All posts for the month October, 2014

How to find other people

By  – The Prepper Journal 

If you believe that you are Rambo and plan to survive whatever the world throws at you with nothing more than a big survival knife and some weapons you pull off unsuspecting sheriff deputies who were foolish enough to follow you when you bug out into the woods… this post might not be for you. For a lot of the rest of us out here, there is an understood advantage to forming a larger prepping group. You can see the value in a team of people who share the common goal of survival and you realize the wisdom in pooling your resources with a group of individuals who are able to mutually benefit each other in a time of crisis.

The only problem is how to find other preppers near you without possibly ruining any OPSEC you have tried to maintain or by looking desperate.

A reader name Mike sent the following question:

“I am from Truckee CA. and am trying to find other preppers in the Truckee area. The Truckee community seems like they are all using social networks ??? I do not use social networks (too easy to be tracked by the government) any suggestions how I can meet other preppers ???”

Mike mentions that he realizes that people in the prepping community are using social networks but he, like a lot of others doesn’t feel comfortable using them himself. I certainly don’t blame him but I think there are some ways that our modern communication options and yes social media too can be leveraged that would limit your exposure. I am fully aware that the NSA is spying on every single digital piece of our lives so if you aren’t comfortable using social media you should stay off.

Why would you want to meet others?

There is strength in numbers so a larger survival group is going to be able to do more. With more people you have more ideas, more resources, more skills, more intuition, perspective and wisdom. Of course all of those things could be negatives too if personalities clash or if you and your MAG (Mutual Assistance Group) disagrees and you are on the losing side of a particular issue. If there were a true disaster you could wind up in worse shape if your group turns on you so this is one aspect of prepping that deserves a lot of careful research and contemplation.

There are whole books devoted to forming the perfect survival group and how to conduct things like decision-making (who gets to make them) and the creation of rules, a governing body, types of social order and that is beyond the scope of this post. Any group can have good points and bad points, but I think the generally accepted belief is that you would be better off in a group of your choosing now before any crisis than on your own after a crisis. The trick is to choose wisely.

So where would you start in the process of looking for a place to find other preppers? There are some obvious ones and not so obvious ones but I would probably think that finding a responsible mature survival group would not be as simple as searching on a website.

Start out looking for a good friend, not a whole group.

There are websites out there that seem devoted to matching you up with a prepper group. Sites like and ITS Tactical have forums devoted to helping you find a prepping buddy where you can usually search by location. The idea is that you go into your state, announce yourself as looking for a group and then everyone will talk to you about their group, but I see a few problems with this approach. First, the ideal survival group would have to be on that forum you are looking through, want to talk to you, and on top of that, currently accepting other people. It is really hit or miss.

Never kiss on the first date

There are other websites out there like which I think are a little more promising. I have used to find a prepping group near me and attended meetings. This group was not what I would call a MAG, but they might grow into that over time. They have regular meetings and are a good place to meet like-minded people. Every time they met there were topics around prepping, survival or self-sufficiency covered. In a setting like this you aren’t really there to specifically join a survival group, but you are interested in what they are saying. I am sure that some of the people were actually involved together but the meetings were much more informal, anyone could join and was probably a way for them to vet members before they approached them. Actually, the Meet Up I attended could have had multiple separate groups and I wouldn’t have known.

For me personally in looking for a survival group I am not so much looking for a group, but looking for people. Each person in the group is going to be someone you trust with your life. If there is no trust, then why join anyone? This may be something that you need to build over time by talking to the most logical choices out there; your friends and family. If you don’t have some friends who share the same beliefs as you, why are you hanging around them?

