Thursday, August 29, 2013

Otisburg has a suburb

We must accept evolution based on this?

I got a friend of mind, patrols the city streets here as a cop.  Before that he did a number of years in the Air Force.  He occasionally has to go before a judge because of some idiot he arrested, and the judge has to ask "Why is he here?  Why did you arrest him?"  And in a rather point-blank manner, my cop friend tells the judge "Your Honor, you just can't fix stupid."

In a previous posting I stated that there was no evidence that our early forebears - that's "cavemen" for those of you in Otisburg - ever embarked on a breeding program to get dogs out of wolves.

While these postings have been picked up by the parasites in Otisburg, you would think they would want to get their act together and come up with something concrete to prove, and I do mean prove, their theory that wolves were deliberately bred into dogs, but, umm...this is Otisburg.  No intelligence required to be an inhabitant of that website. 

Looking at the stats for this blog has revealed a suburb of Otisburg, a place called "Something Awful".  Like Otisburg, it was hidden once, just so we or the general public couldn't read it.  But lo and behold, it is now open to the public, where we can read it in all of its, er, glory.

And it's pretty much the same thing as Otisburg.  Run by idiots who claim to be intelligent.  No surprise there.

The part that stands out immediately is the dog-wolf part.  In fact, it was the first thread that popped out.  And instead of providing proof that a dog was created by cavemen from a wolf, here's what was said:

"Didn't some soviet scientist selectively breed wolves for "tameness", and within only a few short generations produced wolves with not only dog-like behaviour but also dog-like physical traits?"

Yep, make sure that when it comes to an "experiment" of this nature that all your "facts" come from a restricted, leftist country in which documentation is hard to get a hold of, in this case, the Soviet Union.  The USSR for short.  Land of the pinko-commies, killed tens of millions of their own people; finally fell in 1991.  Perfect place to claim a "dog-from-wolf" experiment.  Reminds me of the case of the two-headed pregnant lady from Nigeria, with one head suing the other for some silly reason.  Do the boys at "Something Awful" get their "facts" from the Weekly World News?


And one of them stated that there was a breeding program involving Carpathian gray wolves; he even provided a nice picture of a pair of the new breed, with the Leaning Tower of Pisa in the background.  Again, he proved my original point: at no time did anyone - caveman or scientist or dog breeder - ever produce a domestic dog by starting out with wolves.  The picture this "Something Awful" user provided was advertising a breed called a Czechoslovakian wolfdog, which was a mix of wolf and German shepherd. 

A mix-breed.  Looks like the scientists cheated on that one.

As to the rest of the forum entries, again we are treated to a "he said/she said" routine.  No where is there anything even remotely pertaining to proving their evolutionary theories; we are treated to dogmatic statements and innuendo, based once again on someone's say-so.  And what does one poster say about this?

"I think he's well aware of that actually. He just gets to be smug when they have to say theyre conservative which must TEAR THEM UP INSIDE.  It's very psychological."

Obviously, this poster is a trained psychologist.  No diploma on his wall, no license from a state, no couch upon which a patient would talk about his mother, but a trained psychologist nonetheless.  Maybe I'll be torn up about it next Tuesday.

In summary, here's what we have from this "Something Awful" crowd, and you can lump them in as a suburb of Otisburg.  They provide no evidence that evolution happened, yet they say it's a fact.  They resort to using labels against whomever they disagree with, with the obligatory foul language included.  They resort to assumption as fact, and in order to persuade the masses, they have to resort to stunts like the images above, which they had actually posted.  There's no meat and potatoes here...just a lot of fluff.  And that's how they avoid the debate.

You just can't fix stupid.

I guess they don't call their forum "Something Awful" for nothing.

Monday, August 19, 2013

Health Care a "right"?


Here we go down the Constitution Trail, and this was inspired by a liberal clown who left the silly reply on the right, courtesy of Politico.

What he said was: 

"That's ridiculous and outrageous. Healthcare is a service. So, when you're having your heart attack...see how much service comparing you can do...how many 'choices' you have. Freaking moron. Why live in a society and HATE society??? You realize just how stupid you are now? I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care? Freaking moron. Dangerous moron."

