Skip to content
May 22, 2014 / itsnobody

How evolution and science support ethnic discrimination

I think I would understand evolution and natural selection much better than many PhD biology students, so I’ll explain exactly how evolution and natural selection support ethnic discrimination.

Liberal atheist biologists all unanimously agree that Martin Luther King Jr. was just another dumb delusional creationist reverend trying to spread creationist propaganda.

Creationists believe that all humans are equal before God, but liberal atheists know that it’s just the creationist delusion.

Liberal atheist Richard Lynn published his book “Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis” in March 2006, explaining how evolution supports racism.

Perhaps the most celebrated liberal atheist biologist of all time, James D. Watson made his statements on how evolution supports racism:

“There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so”

“inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”

“there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”

Liberal atheist biologist, James D. Watson, DNA co-discoverer, October 2007

Liberal atheist biologists think that certain ethnic groups are more aggressive more prone to crime, that some can run faster than others, and that certain ethnic groups are more intelligent than others, but can these claims be justified with science?

The answer is definitely YES.

Let’s look at these claims:

– Certain ethnic groups are more aggressive, more prone to crime

According to many studies decision making and aggression are connected to brain activity in the frontal lobes. Studies have shown that adults have more brain activity in their frontal lobes than teenagers do when processing emotions (Begley, S. February 28, 2000. “Getting Inside a Teen Brain.” Newsweek. Brownlee, S. August 9, 1999. “Inside the Teen Brain.” U.S.News. Giedd, J.N. et al. October 1999. “Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study.” Nature. Vol 2, No 10, pp. 861-863. Medical Data International. June 15, 1998. “Don’t Understand Teens? Researchers Try to Provide Insight.” Medical Industry Today.) leading to more rational decision making than teenagers .

But since different human ethnic groups  have radically different brain sizes (varying from around 1100 cc – 1500 cc) there’s no doubt that this same implication that applies to adults versus teenagers would also apply to different ethnic groups.

Justifiable with science: YES

– Certain ethnic groups can run faster than others

“Sternlight said that she was amazed that whether people ran fast or slow, uphill or downhill, everyone had about the same swing time at top speed. Those running 14 mph and those running 27 mph both took between 0.37 and 0.4 second to swing one leg in front of the other.

What limits top speed, then, is the minimum time you take to swing your leg into position for the next step,” Sternlight concludes. “That’s evidently a fundamental limit for all humans. What determines how fast you can run is how fast you’re going when you reach that limit.” (Faster top running speeds are achieved with greater ground forces not more rapid leg movements.
Weyand PG1, Sternlight DB, Bellizzi MJ, Wright S. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2000 Nov;89(5):1991-9.).

Since different ethnic groups have different physical traits, undoubtedly just as how some ethnic groups are genetically taller than others there will be certain ethnic groups that genetically can run faster (achieve greater ground forces).

Justifiable with science: YES

– Certain ethnic groups are more intelligent than others

According to multiple studies brain size and intelligence are directly linked (Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence, MA McDaniel – Intelligence, 2005 – Elsevier).

According to multiple studies different ethnic groups have different brain sizes varying from 1212 cc – 1518 cc (Cultural Correlates with Cranial Capacity. Courtland L. Smith, Kenneth L. Beals, 1990. American Anthropologist.).

So since it’s been proven that different ethnic groups have radically different brain sizes that must mean that they also have different intelligence levels (assuming that brain size and intelligence are linked).

We already know with 100% certainty that brain size varies greatly from ethnic group to ethnic group.

Justifiable with science: YES


Debunking Creationist Myths:

– Since human beings are genetically very close this means they must all be very similar in terms of intelligence

Since brain size has been proven to be controlled by few genes this makes this argument irrelevant.

What genetics shows us is that very small gene changes have big effects in reality, even though they are very small. This means what matters in reality is the significance of the gene changes and not the genetic distance.

There can be two individuals genetically very distant that have similar brain sizes and two other individuals genetically very close with radically different brain sizes since brain size is controlled by few genes.