In all my time as a prepper I don’t know that I have ever been completely transparent with anyone about my motivations, fears and plans for prepping besides my wife. Actually, you the audience of the Prepper Journal are probably more privy to my thoughts than even my wife so in some ways you are my Mutual Assistance Group. You wouldn’t be at my home if the grid went down, but I have learned so much from our readers and from the other blogs in the prepping community. This type of transparency that I discuss about myself and my plans is not what you want to bring to the table on your first meeting with others. I think most of you play your prepping close to the vest too which as it turns out could work in your favor. I know that in specific instances as the case allowed I was able to share information about me that could be common to prepping but it could also fall into other categories. I don’t wear my I’m a Prepper t-shirt into work or anything like that but I have talked to co-workers on occasion as current events brought various topics to the front of conversation.

If you have friends or acquaintances you don’t have to bring up the subject of prepping at all to get a feel generally for how they perceive the world. You could discuss the recent Ebola news to gauge the level of preparedness in some people. You could talk to others about the stock market. Still others you could simply talk about hunting or shooting sports, even gardening or canning. I think the easiest group to join is the one you are already in but maybe those around you don’t have any concept of a Survival Group. Maybe they are looking too?

Do you have friends who share hobbies with you? Do you have family members that you talk to about news and your plans in certain scenarios? This is where I would start because you have a built-in level of comfort with them even on the most basic level. It is certainly better than walking into a room full of strangers or telling everyone on a forum (that anyone can see) what your plans are and where you are living. If you do want to go down that road I would make the following suggestions.

  • If you are using the internet know that what you type could potentially be seen so I would be as anonymous as possible.
  • If you want to check out forums to see if there is anyone in your area that looks promising, sign up with a fake account. Make sure this fake account uses completely fictional information about yourself to include your name, birthday and location. Write it down so you don’t forget what your fake birthday is if they ask for that. Most just want an email and password.
  • Get a new email address that does not have your name in it. Sure, Google or anyone else could find out who you are but if your email is it is better than This will give you some anonymity from the people you are contacting, not the NSA.
  • Don’t offer up too much information. I would start generally asking questions, but non-invasive questions. You could say you are looking for a group and maybe what your skills are and the general location you live in. See how the conversation progresses. If nobody responds you don’t have your details out there for anyone to read.
  • If you do make contact it might make sense to take anything further offline as much as possible. You can trade emails and take your conversations off the forum. They are still electronic but not out there for everyone to see.
  • I would never use Facebook to look for a survival group. Just forget that.
  • Try and search for prepper groups or survival or self-reliant living. Go to some meetings and get to know people for a while to see if you have any affinity with anyone there. You might be surprised.
  • Take your time and look at this like dating, sorta. You want a great relationship to blossom here, not a one night stand that you regret. Good things take time and this is no exception. A survival group conveys a huge commitment and an even larger level of trust so make sure you know why you are making the decisions and that the people you are making them with are sound.
  • Try looking for friends first who share your same beliefs and values as opposed to a whole group. One die-hard buddy is worth more than a dozen people you don’t know.

Anyone else have any experience with a survival group they want to share?

This information has been made available by The Prepper Journal :How to Find Other Preppers In Your Area


Image source: Husqvarna

By Nicholas O – Off The Grid News 

A good fixed blade knife is an absolute must to have in your survival kit, but there’s one tool that is sometimes overlooked as a critical component. That tool is the hatchet.

The reason why some people don’t include a hatchet in their kit is because they believe a good fixed blade knife will fulfill all the roles a hatchet would be able to perform. That’s partially true, but having both a knife and a hatchet with you will make the going much, much easier.

If you’re still not convinced, there are five very specific reasons why a hatchet should be in your survival kit:

Continue reading at Off The Grid News: 5 Not-So-Obvious Survival Uses for a Hatchet

big pandemic bug out

By  – SurvivoPedia

The historical record is replete with accounts of people who successfully fled densely populated areas to escape pathogenic threats. It tells us that wealthy, poor and everyone in between has successfully executed this strategy as far back as we have records to tell the story.

This usually involves leaving the city to stay with relatives in the country, staying at a cabin, vacation property or second home in a more rural, less developed area.

