In this article, a man has caught a fish once thought to be extinct:

AKARTA, Indonesia - An Indonesian fisherman hooked a rare coelacanth, a species once thought as extinct as dinosaurs, and briefly kept the “living fossil” alive in a quarantined pool.

Justinus Lahama caught the four-foot, 110-pound fish early Saturday off Sulawesi island near Bunaken National Marine Park, which has some of the highest marine biodiversity in the world.

This not only supports the popular creationist view that man and dinosaurs lived together, but it also helps validate most of the claims of so-called “cryptozoologists.”

I wonder what else we haven’t found…a Sasquatch, perhaps? Quite probable it would seem.

The good news is that 51% of American’s still believe that God created humans in our present form. The bad news is that in 2004 that number was 55%.

The results were not much different between the answers to that question and those given when a specific timeline was included in the final alternative: God created human beings in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Americans most likely to believe in only evolution are liberals (36 percent), those who rarely or never attend religious services (25 percent), and those with a college degree or higher (24 percent).

There’s been a trend recently to keep our opinions to ourselves. We can no longer do this. Get out there and spread the word! If we can lose 4% in 3 years, that means it will only take another fifteen years before there are none of us left. Be very careful when engaging your enemy, these people have no God or moral values and will just as quickly kill you as speak to you. I am trained in the martial arts, so I have very little to fear—but many of you should approach your targets with caution.

Good luck.

I just noticed this article over at Dr. Kent Hovind’s site, written by John Hinton: Things that make evolutionists look stupid—Tailbones.

Most of Mr. Hinton’s commentary solidly exposes the logical discombobulation that Darwinians try to pass off on us as science. He poses difficult, but simple questions they can’t answer like, “Why don’t we still have tails when they’d be so useful?” and “Why does coccyxless Ashley Murry wear a diaper and regularly scat in her pants?”

Of course there’s no reasonable answer for either. But there’s more to the story. Yes, something that is missing from John’s argument is the sexual component of having a tail. I try to avoid discussing sex on this site, because I know it’s offensive. But on this important topic, I see no other option.

Please do not let your children read any further.

If the evolutionary rapscallions want us to believe that everything on our body happened for a reason AND that the quickest way to propagating a mutation is through a reproductive advantage—then there is no explanation for why these flexible appendages aren’t casting a shadow of decency over each of our buttockses right now!

Think of it this way: if I have a tail and my reproductive competitor does not…who do you think our eligible suitor will engage in intercourse with? Me, as usual. I have an extra appendage with which to satisfy my mate and therefore, by evolutionary definition, my seed will be planted and my tailless opponent will become extinct—or banished to the Galapagos.

For decades one of the best selling sexual aids has been a ring that’s worn by a man at the base of his genitals to prolong the sexual experience. I won’t tell you what it’s called, but a homonym for the term is Cock Ring…as in the playing field for a Rooster fight. Another item that has been a staple of any brothel for as long as I can remember is a device that I’ve taken to calling a Freedom Tickler (formerly French Tickler).

What do these perversions have to do with the length of your coccyx? Everything. Imagine how a monkey uses his tail to hang from a branch. You don’t need to let your mind wander too far to know how a tail could be used by prehistoric man during a romantic encounter to enhance his own performance. Should that technique fail, the cave dweller could relax on his back and let his built in Freedom Tickler wrap things up for him.

Besides the obvious performance advantages that a tail would afford our species, consider the convenience this appendage would offer in the form of restraint. The Peacock is forced to participate in an extravagant dance in order to lure his mate. Sometimes the female is impressed, sometimes it isn’t. What if the Peacock’s plume was hiding a monkey’s tail? The dance would switch from being a simple courtship ritual, to being a Trojan horse intended only to get the female within tail-striking distance.

The same benefits would be utilized by humans. If a man could deliver his tail with enough force to knock a female onto the ground, he could follow up with some type of restraining knot and then have his way. Should this fail, the tail could be used to fling semen at an escaping partner’s genitals, much in the same way primates are able to throw their feces at zoo patrons.

With this new information, I would encourage anyone to explain why modern man has no tail. Unfortunately for evolutionists, there is no rational explanation other than tails look stupid on people, and so the designer (God) made a decision that we shouldn’t have one.

Sometimes the easiest answer is the correct answer. It’s as simple as that.

I typically don’t find myself in agreement with Catholic popes on much of anything—especially in matters relating to science. I’ve found their positions typically to be far too accommodating of the fictions thrown together by the greedy scientific community. I’ve recognized for awhile that scientists tailor their research specifically for the purpose of appeasing the Jewishly-funded research-grant machine (by “Jewishly-funded”, I mean actually funded by the Jews, not poorly funded).

Scientists need money. The Jews control the money. So scientists publish whatever research they think will bring the money to their pockets. Usually their studies and research are complete fabrications, which is why I usually find myself in disagreement with most Catholic popes, as they seem to give scientists a free pass when it comes to the topic of science.

