mispresentation of the original simple cell slowly “evolving” into more complex cells, and then into actual full-blown creatures over time, is the only way that the Evolutionists can even begin to sell their junk-science. So, let’s attack the theory at its very root, "the simple cell."

To make life easier for the Evolutionists, let us grant them a generous 'head-start' by not even asking how the Universe organized itself into a precision so mathematically perfect as to make a Rolex watch seem like a piece of innacurate junk; or where the “Primordial Soup” came from; or the Sun; or the amino acids and protein building blocks, or how the Earth and its chemical components all got here. Let’s focus only on the "simple" and spontaneous cell. The word cell comes from Latin, cella, meaning "small room", which is essentially what the cell is. The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all living organisms. Cells are the smallest form of life that can replicate independently.
Prokaryotic cells are said to be the earliest and “simplest” forms of bacterial life on Earth, as they have a self-sustaining process built into them. A prokaryotic cell has three regions, each with its own components. On the outside, flagella and pili project from the cell's surface. These structures are made of proteins that facilitate movement and communication between cells.

Enclosing the cell itself is the cell envelope – which consists of a cell wall covering a plasma membrane and a further covering layer called a capsule. The envelope gives rigidity to the cell and also serves as a protective filter and barrier against exterior forces. It also prevents the cell from expanding and bursting from environmental pressures.
Finally, inside the cell is the cytoplasm region that contains the complex, and we do mean, complex, coded genome (DNA). Prokaryotes can also carry extra-chromosomal DNA elements called plasmids, which encode antibiotic resistance genes. 
The "randomly formed" original "simple single cell" comes with its own genome; living computer chips packed with voluminous complex DNA coding which transmits during cell reproduction.

So you see, dear reader, this bacterial “simple cell” which accidentally, randomly, and “unintelligently” popped up out of the “soup” is not so "simple" after all. It's actually a multi-functional, multi-component, integrated, well-oiled and living machine that cellular biologists can spend an entire lifetime studying. If it were possible to shrink yourself to the size of an atom, enter the walls of the “simple single cell”, and gaze about this microscopic world-within-a-world like some awestruck tourist; you would marvel at the suddenly visible nanotechnology enveloping you. Only this bit of orchestrated technology actually lives, mends itself, protects itself, feeds itself, and, get this, reproduces itself!
Sorry Chuckie D., but integrated complexity and living nanotechnology does not spring up without intelligence behind it. Even the atoms, the tiniest particles of matter within the "simple" cell, demonstrate an ordered and integrated complexity of their own. Every atom is composed of a nucleus made of protons and neutrons. The nucleus is surrounded by a cloud of electrons. The electrons are bound to the atom by the electromagnetic force, and the protons and neutrons in the nucleus are bound to each other by the nuclear force -- all in the perfect mathematical proportion needed for stability. Nothing "simple" about nuclear physics, eh Chuckie?
Neither atoms nor cells are "simple!" Darwin's parent-less "simple" cell, which popped-up out of the non-observable "primordial soup," is actually more complex than an nuclear submarine or a space ship.

All "simple" life is complex and integrated; and cannot come from non-life. Intelligence cannot come from non-intelligence. Consciousness cannot come from non-consciousness. There is not a single bacteria cell on Planet Earth that doesn't have a "mother." And yet, the entire Theory of Evolution TM rests on the dogmatic belief that the first "simple" cell (and no other cell since) was somehow "immaculately conceived." Think about it. 
So then, if life forms can only come from other life forms; how did life originate? The only plausible explanation is that life, like time and like space, is an eternal phenomenon with no beginning and no end -- an idea way above our intellectual pay-grades to fully grasp, yet completely logical nonetheless. The universal creative life force is the parent of all. He is not an old man with a long white beard and tunic, but we may nonetheless logically refer to this awe-inspiring, eternal, intelligent creative life-force as "God."
The "simple cell" Darwinists and the Big Bangers need to go back to the drawing board and "check their math," as well as their logic. They won't though, because Godlessness and conceited arrogance walk hand-in-hand.
The mathematical "fingerprints" of an intelligent creative force are everywhere - snowflakes, galactic swirls, insect wings.
"I'll show them! I'll show them all!"


