Skip to comments.Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post
Posted on 05/30/2009 8:50:32 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Texas School Board Chairman McLeroy Loses Leadership Post
by Christine Dao*
Texas State Representative Don McLeroy (R-College Station) narrowly lost his bid on May 28 to retain his position as chairman of the State Board of Education. The 19-11 vote, which ran strictly along party lines, failed the two-thirds majority required for the nomination to pass.
Opponents of McLeroy cited his creationist viewpoint as a leading factor in the vote, while defenders, such as Senator Steve Ogden (R-Bryan) stated, It is not fair to say that if you dont believe Darwins theory of evolution or accept the argument that global warming is occurring, that you should not be on the State Board of Education.
McLeroy had pushed to keep...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
"The advantages of a personal and political nature that might arise from compromising with atheistic organizations would not outweigh the consequences which would become apparent in the destruction of general moral basic values. The national Government regards the two Christian confessions as the weightiest factors for the maintenance of our nationality."
-A. Hitler, Speech to the Reichstag, March 23, 1933
Well, it reminds me of our politicians, too..., telling people certain things but operating on a different level, and even contrary to what they tell the people, until they get into power and then their *actions* tell the story.
At least the book written by Weikart, (From Darwin to Hitler) pretty much documents what was done and acted upon and the philosophy behind it. It permeated his regime, so there’s ample evidence of that. I don’t have any problem with the information that he’s presented, from the writings that I’ve read from him.
And also, I guess Chamberlain thought he “had something” too, with Hitler’s words, when he came back with a piece of paper from him and said it was “peace in our time”.
I’ll go by what he did and the philosophical underpinnings for that. Weikart makes that amply clear...
“Well, it reminds me of our politicians, too..., telling people certain things but operating on a different level, and even contrary to what they tell the people, until they get into power and then their *actions* tell the story.”
—But with Hitler, we don’t just have public statements, we have reams of material from stenographers of his meetings, and casual conversations, and he sounds every bit like a pre-Darwinian Creationist.
One of the big surprises I had when I read Hitlers book, and speeches, and other material recording his words, is that he DIDNT use Darwin. Not that Darwin or Darwinism says anything to justify any of Hitlers deeds but that never stopped Hitler before. So its actually a bit puzzling to me that Hitler didnt try to use Darwinism, even if Darwinism actually had nothing to do with his ideology. He twisted anything he could think of to try to justify his deeds so perhaps he never thought of Darwin or Darwinism? Or perhaps Darwin disgusted him, just as Oparin did? Considering what he thought of Oparin, and what he thought of us evolving from apes, thats probably the answer. But its interesting that he never mentioned Darwin even just in passing to deride him.
Or maybe I missed something? I might have to check out Weikart’s book to see if he found material I missed. But if he has, no one seems to be posting any of it online anywhere.
As for the actions of the Nazis, it was nothing new. For the Jews, the only thing new they were facing with the Nazis was their technology. The reason the Holocaust occurred when it did was because the technology was available to pull it off - not because of any change in culture.
You don’t have to invoke the name of someone who is part of a philosophy to engage in that philosophy. You see..., it’s like Weikhart was saying in that this wasn’t a “regression” to the past and being inhumane — but rather, it was a “progression” to the future and a better way of doing things and how the human race was to improve. That’s the philosophy that was engaged in by Hitler.
That’s definitely not the philosophy of the Christian church (even if Hitler wanted to invoke the “name” of the Christian church in Germany, but he didn’t abide by its philosophy, that’s for sure) — and so — it’s the philosophy of thought that comes out of Darwin’s “thought” (the philosophy that stems from that) and of where there is survival of the fittest, so we (as a society) help the fittest to advance and rid society of the “useless eaters” who are a drag on society. Hitler’s Germany had institutions to rid society of the “useless eaters” because they were a drag on society. I see some of the same type of thinking evident in today’s society, in the U.S., too.
The only thing that would or can hold us back, as a society, from engaging in that (as efficiently as Hitler tried to do it), is what comes from Christian thought and morality as evidenced by what the Bible teaches and tells us about God and how we are to be in relationship to Him and others around us.