“there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings, which are recognized as a single species” (Coppinger & Schneider, 1995)

The greyhound breed can run around 39-45 mph while the average dog breed can only run around 17 mph, even though dog breeds are genetically closer together than human ethnic groups are!

In short, being genetically close doesn’t indicate that intelligence would be similar since brain size is controlled by few genes.

– “Race” is a social construct

This one is actually true and not a myth.

It’s quite true that “race” is a social construct, just something made up, but the ethnic group isn’t a social construct, it really exists. The ethnic group is something objective that can be seen in genetics objectively.

But is saying that certain ethnic groups are more intelligent really that different from saying that certain “races” are more intelligent?

“Race” isn’t something scientific, but the ethnic group is, so evolution and natural selection would support ethnic discrimination.

– All human beings came from Africans therefore all different human ethnic groups have the same intelligence

Just another nonsensical argument.

Human beings coming from Africans, an ape-like ancestor, or bacteria doesn’t indicate that all human ethnic groups have the same intelligence levels as Africans, an ape-like ancestor, or bacteria.

This goes back to the genetic distance argument. What matters in reality is significance of the gene changes, not genetic distance or the ancestral root.


Eventually in time everyone decided to view Martin Luther King Jr. as just another delusional.

So what does this mean? Why does it matter?

There is no way to look at modern science and evolution in a non-discriminatory way, it’s impossible.

Just as how liberals believe that the government should take action based on what science tells us about global warming so too do liberal atheist biologists believe that the government should take action based on what science tells us about the ethnic groups.

In the future, once people finally accept science and evolution it seems that they decided to separate out ethnic groups or exterminate certain ethnic groups (I can’t tell which one happened, but it’s one or the other).

Human ethnic groups WILL be separated out by 2200 or earlier, all around the world!

The quicker people accept modern science and evolution the quicker this WILL occur.

That’s why it matters.

So enjoy these last days while you can!



Leave a Comment
  1. rednig / Oct 29 2016 5:45 pm

    Debating with a Young Earth Creationist is actually really easy, because they only have a few standard arguments, and haven’t come up with any new cogent ones for some time. These standard arguments have been published time and time again, and a practiced Young Earth Creationist can handily draw them like a six-gun at the drop of a hat. All of their arguments are silly in their wrongness and easily debunked, and if you’re prepared in advance, it’s easy to beat down any Young Earther with a quick verbal body slam. You’re not going to change their mind, since Young Earthers do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence; but you might help clear things up for an innocent bystander who overhears.

    So here are the standard arguments for a young Earth, and the standard rebuttals from the scientific consensus, starting with my favorite:

    Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. This is an easily digestible sound bite intended to show that evolution is just an unproven hypothesis, like any other, and thus should not be taught in schools as if it were fact. Actually, evolution is both a theory and a fact. A fact is something we observe in the world, and a theory is our best explanation for it. Stephen Jay Gould famously addressed this argument by pointing out that the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein’s improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin’s original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today’s theory is still incomplete but it’s a thousand times better than it was in Darwin’s day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.

    The next argument you’re likely to encounter states that Evolution is controversial; scientists disagree on its validity. Young Earth Creationists have latched onto the fact that evolutionary biologists still have competing theories to explain numerous minor aspects of evolution. Throwing out evolution for this reason would be like dismissing the use of tires on cars because there are competing tread designs. Despite the claim of widespread controversy, no significant number of scientists doubt either the fact of evolution or the validity of the theory as a whole. Young Earthers often publish lists of scientists whom they say reject evolution. These lists are probably true. In the United States, the majority of the general public are creationists of one flavor or another. But the scientific community has a very different opinion: Most surveys of scientists find that 95 to 98 percent accept evolution just as they do other aspects of the natural world.

    Young Earth Creationists also argue that Evolution is not falsifiable, therefore it’s not science. One of the fundamentals of any science is that it’s falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science. Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Young Earthers accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution’s status as a science.