 By Mike King

William F. Martin says that the Last Universal Common Ancestor can be traced back to deep sea vents like this one off the Galápagos

 NY Times: Meet Luca, the Ancestor of All Living Things


One of the ironies of the crackpot theory of "Evolution" TM, is that the deceitful dogma itself is always "evolving." Since the  1860's inception of Darwinian doctrine, mad scientists have bickered endlessly about how "Evolution" TM actually played out, never questioning the basic foundational assumption that life spontaneously, with neither reason nor guidance, emerged from non-life in the first place.
From Darwin's Origin of the Specious Species to the present day, the case for "Evolution" TM must, by necessity, rely upon the classic logical fallacies that are so evident to philosophers; yet completely invisible to arrogant "theoretical scientists" emotionally attached to a dogma disguised as "science." This idiotic article by renown "science journalist" and author Nicholas Wade is no different.
Haz Mat suits and goggle on. Into the "Primordial Soup" (or is it "deep sea vents" now?) we "wade" (corny pun intended).
"Shhhh, Mr. Wade. You must never tell anyone about the Anti-New York Times."

Wade: A surprisingly specific genetic portrait of the ancestor of all living things has been generated by scientists who say that the likeness sheds considerable light on the mystery of how life first emerged on Earth.
Rebuttal: Notice how it is already assumed, without evidence, that "all living things" have a common ancestor. (fallacy of assumed truth)
Wade: This venerable ancestor was a single-cell, bacterium-like organism. But it has a grand name, or at least an acronym. It is known as Luca, the Last Universal Common Ancestor, and is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.
Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, before you school us dumb plebes about Luca's birthplace, please prove to us that Luca even existed; and then prove how Luca "evolved" into other species; which in turned "evolved" and "evolved" millions of times into all current life forms. And by "proof," we mean observational evidence -- the very definition of the Scientific Method.
Wade: The new finding sharpens the debate between those who believe life began in some extreme environment, such as in deep sea vents or the flanks of volcanoes, and others who favor more normal settings, such as the “warm little pond” proposed by Darwin.
Rebuttal: Whatever happened to the "Primordial Soup" TM theory?
You see, these erudite eggheads love to "debate" endlessly over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, without ever demonstrating that there were actually any angels dancing on the pin, at all!
"Luca! We have you surrounded. Come out of that sea vent with your flagella up."
They found little Luca in the deep sea, not the Primordial Soup as had once been theorized.

Wade: The nature of the earliest ancestor of all living things has long been uncertain because the three great domains of life (bacteria, plants, animals) seemed to have no common point of origin.

Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, has it ever occurred to you and your sci-fi cult that the reason why the various domains "seem to have no common point of origin" is because maybe, just maybe, they do not have a "common point of origin?"
Wade: Specialists have recently come to believe that the bacteria and archaea were the two earliest domains, with the eukaryotes emerging later. That opened the way for a group of evolutionary biologists, ... to try to discern the nature of the organism from which the domains emerged.
Translation: The high-priests of "Evolution" TM have just concocted a new theory to explain away the gaping holes in the previous theories.
Wade: Their starting point was the known protein-coding genes of bacteria and archaea. Some six million such genes have accumulated over the last 20 years in DNA databanks as scientists with the new decoding machines have deposited gene sequences from thousands of microbes.
Rebuttal: "DNA decoding machines" were used to sniff out little Luca --- (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)
Wade: Genes that do the same thing in a human and a mouse are generally related by common descent from an ancestral gene in the first mammal.
Rebuttal: The belief in the "common descent" between a human and a mouse is based on the fallacious prior assumption that we all came from Luca. It can just as easily be argued that DNA similarities between Mickey Mouse and Mickey Mantle are due to both of them having been designed by the same Creative Force which Tesla, Edison, Einstein (puke) all believed to exist. Hence, genetic similarities between the two Mickeys can be explained as cross-associations / basic templates of the same life-transmitting Creative Force which animates the universe.
Will the wonders of modern "science" ever cease?! The new Super Duper Decoding Machine not only links Mickey Mantle to the rodent family; it traced the birth of Luca to a deep sea vent!