So, let's cut to the chase here.  This liberal clown, and every like-minded liberal clown in this Politico page, and every like-minded liberal clown infesting the USA, seems to think that health care is a God-given right, established and enshrined in the Constitution, to be handed out free to them on demand.  One of them on the same page went so far as to say that this health care "right" is part and parcel to the Declaration of Independence:

"The right to healthcare is packed into the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is an implied right / contract between us and the gov."

Now remember, the implication from the first liberal clown is that we conservatives are morons.  Dangerous morons.  Freaking morons.  Not necessarily in that order.

So, we're going to dissect a line from the first liberal clown above, namely the "I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care?" line.

Let's assume this liberal clown breaks his leg doing the swan dive in his apartment complex pool.  He's rushed to Otisburg General Hospital where he tells Dr. Pal that he broke his leg doing the swan dive at his home pool, but leaves out the fact that the pool was empty of water due to cleaning.  Clearly, he doesn't want to look stupid before the good Dr. Pal.  He's a liberal; he's smarter then us CON-servatives, which is why he can dive into empty swimming pools and get away with it.

But Dr. Pal is done for the day.  It's Tuesday, and his doctor buddies are waiting for him at the country club.

"But muh leg is broken, Doc," wails the liberal clown.  This liberal clown has to have a name; "Gurnicus" is just too confusing; kinda like a "gurney", i.e. the free hospital patient ride that he's hinting at.  We'll just call him Howie.

"Sorry, Howie, but my time is over; time to clock out, call it a day, and practice my nine-iron swing."

"But I got a right to health care!"

Dr. Pal from Otisburg General Hospital just looks at him and asks "Did you or did you not say that you compared health care rights with the right to own a gun?"

"Well, yeah, but..."

"Did you or did you not say 'I have a right to bear a gun but not to medical care?'"

"Well, yeah, but..."

"And if you walked into a gun store right now and demanded a free gun based on your statement that you had a right to bear a gun, what do you think the store owner will do?"

"He'd demand I pay for it or he'd throw me out, but that's besides the poi..."

"And if you come to my hospital, to my treatment room, to demand that I provide free medical care to you while treating me as your slave to perform this 'right' for you, what do you think I should do?"

"Uhhh, throw me out?"

"Yesserie, Howie, I should throw you out."

So, the good Dr. Pal gives Howie two Tylenols, tells him to come back in the morning, where he sets his leg and presents the bill for $2,356 dollars and 63 cents.

"But, but, but the healthcare should be free...c'mom Doc, be a pal!" Howie wails again.

"Not at my expense," says the good doctor.

That's the problem with liberal clowns.  They imagined a "right" in health care within the Constitution where it doesn't exist; they imagined the same "right" to be within the Declaration, where it also doesn't exist.  Howie the clown above equated this right to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I have a right to a gun, but I don't have the right to make the people pay for my gun.
I have a right to free speech, but I don't have the right to make the government pay for a megaphone.
I have a right to religion, but I don't have the right to force the people to pay for the church.
I have a right to a free press, but I don't have the right to make the people buy me a newspaper.

And liberal clowns have a "right" to health care, and to make the general public pay for it?

And does the public have no say-so when a liberal clown demands the "right" to be a...clown?

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Obama Zombies: Stuck on Stupid

Here they come, shuffling down the street; tattered clothes, hair unkempt, blank expression on their faces.  Some can't keep their mouths closed, and end up leaving a trail of drool. 

Somewhere in the background Michael Jackson's Thriller is playing, but these wretched masses don't have the soul for getting down.  Matter o'fact, they'd much prefer to listen to the ring tone of...

There it is!

The shop window of the local Radio Shack.  Several zombies spot the product...it has the ring tone...

"O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!" they moan as one.  "O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!"

Apparently, the ring tone in question is the sound from an old-fashioned cash register.  They like that.

"O-Baaaa-Maaaa ffffff-onnnne!"  they moan again as they bang on the windows in a futile attempt to get at the prizes inside: a genuine Geeterbug cell phone with huge numbers and a special key that allows the zombie to rack up free bucks with an insta-dial to the local welfare office.

Think that's fiction?  A collection of brain-dead zombies walking down a street, looking for freebies courtesy of Obama?  Try looking at this video.  This is reality:

Or this video:
Or this video:
Or this video:
Or this video:
You heard of the phrase "beware of stupid people in large groups"?  How about the collection of numbskulls who added their names to the fake petitions in the above videos?  These people are Obama zombies.  Unlike the zombies from the movies, the Obama versions have no use for brains whatsoever.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition that allows the killing of infants after birth.