    In fact, evolution could be very easily falsified. Evolutionary biologist JBS Haldane famously said that a fossilized rabbit from the Precambrian era would do it. Another way to falsify evolution would be to test any of the innumerable predictions it makes, and see if the observation doesn’t match what was predicted. Young Earthers are invited to go through all the predictions made in the evolutionary literature, and if they can genuinely find that not a single one is testable, then they’re right.

    The next argument to be prepared for is that Evolution is itself a religion. This argument has become increasingly popular in recent years as creationists have tried to bolster their own position by decorating it with scientific-sounding words like intelligent design. And as they try to convince us that their own position is science based, they correspondingly mock evolution by calling it a religion of those who worship Darwin as a prophet and accept its tenets on faith since there is no evidence supporting evolution. Clearly this is an argument that could only be persuasive to people who know little or nothing about the concept of evolution or Darwin’s role in its development. This argument is easily dismissed. A religion is the worship of a supernatural divine superbeing, and there is nothing anywhere in the theory of evolution that makes reference to such a being, and not a single living human considers himself a member of any “evolution church.”

    Young Earth Creationists also like to argue that Evolution cannot be observed. Part of what you need to do to validate a theory is to test it and observe the results. Although there are evolutionary phenomena that can be directly observed like dog breeding and lab experiments with fruit flies, most of what evolution explains has happened over millions of years and so, quite obviously, nobody was around to observe most of it. This is true, but it misstates what observation consists of. There’s a lot of observation in science where we have to use evidence of an event: certain chemical reactions, subatomic particle physics, theoretical physics; all of these disciplines involve experimentation and observation where the actual events can’t be witnessed. The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over.

    One of the most tiresome creationist arguments against evolution tries to claim that There is an absence of transitional fossils. If the ancestor of the modern horse Miohippus evolved from its predecessor Mesohippus, then surely there must be examples of transitional fossils that would show characteristics of both, or perhaps an intermediate stage. I use the horse example because the fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. If evolution is true, shouldn’t there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren’t, but you’re either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you’re claiming to be authoritative on. Kathleen Hunt of the University of Washington writes:

    A typical Miohippus was distinctly larger than a typical Mesohippus, with a slightly longer skull. The facial fossa was deeper and more expanded. In addition, the ankle joint had changed subtly. Miohippus also began to show a variable extra crest on its upper cheek teeth. In later horse species, this crest became a characteristic feature of the teeth. This is an excellent example of how new traits originate as variations in the ancestral population.

    The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils. But be aware that many species known only from the fossil record may be known by only one skeleton, often incomplete. The older fossil records are simply too sparse to expect any form of completeness, especially if you’re looking for complete transitions. It’s not going to happen. However, the theory of punctuated equilibrium predicts that in many cases there will be no transitional fossils, so in a lot of these cases, creationists are pointing to the absence of fossils that evolutionary theory predicts probably never existed.

    Here’s another Young Earth argument, and when I first heard it I said “What the heck are they talking about??” It’s that Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that there is no reverse entropy in any isolated system. The available energy in a closed system will stay the same or decrease over time, and the overall entropy of such a system can only increase or stay the same. This is an immutable physical law, and it’s true. Young Earth Creationists argue that this means a complex system, like a living organism, cannot form on its own, as that would be a decrease of entropy. Order from disorder, they argue, is physically impossible without divine intervention. This argument is easy to make if you oversimplify the law to the point of ignoring its principal qualification: that it only applies to a closed, isolated system. If you attempt to apply it to any system, such as a plant, animal, or deck of cards, you’ve just proven that photosynthesis, growth, and unshuffling are impossible too. Organisms are open systems (as was the proverbial primordial goo), since they exchange material and energy with their surroundings, and so the second law of thermodynamics is not relevant to them. Innumerable natural and artificial processes produce order from disorder in open systems using external energy and material.