“But, Cache, ya ‘cn only catch tha Ebola if yer ‘sposed ta infected bodily fluids!”

“Thanks, Johnny Sheeple! That thought never crossed my mind!”

What’s Next on Ebola?

Clearly, millions of dollars of our money has been spent to brainwash us with this message because bureaucrats fear that we will panic the moment we hear otherwise. Bureaucrats believe that we stupid, fearful and irrational because their paradigm of human nature is based in their paradigm of self.

Continue reading at SurvivoPedia: On The Edge Of Pandemic: 6 Rules For A Safe Bug Out


By  Ken Jorgustin – Modern Survival Blog

Remember the Bundy Ranch ordeal from back in April-2014?

As promised from Harry Reid who warned that this is not over, and that “something will happen”, well it appears that it is happening.

The federal government is mounting retaliations against the Bundy family and the Southern Nevada people with an official notice recently released by the Federal Registry, declaring that nearly 3 million acres of land in southern Nevada will be declared “ACEC” (read below) and placed off limits to nearly all human activity…

Continue reading at Modern Survival Blog: FEDS Retaliate Against The Bundy Ranch And Southern Nevada

By Michael Snyder – The American Dream

If you wanted to create a religion that almost everyone would love, how would you do it?  Perhaps you would change your faith to make it more appealing to a modern world that is changing at blinding speed.  Perhaps you would indicate that you are willing to become more “mainstream” on hot button issues such as gay rights.  Perhaps you would invite leaders of other religions from all over the planet to come visit you and make it clear that you consider all of those religions to be valid as well.  And all of that “unscientific stuff” about God creating the world in six days and creating mankind out of the dust of the Earth?  Well, all of that is just going to have to be thrown out.  If all of this sounds vaguely familiar to you, that is because this is exactly what Pope Francis has been doing.

To say that Pope Francis is an extremely popular pontiff would be a massive understatement.  He was showered with praise by media outlets all over the globe when he responded to a question about homosexuality with the following phrase: “Who am I to judge?”  From the earliest days of his papacy, he has been visited by an endless stream of religious dignitaries from all over the planet, and they all seem to have nothing but good things to say about him.  At this point, even most Muslims seem to love this Pope.  Earlier this year, Pope Francis took the unprecedented step of authorizing “Islamic prayers and readings from the Quran” at the Vatican for the first time ever.  This Pope seems to have a sixth sense for making the right public relations moves, and he appears to be destined to become one of the most loved popes ever.

This week, Pope Francis is making headlines all over the world for publicly embracing the Big Bang and the theory of evolution.  The following are some of the Pope’s statements that are popping up in newspapers worldwide

-“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so.”

-“The Big Bang, which today we hold to be the origin of the world, does not contradict the intervention of the divine creator but, rather, requires it.”

-“Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

And not only has the Catholic Church eagerly embraced these theories, there are also several prominent Catholic theologians that are now fully condemning the idea of a “young Earth” and the idea that God created man in a single day.

In fact, the head of the Vatican Observatory says that such notions are “almost blasphemous theology”

As previously reported, earlier this month, Guy Consolmagno with the Vatican Observatory told Australia’s Fairfax Media that young earth creation beliefs are nearly tantamount to blasphemy.

“It’s almost blasphemous theology,” Consolmagno alleged, according to the Brisbane Times. “It’s certainly not the tradition of Catholicism and never has been and it misunderstands what the Bible is and it misunderstands what science is.”


Consolmagno is quite an interesting character.  He also says that he is looking forward to the day when extraterrestrials show up, and he would be quite willing to baptize them if that is what they want…

Consolmagno, who is the keeper of the Pope’s meteorite collection, said he would be happy to baptize extraterrestrial creatures if they wanted the blessing. He added the presence of extraterrestrial life, “does not disprove the existence of God”.

Instead, the discovery of “tentacled horrors from the void” should lead people to question what being human means. “When we say human, human as compared to what?” he asked.