Wade: By comparing their sequence of DNA letters, genes can be arranged in evolutionary family trees, a property that enabled Dr. Martin and his colleagues to assign the six million genes to a much smaller number of gene families.
Rebuttal:  One can arrange and categorize the various "families" of automobiles (trucks, sports cars, SUV's, luxury cars, go-carts etc) into a "tree" with many branches. Would their common component similarities therefore "prove" that Ferraris blindly "evolved" from school-buses?
Wade: Genes are adapted to an organism’s environment.
Rebuttal: Wrong again, Mr, Wade! The gene pool is not "adaptable."  What happens sometimes is that environmental changes will favor one existing genetic trait over another. Hence, those specimens without the trait are at a disadvantage while those with it will prosper and produce offspring. This might explain why one group of finches has a beak like this while another group of finches has a beak like that. But it damn sure cannot explain how Marylyn Monroe and a putrid maggot have the same 1 millionth grandmother!
Wade: So Dr. Martin hoped that by pinpointing the genes likely to have been present in Luca, he would also get a glimpse of where and how Luca lived. 
Rebuttal: "Likely to have been present in Luca" --- that's called conjecture, not science.
Wade: “I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” he said.
Rebuttal: We can't either.
Wade: The 355 genes pointed quite precisely to an organism that lived in the conditions found in deep sea vents, the gassy, metal-laden, intensely hot plumes caused by seawater interacting with magma erupting through the ocean floor.
Rebuttal: Cheese and crackers! We can't even find lost civilizations from a few thousand years ago and this academic ass-clown found little Luca in a deep sea vent?
Wade: Deep sea vents are surrounded by exotic life-forms and, with their extreme chemistry, have long seemed places where life might have originated.
Rebuttal: "Seemed" -- "might have." Save the speculative words for Star Trek or Jurassic Park, not the Science Section of a newspaper that so many people actually place trust in.
1- Mr. Spock of Star Trek says: "Evolution is not logical."
2-  Some evolutionists now believe that T-Rex "evolved" into a bird.

Wade: The 355 genes ascribable to Luca include some that metabolize hydrogen as a source of energy as well as a gene for an enzyme called reverse gyrase, found only in microbes that live at extremely high temperatures...

Rebuttal: So, some of the genes "ascribed to" (speculative) this ancestral organism called Luca (never proved to have existed), are found in microbes that live at high temperature. Therefore, Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse, Marilyn and the maggot do all have a common ancestor after all. Brilliant! (palm to face, deep sigh, shaking head)
Wade: The finding has “significantly advanced our understanding of what Luca did for a living,” James O. McInerney of the University of Manchester wrote in a commentary, and provides “a very intriguing insight into life four billion years ago.”
Rebuttal: How does one even begin to respond to this madness?

Wade: Dr. Martin... argues that Luca is very close to the origin of life itself. The organism is missing so many genes necessary for life that it must still have been relying on chemical components from its environment. Hence it was only “half alive,” he writes.

Rebuttal: In other words, the "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory has so many holes that it requires another band-aid theory to keep it viable  --- the "half alive" theory.
"It's half alive! It's half alive!"

Wade: The fact that Luca depended on hydrogen and metals favors a deep sea vent environment for the origin of life, Dr. Martin concludes, rather than the land environment posited in a leading rival theory proposed by the chemist John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge in England.

Rebuttal: Wade, with his "Luca-was-born-in-a-sea-vent" theory, is seeking to dethrone Sutherland and his "Luca-was-born-on-land" theory as the crackpot theorist of the year. This heated competition among psychos has always been a comical feature of "theoretical science."

