Twitter Word-Fire with Atheistic Evolutionists

Easier, and more fun than shooting fish in a barrel of sea monkeys . . .

(That's just a figure of speech; a metaphor. Do not shoot bullets toward any living creature)

The following is a Twitter response sent recently to @skAnAtheist:

@skAnAtheist Do Atheists only disbelieve in the Gods they define or do they only disbelieve in what they think others have defined as "God"?

You replied:

@ArmonRaE technically they just have to have an absence of belief in a god.

That’s about as insightful as saying, Technically, non-atheists just have to have a belief in a god.

@ArmonRaE you’re asking about justifying the non existence of god, which most atheists wouldn’t assert. Asking me to clarify 'atheism' may help

Apparently you assume some atheists would assert whatever it was you were talking about.

I couldn’t care less about anyone trying to “justify the non-existence of god”—whatever that means. Neither does anyone need to “justify the existence of a god”—whatever that means. “Justify” can have numerous definitions. Humans should be able to “justify” their own behavior, but not necessarily their beliefs. Have fun believing whatever you want to believe.

Apparently I wrongly assumed you wanted to be an “answer man for atheism”—not just a judge of how others should phrase their questions. Didn’t realize I was reaching your limit of chastisements for trying to re-phrase the unclear impressions I get from atheistic “answer men”, like yourself, who can’t answer simple, logical, questions such as the one above, and the following:

Which came first—the “fertilized egg” (or its equivalent), or the two genetically compatible male and female progenitors of whatever is in the “fertilized egg”—which is always incredibly complex?

Which came first, the adult female, or the adult male of every specie that requires both to genetically reproduce a next generation and ensure its survival until it can survive by itself?

Which came first—the first laid chicken egg, or the “adult” female chicken that laid it?

(Yes, I know the old jokes that it was the male chicken that came first, and the female chicken got laid before the egg.) Lighten up. Don’t take every question I ask so seriously.

Nevertheless, you apparently can’t answer such questions or direct me to anything on the Internet that might. If that assumption is wrong—give it a try. I don’t accept scornful #lol’s as answers. I assume “lol” signifies that a Twitterer is experiencing a “lapse of lucidity” and can’t think of anything to say that isn’t “laughable”.

You too might enjoy exposing the pseudo-science of atheistic evolution by attempting to get one or more of its self-styled “spokesmen” to explain what “evolution” is. The first, primitive and not very “scientific” explanations of undirected “mutational evolution” have evolved, or transmogrified into ever-more complex configurations that few, if any “atheoevos”, can actually explain without reference to a “snow-storm” of technical scientific terminology that most of them cannot define or understand.

True science continues to reveal phenomenal discoveries about the imagination-defying, ingeniously designed, interconnected complexity of absolutely “everything” in the physical realm. Yet most atheistic evolutionists cannot even explain what the current “consensus” of the term “evolution” is, and try to bluff their way out of complete inability to answer simple “which came first” questions by hiding behind mountains of “scientific terms” and misinterpreted research in hope that it will fool somebody into agreeing that there is plausible evidence in there someplace.

Over 150 years ago, Darwin began producing the “atheistic evolution scriptures” that revealed his primitive, mostly faith-based “atheology” (no belief in a god required) which some supposed would replace stories of how Adam and Eve were created to become the first human parents, with stories about how Atoms and “Evo.” became the “omnipotent” eternal generators of all that exists and lives.

Of course, all of the silly stories ever concocted about how “dumb” Atoms, and “Evo Gone Wild” have been able to generate all that exists and lives, have never once begun to answer any question based on the formula—which came first, the existence of healthy, physiologically complete, genetically compatible male and female progenitors of virtually every physical specie—or the virtually identical “progeny” in each new generation that have to be engendered by mature progenitors, and usually protected, so that they can survive, mature, and become the progenitors of another virtually identical generation of progeny?

Until a single believer in “godless” (no god required) mutational evolution can provide a logical, scientific answer to the proverbial “chicken, or the egg” question; or the countless variations that can be asked, such as, Which came first—the dinosaur, or the egg?, then believers in “godless” mutational evolution are deceiving themselves with what they imagine to be “evidence” that every single physical creature that ever lived on Earth, essentially “self-created” every single unimaginably complex, self-identifying, and interdependent cell in its body—bodies which continually undergo logically progressive structural modifications every second of the life of each individual creature, and every second of the life of each of the creature’s individual living cells.