In a 2010 statement, Consolmagno said that “all entities – despite how many tentacles they might have – have a soul”.

In the booklet, Consolmagno tries also to answer important questions, such as, “Should the Church send out missionaries to alien planets?”, “What’s going to happen when the world ends?” and “Do extraterrestrials have their own version of Jesus?”

Right now, the Catholic Church is experiencing a resurgence in popularity.

The changes that this new Pope is making seem to be drawing in lots of new people.

But there is one group that Pope Francis does not seem to care for very much at all, and that is Christian fundamentalists.  It is not just creation that he disagrees with them about.  He disagrees with them about a whole host of issues, and he says that there is not any room for “fundamentalism” in Christianity…

Following his first visit to the Middle East as pope last month, the pontiff criticized fundamentalism in Christianity, Islam and Judaism as a form of violence.

“A fundamentalist group, even if it kills no one, even it strikes no one, is violent. The mental structure of fundamentalism is violence in the name of God.”

But precisely what is “fundamentalism”?

The following is the definition that you get when you do a Google search…

“a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.”

So does the Pope actually have a problem with people that believe that the Bible is literally true?

Perhaps someone should ask him that question.

And it is obvious that the Pope does not believe what the Bible literally says about how the world was created and about how humanity came to be.

Of course most people these days would agree with the Pope, but what does the science actually tell us?

When people debate these issues the attitude of most evolutionists seems to be that everybody else believes in Darwinism so you better believe it too.

But that doesn’t work for me.

As an attorney, I am always looking for the evidence.  And I have been searching for good evidence for the theory of evolution for decades.  But I haven’t been able to find any.  I have investigated these matters very carefully, and I have concluded that the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of those that argue that God created this world.

I have published these points before, but I think that they bear repeating.  The following facts are from my previous article entitled “44 Reasons Why Evolution Is Just A Fairy Tale For Adults“…

#1 If the theory of evolution was true, we should have discovered millions upon millions of transitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.

#2 When Charles Darwin came up with his theory, he admitted that no transitional forms had been found at that time, but he believed that huge numbers certainly existed and would eventually be discovered

“Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”

#3 Even some of the most famous evolutionists in the world acknowledge the complete absence of transitional fossils in the fossil record. For example, Dr. Colin Patterson, former senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History and author of “Evolution” once wrote the following

“I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them …. I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

#4 Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, once wrote the following about the lack of transitional forms…

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”

#5 Evolutionist Stephen M. Stanley of Johns Hopkins University has also commented on the stunning lack of transitional forms in the fossil record…

“In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

#6 If “evolution” was happening right now, there would be millions of creatures out there with partially developed features and organs.  But instead there are none.

#7 If the theory of evolution was true, we should not see a sudden explosion of fully formed complex life in the fossil record. Instead, that is precisely what we find.

#8 Paleontologist Mark Czarnecki, an evolutionist, once commented on the fact that complex life appears very suddenly in the fossil record…

“A major problem in proving the theory has been the fossil record; the imprints of vanished species preserved in the Earth’s geological formations. This record has never revealed traces of Darwin’s hypothetical intermediate variants – instead species appear and disappear abruptly, and this anomaly has fueled the creationist argument that each species was created by God.”

#9 The sudden appearance of complex life in the fossil record is so undeniable that even Richard Dawkins has been forced to admit it…

“It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Both schools of thought (Punctuationists and Gradualists) despise so-called scientific creationists equally, and both agree that the major gaps are real, that they are true imperfections in the fossil record. The only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation and both reject this alternative.”

#10 Nobody has ever observed macroevolution take place in the laboratory or in nature.  In other words, nobody has ever observed one kind of creature turn into another kind of creature.  The entire theory of evolution is based on blind faith.

#11 Evolutionist Jeffrey Schwartz, a professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, openly admits that “the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.