    In a related vein, Young Earthers also argue that Evolution cannot create complex structures with irreducible complexity. This argument was made famous by Michael Behe, an evangelical biochemist, who coined the term irreducible complexity. Take a complex structure like an eyeball, and remove any part of it to simulate evolution in reverse, and it will no longer function. Thus, an eyeball cannot have evolved through natural selection, as a non-functioning structure would not be a genetic advantage. It seems like it makes sense at face value, but it’s based on a tremendously faulty concept. Evolution in reverse is not accurately simulated by taking a cleaver and hacking an eyeball in half. The animal kingdom is full of examples of simpler eye structures, all of which are functional, all of which are irreducibly complex, and all of which are susceptible to further refinement through evolution. For a dramatic visual example of how irreducible complexity can and does evolve through gradual refinement, and yet remain irreducibly complex, take a look at Lee Graham’s applet the Irreducible Complexity Evolver at

    Another effort to fight science using logic states that It’s too improbable for complex life forms to develop by chance. This is the old “747 in a junkyard” argument. How likely is it that a tornado would go through a junkyard, and by chance, happen to assemble a perfect 747? The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution’s bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there’s nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it’s inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have.

    You should also be prepared to hear that Evolution cannot create new information. Based on a misinterpretation of information theory, this argument states that the new information required to create a new species cannot suddenly spawn into existence spontaneously; new information can only come from an outside source, namely, an intelligent creator. This particular argument doesn’t go very far, since any genetic mutation or duplication can only be described as new information. Not all of that information is good. Most of it’s useless, called genetic drift, but once in a blue moon you get a piece that’s beneficial to the organism. New genetic information is observed in evolutionary processes every day.

    For a final blow from the logic department, be ready for the argument that Evolution does not explain some aspects of life or culture. This is an argument which is really just a logical fallacy: that since evolution does not explain everything, it is therefore entirely false. Evolutionary biologists are the first ones to stand up and say that there are still plenty of aspects of life we’re still learning about. That doesn’t make the things we’ve already learned wrong. It’s also increasingly common for Young Earthers to point to things that have nothing to do with the origin of life and speciation, like the Big Bang and the age of the earth, and argue that since the theory of evolution does not explain those things as well, it is therefore false. This is an even greater logical fallacy. Theories explain only those observed phenomena they are designed to explain. They are not intended to have anything to do with stuff they have nothing to do with.

    Those are the standard arguments. One thing I can’t easily prepare you for are the non-standard arguments you might get from a creationist who doesn’t know his business very well. For example, when evangelical actor Kirk Cameron and Christian author Ray Comfort were given a platform by ABC television in April 2007 to express their beliefs to the creators of the Blasphemy Challenge, they didn’t even know the standard arguments and just started throwing random stuff out left and right in a way that’s much harder to debate intelligently. Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy had a similar experience when debating moon hoax believer Joe Rogan, and he summed it up quite aptly by pointing out that it’s easy to know the science better than a believer does, but a believer can easily know the pseudoscience way better than you. Stick with what you know, and don’t allow an unpracticed creationist who’s all over the place to steer you off the track.

  2. Hector / Mar 1 2016 2:00 pm

    Argumentum ad consequentiam.
    I don’t see science here, it makes no sense for me at all to say that certain human ethnicities are more intelligent than others. All the time I see smart people of all ethnic groups, and the great difference between capacity is the stimulus of their background. I see a lot of asians child geniuses , I thought they were the smaller among ethnicities. The only difference there is the culture, the discipline.
    How stupid conclusions you make based in those correlations. Do you really think there’s just one factor like brain size affecting the nature of a man? How poor conclusion made by a blogger, just that, one crazy stupid more.

  3. a fisherman / Jul 24 2014 4:35 pm

    Judging by what I’ve read, you would never get anything published in a truly scientific journal because of your inability to doubt yourself and your unsupported conclusions.

    • itsnobody / Aug 25 2014 11:24 pm

      What foolish (atheistic) thing to say.