No brains is why they were more than willing sign a petition to repeal the First, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition allowing a Nazi takeover.

No brains is why they were more than willing to sign a petition supporting mandatory euthanasia on those deemed unfit for society.



Yesserie.  Beware of Obama zombies.  The least-informed, the least-intelligent members of society, the ones who think reality comes from the next exciting episode of American Idol.  In short, they're stuck on stupid.

You really want to have your life run by a collection of idiots that are stuck on stupid?


Wednesday, August 14, 2013

The hypocrisy of liberal clowns!

Don't ya love clowns?

Usually accompany a circus, them clowns do, all clad in their makeup and goofy outfits and over-sized shoes, entering the big top in a dinky-little car with forty or fifty of them packed into it.  They'll prance about inside that tent, some of them hoping they won't screw up the act, others hoping they don't step in what the elephants leave behind.

Clowns always step in what the elephants leave behind.

And sometimes clowns who are fed up with the circus go on to do bigger and better things.  One got hisself attached to hamburgers.  One got his own teevee series.  A couple even managed to become president.  One of them was a former peanut farmer, I declare.

And some got into the ro-DEE-o circuit.

There was this dummy way back in 1994 who thought it'd be a cool thing indeed to be a ro-DEE-o clown.  He was a real dummy; you could knock on his head all day with a brick and he'd still smile at you.  One day his clown buddies decided that he could be of use in the ro-DEE-o, so they put him out center stage in the middle of the action, propped up with a broom handle, and then waited for Jalapeno - that was the bull's given name - to make his moves.  The Philadelphia Inquirer reported thus:

"T.J. Hawkins rolled out the big inner tube, and the bull lowered his head, shot forward and launched into the tube, sending it bounding down the center of the arena. The crowd cheered. Then the bull saw the George Bush dummy.  He tore into it, sending the rubber mask flying halfway across the sand as he turned toward the fence, sending cowboys scrambling up the fence rails, hooking one with his horn and tossing him off the fence."

And that was the end of the dummy, the one in the...now just a cotton-pickin minute.

Here we have a story done in 1994, about a dummy, a prop in the middle of a rodeo, wearing a mask bearing the likeness of George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, and this one lone article in the Philadelphia Inquirer is the only thing that makes barely a peep on the subject?  Like it's no big deal?  Obviously, the dummy was liberal.  He was supposed to get away with it.

Get back into the DeLorean and head to Jefferson City, Missouri, for the state fair some-19 years later on August 10.  Same concept, same broom handle propping him up, and maybe the same bull going after him, only this time the dummy has on the face of Barack Obama.  Why, the liberal establishment goes haywire; the National Association for the Advancement of (Liberal) Colored People wants a major investigation; the clown itself is permanently banned; the head of the Missouri Rodeo Group is stuck resigning; and, well, everyone in LiberalLand is just besides themselves!

"How dare they disrespect the president," they scream and rant and rave.  "Those dirty, low-down Republicans and scummy-conservatives are the scum of the earth, and need to realize that only we - the best of the planet and always with good intentions - liberals and leftists are the only ones qualified to disrespect presidents...provided they are conservative presidents!"

Kind-of like the images below:


 Need I say more?

Monday, August 12, 2013

Cherry-picking adultery



We all know what liberals continually say about Jesus, other then their belief that He's got to stay out of school.


He's all full of love and tolerance!

Love?  That's a big-fat yes.  Jesus loved us enough to hang on a cross for our sins.  Wait, no, we can't talk about that...can't talk about the sins.  That's a no-no.  Have to tolerate them sins; doing otherwise would mean that we'is judging others, and only God can do the judging.

So why don't we all just look the other way, while the sinners can sin without any repercussions, and the Christians can just shut-da-$&%#-up!  That's what liberals seem to be doing these days, forcing Christians to shut up.  It's as if they - the libs - are the ones defining what is supposed to be Christian, rather than the Christians themselves.

Love and tolerance, right?