#12 Even evolutionist Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University has admitted that the record shows that species do not change. The following is how he put it during a lecture at Hobart & William Smith College

“Every paleontologist knows that most species don’t change. That’s bothersome….brings terrible distress. ….They may get a little bigger or bumpier but they remain the same species and that’s not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don’t change, its not evolution so you don’t talk about it.”

#13 Anyone that believes that the theory of evolution has “scientific origins” is fooling themselves.  It is actually a deeply pagan religious philosophy that can be traced back for thousands of years.

#14 Anything that we dig up that is supposedly more than 250,000 years old should have absolutely no radiocarbon in it whatsoever.  But instead, we find it in everything that we dig up – even dinosaur bones.  This is clear evidence that the “millions of years” theory is simply a bunch of nonsense

It’s long been known that radiocarbon (which should disappear in only a few tens of thousands of years at the most) keeps popping up reliably in samples (like coal, oil, gas, etc.) which are supposed to be ‘millions of years’ old. For instance, CMI has over the years commissioned and funded the radiocarbon testing of a number of wood samples from ‘old’ sites (e.g. with Jurassic fossils, inside Triassic sandstone, burnt by Tertiary basalt) and these were published (by then staff geologist Dr Andrew Snelling) in Creation magazine and Journal of Creation. In each case, with contamination eliminated, the result has been in the thousands of years, i.e. C-14 was present when it ‘shouldn’t have been’. These results encouraged the rest of the RATE team to investigate C-14 further, building on the literature reviews of creationist M.D. Dr Paul Giem.

In another very important paper presented at this year’s ICC, scientists from the RATE group summarized the pertinent facts and presented further experimental data. The bottom line is that virtually all biological specimens, no matter how ‘old’ they are supposed to be, show measurable C-14 levels. This effectively limits the age of all buried biota to less than (at most) 250,000 years.

#15 The odds of even a single sell “assembling itself” by chance are so low that they aren’t even worth talking about.  The following is an excerpt from Jonathan Gray’s book entitled “The Forbidden Secret“…

Even the simplest cell you can conceive of would require no less than 100,000 DNA base pairs and a minimum of about 10,000 amino acids, to form the essential protein chain. Not to mention the other things that would also be necessary for the first cell.

Bear in mind that every single base pair in the DNA chain has to have the same molecular orientation (“left-hand” or “right hand”)? As well as that, virtually all the amino acids must have the opposite orientation. And every one must be without error.

“Now,” explained Larry, “to randomly obtain those correct orientations, do you know your chances? It would be 1 chance in 2110,000, or 1 chance in 1033,113!

“To put it another way, if you attempted a trillion, trillion, trillion combinations every second for 15 billion years, the odds you would achieve all the correct orientations would still only be one chance in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion … and the trillions would continue 2755 times!

“It would be like winning more than 4700 state lotteries in a row with a single ticket purchased for each. In other words…impossible.”

#16 How did life learn to reproduce itself?  This is a question that evolutionists do not have an answer for.

#17 In 2007, fishermen caught a very rare creature known as a Coelacanth.  Evolutionists originally told us that this “living fossil” had gone extinct 70 million years ago.  It turns out that they were only off by 70 million years.

#18 According to evolutionists, the Ancient Greenling Damselfly last showed up in the fossil record about 300 million years ago.  But it still exists today.  So why hasn’t it evolved at all over that time frame?

#19 Darwinists believe that the human brain developed without the assistance of any designer.  This is so laughable it is amazing that there are any people out there that still believe this stuff.  The truth is that the human brain is amazingly complex.  The following is how a PBS documentary described the complexity of the human brain: “It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.”

#20 The following is how one evolutionist pessimistically assessed the lack of evidence for the evolution of humanity…

“Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.”

#21 Perhaps the most famous fossil in the history of the theory of evolution, “Piltdown Man”, turned out to be a giant hoax.

#22 If the neutron were not about 1.001 times the mass of the proton, all protons would have decayed into neutrons or all neutrons would have decayed into protons, and therefore life would not be possible. How can we account for this?