And what comes out of Darwin’s “thinking” (the philosophy from that) and the evolutionary thought — there can be no morals of the same type as we have in Christian thinking, but rather, the individual must be submerged to the good of the whole and if someone is a drag on society, then it’s better for them to be eliminated (for the good of all, as that’s “progression” doncha know...). Hitler seems very well to exemplify that, for sure...
” it was a progression to the future and a better way of doing things and how the human race was to improve. Thats the philosophy that was engaged in by Hitler”
-You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People weren’t thinking of “better ways of doing things” until he came around? THAT’S a link between Darwin and Hitler?! Umm, I’m pretty sure that such thinking goes to the beginning of humanity. It’s why we don’t still live in caves.
“Thats definitely not the philosophy of the Christian church”
-I don’t think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to “find better ways of doing things” and to improve humanity. Or were the Christian abolitionists not really Christians?
And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists - Christian or not - are against it. So “Christian thought and morality” is not the “only thing holding us back” from such a thing. That’s a groundless and silly argument.
“And what comes out of Darwins thinking (the philosophy from that) and the evolutionary thought there can be no morals of the same type as we have in Christian thinking, but rather, the individual must be submerged to the good of the whole and if someone is a drag on society, then its better for them to be eliminated (for the good of all, as thats progression doncha know...). Hitler seems very well to exemplify that, for sure...”
—What sort of morals would be lacking without Christianity?
As for the rest of the paragraph - huh?
You mentioned “progression” a couple times, perhaps thinking that’s from Darwin? Actually, one of Darwin’s unique ideas is that life changes, but that there is no “progression”. That’s one of the differences between Darwinism and Lamarckism (and the Catastrophists):
Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a tendency to progression.
Instead, due to mutation and selection, life merely diversifies.
If this is the sort of stuff Weikhart writes about, then it might be back off my “to read” list. heh
And among those actions were eugenics and genocide - both of which preceded Darwin and Jesus. It is junk reasoning to pin the blame on either.
At least the book written by Weikart, (From Darwin to Hitler) pretty much documents what was done and acted upon and the philosophy behind it. It permeated his regime, so there's ample evidence of that. I don't have any problem with the information that he's presented, from the writings that I've read from him.
Nevertheless, the regime was presented to the public as pro-Christian, and they apparently accepted it.
You were saying — You actually think such thinking came from Darwin?! People werent thinking of better ways of doing things until he came around?
I’m sure that people throughout history, in their normal state of fallen humankind were always thinking of ways to have an advantage for themselves over others, and to eliminate what they considered to be a drag on themselves and/or society and to maximize their resources at the expense of others. That is true.
However, when you have that kind of thinking “countered” by the teaching from God (the God who has always existed and who revealed Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, at that certain point in time) — then it mitigates against and argues strongly against these types of people and they have resistance and they have no moral standing or ground to advance their agendas, other than being selfish or despotic or racist or other evil things like that.
But, when there has developed a philosophy that can be appealed to for some “reasoning” and “grounding” to justify these things, that some evil people have always wanted to do throughout history, this gives them that much more “moral impetus” and forcefulness to carry such ideas forward, especially if you “sell it” to the general population with these same ideas and philosophies. It takes away the “grounding” of the proper moral behaviors that we should have in society and instead, gives the opposite “moral standing” (from those philosophies) which work against that which is taught by the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
However as far as *better ways*— what is “better” to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution — is not a “better way” to the teachings and moral framework that comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Advancement through evil means is never “progress” from what is taught by God in His authoritative word.
So, while all may be seeking “better” — one kind of “better” is “better for evil”, while the other kind of better is “better for righteous and moral behavior”.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then you said — I dont think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to find better ways of doing things and to improve humanity.
As I said, this is *not* the philosophy of the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach any such philosophy that gains and/or progress should be made by evil means or procedures, such as (for one example) by eliminating “useless eaters” from society. It never has been the teaching of the Christian church and I can pretty well guarantee you that it never will (because we’ve got the authoritative Word of God for the “basis” of Christian church teachings).
But, there are all sorts of individuals who wish to ignore Christian teachings and do try to do so, while (at the same time) trying to maintain the “label” of “Christian” upon themselves. While they may succeed in keeping the label of “Christian” upon themselves (in the eyes of others in society), they’ll never actually *change* the teachings of the Christian Church, based on the Word of God, in these morals and/or in achieving any kind of “progress” through evil means.