Wade: Luca and the origin of life are “events separated by a vast distance of evolutionary innovation,” said Jack Szostak of Massachusetts General Hospital, who has studied how the first cell membranes might have evolved.

Rebuttal:  This crackpot believes in cellular life before Luca --- which means that there was another great great great grandma Luca long before "sea vent" Luca was born.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland too gave little credence to the argument that Luca might lie in some gray transition zone between nonlife and life just because it depended on its environment for some essential components. “It’s like saying I’m half alive because I depend on my local supermarket.”

Rebuttal: The lunatic Sutherland is dismissing the lunatic Martin. Just another day at the asylum of modern academia. Let the "academic debate" begin!
Wade: Dr. Sutherland and others have no quarrel with Luca’s being traced back to deep sea vents. But that does not mean life originated there, they say. Life could have originated anywhere and later been confined to a deep sea environment because of some catastrophic event like the Late Heavy Bombardment, which occurred 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago.

Rebuttal: The Late Heavy Bombardment? What the heck was that?

Wade: This was a rain of meteorites that crashed into Earth with such force that the oceans were boiled off into an incandescent mist.
Rebuttal: Mr. Wade, can you cite for us the observational evidence for this "rain of meteorites" and the "boiling off" of the oceans?
Wade: Life is so complex it seems to need many millions of years to evolve.
Rebuttal: Circular logic! It goes like this:
"Life takes 'million of years' to 'evolve'  --- We cannot observe this because it played out over 'millions of years.' "
Once upon a time, the meteors rained, the oceans boiled, and out popped little Luca -- with his millions of complex DNA codes, cell wall, cell membrane, cell plasma and flagella already intact.

Wade: Dr. Sutherland, working from basic principles of chemistry, has found that ultraviolet light from the sun is an essential energy source to get the right reactions underway, and therefore that land-based pools, not the ocean, are the most likely environment in which life began.
Sutherland: "Luca came from a land pool, you idiot!"
Martin: "Nonsense, fool! Luca came from a deep sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Land pool!"
Martin: "Sea vent!"
Sutherland: "Your momma wears combat boots!"
Martin: "Your momma so ugly, the strip club paid her to keep her clothes on!"
Your momma's so ugly, when she goes into a strip club, they pay her to keep her clothes on. - See more at:
Your momma's so ugly, when she goes into a strip club, they pay her to keep her clothes on. - See more at:
Wade: "We didn’t set out with a preferred scenario; we deduced the scenario from the chemistry,” Sutherland said, chiding Dr. Martin for not having done any chemical simulations to support the deep sea vent scenario.

Rebuttal: You tell him, Dr. Sutherland! The absence of chemical simulations means that Dr. Martin's theory has no merit.

Say, Dr. Sutherland, can you tell us about your "chemical simulations" that prove that life came from non-life, formed in a land pool and then evolved and evolved and evolved? Just sayin'.
Wade: Dr. Martin’s portrait of Luca “is all very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the actual origin of life,” Dr. Sutherland said.
Rebuttal:  So, Dr. Sutherland is saying that Dr. Martin is an even nuttier mad scientist than he is?  --- OK. We'll accept that.
Caption reads: "There goes Williams again ... trying to win support for his Little Bang theory."
Scientific endeavors not grounded on sound philosophical principles lead to insanity.
 Boobus Americanus 1: I read in the Science Section of New York Times today that a half alive organism nick-named Luca, as in Last Universal Common Ancestor, has been traced to deep sea vents.
Boobus Americanus 2: Amazing how a simple single cell in the ocean formed like that and gave birth to us all.