#23 If gravity was stronger or weaker by the slimmest of margins, then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would also make life impossible. How can we account for this?

#24 Why did evolutionist Dr. Lyall Watson make the following statement?…

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all of the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”

#25 Apes and humans are very different genetically.  As explains, “the human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the chimpanzee Y chromosome and the chromosome structures are not at all similar.”

#26 How can we explain the creation of new information that is required for one animal to turn into another animal?  No evolutionary process has ever been shown to be able to create new biological information.  One scientist described the incredible amount of new information that would be required to transform microbes into men this way

“The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).”

#27 Evolutionists would have us believe that there are nice, neat fossil layers with older fossils being found in the deepest layers and newer fossils being found in the newest layers.  This simply is not true at all

The fossil layers are not found in the ground in the nice neat clean order that evolutionists illustrate them to be in their textbooks. There is not one place on the surface of the earth where you may dig straight down and pass through the fossil layers in the order shown in the textbooks. The neat order of one layer upon another does not exist in nature. The fossil bearing layers are actually found out of order, upside down (backwards according to evolutionary theory), missing (from where evolutionists would expect them to be) or interlaced (“younger” and “older” layers found in repeating sequences). “Out of place” fossils are the rule and not the exception throughout the fossil record.

#28 Evolutionists believe that the ancestors of birds developed hollow bones over thousands of generations so that they would eventually be light enough to fly.  This makes absolutely no sense and is beyond ridiculous.

#29 If dinosaurs really are tens of millions of years old, why have scientists found dinosaur bones with soft tissue still in them?  The following is from an NBC News report about one of these discoveries…

For more than a century, the study of dinosaurs has been limited to fossilized bones. Now, researchers have recovered 70 million-year-old soft tissue, including what may be blood vessels and cells, from a Tyrannosaurus rex.

#30 Which evolved first: blood, the heart, or the blood vessels for the blood to travel through?

#31 Which evolved first: the mouth, the stomach, the digestive fluids, or the ability to poop?

#32 Which evolved first: the windpipe, the lungs, or the ability of the body to use oxygen?

#33 Which evolved first: the bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or the muscles to move the bones?

#34 In order for blood to clot, more than 20 complex steps need to successfully be completed. How in the world did that process possibly evolve?

#35 DNA is so incredibly complex that it is absolutely absurd to suggest that such a language system could have “evolved” all by itself by accident…

When it comes to storing massive amounts of information, nothing comes close to the efficiency of DNA. A single strand of DNA is thousands of times thinner than a strand of human hair. One pinhead of DNA could hold enough information to fill a stack of books stretching from the earth to the moon 500 times.

Although DNA is wound into tight coils, your cells can quickly access, copy, and translate the information stored in DNA. DNA even has a built-in proofreader and spell-checker that ensure precise copying. Only about one mistake slips through for every 10 billion nucleotides that are copied.

#36 Can you solve the following riddle by Perry Marshall?…

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.

2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.

3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

If you can provide an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally, you’ve toppled my proof. All you need is one.

#37 Evolutionists simply cannot explain why our planet is so perfectly suited to support life.

#38 Shells from living snails have been “carbon dated” to be 27,000 years old.

#39 If humans have been around for so long, where are all of the bones and all of the graves?  The following is an excerpt from an article by Don Batten

Evolutionists also claim there was a ‘Stone Age’ of about 100,000 years when between one million and 10 million people lived on Earth. Fossil evidence shows that people buried their dead, often with artefacts—cremation was not practised until relatively recent times (in evolutionary thinking). If there were just one million people alive during that time, with an average generation time of 25 years, they should have buried 4 billion bodies, and many artefacts. If there were 10 million people, it would mean 40 billion bodies buried in the earth. If the evolutionary timescale were correct, then we would expect the skeletons of the buried bodies to be largely still present after 100,000 years, because many ordinary bones claimed to be much older have been found. However, even if the bodies had disintegrated, lots of artefacts should still be found.

