Vision Forum, which provides family-building books, films, CDs, and toys to Christians, has come under siege by gay activists for their defense of traditional marriage. This is from their email bulletin:
In the early hours of May 17, Vision Forum began to receive the first in
an ongoing and unprecedented attack to neutralize our website. The attack
coincided with what appears to be a concerted and ongoing effort from within
the atheist and homosexual community to manipulate an online poll to VF
readers, and transform the VF Facebook page into a forum for homosexuals and
opponents of Christianity to mock Christianity. The attack successfully
curtailed our ability to make some products available to customers today,
successfully undermined the integrity of an online poll, and was successful in
placing profanities, blasphemies, and offensive content on our Facebook page.
Here is the story as we presently understand it:
On Wednesday afternoon, we launched a poll through Doug’s Blog which asked
the question: Do you support President Obama’s declaration favoring same sex
The D-DOS Attack on Our Website
But something else was also afoot.
If you were one of the hundreds of people who had problems loading the
Vision Forum pages yesterday, it is because of this D-DOS attack which
coincided with the efforts of others to populate our Facebook page with inappropriate
material, and to undermine the integrity of our poll.
What is Causing the Inflated Pro-Homosexual Results?
At the time of this writing, the poll shows more than 50,000 voters, more
than 47,000 of which support same-sex marriage. The numbers are growing with
almost exact frequency each minute, and the proportionality of the votes have
remained a general constant, at least since we have been tracking it early this
Is this a case of the “people speaking”? Hardly!
There are two explanations for the dramatic change in proportionality of the
vote and massive increase in voters. First, the pro-sodomite community could
have rallied more than 40,000 supporters to vote in a time period of the last
ten hours or so. This would show the power of anti-Christian hate groups to
create a viral response to Christians who take a public stand against
redefining marriage to accommodate the homosexual agenda.
How Anti-Christian Groups Deliberately Manipulated the Data
The second primary explanation is that the poll was deliberately manipulated
by an individual or individuals wanting to interfere with the poll. An online
poll of this kind provided by the PollDaddy service used on Doug’s Blog could
easily be skewed through use of a macro script or browser plug-in such as the
iMacros add-on for Google Chrome.
So what happened?
The evidence indicates that internet trolls and activists have tampered with
at least a portion of the polling process.
We have verified, for example, by mid-afternoon that at least 4,500 of the
votes are duplicates coming from the same IP address. This is almost
indisputable proof that “there is something fishy going on.” Another 17,000
votes are from outside the United States of America, which means either that
Vision Forum is either experiencing an unprecedented amount of international
traffic, or that individuals may be using anonymizing networks to make their IP
addresses appear unique while actually “rigging” the poll in their favor. It
does not appear to be a hack of PollDaddy’s servers, but instead someone
employing an automated script to vote repeatedly.
Presently, a user is claiming responsibility for skewing the results using a
macro script of this kind. As early as 1:00 a.m. on Thursday morning, a link to
my blog post with this polling question “Do you support the President’s stand
on same-sex marriage?” was shared in the Atheism section of the social site
Reddit, encouraging visitors to participate. The item received more than 500
responses including acknowledgements of participation, many of which contained
specific statements in opposition to the Christian definition of marriage.
It was on the Reddit atheist forum that a user boasted of their use of a
specialized computer script to dramatically inflate votes in our poll in favor
of President Obama’s position and urged other readers of the Reddit forum to
employ the same method to further skew the poll results. Several of these
individuals identified themselves as homosexuals and posted glee-filled
obscenities about their behavior within the context of their attempt to hijack
our poll. Their boasting simply reveals what the common IP addresses point to —
the manipulation of the poll by a few, thus rendering the results highly
Pro-Homosexual and Atheists Target the VF Facebook Page
But if bots and macro sabotage scripts were not enough, atheists, sodomites
and pro-homosexuals from around the world targeted our Facebook page to
populate it with hundreds of profanities, hateful dialogue, scoffing,
blasphemy, and more. This prompted the posting of the following statement:
“This Facebook page has been targeted by the atheist and homosexual
community, members of which have generated a spate of posts which violate the
guidelines of this page. We remind our readers: We are a Christian company that
takes seriously the Third Commandment. It is one thing to charitably post an
alternative opinion, it is another to mock God, his Scriptures, or to take His
name in vain. If you use this Facebook page for scoffing (Proverbs 22:10), for
posting defiling communications, or if you in any way violate the Third
Commandment in your posts, or encourage others to do the same, you will be
deleted and banned. ”
What Are We to Make of This Attack?
