Many of you will be aghast at the title.

"Too harsh," some would say. "You can't win evolutionists over to Biblical creationism, Christ, and His doctrines by being mean to people," others would add. Perhaps evolushit is a bit too forceful.

Once one gets past the shock wording, one might start to think. As Saint Paul reminds us:

I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (First Corinthians 4:14)

What do you wish? Shall I come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness? (First Corinthians 4:21)

I once taught a [thankfully-now-former] student who, when we got into the subject of origins, said that things around us "all of a sudden simply appeared by themselves."

That kid - full of impudent assidity - had potential intellectually, but was (like a lot of similar people) a goon in his obviously-ridiculous misassertion and illogical lack of knowledge.

I too believe that things at least started to come into existence all of a sudden......even (more or less) out of nowhere. Not only that, I believe that extremely-complex things came into existence already assembled completely, FULLY-functioning, and as ADULTS and not offspring (pertaining to lifeforms), being that the chicken clearly came before the egg.

But I have to qualify that "out of nowhere" phrase, because it is close to the absurdity of the phrase 'BY THEMSELVES' that the student used.

By themselves things came into being? Created objects intelligently designed themselves?

Ecclesiastes 11:3 states that "If the clouds are full of rain, they empty themselves on the earth; and if a tree falls to the south or to the north, in the place where the tree falls, there it will lie.

Both my wife and my sister have responded back to me: "Why, that's simply common sense."

I think they miss the point.

".....in the place where the tree falls, THERE IT WILL LIE."

So the Designer is the designed themselves? And the designed have a mind of their own to create themselves?

It's a great proof for evolution. And tomorrow the Sun will explode.

In all seriousness, Romans 9:20 brings us back to reality by informing us: "But who are you, a man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me thus?" [In case you the reader are mentally lacking, which I hope is not the case, what is molded is not the Molder].

Ah, it is clear that MANY things around us do NOT have a mind of their own, and thus did not create themselves "by themselves." They did NOT start themselves by themselves.

So what or who designed and/or created them?

Goofhead secular atheists and evolutionists might quickly declare that "they do not know." So then, NO one knows FOR SURE - by implication? [Moreover, they do not really want to FIND OUT nor discover any valid answer pertaining to that, but are self-"wise" in their stupid and despicable, self-imposed, "I-don't-know," NON-admirable ignorance]!

Always remember that there are more than a trillion ways to do things wrong, but actually ONLY ONE way to do things correctly. Try that postulate when typing in only one certain specific upper-case/lower-case alphanumeric BIOS passcode into your computer to get into it!

Getting back to the goofhead secular atheists and evolutionists, such are both ignorant and lying ashholes. Worthless cinderpiles.

Now, before the reader gets into a self-righteous tizzy about the asshhole language, let me speedily elaborate. [And re-assure the reader that because Colossians 4:6 says "Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer every one", I will not overdo it with the salty expletives].

The reason that most of the disbelievers CLAIM lack of [definitive] knowledge as to how it all started and who started it all, and therefore are both ignorant asshholes and lying asshholes, is that they are QUITE aware of the existence of the detailed-enough Scriptural account of origins in The Holy Bible (particularly in Genesis) and have deliberately and thoughtlessly cast it off for non-thinking dishonest irrationalizations and significantly-asshhole prejudicial presumptions.

Paul, in Romans 1:19-22, put it this way:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

In Second Peter 3:5, the apostle continues with:

They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water.....

Is such too intolerant, mean-spirited, judgmental (considing how DAMNABLY-judgmental, WICKEDLY-intolerant, and HYPOCRITICALLY-mean-spirited atheists, homogays, feminist-sexist, abortionist baby-murderers, and evolution mythologists are against the Religious Right)?

Recently, this webauthor saw a movie called Fracture. The plot consisted of a very shrewd man who became freed for lack of evidence - although charged with attempted murder in his shooting his wife (which wife thus became a vegetable in a coma and lay unconscious in a hospital bed). However, when that shrewd man ordered the hospital staff to pull the life-support plug off her (before intending to skip town), resulting in her prompt death, the young prosecuting attorney was then able to have hospital staff remove the bullet from her dead brain (which bullet they could not remove when she was yet alive), and a ballistics test on it became proof enough for the lawyer to initiate a NEW charge of first-degree murder against the shrewd man....which charge that man could not extricate himself from.