      I always question, criticize, and scrutinize everything including my own statements, you merely threw personal attacks at me demonstrating how modern science is just a joke about authority and incredulity.

      Whenever the fools (atheists) lose all they do in desperation is throw personal attacks.

      People have to realize the dangers that atheist pose to science, they’re trying to turn it into something about authority and incredulity alone as opposed to going by empirical observations and valid reasoning.

  4. itsnobody / Jul 20 2014 9:22 am

    But there’s one thing that doesn’t fit into Lynn’s claim of Africans being less intelligent, it’s Barbados.

    Barbados is 93% African with a very high HDI (Human Development Index).

    Cardinal Warde, a full professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at MIT is from Barbados.
    Cardinal Warde got his PhD. in physics at Yale University.

    Cardinal Warde has published more than 100 technical papers, invented many things like a unique display glasses, he currently works on artificial neurons (optical neural network algorithms), integrated spectropolarimetric imaging sensors, spatial light modulators, microdisplays, among many other things.

    But Barbados has an extremely extremely low population of less than 284,000….so what’s the explanation for this? A smart person from a population that low should be almost impossible if the average IQ is low…

    I don’t think you can have a low IQ if you’re a full professor of EE and Computer Science at MIT and got your PhD. in physics at Yale…Physics is known as one of the very hardest very toughest majors, you have to understand advanced mathematics and have to be able to apply it correctly to real-world problems.

    Full professors of technical fields at the top Universities and PhD. physics graduates are supposed to have among the highest IQs in the entire world!

    MIT was ranked as the #1 University in the entire world by QS World University Rankings!

    There’s also a YouTube video about him

    So what’s the atheists’ explanation for this considering Barbados’ extremely low population size of < 300,000?

  5. itsnobody / Jul 20 2014 7:44 am

    I don’t know why the fools (atheists) are trying to stop people from criticizing evolution as well, why shouldn’t it be subject to criticism and scrutiny like anything else?

    It’s simple the fools (atheists) don’t really care about science, evidence, or proof, they were just lying. What they care about is making fun of religion.

    There’s far more scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent than there is indicating that macro-evolution is true, do the fools (atheists) have an issue with people debating about if free-will exists? NO.

    There’s far more scientific evidence indicating that General Relativity is true than there is indicating that macro-evolution is true, do the fools (atheists) have an issue with people debating about if General Relativity is true? NO.

    We have direct repeatable experiments telling us that free-will is non-existent and that GR is true, but we don’t have direct repeatable experiments telling us that evolution as we know it occurred.

    So why shouldn’t evolution be open to debate if you believe that other things in science that are far far more concrete with far more scientific evidence than evolution should be open to debate?

    It’s because the fools (atheists) never really cared about evidence or proof or science, it was just a lie. What they care about is ridiculing religion.

    If evolution hadn’t been criticized by people because of religion it would probably still be subject to criticism and scrutiny like other things in science that are far more concrete are.

    Many of the criticisms Creationists bring up are actually valid, if agnostics or atheists brought up these same criticisms it would just be viewed as normal.

    From objectively evaluating science here’s what my conclusions are:
    – Free-will: Based on modern science free-will is non-existent and we can be nearly 100% certain of this
    – General Relativity: Based on modern science GR is a very accurate model, but uncertain if it’s true in all conditions (hasn’t been tested in many conditions)
    – Evolution: Based on modern science, different species are genetically related, but how their evolution occurred (the mechanisms) is still uncertain

    Based on my objective evaluation of evolution I think that the mechanisms modern biologists use to explain the change in species overtime isn’t enough to explain everything. This is quite obvious from looking at things from a strictly unbiased objective standpoint (like the Cambrian explosion). But the fools (atheists) aren’t really concerned with evidence or finding out what really happened, just with ridiculing religion.

    There’s something really wrong with modern day evolution (with the mechanisms currently known) as we know it.