As I said above, some try to achieve progress through evil means and achieve evil results, while others achieve progress through righteous means and morals that come from the authority of the Word of God and its teachings. And you’ll find that when it comes to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and is an outgrowth of his, the Christian Church’s teachings in its morals and conduct and how it plays out in society is *radically opposed* to that which comes out of those teachings stemming from Darwin and Evolution.
Thus, the “reasoning” and “basis” for improving humanity through evil means is what stemmed from the philosophy and teachings that grew out of Darwin and evolutionary thought. It’s a worldview that is opposed to the worldview that you will find taught by the Christian Church (even while both believe in “progress”).
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
You said — And as for eugenics, Darwin repeatedly argued against it, and the overwhelming majority of Darwinists
You’ll find that worldviews that have promoted these evil practices (as Weikart is talking about in his book in regards to Hitler’s regime) have not come about in their final form and full-blown when first introduced. They “grow” like anything else grows and gains a following. Darwin and the “evolutionary model” (of thought, and how things supposedly worked in the world) came out in a world which was totally against what would come to be the eventual outcome of that thought. It couldn’t be promoted or be known (at that time) — in the form that it logically developed into, from its beginnings. These people, in the beginning, were the product of their times, and they would have never allowed themselves to fully pursue the full logic of their positions, even if they were prompted to do so. You see this in plenty of other areas, where the ideas have a *foundation* laid down by a founder, which the “followers” then take up and expand according to the “logic” of the foundation as created by that founder. It’s not something that is not well understood. It happens all the time and it always proceeds from the *foundations* laid down by the principals or the founders, in the beginning. That’s what we have now, the outgrowth of that *foundation* as was laid down by those early proponents of this idea.
The “full flowering” of those ideas are coming to “fruition” today (in our lifetimes) and as we have seen in such regimes as Hitler exemplified.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And then — You mentioned progression a couple times, perhaps thinking thats from Darwin?
“Progression” would be getting better or better ways to do things, or improving things. That’s the getting better that you also said was natural for people to do. And I’ve made the comments about that up above.
But, as to whether the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution does teach that things do progress and get better in and of itself, in this kind of “philosophy” or worldview of how things are — you might find those (in that camp) who say that things (perhaps as you say) simply change and that it’s not “better” one way or the other, but simply changes. Thus, in that camp, morals have absolutely no relevance, as what “we” (as a people, today) are simply here, the way we are, with no specific purpose or reason to be better or worse than some other manifestation of “life” that might have appeared, if it wasn’t us that appeared here. There is that thought.
And then there does seem to be a camp, in that philosophy that says that things do, indeed, naturally “progress” to a better state and that we do represent a higher state of affairs in the “progress” in how evolution has naturally given us (in a way) the higher status among living things. But, then again, that was something that happened by chance, too, so it may not actually be better than some other way, either.
That’s not the worldview taught from the Christian Church which stems from the authority of the Word of God, in that there is a specific purpose for mankind and it was created for specific reasons and there is a definite plan for mankind that God has put into place.
The philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolutionary thought would deny this, without a doubt.
You said — And among those actions were eugenics and genocide - both of which preceded Darwin and Jesus. It is junk reasoning to pin the blame on either.
As I said in another post, the evils of eugenics and genocide were certainly something that a fallen mankind has carried out since the fall in the Garden of Eden. Mankind has engaged in sinful and evil and despicable actions since then, without a doubt.
But, these evil actions of the past were always judged and fought against, by those who did follow the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (God has always been there from the beginning and identified Himself in these terms at that future time, of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob).
However, with the advent of the philosophy that stems from and is an outgrowth of Darwin and evolutionary thought — these ideas have been given a “grounding” and a “reasoning” and a “legitimacy” to those who were always looking for some “rationale” other than their “evil natures”. And thus, this worldview does give them that rationale, at the present time.
The evil nature of these things was always there — but the “rationale” has arrived, being something supposedly “reasoned” and “natural” now. Now, those who are enamored with these evil things (as these types have always been) are now able to point out that it’s “the natural way of things” and this is how things actually work and should work. Evil has it’s grounding and reasoning now.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
And lastly you said — Nevertheless, the regime was presented to the public as pro-Christian, and they apparently accepted it.