There is much, much more to this Presentation. Eventually it will become published in a book, under the title, Which Came First—the Dinosaur, or the Egg?

Richard Dawkins says he’s an ape; proud to be an African ape; and that a black bishop should be proud to be an African ape too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lCFnEgx0PI

Richard Dawkins says he's a “cultural Christian”. Says he loves singing “carols” along with everybody else, and doesn’t want to purge our society of our Christian history,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_9yczo_Nx8

If you think you're human, and don’t want anyone to think you’re an African ape while you sing Christmas carols along with everybody else, avoid Richard Dawkins.

What is Twitter Word-Fire?

Since I don’t want to add another BLOG (bloviation bog) to the Internet “blog-jam”, I recently opened a Twitter page— @ArmonRaE —as a way to advertise my two new books, TYING the KNOT, and Hidden Passages. Since it’s new, I currently have few “Followers”. But that doesn’t matter because most Twitter “followers” never actually follow anyone but themselves; even if they’ve clicked on thousands of “Follow” buttons hoping to get “followed” in return.

Keep in mind that Jesus had relatively few true followers who believed him after two and a half years of full-time ministry, which included the GOD-given power to attract followers with miracles that validated his authority to present new revelations.

Even Jesus’ own brothers and sisters thought he had gone crazy and tried to have him “put away” early in his ministry. They finally changed their minds.

Most people don’t want to have their personal accumulation of “beliefs” questioned. It’s easier to talk only to people who believe what you believe so you can enjoy the imagined superiority of your own unquestioned opinions. “Birds of a feather flock together” because they feel safe and secure “tweeting” the same “song” as everyone they know—without contradiction.

There’s usually nothing wrong with wanting to be around individuals of “like mind”. Enjoy any sense of “intellectual superiority” it provides. But you’ll never know for sure if your beliefs are intellectually superior if you never compare them to different view-points.

Regrettably, many who think they’ve compared their own beliefs on an issue with those who think differently, have only read “straw man” misrepresentations of what would supposedly be argued by someone who believes differently. Only when an individual has a live interchange of ideas with a person who thinks differently can he test the strength and validity of his own beliefs.

Such live interchanges of opposing opinion don’t have to be face-to-face, and it’s best if they aren’t. Especially if one is arguing “gun-control” with a person who believes that the use of deadly guns is appropriate for determining the outcome of a confrontation. How many husbands, and wives, have heard their spouse say, “I’m so mad at you, if I had a gun, I’d kill you.

Twitter offers advantages for those who enjoy arguing about what they believe with others who don’t. The 140 character text limit encourages “long-winded” writers such as myself to limit a response to the equivalent of a comedian’s “one liner”. And many philosophers have become well-known for philosophical “one liners” that are valuable bits of wisdom. King Solomon is an example.

But don’t expect to see much wisdom in Twitter exchanges. As I put it . . .

Can a “long-winded” author of theology become “short-winded” writing “tweets” that aren’t just a “passing of wind” like most of them?

Follow @ArmonRaE and find out.

To any of you who wonder how I might respond, or retort, if you were to challenge me with a viewpoint contrary to my own, I hereby provide a compilation of a little “word battle” I enjoyed recently with a few gun advocates who take themselves, and their imagined assailants too seriously.

My form of retorting is usually somewhat snarky and sarcastic—a style I call “serious satire” when applied to my Presentations on the Xrayzr Revelations website. Don’t take my comments too seriously. I don’t.

My “tweets” are green. What color would yours be?

Unfriendly Word-Fire

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

Allow me to define a word used in the constitution for the gun grabbers. Maybe you don't understand infringe, try...

It's gun hoarders who are "grabbing" all of the guns. A right to bear arms only applied to those in well regulated State militias.

Take a history lesson, my friend. We, the people, ARE the militia.

Does that mean all children, criminals, and politicians you fear will take your guns, have a right to accumulate arsenals?

Do we fear children? No, we protect them from criminals who will NOT obey any of your laws which are focused on the tool.

Do you fear childish adults who can't be trusted with guns? Aren't you mainly concerned about protecting your arsenal of "tools"?

you're absolutely right. I don't trust some adults with guns, but without mine, my children and I are defenseless

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

No better way to say I love you than by giving them the gift of defense. Arm your loved one with a chance to win a...

How do you million moms protect your children from all of the flying bullets during your panic-driven shoot-outs with intruders?

And what would you rather we do, urinate on ourselves? Hide in a closet until police arrived? Pray that a good guy gets there

You might do that anyway while you’re frantically unloading your gun toward the bad guy. Hiding is one of “natures” best defenses.