It looks like the winds of change, and Pope Benedict, are beginning to blow. While not going so far as to endorse creationism (or even it’s anemic cousin, Intelligent Design) the new Pope has wisely begun steps to turn his back on science over issues of evolution. In a German book published this week entitled, Schoepfung und Evolution, he was quoted as saying:

“[Science] tends to take away from us dimensions of reason that we still need.”

The Vatican’s support for the Germans doesn’t end with his backing of their progressive views on the failures of science either. The Vatican has shown support for the Germans again by threatening to boycott a Holocaust memorial ceremony in Israel.

Perhaps my plans to wage a papal smear campaign are somewhat premature, as it would appear that the views I share with the Catholics about birth control are not all we have in common.

Seems like more and more doctors and scientists are finding the Lord lately. I’ve often said that I wished God would make some adjustments and force some more high-profile belief into the world. In doing so, I reasoned that more people would learn the truth, and hopefully turn their back on science and logic. Perhaps God has been listening to my advice?

“I had to admit that the science I loved so much was powerless to answer questions such as “What is the meaning of life?” “Why am I here?” “Why does mathematics work, anyway?” “If the universe had a beginning, who created it?” “Why are the physical constants in the universe so finely tuned to allow the possibility of complex life forms?” “Why do humans have a moral sense?” “What happens after we die?”

Some of what he says is confusing, but you can read more about Dr. Francis Collins and his personal struggle with science in this CNN article.

The French are known primarily for two things: surrendering to Germany, and being Darwinian apologists.

We’ve been enjoying Creationism for awhile now. But as with any great thing, we couldn’t keep it to ourselves forever. It’s spreading like the plague. And just like the plague, creationism is “attacking” the French.

We’ve had some setbacks here in the U.S. due to the fact that our legal system has been weakened by activist Darwinian judges. I sincerely hope the French judges haven’t been corrupted by liberalism like ours have. It would be very nice to see creationism finally get the foothold it needs to rapidly expand from France, through Europe, and eventually the world—much like Hitler planned to do with the Nazis before the American’s ruined his plans too.

In a recent memorandum, Texas State Rep Ben Bridges educated his colleagues about some findings he’d discovered that linked the Jews to the great evolutionary myth. His research uncovered proof that evolution was nothing more than a half-witted sceme dreamed up in various Jewish texts throughout history.

Not surprisingly, rather than review his findings, the anti-truth lawmakers in Texas have demanded that he apologize. Which he did, like so many other cowards in the news recently.

The recent LED-billboard scare in Boston, that was perpetrated by Turner Broadcasting, has opened the door to a whole new brand of copycat terrorism that we can’t simply ignore. Effectively what The Cartoon Network has done is given terrorists looking to disguise their instruments of destruction complete design immunity.

Think about it this way, if the United States military announced that it was completely withdrawing its forces from a specific village in Afghanistan and would never return…where do you think all the terrorists would move? Same with this terroristic marketing hoax, suddenly all flashing LED devices are perfectly safe and nobody who finds one needs to be concerned that it could be a bomb. What do you think all the IEDs and WMDs are going to start looking like now? Probably Cartoon Network characters made of lights.

Don’t get me wrong, this won’t be easy for Al Qaeda. I can say from experience that wiring LEDs is probably one of the most complicated electronics jobs someone without a background in electrical engineering can take on. I recently spent several weekends trying to fix a broken LED flashlight, and I could not. I didn’t even have to start that project from scratch, I could see how it was done. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone to wire up several dozen of these LEDs and actually make them look like a cartoon character—doing all of this by candlelight in a cave! Regardless, our terrorist enemies are very resourceful and that’s why we need to take steps now to ensure that no LED, or device containing LEDs, can ever fall into the hands of someone who wishes harm on America or its citizens.

If I wanted to purchase an LED today, I could chose any of the numerous Radio Shacks in my area and purchase one for a few dollars without so much as a request for my ID card. I imagine it’s equally simple to make a purchase online, though I refuse to do the search as I’m sure the CIA is watching searches for LEDs very closely today and I really don’t need the hassle of being questioned for hours about why I was searching for these devices.

My idea is simple. If you want to buy a device that contains a light emitting diode, you need to supply your personal information and your plans for the component. A representative could then follow up and make sure that the light was used for it’s intended purpose. In cases where the use does not appear to match the provided information, further investigation could take place.

Beyond this, I would immediately require all LED manufacturers to place a tracking number on each component they make. This would allow us to track the LED to the purchaser when these bombs start showing up.

Hopefully we’re not too slow to fix this problem. The last thing we want is our own complacency to bring on another 9/11.

I’m not going to send my shipment of frankincense and mir until I learn more, but apparently a lizard has been born to a Virgin mother. This has only happened once before in history, and we all know who that was.

Evolutionists are so desperate to prove their tall tale that they are now suggesting that nature’s original beverage was somehow a poison to us until a few thousand years ago. In a study released by a college in Maryland, the suggestion has been made that people couldn’t digest milk until we domesticated cattle. They don’t explain how exactly they think we were able to domesticate a cow.

If my son (or, I suppose, daughter) were going to that school, I’d request that none of the tuition money I had paid go to research like this.