It wouldn’t be the first time the public was fooled (as many are fooled today by this very same philosophy) and it won’t be the last time the public is fooled by evil.
And, in addition, many in the public are also enticed by advantages gained by evil means, and if such a philosophy gives them “cover” for engaging in evil — it’s certainly not past many in the public to gladly follow along in their basic evil desires, either.
But, without a doubt, it can be clearly said that there is no teaching in Christianity that would ever condone such things as came out of the Hitler regime and its evil deeds, even if the public went along (either out of gladly following it or fear or ignorance). Our *basis* for knowing that this philosophy is evil and despicable is the authoritative Word of God. That forms our basis for morality and the righteous way of going about things, and not the evil and despicable philosophies that promote these evils deeds that were carried on.
You said — What I was talking about were evolutionists who are scientists.
There are evolutionists who are scientists who say that there has to be a lot of civilizations out there in the universe because if we “evolved” here, the way evolution says, then it has to have happened elsewhere with great frequency, over the proposed billions of years that the universe has been around (according to them).
The very first thing that came to my mind, when I read what you said, was the “Drake Equation”...
This equation was devised by Dr. Frank Drake (now Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz) in 1960, in an attempt to estimate the number of extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way (our galaxy) with which we might come into contact. The main purpose of the equation is to allow scientists to quantify the uncertainty of the factors that determine the number of such extraterrestrial civilizations.
So, here we see a bunch of scientists saying that they’ve got an “equation” that shows how many “extra-terrestrial civilizations” there are out there.
Along with that, you’ve got a bunch of other scientists trying to establish communications with these extra-terrestrial civilizations that are out there (at least that they are sure are out there, or else they wouldn’t be spending the time looking for them or trying to communicate with them... LOL...)
As a further example of the science community believing in extra-terrestrial life, as a result of “evolution”... see SETI...
Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is the collective name for a number of activities to detect intelligent extraterrestrial life. The general approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science (see, e.g., claims in Skeptical Inquirer ). The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.
I would say that there probably is an large majority of the scientists convinced that there are extra-terrestrials out there, and think that trying to communicate with them is the thing to do, too. And they wouldn’t think that, unless, they believed that the theory of evolution led them to believe that such things were not only possible, but a virtual *certainty* (as I’ve heard some of them say).
And you can *also* get scientists who are *directly involved* in the field of UFOs (along with a lot of them who are not directly involved but believe that they are there) who will *also* say that these represents extra-terrestrials out there, and visiting here.
I can think of one right off the top of my head, Stanton Friedman...
Friedman graduated from the University of Chicago, earning a Bachelor of Science (1955) and Master of Science (1956) degree in nuclear physics.
Friedman was employed for 14 years as a nuclear physicist for such companies as General Electric, General Motors, Westinghouse, TRW Systems, Aerojet General Nucleonics, and McDonnell Douglas where he worked on advanced, classified programs on nuclear aircraft, fission and fusion rockets, and compact nuclear power plants for space applications . Since the 1980s, he has done related consultant work in the Radon-detection industry. Friedman’s professional affiliations have included the American Nuclear Society, the American Physical Society, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and AFTRA.
In 1970 Friedman departed full-time employment as a physicist to pursue the scientific investigation of UFOs. Since then, he has lectured at more than 600 colleges and 100 professional groups in 50 states, nine provinces, and 16 foreign countries. Additionally, he has worked as a consultant on the topic. He has published more than 80 UFO related papers and has appeared on many radio and television programs. He has also provided written testimony to Congressional hearings and appeared twice at the United Nations.
Friedman used to refer to himself as “The Flying Saucer Physicist” due to his degrees in nuclear physics and work on nuclear projects. Friedman has consistently favoured use of the term flying saucer in his work, saying “Flying saucers are, by definition, unidentified flying objects, but very few unidentified flying objects are flying saucers. I am interested in the latter, not the former”
It would appear that the entire scientific community is sold on extra-terrestrial life in the universe, and with communicating with that extra-terrestrial life, and also with *working directly* with the phenomenon of UFOs (those who make it their specialty of work in science) and finding the ones that *do represent* actual UFOs from other extra-terrestrial civilizations.