    Because of things like the Cambrian explosion the scientific evidence supporting evolution as we know it (with the mechanisms currently known) is far weaker than the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent, that General Relativity is true, that Maxwell’s equations is accurate, and many many other things in science are true (that are still considered as open to debate).

    So why don’t atheists want evolution to be open to debate? It’s because they are biased, one-sided, and just care about making fun of religion.

    Do atheists have an issue with teaching abiogenesis without any evidence or proof? NO. There isn’t even a standard model for abiogenesis many models have already been falsified (like the popular Crystal Clay hypothesis falsified in 2007), not only that but abiogenesis as a whole is also unfalsifiable (even if you falsify every model it still wouldn’t be falsified), atheists have even tried to hoax abiogenesis claims on atheist blog sites lol, apparently it doesn’t matter because evidence and proof doesn’t really matter to the fools (atheists), it was just a lie.

    What atheists really care about is making fun of religion, they can give one fuck about science or evidence or proof.

    In all of the entire world there isn’t even ONE atheist that actually cares about science, evidence, and proof as atheists claim, lol.

    Atheists can care less about evidence or proof.

    In conclusion: Atheists NEVER have and NEVER will care about science, evidence, or proof, NEVER. It was just a lie. Atheists are frauds and liars, as I proved.

  6. itsnobody / Jul 16 2014 1:22 am

    There’s another thing I don’t understand about the fools.

    I don’t understand how the fools (atheists) can really have no issue with people who believe in free-will even though there’s much more scientific evidence contradicting the existence of free-will than there is supporting macro-evolution or global warming.

    Based on the scientific evidence available it would be more likely that macro-evolution is false than it would be that free-will exists.

    The scientific evidence clearly indicating that there is no free-will is very objective, clear, and concrete making the evidence supporting macro-evolution look weak.

    So if you really care about evidence and proof and the scientific evidence indicating that macro-evolution is true is enough to convince you then the scientific evidence indicating that free-will is non-existent must be MORE than enough to convince you.

    The only way you could think differently is you don’t really care about science, evidence, or proof.

    I already explained it in detail here

    It just goes to show you that atheists don’t really care about science, evidence, or proof and were just lying all along.

  7. Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 8:34 am

    You call people delusional, but thinking you are about to make a time machine proves you are delusional.

    • itsnobody / Jul 10 2014 8:54 pm

      So then which definition of delusion are you using?

      If you believe in evolution then you MUST believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was just another delusional.

      What about believing in time travel makes me delusional? Many physicists (if not most) believe that time travel is possible, there’s nothing in physics against it (even though modern day mainstream science is just junk).

      I guess there’s no harm in explaining how I would do it (time travel), as long as I don’t give away too many details.

      The method I would use to time travel is opening a portal to the timeline desired. You just walk through the portal and you’re there.

      This is in my opinion the easiest method, it’s pretty simple to do, the only issue is the power consumption, which also shouldn’t be that much of an issue (assuming funding isn’t an issue).

      It turns out that at each moment we enter into a new timeline, this occurs at each moment.

      Basically what I’ve discovered or re-discovered is that multiple timelines exist (similar to MWI but somewhat different) and that there’s another type of energy that determines what timeline you exist in (which seems to also be a timeline itself). Right now many MWI fans would say that what determines which timeline you exist in is just sheer chance, which of course is nonsense.

      To explain the multiple timeline thing just think of the QM double-slit experiment. Right now based on the common interpretation when you look through or observe the electron behaves like a particle and when you don’t observe or look through it behaves like a wave. This brings physicists to nonsense like “wave-particle duality”.

      But if you invoke multiple timelines you just say that when you observe you see the electron in your timeline and when you don’t observe you see the effects of electrons in other timelines. This eliminates the “wave-particle duality” junk and makes more sense.

      Everything makes sense with multiple timelines!

      By figuring out all the properties of this timeline type energy I would be able to really do literally anything (meaning all things within the realm of possibility), entering into whatever timeline I desire….