And the love and the tolerance we are supposed to be practicing, among other things these days, has to be in support of gay marriage.  "I now pronounce you husband and...er...uhh...husband"  says the confused priest, who then gets a letter in the mail from the newlyweds stating they are going to sue him for mangling their nuptials in front of their guests in the church where they forced the priest to hold the ceremony under the threat of another lawsuit...wedding cake, anyone?  Yes, the baker was sued, too; she opposed gay marriage, wouldn't bake the cake, got sued and was forced by a judge to start baking the cake anyway, and this was recorded by the photographer who himself was sued for refusing to put the happy young gay couple in his studio because he opposed gay marriage, after the invitations were handed out and printed by someone else who was sued, ad infinitum.

Isn't liberal love and tolerance wonderful?

And getting back to Jesus.  Just where do the liberals justify their love and tolerance comes from, assuming they do pick up the Bible?  Don't tell me they cherry-pick the answers?

One of the cherries they pick comes from the Gospel of John.  Lessie, where can we find an example of Jesus just gushing with love and tolerance that liberals love to cherry-pick from...how about the first eleven verses of chapter 8?  Here they are:

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Now, the "love and tolerance" part is this, according to lib-speak: we're supposed to love the sinner (check); we're supposed to tolerate the sin (say what?); we're supposed to let the sinner go do whatever makes her happy...and somewhere in the meadow a bunny hops.

But what is the point that the actual bona-fide, non-liberal Christian is making here?

First, we love and pray for the sinner, unconditionally.  Period.

Second, we don't tolerate the sin.  We tell the sinner what it's all about, and what the results would be if continued.  After all, just who was it that spoke more about - and against - sin in the Bible?  It was Jesus.  And that is exactly what Jesus said to the adulterous woman in verse 11: "Go, and sin no more."  Sorry to disappoint all of you liberals, but that's what's in the Bible.  Better quit the cherry-picking.

And what does that have to do with adultery and gay marriage?

For starters, didn't God call adultery a violation of His commandments?

Didn't God call homosexuality an abomination?

Is not the word "sodomy" a reference to the city of Sodom?  

And just what does this have to do with John, Chapter 8, and Jesus insisting that someone without sin cast the first stone?  Again, verse 4:

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

She was caught in the act.  Fine.  Where's the partner at?  Was the partner male?  Was the partner female?  Or did she not have a partner at all?  Jesus did say that someone commits adultery even by thinking about it.  So, if the woman was alone, was she thinking about a male partner, or a female partner?

And if the partner was female in this instance, was the crowd correct in calling it adultery?  Yes, they were.  Jesus didn't fault them for identifying what the sin was; He faulted them for a pre-judgmental, "we're-going-to-test-Christ-and-hang-this-girl" intolerant attitude.

If you're a homosexual thinking of calling this blog entry an example of hatred, what are you going to say to the Lord when you stand in front of Him?  Are you going to cherry-pick your answers?

The non-liberal, Christian version of Christ - the actual version - calls on those to abandon their sinning, just like Jesus said to that woman above, and accept Him as Savior.  It's a free gift, too.  Costs nothing but a few minutes and a private moment.  That's what the cross was all about.

Or you can face Him as your Judge.  Not a good prospect.



Thursday, August 8, 2013

The Devil's Little Details

In 1978 radio legend Paul Harvey spoke at a farming convention in which he expanded on the Creation story of Genesis, and adding something of his own in praise of farmers.  The speech was later used as an advertisement for Dodge Trucks during Superbowl XLVII, a commercial which received a lot of positive reviews.



But there is another, sobering, essay by Harvey that I would like you all to listen to.  It was originally written way back in 1964 and updated through the years to this version, an audio recorded sometime in 1999:


As I said, this was begun in 1964, when the war in Vietnam was starting to escalate, when Timothy Leary was pushing drugs on his students, when the hippie counter-culture was beginning to open up.

Let's see how much of Paul Harvey's original essay has come true (italics are mine)...

----------

If I Were the Devil
If I were the Prince of Darkness I would want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.
I’d have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree.
How much of the world and it's population right now is under totalitarianism?  Communism?  Corrupt democracies?  How much of it is suffering famine or war?

So I should set about however necessary, to take over the United States.
Who is in control of the United States right now?

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.
With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve, “Do as you please.”
Isn't that the mantra of liberalism?  To do whatever you want regardless of the consequences?

To the young I would whisper “The Bible is a myth.” I would convince them that “man created God,” instead of the other way around. I would confide that “what is bad is good and what is good is square.”
God was thrown out of schools, the courts, and city hall; to even mention God nearly everywhere is to invite a lawsuit.