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

No better way to say I love you than by giving them the gift of defense. Arm your loved one with a chance to win a...

How do you million moms protect your children from all of the flying bullets during your panic-driven shoot-outs with intruders?

simple. We train, our bodies and our minds, and don't allow ourselves to panic. We're responsibly armed citizens, not criminals.

Are you serious? How many of you million moms have ever had that nonsense tested in a real situation? Trained police officers panic.

If they panic, should they give up their guns then? maybe hide in a closet?

Do you really think you should "protect" your SELF by unloading your gun while disregarding innocent bystanders?

oh come on, you're just being ridiculous.

Thank you. I'll take that as a compliment.

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

How do you million moms protect your children from all of the flying bullets during your panic-driven shoot-outs with intruders?

in a life/death situation, the only laws that can save you are the laws of physics.

Aren’t the “laws of physics” also threatening to kill YOU—if you’re referring to the mechanics of “shooting to kill”?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

How do you million moms protect your children from all of the flying bullets during your panic-driven shoot-outs with intruders?

Silly goose, if you’ve trained properly panic isn’t a factor in the equation only those that fear guns panic around them.

Hope you never have to learn how silly that theory is. Ask some “trained” officers who have gone crazy in “gun battles”.

difference is officers don’t spend half as much time at range as private citizens do.

Are there a lot of gun-toting criminals threatening people at the range?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

how do u get proficient at something without practice. People practice so they r better prepared under stress

Practicing non-threatening imaginary scenarios doesn’t ensure you can handle a really dangerous situation.

u can also train under simulated high stress scenarios.

How stressed do you get under such simulated scenarios? Imagine how stressed you’ll be in a real situation.

in an actual shooting situation armed citizens have 80% accuracy rate, police only 20%. Training counts

I don’t think your statistic accounts for unreported inaccurate firing. Are police completely untrained?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

is it the gun you have a problem with, or the mom part, which is it?

I have a problem with the proliferation of guns fueled by the paranoia of those who imagine imminent threats.

don’t like them, don’t get one.

That won’t keep others from getting them and spreading the propaganda that deadly weapons create safety.

You still haven’t answered the question, what should we do? waiting…

What should you do? Your answer is—buy more guns! How many can you use at one time? How many make you feel safe?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

How do you million moms protect your children from all of the flying bullets during your panic-driven shoot-outs with intruders?

with a gun, and in time? When seconds count, police are minutes away.

Your gun protects them from bullets flying out of your gun??? What protects them from bullets flying out of the bad guy's gun?

our members engage in live situational training. We've answered your questions, now try answering ours. What do YOU suggest we do

How does situational training simulate the panic you will have in a real situation?

how do u get proficient at something without practice. People practice so they r better prepared under stress

Practicing non-threatening imaginary scenarios doesn't ensure you can handle a really dangerous situation.

if u practice enough u build muscle memory so that your body responds as it's been trained.

Are you depending on "muscle memory" to save you. Consider training the "muscle" between your ears.

do u think u could comment without being insulting. I didn't insult your intelligence don't insult mine.

Do alternate viewpoints "insult" your intelligence? Maybe you've never seen any before.

Ignoring the criminal exists doesn't make you morally/intellectually superior or more capable either.

I don't ignore the existence of real criminals; but I don't let imagined criminals control my life.

neither do we. If you acknowledge existence how can you fault a mother for being prepared to defend herself?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

Your gun protects them from bullets flying out your gun??? What protects them from bullets flying out of the bad guy’s gun?

oh come on this one is easy! My bullets hitting him first is what protects me from the boogeyman

It’s easy to “shoot” imaginary boogey-men that are only in your head; but many gun owners shoot themselves in their own head.

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

50/50 for panic/victory or 100% for victim status? I'll take 50/50 thanks-I respect guns not fear them.

Do you respect or fear the imaginary gun of your imaginary "boogey-man"? — the only challenge you're likely to "win".

so criminals with guns are now imaginary "boogey-men"?

How many real criminals with guns have you encountered? How many have you just imagined are a threat?

no house fire either but I still prep my family-you’re out of arguments and reaching in the bowels now lol

One can escape from most house fires, but not from the wild firing of bullets.

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

Imaginary "boogey-men" aren't real. You don't need guns to protect yourself from imaginary "boogey-men".

you seem to believe evil can simply be outlawed. What would u suggest a woman do 2 fight off a strong male attacking with a knife?