It would appear to me, that the theory of evolution works quite well in outer space, too... LOL...
Well that's OK, I don't know of any Christians that subscribe to: "In health class, lets teach all about the sin nature of disease and tell little Johnny his grandmother died from cancer because she wasnt right with the Lord and is probably roasting in Hell. Tell him that a natural and Biblical diet along with come coffee enemas and lots of prayer will save him from the same fate."
So what are we to take away from this, Ira? That whenever a conservative happens to be a creationist, you are happy when they lose their position of power?
Yup, pretty much. As well as linking liberal websites in silly efforts to prove he's not a liberal! :0
And wouldnt ya know it, your fellow travelers over at the Huffington Post are in full agreement with you too!
and algore, and hissy fit matthews, and herr olbermeister, and rachel madcow...the zero...
“One of my own”? I refer to NT scripture to identify “one of my own”...if someone’s off the rails like that I’d hardly consider them one of my own, no more so than perhaps you’d consider hissy fit matthews one of your own, to say nothing of your ability to control him.
You’d be one busy gal if you pointed out the leftist lunacy that goes on that subscribes to evolution!
That having been said, in the past I have pointed out that NT scripture is a good guide to discern true Christian faith/creation beliefs vs. flying purple spaghetti monster cults.
“Im sure that people throughout history, in their normal state of fallen humankind were always thinking of ways to have an advantage for themselves over others, and to eliminate what they considered to be a drag on themselves and/or society and to maximize their resources at the expense of others. That is true.”
-THAT’s what you meant by “finding better ways of doing things”? You gave no indication of that. I thought you meant it in the sense that someone buys a car to have a better way of getting around. So what has any of that got to do with Darwin or Darwinism?
“However as far as *better ways* what is better to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution is not a better way to the teachings and moral framework that comes from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. “
—Darwin and evolution give no indication at all of what is “better”, whatever that means. Darwinism says that due to differential reproductive success and random mutations in a population that certain characteristics of a population will change over time as it adapts to its environment. That’s no more an indication that we should “eliminate” anyone than Newton’s theory is an indication that I should knock my monitor to the floor because that’s somehow “better”.
“youll find that when it comes to the philosophy that stems from Darwin and is an outgrowth of his, the Christian Churchs teachings in its morals and conduct and how it plays out in society is *radically opposed* to that which comes out of those teachings stemming from Darwin and Evolution.”
— In what way is it different? You never actually explain.
“Youll find that worldviews that have promoted these evil practices (as Weikart is talking about in his book in regards to Hitlers regime) have not come about in their final form and full-blown when first introduced. They grow like anything else grows and gains a following. Darwin and the evolutionary model (of thought, and how things supposedly worked in the world) came out in a world which was totally against what would come to be the eventual outcome of that thought. It couldnt be promoted or be known (at that time) in the form that it logically developed into, from its beginnings. These people, in the beginning, were the product of their times, and they would have never allowed themselves to fully pursue the full logic of their positions...”
—Completely ad-hoc and completely wrong. Eugenics was very unpopular until around 1920 when it suddenly flourished. What happened? Mendelism became popular. So if you’re looking for someone to blame, don’t forget him.
Throughout history, if a source of a disease was found, wed try to stop it. If someone has a plague, his travel is restricted, or even quarantined. We do not allow him to spread the plague. With the discovery that many diseases are spread through genes, it seemed a logical step to stop the spread of the genes, and thus the disease. Darwinism was completely unnecessary for why and when eugenics became popular.
In fact many Darwinists were against eugenics, while many non-Darwinists were pro-eugenics. Early mendelians were among the biggest proponents of eugenics, and yet were typically not Darwinists.
Charles Davenport, for instance, is often cited as the most important advocate of eugenics, and his arguments were based on Mendelism: Formerly, when we believed that factors blend, a characteristic in the germ plasm of a single individual among thousands seemed not worth considering: it would soon be lost in the melting pot. But now we know that unit characters do not blend; that after a score of generations the given characteristic may still appear, unaffected by repeated unions . So the individual, as the bearer of a potentially immortal germ plasm with innumerable traits, becomes of the greatest interest.
