Jan 20 2015

Then why does she have armed security?…


sponsored links

Jan 20 2015

You can’t fix stupid…


Jan 20 2015

Evolution Tuesday: Why Evolutionists Are Afraid of Fruit Flies

Fruit_fly 500x200

The wife decided on a neat treat for the kids, she’d seen somewhere about cutting a peeled banana in half, poking an ice cream stick into it and freezing it. She bought a bunch of bananas and made some for the kids. The kids were excited, but it turns out that they generally would eat about half the banancicle, then toss the rest (if we were lucky they’d think of tossing it in the trash can) In the end the kids has a bit of fun, the wife was comforted that they weren’t eating junk food, and we got a house chock full of fruit flies, gorging themselves on half eaten bananas.

I got some of that hanging fly paper (much to my wife’s chagrin, who considered it embarrassing to have to use it) and that caught about half of them. I figured since they were there I’d use the fruit flies as part of the kids’ homeschool. I’d raised fruit flies in high school as part of a project, so I was familiar with the general set up. I took a small jelly jar, poked some holes in the top. Put some dry baby food we’d bought last year when we were trying to raise some baby birds. Put in the baby food with a little yeast (I’m not completely sure why the yeast was needed, but we did it that way in high school) added water, then set the bottle over night where the fruit flies were congregating. By morning I had quite a party going on in that jar. I slapped the lid on and left them there for a few hours. I was planning on keeping them there for a few days, but it occurred to me that if I was able to catch so many this way, I’d just found the secret to getting them out of the house. And sure enough, after I let this batch go outside, and repeated the process, the ranks of our little friends shrank to a tolerable few who were wondering where the bananas had all gone to.

For some reason I was thinking that it took 30 days for fruit flies to mature, so it surprised me when after only two days larvae appeared in the jar. By that time I’d released all the adults so we’d have only the adults who had hatched in the jar. By this afternoon several of the larvae had already become pupae. I looked up some info and this is a lot quicker than what the web sites were saying is the norm, but I took the opportunity to explain the process to my kids, as well as some fascinating implications.

People have been studying fruit flies for hundreds of years. They’ve drawn sketches, taken notes, bred, cross bred and manipulated in laboratories, as well as those in the wild. The average span from egg to egg is 7 days. So of you just take 200 years of human meddling in fruit fly genetics at 7 days per generation that’s just a hair more than 10,428 generations. Now since humans, on the average take about 25 years from birth to having a child, that would be a little more than 260,714 years. Which means that according to Evolutionists, those scientists observing fruit flies 200 years ago would have been looking at “Neanderthal” fruit flies. Funny thing is, the descriptions are pretty much exactly the same as we have today.

Another funny thing is the “mutations” Evolutionist bring out to show the “changes” that fruit flies are supposedly being improved with (I put changes in quotes, because there is no evidence that this is a change rather than traits already long existent within the gene pool of fruit flies). Normal fruit flies have red eyes, but they’ve found “mutations” that have white eyes and orange eyes. How orange or white eyes are supposed to help fruit flies they didn’t explain. Other mutations include, eyeless fruit flies, short winged fruit flies, curly winged fruit flies, yellow skinned fruit flies and black skinned fruit flies (somehow the NAACP hasn’t noticed that Evolutionists are calling Black skin a mutation, hmmm.). I guess if it’s convenient, variety is called “mutations”. These same “scientists” seem oblivious to the variety within domestic dog breeds. Not something generally referred to as “mutations”.

The lesson I left my kids with so far is how fruit fly live, reproduce and grow, as well as an observation of how sometimes things called “science” aren’t really very scientific at all. Science is learning how the world works by observing it, not deciding ahead of time and defining your terms inconsistently so your presuppositions can be rationalized.

Originally posted June 24th, 2002 at JackLewis.net.

It should be noted that in order to finally address and “explain” some tremendous flaws in the timeline of the religion of Evolution, it’s acolytes have changed their belief that humans descended from Neanderthals, to humans lived alongside Neanderthals and shared a common ancestor. All mention of Neanderthals now assume this new narrative, and virtually all previous sources that cited the teaching that Neanderthals were the ancestors of humans have been scrubbed, possibly by a government functionary named Winston Smith.

It should also be noted that contrary to my assertion in 2002 (in this article) that we have detailed studies of fruit flies going back 200 years, we actually have detailed studies going back 350 years. Theatre of Insects by Thomas Mofet was published in 1658, and gives detailed descriptions of numerous insects, including the fruit fly. That gives us 18,225 generations of fruit flies, putting Mofet’s fruit flies at the equivalent of humans 455,625 years ago, well beyond when Evolutionists have claimed humans still looked like humans.

Jan 20 2015

Incompetence or Insurrection?…


Jan 20 2015

John Hayward: Bloated Parasites…


Jan 20 2015

Should you see Taken 3?…

That’s in addition to it being a really sucky movie to begin with.

Jan 20 2015

Blind Critique


Jan 20 2015

Larry Elder: Civil Rights…


Jan 20 2015

Liberals and Metaphors


Jan 20 2015

Billion Dollar Government Security Device…


Jan 20 2015

We Annoy, Therefore We Exist!


Jan 20 2015

The Ugly Side of Europe…


Jan 20 2015

The Irony of America


Jan 19 2015



Jan 19 2015

Men Without Chests: How C.S. Lewis Predicted Charlie Hebdo Censorship

“It is an outrage that they should be commonly spoken of as Intellectuals. This gives them the chance to say that he who attacks them attacks Intelligence. It is not so. They are not distinguished from other men by an unusual skill in finding truth nor any virginal ardour to produce her…It is not excess of thought but defect of fertile and generous emotion that marks them out. Their heads are no bigger than the ordinary: it is the atrophy of the chest beneath that makes them seem so.” —C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”

Western news organizations are falling all over themselves to censor images that raise the ire of violent terrorists, and C.S. Lewis predicted their exact behavior over 70 years ago when he published “The Abolition of Man,” his treatise on how the corruption of language leads inevitably to the corruption of mind and soul. Which brings us to the pathetic and censorious response by so many media organizations to the Islamic terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical publication.

The main photo for this story is courtesy of the New York Daily News. (The absurd pixelation of the cartoon on the front page of the Charlie Hebdo paper was done by the New York Daily News, not by The Federalist.)

The New York Daily News’s censorship is emblematic of the response of far too many media organizations to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Peaceful people who are offended must deal with offense, but violent sociopaths who are thrown into murderous rages by cartoons? Their feelings must be respected. Welcome to 2015, where polite requests for decency are ignored, and childish temper tantrums are exalted as the means by which developmentally stunted neanderthals get whatever they want. Which brings us to CNN.

Following the Charlie Hebdo attack, CNN allegedly issued a memo to staff detailing what types of images and words would be banned by the network and what would be allowed:

Although we are not at this time showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons of the Prophet considered offensive by many Muslims, platforms are encouraged to verbally describe the cartoons in detail. This is key to understanding the nature of the attack on the magazine and the tension between free expression and respect for religion.

Video or stills of street protests showing Parisians holding up copies of the offensive cartoons, if shot wide, are also OK. Avoid close-ups of the cartoons that make them clearly legible.

It’s also OK to show most of the protest cartoons making the rounds online, though care should be taken to avoid examples that include within them detailed depictions of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Read the full article at The Federalist.com.

“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be fruitful.”—C.S. Lewis