Editor: That's your book too now?
COMMENTAIRE : Nous vous l'avons toujours dit que l'homme noir est la seule vraie créature du VRAI Dieu sur la terre. Les autres descendent des Bene Ha Elohim et des Néphilims qu'on les appelle Neanderthal ou pas. Les généticiens occidentaux reconnaissent que la race blanche possède au moins 23% de gènes de l'homme de Néanderthal qui survit en l'homme blanc. Et ils savent aussi que Néanderthal comme Cro-Magnon étaient des cannibales. C'est un détail qui a un rapport avec le livre d'Hénoch qui évoque le cannibalisme des anges déchus et des Néphilims.
La génétique, c'est le livre de chair de notre histoire et de notre rapport au créateur. Les propriétés de l'ADN sont extraordinaiires. Savez-vous qu'exposé à la lumière, l'ADN se dédouble en créant une autre hélice presque virtuelle ? Les expériences sur les brins d'ADN n'ont pas encore tout révélé et ceux qui savent ne livrent pas tout. La génétique peut vous dire d'où viennent les prétendus Juifs actuels, par exemple. A ma connaissance, ils n'ont aucune goutte de sang avec Abraham. L'ADN ne ment pas. Il faut aussi savoir que 97% de l'ADN est inactif - comme s'il était bloqué. Il n'y a que 3 % du génome nécessaire à l'existence d'un être humain.
Sommes-nous tous sur la terre originaires de cette planète ? La réponse est non. Et tous les livres anciens sont unanimes là-dessus. Des races qui sont venues d'ailleurs se sont installées sur terre et ont livré des guerres terribles sur cette planète et ailleurs. Les récits anciens que l'on trouve dans le Mahabharata, dans la mythologie égyptienne ou grecque ou dans la Bible évoquent la même histoire d'extranéens sur cette planète devenue la planète-prison des anges déchus et des Néphilims après la destruction de la planète Krypton qui forme aujourd'hui la ceinture d'astéroïdes en Marset Jupiter. C'est dire la puissance des armes que possédaient ces peuples venus du ciel, des armes capables de détruire une planète entière  en la réduisant en débris ! Ceux qui lisent attentivement la Bible savent que le déluge n'avait pas détruit tous les géants puisque les Anakim vivaient encore sur terre après le déluge. Et ils n'étaient pas les seuls...
La Bible semble survoler des sujets essentiels comme pour mieux hypnotiser le lecteur afin qu'il ne se pose pas de questions mais nous qui pensons qu'il n'y a rien qui ne puisse être interrogé, n'avons pas de tabou. Notre croyance, la seule que nous ayons, c'est la quête de la vérité. Le reste a peu d'importance. C'est vrai qu'il y a des sujets graves dans le monde en ce moment, il se passe un génocide dans mon pays mais je ne peux ne pas évoquer cette question sur laquelle je fais des recherches depuis plus de vingt ans. Il faut bien lire Nombres 21 : 14 qui parle du livre des guerres de l'Eternel. D'accord, le livre est certainement perdu - même si Esdras, le rédacteur assumé de la Bible, l'avait lu mais l'idée de savoir que l'Eternel livrait des guerres m'amène à me poser des questions :
1) Contre qui guerroyait l'Eternel identifié comme Yavhé ? 
2) Quelles armes utilisaient les armées de l'Eternel ?
3) Pourquoi le Dieu créateur était-il obligé de livrer des guerres - alors qu'il lui aurait suffi de parler pour gagner ?
4) Qui était le bon ? Le méchant ?
5) Où se déroulaient ces guerres ?
6) Quelle était la nature de ces guerres : conquête ? Défense ? Agrandissement du territoire ? Luttes intestines ? Guerres pour le pouvoir planétaire, cosmique ?
7) Qui de l'Eternel ou de ses adversaires remporta la bataille finale ?
Vous direz que je suis trop curieux mais c'est ainsi que j'avance dans la connaissance des choses cachées. Je cherche et le hasard m'ouvre des portes. Les questions restent entières car il faut aller chercher les réponses.
Il y a dans la Bible et tous les livres sacrés anciens une histoire sérieuse que l'on camoufle derrière une prétendue spiritualité qui somme toute est précieuse (du fait que l'homme véritable se trouve dans une prison de chair et c'est lui le royaume de Dieu qui est au-dedans de nous) mais quelque chose de concret, de physique s'est produit sur la terre qui a modifié le cours naturel de son histoire. Il me tient à coeur de savoir ce qu'il en est. Le pouvoir hypnotique des pasteurs empêche au croyant de chercher la vérité par lui-même. Sachez que si vous ne vous penchez que sur une religion, vous n'en connaîtrez aucune puisque même votre Bible plonge ses racines dans les religions égyptienne, sumérienne, mazdanéenne voire hindoue. Ne lisez pas que la Bible car il y a des choses intéressantes à découvrir dans l'Avesta, dans le livre des morts (égyptien ou tibétain), le Mahabharata, la Bagavad-Gîta, le Coran, etc. Tous les textes anciens évoquent la même histoire d'un roi qui reviendra sur terre prendre la place qui lui est échue. Qu'importe qu'on l'appelle Maitreya, le Meshiah, le madhi, Ahura Mazda, etc ? Pour l'instant, la terre est livrée au courroux d'esprits méchants qui essaient de détruire la création de Dieu. Ceux qui contrôlent et manipulent la terre et les terriens essaient de s'échapper avant le retour d'un être céleste qui va les exposer et les condamner. Aussi, ils cherchent des exoplanètes où ils peuvent aller se réfugier.
Quand un professeur de collège blanc affirme que l'homme noir est le seul être 100% humain, ce n'est pas nouveau pour nous qui le savons. Le problème, c'est qu'il faut en tirer les déductions qui s'imposent. Si seul le Noir est à 100% humain, alors, il est aussi le seul à être créé à 100% à l'image du VRAI Créateur. Il n'est pas étonnant que ceux qui connaissent cette vérité essaient de le plonger dans l'ignorance. Le Noir est haï parce que ceux qui le haïssent savent qu'ils ne sont pas faits à l'image de Dieu. Plus malins, ils nous manipulent, nous poussant à nous battre, à nous entretuer quand ils ne nous tuent pas et c'est ici que se fait la jonction avec la politique et le cours des événements en Afrique.
Si les anges venus du ciel purent copuler avec les femmes la terre, c'est qu'ils avaient l'aspect humain - sans être de cette planète. En conclusion, les Néphilims, leurs enfants, avaient aussi l'aspect d'êtres humains. Or, eux se prétendent plus humains que ceux qui sont humains et qui étaient les seuls destinés à vivre sur cette planète. Ils travaillent à notre insu à nous modifier de l'intérieur pour qu'on ne ressemble plus à notre créateur. Cette guerre qui vise à modifier notre ADN se fait par la nourriture, les médicaments, les vaccins, le rayonnement électromagnétique, les vêtements, l'éducation, la culture, la fausse religion, etc.
Qu'on ne vous dise pas que les anges déchus sont les enfants ou les descendants de Seth (Genèse 6 : 2). C'est faux ! Ce n'est pas compatible avec ce qui est écrit dans le livre de Job. Les Bene Ha Elohim sont les fils des Elohim qui ont un chef. Et Satan est l'un d'eux (Job 1: 6). L'expression hébreue ‰„Œ€„‰„Œ€est bien la même dans le livre de la Genèse et dans le livre de Job. A moins de vouloir nous faire avaler que les fils de Seth sont des êtres célestes, il n'y aucune chance quand on lit l'hébreu de croire à une telle dissimulation. Si les Bene Ha Elohim ont pu forniquer en chair avec les filles de la terre, les Elohim ne peuvent qu'avoir l'aspect humain - sans être humains. C'est une conclusion qui s'impose. Et en le faisant, ils ont violé la sixième loi de Dieu qui interdit l'hybridisme (remplacé par l'adultère).
Si lorsque un Blanc vous dit que les seuls humains à 100% sont les Noirs, pourquoi ne le croirez-vous pas puisque vous avez tendance à ne pas croire quand c'est votre semblable de Katiopa qui vous le dit ? D'où vient l'homme de Neanderthal dont il parle  si le Noir seul est de cette planète ?
Cette planète qu'on détruit est la nôtre. C'est notre Eden, notre Paradis. Eux cherchent des exoplanètes pour s'enfuir un jour quand elle sera proche de la destruction. Peut-être même ont-ils à coeur de la détruire. Pensez-y.