Many church leaders and leading Creationists were also enthusiastic supportors of eugenics. For instance, a couple of the founders of the Creation Research Society were eugenicists, such as Tinkle and Marsh.
When Hitler argued for eugenics, he also didn’t cite Darwinism - but he did cite Sparta.
“And then you said I dont think there are too many Christians that would agree. Christians, too, strive to find better ways of doing things and to improve humanity.
As I said, this is *not* the philosophy of the Christian church. The Christian church does not teach any such philosophy that gains and/or progress should be made by evil means or procedures, such as (for one example) by eliminating useless eaters from society.”
—Who said anything about “evil means or procedures”? You’re being extremely vague and keep changing your arguments - it makes it very difficult to follow what you’re trying to say.
“But, as to whether the philosophy that stems from Darwin and evolution does teach that things do progress and get better in and of itself, in this kind of philosophy or worldview of how things are you might find those (in that camp) who say that things (perhaps as you say) simply change and that its not better one way or the other, but simply changes.”
— It looks like you are engaging in some really bizarre off-the-wall equivocation. The equivalent of using Newton’s theory for “why things fall” to explain the “fall of Rome”. Perhaps another reason why I’m having trouble following your posts.
Darwinism is not a theory about “things”. It’s a theory about how populations change due to the differential reproduction of members of those populations. I would have thought that when I mentioned that Darwin argued that there is no natural tendency to “progression” that I (and Darwin) were talking about biology, and not culture or technology or anything else. Just as Newton wasn’t talking about the rise and fall of civilizations.
Did you read Weikart’s book? Just curious, cause I went into the convo having thought that you read the book. If you did read it, is this the kind of stuff he actually talks about? I would have expected that a book called “From Darwin to Hitler” talked about Darwin and Hitler. :-)
You must have missed post #45
No but it's plain to see you missed #40.
Well obviously you did not review the links with post number 45 since it shows post number 40 to be incorrect in all of is assertions. There was a link to the handout that Mr. McElroy passed out with his dishonest quite mines, and then they show the quotes in their correct context.
...based on your liberal/establishment references.
And you still don't see it either.
A cult deprogrammer is in order!
It was a pdf doc. of the Hand out the Mr Mcleroy passed out and read into the public record.
And then the quote in the correct context.
Face it the man was caught with his hand in the cookie jar
But lets not let a silly little thing like facts get in the way
Liberal fascism is nothing to defend.
As I said before hooray for this man standing up to a cult.
What a brilliant system you libs have developed, anytime someone challenges the cult, just smear them as a liar, then with a straight face babble endless nonsense about peer review.
Too bad non-cultists see right through it though, huh?
Thanks for your integrity.
My relative did NOT
—fuzzy weather balloons
—. . . . etc. etc. yada yada yada
And Jesse Marcel Jr MD specialist Iraq battlefield MD; wouned in action . . . Patriot true hero
did not lie about what he saw whe 11 years old and his father wasn’t lying about it being part of a crashed saucer.
INDEED. Rather unsurprisingly to those of us who’ve had to work around the clueless idiots.
Not sure what point you’d like my honest response to.
Yes, I believe in Creation.
No, I don’t believe the earth is only ~6,000 years old.
Yes, I believe flying saucers/UFO’s really exist.
Yes, I believe we built our own fleet of them as my relative said.
Yes, I believe we ‘back engineered’ some such as my relative said.
Yes, I believe the evil critters taught the globalist black ops specialists how to build our own fleet as my relative essentially said.
Yes, I believe that most naysayers hereon are utterly low life clueless idiots with virtually no integrity to themselves nor to the facts.
Friedman is a solid man I’ve talked with several times.
I think he’s, however, a globalist . . . hoodwinked or employed by the powers that be into thinking that the critters are benign or beneficial . . .
He did shred the idiotic Drake equation quite humorously and handily.
The Drake equation is fantasy built on fantasy built on conjecture built on hogwash dressed up in a pseudo-science suit.
Most atheists I know also
reject long lists of facts;
reject a lot of basic facts about themselves, personally;
reject a lot of basic logic and reason about a lot of topics
are typically narrow, rigid, arrogant, brittle, clueless fools.