When non-human NON-LIVING objects are involved, "killing" such is NOT possible (semantically-speaking). But when NON-human LIVING LIFEFORMS are involved, "killing" is possible.....though never (semantically) describable as "execution" nor "murder."

However, when HUMAN lifeforms are killed, such killing is ALWAYS definable as either "execution" or "murder."

In the case of a person killing themself, either by taking action against themself by themself, or having someone else do it by the deceased-to-be's request or demand, such is generally considered murdering themself, and semantically termed: "SUICIDE." In contrast, SELF-EXECUTION occurs when a person (either with pre-meditation or impulsively) sacrifices his life for another, such as by falling on a grenade to save fellow soldiers, dying on a cross with the intention of resurrection shortly thereafter, etc.

When a person lets, requests, or demands someone else to kill them, and that other person actually does it, both the [passive] requester/demander and the [active] person are responsible for the killing, whether (legitimate) EXECUTION or instead (illegitimate) SUICIDE.

If a comatose person does not swallow, is blind, does not speak, is starting to cause astronomical medical-treatment expenses for the caregiver(s), and after a reasonable period of time in waiting there appears to be absolutely NO improvement, euthanasia is [reasonably] considered execution rather than murder.....being that no (non-Scriptural) malice is intended, as are cases of [truly] accidental homicide where - again - no malice nor hate was intended.

During World War II, I remember my dad recounting stories of how United States V--Mail Service military-commander censors - under authorization of The U.S. War Deparment - opened and edited first-class outgoing mail of American soldiers overseas for the sake of wartime-intelligence operations and national-security defense. Such was not needlessly harsh nor a violation against civil rights, because even though most soldiers at that time did not deliberately divulge info (which divulging would have jeopardized covert strategic and tactical American-military planning and missions), some GIs were perhaps, at times, naiively too frank about what should have been kept secret (under the circumstances)....had it not been for the military censors.

George Bush and Dick Cheney are now coming under courts-directed legal-shenanigans criticism and harassment for alleged similar actions from democrat political enemies and subversive anti-Bush/anti-Cheney anti-war activist groups and individuals. Keep in mind, however, that whereas the American military censors of WWII restricted mailed communications from U.S. overseas soldiers, the situation is far worse presently because of the diabolical internal foes residing within this very country - foes who richly deserve to have their cellphone and e-mail correspondences tapped and monitored, for starters! Not only were the genocidal nineteen jetliner hijackers moving around in both Florida and Massachusetts (that state then under the leadership of TFK and Barney Frank) before they brought down the Trade Towers in Schumer-and-Hillary's New York, but their anti-Bush/anti-Cheney sleeper-cell supporters were and yet are scattered all over America as insidious internal traitors deserving prompt deportation to their fellow anti-Bush/anti-Cheney/anti-Christians/antisemitic islamic torturers in the Middle East and elsewhere.

It is one thing for a Nixon to try to maintain political Watergate-investigative presidential power against wrong-on-the-issues TFK/Leahy/Boxer/Wellstone democrat types for the overall and ultimate good of the nation and all voters therein, but it is quite another to protect the moral minority of America, thus preventing Sodom-and-Gomorrah punishment from The LORD! Obviously, Bush and Cheney are so minded.

A sensible response by Bush (along with Cheney) is for the prez to claim Executive Privilege against TFK, Leahy, etc. making things difficult within the Senate Judiciary Committee with their non-cooperative strategy of destruction.....and thus for Bush to reject issued subpoenas about former presidential counsel, former political director, the Iraq war, Cheney's authority, firing of federal prosecutors, and the understandable anti-terrorist wiretapping program - well within the right, breadth, and scope of the people to be protected against internal and external harm. To do his job, Bush needs to be able to talk privately with his advisers without having those conversations picked apart by Congress. Even George Washington used Executive Privilege in refusing to release his War Department correspondence.