#40 Evolutionists claim that just because it looks like we were designed that does not mean that we actually were.  They often speak of the “illusion of design”, but that is kind of like saying that it is an “illusion” that a 747 airplane or an Apple iPhone were designed.  And of course the human body is far more complex that a 747 or an iPhone.

#41 If you want to be part of the “scientific community” today, you must accept the theory of evolution no matter how absurd it may seem to you.  Richard Lewontin of Harvard once made the following comment regarding this harsh reality…

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

#42 Time Magazine once made the following statement about the lack of evidence for the theory of evolution…

“Yet despite more than a century of digging, the fossil record remains maddeningly sparse. With so few clues, even a single bone that doesn’t fit into the picture can upset everything. Virtually every major discovery has put deep cracks in the conventional wisdom and forced scientists to concoct new theories, amid furious debate.”

#43 Malcolm Muggeridge, the world famous journalist and philosopher, once made the following statement about the absurdity of the theory of evolution…

“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”

#44 In order to believe the theory of evolution, you must have enough blind faith to believe that life just popped into existence from nonlife, and that such life just happened to have the ability to take in the nourishment it needed, to expel waste, and to reproduce itself, all the while having everything it needed to survive in the environment in which it suddenly found itself. Do you have that much blind faith?

So what do you believe?

This article first appeared at The American Dream: The Pope’s Embrace Of Evolution Brings Us One Step Closer To A One World Religion

About the author:

Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the University of Florida law school and he worked as an attorney in the heart of Washington D.C. for a number of years.

Today, Michael is best known for his work as the publisher of The Economic Collapse Blog and The American Dream

Read his new book The Beginning of the End

Thermal image of the upper Sciara del Fuoco of Stromboli

Stromboli (Eolian Islands, Italy): The effusive eruption that had started on 7 August seems to be ending: the lava flow emitted from the 650 m vent at the eastern base of the summit crater complex has decreased a lot two days ago and seems to have almost (or completely) stopped by today.
INGV Catania reports strong degassing from the summit vents.


View of the eruption this morning (Mila webcam)

Bardarbunga (Iceland): Huge lava effusion rates continue to characterize the ongoing eruption at the Holuhraun fissure. There are no signs of the eruption ending soon.
Earthquakes continue to be frequent under the central volcano’s caldera.

Shiveluch (Kamchatka): An ash plume was reported last evening rising to approx. 30,000 ft (9 km) altitude and extending east (Tokyo VAAC).
Most likely, a collapse of a part of the growing lava dome (or an explosion) occurred. In the first case, the ash plume is likely associated with a pyroclastic flow.


View of the lava flows moving into Pahoa village on the afternoon of 29 Oct (image: HVO)

Kilauea (Hawai’i): This afternoon, the lava flow continued to move through private property and gets ever closer to the Pahoa village road. The leading edge of the flow was advancing about 10 m (11 yd) per hour this afternoon. It flow moved downslope about 125 m (136 yd) over the past 24 hours. The flow width was less than about 50 meters (55 yards) at the leading edge.
As of 4:15 pm (29 Oct local time), the flow was about 185 m (202 yd) in a straight line distance from Pāhoa Village Road and about 775 meters (850 yd) in a straight-line distance from Highway 130.
The lava lobe south of the main flow and upslope of Apa`a Street was not active today, but there were a couple of small breakouts on the north side of the flow that have advanced 70 to 110 m (75 to 120 yd) in the past day. (HVO’s latest update)


Ash explosion from Popoatépetl yesterday afternoon

Popocatépetl (Central Mexico): Overall, the volcano’s activity has remained unchanged. Occasional explosions produce ash plumes that rise 1-2 km above the volcano. Yesterday, the volcano was a bit more active and had 5 such eruptions.
Overnight incandescence is observed comming from the central and east sector of the crater.

