Dog films Bigfoot

This looks impressive, but it could be a guy in a ghillie suit. There is no info about how and where the photo was taken that can help us make a decision. From the computer guru-ette Kim Komando. She says–“Recently uploaded by YouTube channel Bigfoot Encounters, a dog with a GoPro camera discovered Bigfoot taking a casual stroll in the woods somewhere in Oregon. Did you spot Bigfoot? Or is it a guy in a suit? Could it be a hunter? Is it video trickery? What do you think?”



Upright walking bear

Sometimes mysteries DO have a natural explanation. Bears do sometimes walk upright for considerable distances, going by this example of one that has injured paws, and has learned to walk upright. He took a stroll through a New Jersey neighborhood to celebrate the 70th birthday of Smokey Bear a couple of years ago. This could account for some Bigfoot and Dogman sightings. Still, I don’t think those who make science into a god that can answer all questions can take much comfort in it.

When scientific explanations don’t work


The giant wall of Gornaya Shoria. It is disturbing to many that this wall gives the impression of being constructed by intelligent beings in the distant past. That simply cannot have happened. They must have a natural explanation so that they can sleep at night without being disturbed by the unknown.

The 99% myth


The idea of 99% similarity of DNA between chimps and humans seems to be a myth predicated on presupposing the similarity and looking for evidence of it.

In this article, the atheists, who confuse atheism with science, say that the methods used by creationists are wrong, but the problem is, how do they know their methods are right? They don’t. They just make assumptions, as all science must do. They are misusing science to give final answers, of which it is not capable, because the conclusion scientific investigation reaches is always tentative. Atheist Steven Novella admits as much– “For background, it is helpful to understand that there is no completely objective way to come up with one number that represents the percent similarity between the DNA of two species.” The atheists assume evolution, and use it as the basis for interpreting the data. This is the logical fallacy of “affirming the consequent.”

Bigfoot visits Hot Springs Village

Screen Shot 2016-08-16 at 2.33.24 PM

Sounds like Bigfoot is visiting in my neighborhood. From the August 16 police report:
(A local homeowner) “told police someone starting pounding on his door and his neighbor’s door at around 9:30 p.m. The complainant told police he repeatedly told the unknown person he was at the wrong residence, but received no response. The only noise he reportedly heard, other than pounding, was some type of grunting noise. The complainant said the pounding continued until police arrived. The officer could not locate anyone outside the residence.”

(Image credit MonsterQuest)

Refuting the atheist claim to science

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 7.52.47 AM

Atheists tell us that to be against atheism is to be against science. This is a common misconception in the modern world.
“The term ‘antiscience‘ refers to persons or organizations that promote their ideology over scientifically-verified evidence, usually either by denying said evidence and/or creating their own.”
The atheist authors of the article linked above, as well as the Wikipedia article, do not recognize that they are promoting an ideology, not science. The ideology is that the scientific method can give final information about reality. Yet, the authors realize that the conclusions of science must always be tentative, and subject to revision by more data and better paradigms. They assert that science is “…open to change if the position comes in conflict with observed fact.” But then they assert evolution and man-caused climate change as dogma, not subject to change by observed fact.
For them, science can create dogma that cannot be questiioned. This is what is really “antiscience.” It makes science into just another religion, and a really bad one at that. This destroys its ability to help us feed ourselves and build things, because we are locked into the atheistic dogmas of the past as religious dogma.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.05.59 AM


Now this is interesting– the atheists get most of this right, but do not recognize what they are promoting in evolution is pseudoscience, because of their insistence on denying that individuals can discover things missed by the community when it becomes dogmatic.

Screen Shot 2016-08-14 at 8.14.25 AM

“People holding antiscientific views do not accept that science is an objective method, or that it generates universal knowledge.” –From the first article

It should be clear to any thinking person that that which is thought to generate universal knowledge is one’s god. One naturally imposes that god, science, on other people by force, especially since it is not recognized as a religion, which should not be established by the government. This is the idolatry of the modern age, and it is as destructive of humanity as any ancient pagan worship of graven images.

Judges plan to outlaw climate change denial–
// “The most important thing the courts could do,” he said, was to hold a top-level “finding of fact”, to settle these “scientific disputes” once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed “science” again. Furthermore, he went on, once “the scientific evidence” thus has the force of binding international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make “the emissions reductions that are needed”, including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.//

Atheists are religious totalitarians who impose their god, which they mistake for science, on everyone.
“No idea or belief should be illegal; conversely, no idea should be so sacred that it legally justifies actions that would otherwise be illegal.” —Lawrence Krauss

What Krauss is saying here is that there is no morality, only law established by a society.  There was a time when societies outlawed cursing the God of the Bible. The idea of atheism would have been wrong by his standard, since it would justify an illegal action.  The conflict is not between religion and science; it is between two religions, one of which is not easily recognized as a religion.