Un professeur de collège blanc fait grand bruit sur le net. Il y a désormais une vidéo d’une de ses conférences universitaires qui circulent dans le monde.
La conférence de ce professeur d’université se penche sur le sujet des origines de l’humanité, les espèces de Néandertal et de leurs connexions (ou non-connexions) avec certains hommes modernes. Ses découvertes sont renversantes.
Le professeur dit qu’il utilise outils de recherche génétique de pointe pour dénicher ses nouvelles découvertes anthropologiques. Les réseaux sociaux sont tous en effervescence avec ce qu’il a à dire. Et ce qu’il a à dire sort pendant contexte socio-politiques intéressants autour de la race aux Etats-Unis ainsi que dans le monde entier.
Comme tout le monde le sait, les Noirs sont tués en masse dans les rues des Etats-Unis [et partout ailleurs dans le monde, NDLR] d’aujourd’hui, sans doute parce que leurs meurtriers blancs pensent qu’ils sont des sous-hommes. Cependant l’argument de ce professeur peut faire la lumière sur les raisons qui poussent ceux qui voient les Noirs comme des sous-hommes à parfois agir de manière sous-humaine envers ceux qu’ils choisissent à craindre.
Dans la vidéo, le professeur énonce ses preuves scientifiques réfutant que les membres de la race noire physique ont évolué à partir de toute origine animale ou de toute origine Néandertalienne.
Le professeur déclare de manière concise que ses conclusions montrent clairement que les Africains sont la seule race sur la Terre non-mélangée ou dérivé des Néandertaliens. Le professeur affirme carrément: “Ils (les Africains) sont les seuls vrais humains purs, homo-sapiens”. Il termine en disant: “Cela vous donne beaucoup à réfléchir”.