Santiaguito (Guatemala): The viscous lava flow on the eastern side continues to advance slowly. No significant explosive activity from the lava dome has been reported recently.

Fuego (Guatemala): The volcano’s activity has been stable over the past weeks. Mild to moderate strombolian explosions continue.
Yesterday, the observatory reported 11 weak explosions (ash plumes rising up to 500 m) and 13 moderate ones (ash plumes up to 800 m). The plumes drifted SE and W for approx. 10 km before dissipating. Light ash fall occurred in downwind areas.
The explosions at the summit produce incandescent avalanches on the upper slopes of the volcano.

More at Volcano Discovery: Volcanoes Today, 30 Oct 2014: Stromboli volcano, Popocatépetl, Bardarbunga, Kilauea, Santiaguito, Fuego, Shiveluch


The 2014-2015 winter season will brew a mix of conditions across Canada’s vast landscape. Atlantic Canada will bear the brunt as an abundance of storms will deliver heavy snow, rain and strong winds throughout the season. From the central Prairies to Ontario, winter will not be nearly as harsh as last season, which broke or tied numerous long-standing records. Western Canada will also dodge extreme lows this winter with a mild overall season in the forecast as arctic air is diverted elsewhere.

Drier and milder conditions relative to normal will likely dominate this winter across British Columbia, especially during January and February. The winter will be rather placid in the Vancouver area with below-normal snowfall.

Meanwhile, ski country in British Columbia should get off to a solid start in terms of snowfall before a drier pattern takes hold for the middle and later part of winter.

Despite the early September snowstorm, much of southern and western Alberta, including Calgary, will receive less snowfall than usual this winter with slightly above-normal temperatures. There are also indications that this upcoming winter could be windier than average.

Across the central Prairie region, including Regina and Saskatoon, average wintertime conditions can be expected with quick shots of dry, very cold air intermixed with periods of milder weather.

Invasions of arctic air will tend to be more directed into Manitoba and northwestern Ontario this winter, especially during January and February. Despite this, the low temperatures will be less severe than the previous season.

Last year, Thunder Bay, Ontario, felt its coldest winter in 35 years.

In January and February, the colder weather will suppress the main storm track too far south and east, resulting in below-normal snowfall from Winnipeg, Manitoba through Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.

This will be a relief for many after winter 2013-2014 delivered the snowiest season in 52 years to Winnipeg.

RELATED: Winter Weather Center
US Winter Forecast: Cold, Snow to Seize Northeast; Wintry Blasts to Slick South
Brett Anderson’s Canadian Weather Blog

Much of southern and eastern Ontario, including Windsor and the greater Toronto area, will end up averaging slightly colder than normal from January to February despite a mild start to the season. The cold will not be as harsh as last winter.

Snowfall will arrive sooner, however. There will be an increased opportunity for a couple of significant snowfall events during the month of December with an active storm track nearby.

However, less snowfall than usual is forecast for January and February, as the region generally remains a little too far north and west of the primary storm track.

There will be an abundance of storms this winter from southern Quebec through much of Atlantic Canada. This pattern will result in a higher probability for major snowfall events for locations such as Montreal and Quebec City on eastward toward Moncton, New Brunswick.

Skiers and snowmobilers across eastern Canada should expect fairly typical winter conditions overall, but with the reduced threat for sustained, bitter cold, especially from the eastern Great lakes to Quebec.

Despite the stormy outlook, areas from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland, including Halifax and St. John’s, will escape the worst of winter’s cold thanks to a combination of increased cloud cover, prevailing winds and above-normal surface water temperatures.

Even though temperatures will be milder this winter, seasonal snowfall will still end up above average over much of the region due to the higher potential for large storms that produce heavy, wet snow.

For a more detailed forecast and additional maps, visit Brett Anderson’s Canadian Weather blog.

More at AccuWeather: Winter’s Fiercest Weather Aims for Atlantic Canada; West to Remain Dry