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you. I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.
Welfare is the new norm; eating, drinking, and making merry the chosen lifestyle, while those who choose to be Christian and patriotic towards America are frowned upon, or worse.

And the old I would teach to pray — to say after me — “Our father which art in Washington.”
The new solution to everything is to let government fix it.  Government is worshiped, to the point where it has to grow at every opportunity.

Then I’d get organized.
I’d educate authors in how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull, uninteresting.
Porn is now part of everyday literature.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies, and vice-versa.
Sex and violence are a part of daily television broadcasting, including insertion into video gaming.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, less work. Idle hands usually work for me.
Unions now demand that lazy members get full pay for nothing instead of being fired.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could, I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction, I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.
Gangs bring narcotics into the states at will; the prescription drug culture is increasing; more and more Americans are turning to farming pot or making meth.

If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild.
Test scores are down, violence is up.  And who is running the schools?

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right.”
Atheists are in the forefront, pushing a hatred of God on the populace as if He's a fairy tale, and getting many of the clergy to side with them.

With flattery and promises of power I would get the courts to vote against God and in favor of pornography.
Remember the People vs. Larry Flynt?  Remember Madelyn Murray O'Hair?  There are daily news stories about one atheist group or another threatening legal action against anyone on God's side.

Thus I would evict God from the courthouse, then from the schoolhouse, then from the Houses of Congress.
See above.

Then in his own churches I’d substitute psychology for religion and deify science.
Evolution and atheism are the new religious beliefs.

If I were Satan I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg
Because Christ's resurrection was rejected in favor of the pagan Ishtar story.

And the symbol of Christmas a bottle.
Because they want Christ's birth to be sidelined.  They want Christians to be sidelined.

If I were the Devil I’d take from those who have and give to those who wanted until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.
It's called socialism, which the current president confirmed to a plumber named Joe in 2008.

Then my police state would force everybody back to work.
The current president wants a civilian force as large and as powerful as the Army.  For what purpose?  Gestapo?  KGB?  Is there a drone flying over your house now?

Then I would separate families, putting children in uniform, women in coal mines and objectors in slave-labor camps.
Those who are opposed to Obama's policies are demonized, attacked, discredited, in accordance with Saul Alinsky's methods.  The camps are yet to come.

If I were Satan I’d just keep doing what I’m doing and the whole world [would] go to hell as sure as the Devil.

----------

The Devil has been attempting to do that for a long time, but he lost the moment the stone rolled away and Jesus walked out of that tomb nearly two thousand years ago.  The Bible says that Jesus is returning, during which the end times described in Mathew 24 pretty-much agree with what Paul Harvey described in his essay above.

So, what choice do YOU intend to make?  Side with the Devil and become one of his useful idiots all the way to an ignominious fate?

Or side with Christ, and be given eternal life?  The choice is yours.

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

The Internal Server Error: Evidence of Liberal Failure

Picture this...

You want to get on your favorite conservative or Christian website to take a look at the latest things going on around the world, and you get this:
After a few clicks you're back in business, but it comes back again every so often.

Why?

Well, it's pretty obvious there's a bunch of liberals out there who believe in failure.

In Conservapedia's case is a bunch of silly little amateurs from Otisburg.  Been doing it for a few years.  They cannot stand what we have to say, so they have to get their licks in.  However, it's as though they bought the Tootsie Roll Pop to see how many licks they can make to get to the center, but they were too dimwitted to take the wrapper off.

What they attempted to do in Conservapedia was...

They tried sticking in their nonsense in the various articles.  Failed.
They tried inserting falsehoods and parody.  Failed.
They tried using extortion and threat to take over the site.  Failed.
They tried creating a page stating how vulnerable some Democrats were around the country, then went to news organizations with the same page to claim we wanted assassinations of these Democrats.  Failed.
They tried mocking us with their own Otisburg-brand website.  Failed.
Some of them try to use force and whining to try to debate us on certain subjects.  Failed.

Ahhh...the silly little amateurs of Otisburg are still silly.

So, reader, if you are on Conservapedia or any other website that is dedicated to conservatism or Christianity, and you get one of those silly little displays like the image above, just pretend it's the image of failure on the liberal's part.  What is going on somewhere in Otisburg is a failure in his underwear, slurping on a fudgesickle, employing a bot, and what this bot is doing is automatically hitting the "refresh" function of the browser window while that failure in his underwear has his browser opened to whatever page he is looking at.  The bot hits the "refresh" function so many times it disables the site from viewing by others.