  1. That Ape Brain Dawkins has still not yet understood that we, HUMANS, do not need God to exist to have and respect GODLY VALUES. God may not exist as most of us imagine HIM, but GOD IS A REALITY FOR NEARLY HALF OF HUMANKIND, excluding Ape or Rat Dawkins, of course!

    The GODLESS State has replaced God and all Godly values, but Dawkins find nothing wrong with a STATE-GOD and STATE VALUES (Prince Charles', for example!) that allows no FREEDOM, where TRUTH is banned, where there is no JUSTICE, and where the only "values" or "ethics" they admit of are those concocted by the despotic rulers, the savage corporations, the monstrous Judaics, the Satanic Freemasons (Illuminati), and PERVERTS of all kinds and for usurious profits alone - and ultimately for the complete destruction of our Humnity, Nature, life and the world as we know it !


  2. Pr Dawkins, this is one of the abominations that are prevalent where Godly values are banned!
    Muhammad Ali Ben Marcus
    10 March 2015 ·
    Progrès : il baise et insémine sa propre mère !

    Un autre cas connu, celui d'un papa qui baise et insémine sa propre fille! Et, la fille dit qu'elle en est très fière! Les médias en sont ravis et jubilent! Quel progrès!
    Progrès : il insémine sa propre mère !

    Alléluia ! L’inceste commencerait-il enfin à être reconnu à sa juste valeur ? On avait déjà entendu ici et là d’honnêtes gens débattre en nous...


  3. While Pentagon Google, Judaic facebook, Dailymotion and Youtube are censoring our freedom of speech, the amount of pornographic material available for FREE on the Internet is staggering!
    This is the Satanic world that you like, Richard the Evolved Ape!