Does she already have a loaded gun in her hand? Probably not. And the "strong male" won't let her get to it before he does.

women defend themselves all the time in such a scenario. + the mere possibility that a target might be armed is a deterrent.

The "strong male with the knife" wasn't deterred in your scenario. Since you made up the scenario, give her a suit of armor.

that scenario was yours, where no one has guns, thus, no deterrence. R u going to continue playing semantics or face the truth?

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

what do you do to defend yourself?

We should defend ourselves by taking reasonable precautions—not by amassing arsenals of deadly weapons.

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

what do you do to defend yourself?

Against what? I don't need any defense against imaginary armed attackers that never materialize.

oh, so now you want them imaginary? Enjoy living in your fake fantasy world.

Forget about imagined boogey-men trying to assault you. If a real person does, he's not a "boogey-man".

just remember, you're the one that brought up your imaginary boogey men, not me.

I don't waste time and money shooting at paper "boogey-man" targets who can't shoot back.

but when cops do it, it's called training, right? You're just grasping at straws here.

No. The cops are shooting at "straw men". That's why they sometimes panic and shoot unarmed "suspects".

•     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •     •

The Militia Act of 1792 was amended and superseded by the Militia Act of 1796 which is excerpted below.

Section 1

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free [non-slave] able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the Militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon [long club]; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the Militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Section 3

And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the Militia of the respective States shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each State shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the State; and when in the field, or in service in the State, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said Militia shall be officered by the respective States, as follows: To each division one major-general, with two aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four sergeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one sergeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

Section 4

And be it further enacted, That out of the Militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four sergeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the color and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

Section 5

And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the State and regimental colors by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.

Section 6

And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each State, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all public reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the Militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the State, returns of the Militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

Section 8

And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the Militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the Militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

Section 9

And be it further enacted That if any person whether officer or soldier, belonging to the Militia of any State, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense.

Note: Section 9 does not apply to self-appointed "minute militia-men" protecting only themselves and their arsenals at home against invasion by U.S. Military assault forces sent to take away their guns and ammo so the assault forces will have enough fire-power to invade, plunder, and pillage the next home-arsenal; and the next; and the next; until all the guns are gone—making the nation defenseless—if you don't count the U.S. Military assault forces which will have recently acquired possession of hundreds of millions of new semi-automatic assault rifles and other fancy guns that were supposed to repel the invading U.S. Military assault forces.

Section 10 [revised to read:]

And be it further enacted, That the act, intitled "Act to provide for calling forth the Militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed [and replaced by the Militia Act of 1796].

Even after considerable standardization of the design of what became known as a "rifle", rather than a "musket", or "firelock", the so-called "minute-men" who had maximum access to the "firing accoutrements", and the youngest eyes, could barely hit the "broad side of a barn", although they probably hit the "broad side" of many poor horses, cows, pigs, and other creatures that got in the way of their stray bullets.

The term "bullets" is derived from "ballettes", meaning "small balls"—not to be confused with "ballets" performed by men wearing leotards who dance on their toes; which could be confused with the minute-men wearing skin-tight pants who were always "on their toes" being careful not to get "hoisted" or blown-up by their own "petard", the small explosive charges used with their small balls and muskets.

The Militia musketeers were required by the Militia Act of 1796 to ensure that the length and bores of their muskets were appropriate for the size of their small balls, "boullettes", or "bullets".

"from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the Militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements . . .

When they weren't satisfied by just "shooting their wads", or their "ram-rods" when they forgot to remove one after using it to ram a wad down the barrel, they would sometimes get to have a "ball", but were often accused of wasting ammunition if they ever got a chance to practice, or "exercise" their shooting acumen. And their lack of skill continually demonstrated to the "King's troops" that they weren't to be feared because of their marksmanship—if anything else.

Mosquitoes ("muskeeters") are far deadlier with their perfectly designed capability of administering viral injections than Colonial musketeers ever hoped to be with their self-endangering, smoky, single-shot guns.

And the wasting of expensive ammunition by rarely hitting what is being shot at, or shooting blindly in the direction of distant gun-fire, supposedly from the enemy, has continued to be a problem for the armed forces of those nations throughout history who have claimed to be the greatest military power on Earth, and attempted to prove it by invading and attacking "under-developed" nations, with "inferior" defense capabilities which are then used by those protecting their homelands to "wear-down" the invaders over as many years as is necessary, while the invaders prove that their "great military power" is mostly bluff and blunder.