But in Conservapedia, their actions failed.

Yesserie, Bob, these silly little amateurs believe strongly in failure, don't they?  And we all thought liberals love free speech.  We all thought liberals are tolerant.  We all thought liberals are full of love.

The Internal Server Error in the image above is evidence of liberal hatred.

It failed.

Have a nice day!


Monday, August 5, 2013

And God created cactus


In a previous blog I talked about an orangutan from a television show who showed remarkable intelligence when it came to copying some of the daily tasks done by humans, then talked about a butterfly with the face of an owl on its wings.  It apparently "copied" the owl; the point was to scare away the predators, but of course the silly little amateurs from Otisburg cried foul and had their collective version of a heart attack.  Evolution doesn't do that, in their "opinion-which-ought-to-be-a-dadd-blanged-fact" opinion; one of them insisted it was just a sheen on the wings.

No intelligence there, he implied.

No intelligence with the silly little amateurs from Otisburg, either.

So it goes.

And while I'm riding to work I thought of the butterfly and the silly little amateurs, and then I thought of a cactus, of all things.  You know what a cactus is.  Small-to-large plants, live in deserts, has lots of spines to protect itself from plant eaters which are thirsty at the same time.

Think it over for a second.

It's a plant that lives in a desert.  Where there is little to no water.

And it has lots of spines to protect itself from plant eaters which are thirsty at the same time.

Now, the silly little amateurs from Otisburg would like to force down my gullet that evolution happens; it's about mutation.  They should know; they observed it in bacteria in a petri dish somewhere in the Ozarks one day, so if they can see it happen in a petri dish, then we must accept the fact that it can happen in a major way with all of the species everywhare...and that's an order!

Does that order come with fries?

So I'm cutting my grass with my several years-old lawn mower, and it's the same grass coming up again.  No change.  I have not seen a single change in my grass at all.  It's the same.  In fact, there hasn't been a single change to anyone's grass since the first lawn mower rolled off an assembly line all those years ago.  In fact, there hasn't been a single change in grass since the well-to-do used sheep and goats on the first front lawns all of those many millenia ago.  For those of you in Otisburg that was the time way, way, before TV sets.  The silly little amateurs of Otisburg have to have their TV sets.

During all that time between the animals on the first front lawns all the way to the next-generation thingies with a Briggs and Stratton engine, mowers with hair or not have been mowing lawns right down to the nub, and still the grass has been growing the same way.  You would think that after all of that cutting, the grass would evolve some sort of natural defense against a grass eater, whether it be Bessie the Cow or John Deere.  But they didn't.

Why?

Because that requires intelligence.  It requires an ability by the grass to think that it needs to have protection for itself against a grass eater.  Instead, we just have the grass growing over and over again.  Meanwhile, the grass has to suffer the further indignity of the sheep and the goats and Bessie the Cow and maybe the silly little amateurs in Otisburg relieving themselves on it.

And what does this have to do with the cactus?

This is from that bastion of liberalism (and the 'pedia of choice for Otisburg), Wikipedia:

"As well as defending against herbivores, spines help prevent water loss by reducing air flow close to the cactus and providing some shade."

And Wikipedia also states that some cactus spines are barbed:

"In addition to normal-length spines, members of the subfamily Opuntioideae have relatively short spines, called glochids that are barbed along their length and easily shed. These enter the skin and are difficult to remove, causing long-lasting irritation."

It seems that a long time ago - if the silly little amateurs are right - some cactus ancestor got tired of the sheep and the goats eating them down to a nub.  It decided it was going to defend itself and protect its water supply with spines.  It further made sure that these spines would do some additional damage, hence the barbs.

Sound's like nonsense, huh?  Well, even Wikipedia is stating the spines are there for defense.  But of course, we have the silly little amateurs from Otisburg looking at bacteria in a petri dish and then telling us that it was just a beneficial mutation of the original cactus.

Yeah, right.

A plant that evolves a means to defend its internal water supply from an external plant eater is just the end result of a simple mutation that came along by chance because some silly little amateur clown from Otisburg looked at a petri dish and said so.

I'll believe that God created it.  It's just a better explanation.