Last year, atheist groups targeted the Facebook page of Ken Ham, filling it
with pornographic material and hateful and filthy language. Yesterday Vision
Forum was the object of attack (and still is). Tomorrow, it will be someone
While these plots to sabotage our poll and website, or to pollute our
Facebook page with inappropriate dialogue can be a nuisance, they are not
surprising. In fact, they are entirely predictable. They are a predictable
tactic of radical groups known for bad behavior, groups made up of individuals
who have little respect for Christianity or decency. What Vision Forum is
presently experiencing is the predictable consequence of taking a stand against
the radical pro-homosexual and atheist communities.
May God Receive All the Glory
Since our inception, Vision Forum has embraced the Bible as the standard for
all of life and has sought to encourage the restoration of the biblical family
by reinforcing godly masculinity and femininity — calling on men to act as
noble men and women to embrace the high calling of virtuous womanhood and
biblical femininity. Part of this mission has been to extol the glories of
godly marriage as first pictured in the Garden when God brought Eve to Adam as
his perfect helpmeet. The institution of marriage was the capstone of Creation
Week, as God declared that “it is not good that man should be alone” (Gen.
2:18); that Adam needed a wife to aid him in his dominion work. Eve was God’s
gift to Adam, and through Adam’s union with her, they were to bring forth
children — to “be fruitful and multiply” — even as they worked together as
dominion stewards of God’s creation. It’s this grand model of God-ordained
marriage that Vision Forum has sought to advance since our founding more than
fourteen years ago.
The battle against biblical marriage is likely only to escalate. As the
pressure increases, we as Christian must fight against compromise and uphold
God’s standard concerning this foundational institution.
Your grateful friend in the
President, Vision Forum Inc.
(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Evolutionists have three totally different methods they they mix and match to explain the distribution of animals and plants across the face of the earth: Land Bridges, Oceanic Dispersal, and the Pangaea supercontinent. If one doesn't sound right, try the other! Is this Science? Are we in the midst of another paradigm shift and a return to “a science of the improbable, the rare, the mysterious, and the miraculous”? Or maybe the worldwide flood of the Bible offers a better explanation...
Selections from Biogeography: A Creationist Perspective, by Bill Johnson.
(These selections by Marko Malyj are of the article published in Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal, Volume 48, Number 3, Winter 2012)
(To receive new uMarko posts via a daily email, please click Subscribe)
Why is it that animals and plants are not equally distributed over the face of the earth? Why are some animals, like giraffes and lions, confined to only one location—Africa, whereas other plants and animals are either ubiquitously or discontinuously distributed? Biogeography, or the geography of life, has been an active field of study for centuries. Early creationists tried to explain these distributions a variety of ways. Universal Flood geologists postulated that all animals dispersed from the Middle East. Can this be true? From the mid-nineteenth century to the present, evolutionists have dominated the biogeographical debate, and creationists have largely remained silent on the issue. As a result, it is commonly believed that evolution best explains the geography of life. But macroevolutionary biogeography is far from proven.
Until recently, it was widely accepted that the continents as we know them have always been in their current locations. Belief in the permanence of the continents led many evolutionists to explain distributions by postulating land bridges between the continents. These land bridges crisscrossed every ocean and were thrown up or torn down wherever and whenever their theory required. Up until the second half of the twentieth century, most evolutionists employed this line of reasoning. Ernst Haeckel is a case in point:
Everywhere there was a disjunct distribution to explain, evolutionists like Haeckel “sharpened their pencils and sketched land bridges between the appropriate continents” (Corliss, 1970, p. 61). Some of the land bridges were small and plausible; others, such as the landmass that stretched across the entire Pacific Ocean to allow bears, raccoons, and other animals to gain access to the American continent, were of continental proportion. After the fauna and flora reached their appointed destination the evolutionists’ “eraser disposed of the bridge when it had outlived its usefulness as evidenced by the divergence of species on the sundered continents” (Corliss, 1970, p. 61). The problem with continental land bridges and their sudden disappearance after they served their purpose was that in nearly every case there was absolutely no geological evidence for their existence. The only reason for their construction was to explain away the puzzling distributions of life.
Even Europe and America have been directly connected. The South Sea at one time formed a large Pacific continent... The Indian Ocean formed a continent which extended from the Sunda Islands along the southern coast of Asia to the east coast of Africa (Haeckel, 1892, pp. 375–376).
The Lemuria land bridge of nineteenth-century geology.
Even Darwin, who was once an avid land bridge builder, eventually saw just how convenient it was to throw up land bridges to explain distributions. In a letter to J. D. Hooker he noted that some conjure up land bridges “as easily as a cook does pancakes” (Darwin, 1959, p. 432).
Another way to explain the puzzling distribution of life is to have animals and plants crossing formidable water gaps by means of rafting, or, in the case of birds, postulating island colonizations achieved by transoceanic flights. Ernst Mayr used oceanic dispersal to explain how the banded iguana came to reside in the south Pacific.
The lizard family Iguanidae is confined to the Americas, except for one genus (with two species) found in Fiji and Tonga …a long time ago they floated there on logs and flotsam carried by ocean currents (Mayr, 2001, p. 32).Mayr’s explanation seems plausible until one realizes that the Fiji Islands are 5,000 miles away from America. Granting a generous thirty miles of drift per day for this treacherous journey (which required a sail mate of the opposite sex), the iguanas would have arrived in Fiji eight months later!
Mayr and Phelps claimed the Hawaiian Islands house many land birds that supposedly migrated there from the American continents. These birds would have had to fly over 2,000 miles without the aid of intervening islands to serve as “steppingstones” (Mayr and Phelps, 1967). Some of these long-distance colonizations
How about the dispersal of freshwater fish (i.e., cichlids) found only in Africa and South America? Phillip Darlington, the most prominent biogeographer of the twentieth century, flirted with a south Atlantic land bridge but favored the hypothesis that these fish traveled out of Africa, up through Asia, across the Bering land bridge, down North and Central America, and finally into South America (Darlington, 1957). The most amazing part of this story is the disjunct distribution is also explained by extinction in the intermediate parts of a wide distribution that did not leave a single fossil behind!
|Generalized reconstruction of the supercontinent, |
Pangaea in latest Paleozoic time.
For example, if the continents were once connected, why are there not more fauna and flora similarities between the southern continents?
Also, it requires many taxa to have originated preceding the breakup of Pangaea. Recently, evolutionary dating methods have shown that many plants and animals evolved after the continents separated. This would include freshwater fish (i.e., aplocheiloid, cichlid), ratite birds, parrots, frogs, baobab trees, and anolis lizards (Briggs, 2003; De Queiroz, 2005). Evolutionists are now forced to acknowledge that longdistance dispersalism must have played an even greater role than many have suspected.
So which is it, Land Bridges, Oceanic Dispersal, or Pangaea? Are we in the midst of another paradigm shift and a return to “a science of the improbable, the rare, the mysterious, and the miraculous” (Nelson, 1978, p. 289)?
Is this Science?
Evolutionary biogeography has now come full circle. The “recent flood of evidence” that McGlone and others talk about is not evidence, per se; rather it is lack of evidence for drift. Alan De Queiroz (2005, p. 70) notes, “A main objection to dispersal hypotheses is that they are unfalsifiable and thus unscientific … However, this can be countered by noting that, if plausible vicariance hypotheses are falsified, then dispersal is supported by default.”
The explanations given for the dispersal of freshwater fish are just as eclectic. Evolutionists originally postulated a land bridge between Africa and South America (Eigenmann, 1909). Darlington (1957) followed this idea by moving these fish across almost every continent. Along came vicariance with its explanation of short-distance dispersal before the continents fragmented (Stiassny, 1991; Murphy and Collier, 1997).
Now that many freshwater fish are judged as too young to have been moved by drift, the explanation is that they are tolerant of saltwater and made the long journey across the Atlantic Ocean.
How is this Science?
We began by with the early creationists, who were Universal Flood geologists. They postulated that all animals dispersed from the Middle East, as suggested by the Biblical worldwide flood described in the book of Genesis. In the second part of this article, we will reexamine this old viewpoint. It turns out to be a far superior explanation.
Briggs, J.C. 2003. Fishes and birds: Gondwana life rafts reconsidered. Systematic Biology 52:548–553.
Corliss, W. 1970. Mysteries Beneath the Sea. Crowell, New York, NY.
Darlington, P. 1957. Zoogeography: The Geographical Distribution of Animals. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Darwin, C. 1959. Life and Letters of Charles Darwin. Basic Books, New York, NY.
De Queiroz, A. 2005. The resurrection of oceanic dispersal in historical biogeography. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20:68–73.
Eigenmann, C. H. 1909. The fresh-water fishes of Patagonia and an examination of the Archiplata – Archhelenis theory. In Scott, W.B. (editor), Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896–1899, pp. 227–374. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Haeckel, E. 1892. The History of Creation. Appleton, New York, NY.
Mayr, E. 2001. What Evolution Is. Basic Books, New York, NY.
Mayr, E., and W.H. Phelps. 1967. The origin of the bird fauna of the south Venezuelan highlands. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 136:273–327.
Murphy, W.J., and G.E. Collier. 1997. A molecular phylogeny for aplocheiloid fishes (Atherinomorpha, Cyprinodontiformes): the role of vicariance and the origins of annualism. Molecular Biology and Evolution 14:790–799.
Stiassny, M. 1991. Phylogenetic interrelationships of the family Cichlidae: an overview. In Keenleyside, M.H.A. (editor), Cichlid Fishes: Behavior, Ecology and Evolution, pp 1–35. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.