      At each moment we already enter into a different timeline, this occurs all the time constantly. But since we don’t shift into a radically different timeline it’s unnoticeable. In order to shift into a radically different timeline you need lots of power (energy).

      The first major application of this technology would be curing or well-treating all negative health conditions. It would also allow me to instantaneously travel to any location and do all types of things even beyond the imagination of science fiction authors!

      So I’m just going to focus my time and energy on gaining the funds necessary for the power that I need…

      It might sound like something out of science fiction, but it’s all true.

      I know that I can really prove it if I had the equipment and power that I need (based on the results I’ve gotten with less power).

  8. Anonymous / Jun 16 2014 5:11 pm

    Good article , go on ! GOD bless you.

    During the late European election last month , I heard some atheists who claimed that the Greeks should leave the European Union because science has proved that they’re in fact Christian Arabs. 

  9. itssomebody / May 22 2014 11:45 pm

    “In the future, once people finally accept science and evolution it seems that they decided to separate out ethnic groups or exterminate certain ethnic groups (I can’t tell which one happened, but it’s one or the other).

    Human ethnic groups WILL be separated out by 2200 or earlier, all around the world!

    The quicker people accept modern science and evolution the quicker this WILL occur.

    That’s why it matters.

    So enjoy these last days while you can!”

    Is this based on the informaiton you have received from your finished ‘time machine’?!

    How’s that going by the way? Done? Say ‘hi’ to Jesus for me!

    • itsnobody / May 27 2014 1:16 am

      You don’t really need a time machine to predict the future…but I’m 100% certain that that’s what would happen unless there was divine intervention or something like that.

      It seems to be what occurred in most timelines, kind of what’s inevitable.

      I don’t have enough power (watts) to complete my time machine or many of my other projects unfortunately….but hopefully eventually I will…the experiments I’ve done with low power (only around 2KW) have produced amazing results, I can’t wait to finish my physics model (just the parts needed for practical matters).

      You won’t believe the implications of what I’ve discovered….it’s shocking, maybe even more shocking than Maxwell’s Equations or General Relativity, or even Quantum Mechanics.

      • Stephanie Braddock / Jun 12 2014 9:37 pm

        Okay. You’re definitely a troll.

      • itsnobody / Jul 10 2014 9:05 pm

        That’s the problem with you people, every time someone criticizes atheistic arguments or beliefs you always interpret it as “trolling”.

        Why don’t you fools interpret anything else as “trolling”?

        In other words you’re a staunch anti-science fanatic against the concept of criticism and scrutiny. The reason why criticism and scrutiny use to be an important principle in science prior to the atheists taking over science is because if a statement really is true then it would stand up to any amount of criticism. That’s why criticism USE to be emphasized and encouraged.

        Now that the fools (atheists) have taken over science they’re strongly discouraging criticism and scrutiny based off nothing more than authority and incredulity.

        Interpreting any type of criticism as “trolling” is anti-science.

        Discouraging criticism and scrutiny throws us into darkness and away from the truth.

        That’s why on my blog site, unlike the fools (atheists) I allow full free speech and people to criticize, question, and scrutinize anything I say as much as I want, because I KNOW that I’m right.

        If you know what you’re saying is true why would you be so afraid of criticism and scrutiny like the atheists are?

        It’s because the atheists know that they’re wrong, in order to prevent people from finding out that they’re wrong they have to stop all criticism and scrutiny of their personal beliefs and arguments by interpreting any criticism as “trolling”.

        It’s a great anti-science/atheist strategy.

      • Anonymous / Jul 8 2014 8:32 am

        You think you would know evolution more than a PhD student, but this page shows complete ignorance.

      • itsnobody / Jul 10 2014 8:57 pm

        Well biology isn’t really that difficult of a subject…except for maybe some genetic algorithms most of it is pretty simple, at least it seems so to me.

        So I would say that I understand the concepts in biology (evolution, natural selection, etc…) better than most PhD. biology students.

        Maybe I should’ve majored in biology…I wonder how many papers I could publish if I focused my mind on it…

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: