Mr. P: "There WERE dinosaurs on Noah's Ark"

[Guest Common Sense]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

[Guest Twizzler]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

He's not a liar. He's just an *****.

Hey, wait a minute. I'm paying this guy a salary to teach my kids.

[Guest Guest]

This is sad, even tragic, certainly for this man's students, but also for him. Not only were there dinosaurs according to this "teacher," but they breathed fire. He believes the Bible completely - therefore it is true - and shuts the door on everything that follows. Science isn't merely rejected, it isn't even considered. If people applied his standard, we would also have to believe that the stars are set in a dome above the earth, which the Bible also says; all of modern astronomy would have to be completely discarded, along with all of modern biology. That this man continues to teach, anywhere, is completely unacceptable.

And besides his abysmal ignorance, he doesn't have a clue about what is acceptable and what is not, no judgment at all. He thinks that by posting this, he will vindicate himself. Here is the full text of his latest musings.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

There WERE dinosaurs on Noah's Ark

Mr. P’s ponderings – by David Paszkiewicz

During the church/state controversy I was recently embroiled in, many of my views were scrutinized. You may remember how I was mocked for believing there were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark. Even my good friend, Kevin Canessa, printed a cartoon in an editorial poking fun at my view. And why not, given the fact that evolution has been propagated as fact, my view may sound a bit antiquated (if you are kind) or down right nutty (if you are less inclined to be polite). Nevertheless, I believe the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to be God’s inspired word to mankind. Therefore, I believe that they ought to be interpreted literally.

By “literally,” I mean they are to be interpreted according to the normal conventions of written language. That is, if something is written in the genre of prose concerning past events, it is meant to be interpreted as literal history. By contrast, if something is written in the genre of poetry, is should be understood following the conventions of poetry. For example, in poetry, a young lover might refer to his beloved’s lips as rubies. He is immediately understood to be referring to the appealing redness of his lover’s lips. It would be ridiculous to interpret him as meaning her lips are a hard, cold mineral!

With regard to Scripture the following popular quote is in order, “When the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense!”

Many believe that dinosaurs and man did not walk on earth at the same time. Personally, I believe the biblical record and the text of the Bible leaves no room for evolution. With that said, I believe there were Dinosaurs on the ark for the following biblical reasons:

The book of Genesis was written in the genre of historical prose. Moses intended for it to be a history of the beginning of the universe, earth and the nation Israel. With regard to the beginning of life on Earth, Genesis contains two interesting assertions:

1. Genesis 1:5 states that God made all the fish and winged creatures on the fifth day. I therefore believe that those dinosaurs that lived in the sea or flew were created on day five of the creation week.

2. Genesis 1:24-26 states that all land animals and man were created on the sixth day of creation.

Therefore, if one accepts the Genesis account, man and dinosaurs walked the earth together according to the Bible. If they existed simultaneously, then they must have been included on Noah’s list for passage on the ark.

According to Ken Ham of “Answers in Genesis,” dinosaurs came in various sizes ranging from the size of chickens to 40-feet high and the average size of dinosaurs was the size of a sheep. Noah didn’t have to take two of every variation within each species, he only had to take a male and female of each species and they didn’t even have to be mature. In fact, it would be wiser to take younger creatures for the purpose of breeding after the flood. They could have even been babies of the larger variety. The dimensions of the Ark in Genesis 6 are remarkably seaworthy and would provide adequate space on board the for the occupants, range for exercise and food. The Ark was: 400 feet long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet high and had 3 floors filled with stalls. (A biblical cubit is around 18 inches).

Many well-intentioned believers have argued that the “days” in Genesis could actually be long evolutionary ages. This is not a possibility, however. Each day in the Genesis account of creation is circumscribed by the phrase, “and there was evening and morning the ____ day.” This implies a 24-hour day.

In addition, Moses, the writer of Genesis, also wrote the book of Exodus. In Exodus 20: 11 Moses wrote the fourth of the Ten Commandments which states, “But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it, you shall do no work … For in six days the Lord made the Heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day…” Moses wrote both Genesis and Exodus. He used the same Hebrew word for “day” in each. If he meant it to mean a “long age” in Genesis, wouldn’t it follow that he meant for the Sabbath rest to be a long age of time in Exodus 20?

This would not make sense; however, Moses obviously meant the Sabbath rest to be for 24 hours just the amount of time God sat back and enjoyed his creation in Genesis 2:2-3.

The book of Job, written as an epic (historical) poem, also makes some interesting references to creatures I believe are dinosaurs. Job 40 describes two creatures which can only be explained as dinosaurs: Behemoth and Leviathon.

1. Behemoth (Job 40:15-24)

• (v-6) He was made by God along with Job (this is consistent with the sixth day of creation)

• (v-17) His tail swings like a cedar tree.

• (v-18) His bones are tubes of bronze.

• (v-23) His is not afraid of a raging river.

• (v-24) Man cannot trap him or tame him

Liberal scholars claim that the above describes a hippopotamus. It is a fact that hippos are fearsome creatures. However, a hippo’s tail does not swing like a cedar tree! A hippo can boast about many things, the size of its tail is not one of them!

2. Leviathon (Job 41:1-34)

• (vv 1-2) He cannot be captured or tamed

• (v-7) Spears do not pierce his hide.

• (v-8) A man cannot wrestle him.

• (v-13) Man cannot strip off his outer coat or ride him.

• (v-14) Man cannot hold his mouth open.

• (vv-15-17) His back has rows of air-tight shields which cannot be parted.

• (vv-18-21) He breathes fire, smoke comes from his nostrils and his breath sets coals ablaze! (by the way, many creatures today do equally incredible things. Fireflies create light with a chemical reaction and bombardier beetles spray out boiling hot gas to kill their enemies)

Liberal scholars also claim Leviathon is a crocodile. There are some similarities; however, there are many differences. Leviathan can’t be pierced with spears, alligators and crocodiles can. Man cannot wrestle Leviathon, yet we all saw Crocodile Hunter Dave Irwin wrestle crocs on TV. I personally witnessed Seminole Indians in Florida hold the jaws of large alligators open. In addition, Leviathon cannot be skinned, yet crocodile and alligator skin boots and bags were once popular . Lastly, I never met a fire-breathing croc or alligator.

Leviathon seems to be what our ancestors called dragons. Names and terms evolve over time. What modern man calls dinosaurs were once called dragons. Just about every culture has a dragon myth. If you were to go back before the age of mass communication, perhaps 200 years ago, and you were to ask a little Chinese boy to draw a dragon, he would draw you a serpent-like fire-breathing creature. Likewise, if you asked a little English boy who never met that Chinese boy to draw a dragon, having never met him or talked to him, he would draw a similar creature. How can you explain the preponderance of dragon myths? The only logical explanation is that there were real dragons (dinosaurs) which terrorized our ancestor’s villages and these stories as well as their descriptions were passed on from generation to generation!

So what happened to the dinosaurs? Some smaller varieties remain: alligators, crocodiles and komodo dragons etc. However, many have become extinct, leaving only their bones, legends and brief references in history. The view I hold is that many were hunted by man to extinction because of the threat they posed to villages (much like wolves in Medieval Europe). In addition, I believe the world-wide flood of Genesis caused environmental changes which made it difficult for dinosaurs to survive.

[Guest Truth Squad]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

This is shocking. We all knew Paszkiewicz was engaged in some bizarre thinking, but when you see it on paper, it’s worse than what we already knew – which was more than bad enough. Take this little segment from the end of his essay.

“Lastly, I never met a fire-breathing croc or alligator. Leviathon seems to be what our ancestors called dragons. Names and terms evolve over time. What modern man calls dinosaurs were once called dragons. Just about every culture has a dragon myth. If you were to go back before the age of mass communication, perhaps 200 years ago, and you were to ask a little Chinese boy to draw a dragon, he would draw you a serpent-like fire-breathing creature. Likewise, if you asked a little English boy who never met that Chinese boy to draw a dragon, having never met him or talked to him, he would draw a similar creature. How can you explain the preponderance of dragon myths? The only logical explanation is that there were real dragons (dinosaurs) which terrorized our ancestor’s villages and these stories as well as their descriptions were passed on from generation to generation!”

I dare to say he’s never met a fire-breathing dinosaur, either, nor has anyone else. How does he explain the production of fire from the gastric and/or respiratory system of a living organism? It’s just scary that a modern school teacher can be so completely cut off, mentally, from reality.

Myths are best explained by the common ways in which the human mind processes information and creates mental images. Monsters of various kinds appear to children in dreams all over the world. It doesn’t make them real.

And what he doesn’t realize about evolution is that the same mathematical processes that produce evolution of language also produce evolution of species. He never will understand it unless he studies the subject of evolution with the open mind he does not have.

As the person who commented on Paszkiewicz’s piece on the Canessa blog wrote, it would hard to construct a parody of ignorance that would be more damning than what he has done to himself.

[Guest Guest]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

Paszkiewicz writes: “So what happened to the dinosaurs? Some smaller varieties remain: alligators, crocodiles and komodo dragons etc. However, many have become extinct, leaving only their bones, legends and brief references in history. The view I hold is that many were hunted by man to extinction because of the threat they posed to villages (much like wolves in Medieval Europe). In addition, I believe the world-wide flood of Genesis caused environmental changes which made it difficult for dinosaurs to survive.”

Forget about all the science we have, which proves that dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans evolved. Forget about the fact that Mr. P is saying “I believe” to justify himself, not based on anything in the real world. Forget about how childish his ideas are. Think like a child for a moment what he’s saying about God.

Paszkiewicz makes God out to be a bumbling, incompetent fool. According to Mr. P, God flooded the earth because he found human behavior intolerable, but he wanted to save all the animal species (forget also that Mr. P believes that animal species do become extinct), so he ordered Noah to take them all aboard a large sailing vessel. This must have been important, or God would not have ordered Noah to do it.

Yet we are to believe that the flood resulted in unintended consequences in the form of environmental changes, causing an entire class of species, the dinosaurs, to become extinct. In other words, God either did not appreciate the consequences of his own actions (the flood) or was powerless to control them.

To make matters worse, one would think that God’s intention was to improve the human species, since he selected a just man, supposedly, and his family to be the only ones to survive. How did that purification of the human species thing work out?

So in the end, the only effects of God’s grand plan were (1) the annihilation of most of humanity and (2) the unintended destruction of an entire class of animals that God intended to preserve.

What if God really does punish heresy? What are the consequences of making God out to be a bumbling incompetent fool, as David Paszkiewicz has done?

[Bryan]

This is shocking. We all knew Paszkiewicz was engaged in some bizarre thinking, but when you see it on paper, it’s worse than what we already knew – which was more than bad enough. Take this little segment from the end of his essay.

“Lastly, I never met a fire-breathing croc or alligator. Leviathon seems to be what our ancestors called dragons. Names and terms evolve over time. What modern man calls dinosaurs were once called dragons. Just about every culture has a dragon myth. If you were to go back before the age of mass communication, perhaps 200 years ago, and you were to ask a little Chinese boy to draw a dragon, he would draw you a serpent-like fire-breathing creature. Likewise, if you asked a little English boy who never met that Chinese boy to draw a dragon, having never met him or talked to him, he would draw a similar creature. How can you explain the preponderance of dragon myths? The only logical explanation is that there were real dragons (dinosaurs) which terrorized our ancestor’s villages and these stories as well as their descriptions were passed on from generation to generation!”

I dare to say he’s never met a fire-breathing dinosaur, either, nor has anyone else. How does he explain the production of fire from the gastric and/or respiratory system of a living organism?

Of course it evolved just like the bombardier beetle's defense system.

It’s just scary that a modern school teacher can be so completely cut off, mentally, from reality.

You're the one who comes up with those entirely illogical etymological arguments, so you have absolutely no room to talk.

[Guest Guest]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

Paszkiewicz writes: "I believe the Holy Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation to be God’s inspired word to mankind. Therefore, I believe that they ought to be interpreted literally. By 'literally,' I mean they are to be interpreted according to the normal conventions of written language. That is, if something is written in the genre of prose concerning past events, it is meant to be interpreted as literal history. . . . The book of Genesis was written in the genre of historical prose."

So perhaps he can explain to us what fruit grows on the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[Guest Twizzler]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

Inside the mind of a child: the fantasy world of David Paszkiewicz.

1. Things are true because “I believe” them.

2. What “I believe” and wish to believe is entitled to more weight than all the science and learning of the past 3,500 years.

3. Evolution and its related sciences are not even worth consideration on the merits. I believe they contradict what I have chosen to believe, therefore they may dismissed without consideration.

4. My scriptures, and only my scriptures, are the inspired word of God. I know because I know.

5. I can tell how the thing that I believe to be God’s word should be interpreted, by how it reads. What makes sense to me is literal truth, what does not make sense to me is not literally true. Others who also say they believe in the Bible may see it differently, but they are wrong because I know how to read it.

6. We can tell when the Bible is speaking symbolically. Statements that would be ridiculous if interpreted literally must be interpreted symbolically. And yet:

a. Because I believe that the universe was created in six literal days, the creation accounts are not ridiculous, even though they contradict scientific knowledge beginning hundreds of years ago. A reading of “day” Genesis 1 as a “long evolutionary age” is “not a possibility.” I don’t merely disagree with my fellow Christians, their view is “not a possibility.”

b. Because I believe that Genesis is literally true, the stars must be set in a dome over the earth. This is not ridiculous. They cannot be moving through mainly empty space, as scientists would have you believe.

c. Because I believe that the biblical account of Noah’s ark is literally true, it is not ridiculous, but true. Noah and his family somehow collected hundreds of thousands of species, a pair at a time and brought them onto the ark, where they all lived together for forty days. There must have been room for them because the Bible says it happened.

7. I know what Moses intended. That claim is not ridiculous, and you should accept it as true.

8. I know that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, even though most of it happened after he died. There is nothing ridiculous about that.

9. I can tell from biblical accounts of certain creatures it mentions that they were referring to dinosaurs.

10. Dinosaurs breathed fire because Job tells of a leviathan that “breathes fire.” I know that is literally true, even though I believe that Job is written in the language of poetry.

11. If Steve Irwin could wrestle a crocodile on the Crocodile Hunter TV series, then the animal that no man who lived at that time could wrestle could not have been a crocodile. That should be proof enough for anyone.

12. Men must have hunted dinosaurs to extinction because it must have happened, because that is the only way I can explain what I believe. It must have happened because I need it to explain my opinions.

And this guy is teaching? This is disgraceful. Something should be done about this.

[Guest Guest]

Every time someone disagrees with Mr. P., Canessa's blog seems to encounter a glitch. Two people have now posted critically about P's dinosaur essay, and suddenly the blog seems to be corrupted. What a surprise. Here is the first post. The second seems to have been pulled down.

Revross said . . .

This teacher is no teacher. He is an impediment to learning. The book he takes his supposed science from is around 3,000 years old. Do they not require teachers to take courses to keep up with current knowledge. I would say that Mr. Paszkiewicz has fallen behind here.

He should be banned from the system of public education. Ignorance such as this belongs in a comic book. I don't think that I could come up with a parody of ignorance that would make him appear more ridiculous than what this man has done to himself.

Ross H. Henry, Humanist Minister

Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:28:00 AM

[Guest *Autonomous*]

Of course it evolved just like the bombardier beetle's defense system.

Just in case you're seriously using that old creationist chestnut:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB310_1.html

[Guest 2smart4u]

Every time someone disagrees with Mr. P., Canessa's blog seems to encounter a glitch. Two people have now posted critically about P's dinosaur essay, and suddenly the blog seems to be corrupted. What a surprise. Here is the first post. The second seems to have been pulled down.

Revross said . . .

This teacher is no teacher. He is an impediment to learning. The book he takes his supposed science from is around 3,000 years old. Do they not require teachers to take courses to keep up with current knowledge. I would say that Mr. Paszkiewicz has fallen behind here.

He should be banned from the system of public education. Ignorance such as this belongs in a comic book. I don't think that I could come up with a parody of ignorance that would make him appear more ridiculous than what this man has done to himself.

Ross H. Henry, Humanist Minister

Thursday, March 27, 2008 12:28:00 AM

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

[Guest *Autonomous*]

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

Creationists talking about evolution. They try to blame Hitler's policies on evolution-that's about as venomous as it gets.

[Guest Guest]

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

You just did.

Do you know Ross Henry? Of course you don't.

[Guest Guest]

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

In a few short sentences, you managed to show us that you are prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant and stupid.

[Guest Guest]

In a few short sentences, you managed to show us that you are prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant and stupid.

I didn't get any of that in his post. Your reading comprehension is zero.

[Guest Guest]

http://thecanessacorner.blogspot.com/2008/...-post_4289.html

Yeah, we get it. Let's ignore all of the real discovery we're doing and extrapolate whatever we want to be true from an old book with a talking snake.

You are a ***** liar, Paszkiewicz.

Well, if he is such a "liar" why do you give him so much of your attention? Think about it, you looked for him in another website to post about him in this website. He must really bother you, huh? We tend to ignore liars because liars don't deserve our attention, they lie! So why argue with a liar if what he says is not true? Your attitude makes me conclude that he is not really a liar, since you are trying so hard to prove that he is a liar...LOL!

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (2smart4u @ Mar 29 2008, 12:17 PM)

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 31 2008, 08:42 PM)

In a few short sentences, you managed to show us that you are prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant and stupid.

I didn't get any of that in his post. Your reading comprehension is zero.

Dear 2stupid4words:

If you're going to try to defend yourself anonymously, the least you can do is get some advice from someone who has a brain. Comparing someone you don't know to someone in the news is stupid, and so is criticizing what you do not understand. Denigrating all Humanist ministers and "evolutionists" is prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant.

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE (2smart4u @ Mar 29 2008, 12:17 PM)

A "Humanist Minister"? Sort of like Rev. Wright? (The U.S. invented AIDS to exterminate black people).

Who spews more venom than an evolutionist talking about creationism?

QUOTE (Guest @ Mar 31 2008, 08:42 PM)

In a few short sentences, you managed to show us that you are prejudiced, bigoted, ignorant and stupid.

Dear 2stupid4words:

If you're going to try to defend yourself anonymously, the least you can do is get some advice from someone who has a brain. Comparing someone you don't know to someone in the news is stupid, and so is criticizing what you do not understand. Denigrating all Humanist ministers and "evolutionists" is prejudiced, bigoted and ignorant.

You just validated 2smart's question; "Who spews more venom ......".

[Guest Guest]

Well, if he is such a "liar" why do you give him so much of your attention? Think about it, you looked for him in another website to post about him in this website. He must really bother you, huh? We tend to ignore liars because liars don't deserve our attention, they lie! So why argue with a liar if what he says is not true? Your attitude makes me conclude that he is not really a liar, since you are trying so hard to prove that he is a liar...LOL!

Because he's still "teaching" our kids.

You think about it.

[Guest Guest]

You just validated 2smart's question; "Who spews more venom ......".

2stupid4words is in no position to criticize anyone for spewing venom.

[gqueval]

If I were inclined to believe in an opinionated supreme being, I would view the fossil record as the more perfect "word of god" rather than the man-made, edited, politically motivated literature of the antique scriptures. Many of those words and ideas will go the way of slavery: a superstition that is an embarrassment we have inherited from ignorant ancestors. Any god that values human sacrifice through painful martyrdom is impotent and does not reflect humanistic values. I am inspired by the divine within unique individuals.

Reverend Gene Queval Humanist Minister

Hamilton, New Jersey

"There never was in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains. The most universal quality is diversity. "

Michel Eyquem De Montaigne

[Bryan]

If I were inclined to believe in an opinionated supreme being, I would view the fossil record as the more perfect "word of god" rather than the man-made, edited, politically motivated literature of the antique scriptures. Many of those words and ideas will go the way of slavery: a superstition that is an embarrassment we have inherited from ignorant ancestors. Any god that values human sacrifice through painful martyrdom is impotent and does not reflect humanistic values. I am inspired by the divine within unique individuals.

Reverend Gene Queval Humanist Minister

Hamilton, New Jersey

"There never was in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains. The most universal quality is diversity. "

Michel Eyquem De Montaigne

I'd be interested in hearing what ethical system you use from which to condemn slavery. And then I'd be interested in hearing whether or not you are a determinist/compatibilist.

[gqueval]

I'd be interested in hearing what ethical system you use from which to condemn slavery. And then I'd be interested in hearing whether or not you are a determinist/compatibilist.

Hi Bryan,

I am not inclined to be absolute in my thinking but I guess that any of the various versions of "The golden rule" would be the source of my ethical musings on slavery. As to the next question, I behave as if I have free will especially when the stakes seem low, and/or I have time to deliberate. I cannot exercise free will when reflexive action occurs. (I am thinking here about the hammer on the knee type of reflex.) Certain split second decisions may apply also.

Warmest regards,

Gene

[Bryan]

Hi Bryan,

I am not inclined to be absolute in my thinking but I guess that any of the various versions of "The golden rule" would be the source of my ethical musings on slavery. As to the next question, I behave as if I have free will especially when the stakes seem low, and/or I have time to deliberate. I cannot exercise free will when reflexive action occurs. (I am thinking here about the hammer on the knee type of reflex.) Certain split second decisions may apply also.

Warmest regards,

Gene

The golden rule is not an ethical system, but a generalized ethical precept. I encourage you to explore the metaphysical foundations you see for the golden rule if you choose to sketch your moral system in a new thread (referring to my reply to you in a different thread).

Are you saying that you do not know whether or not you have free will? Are you not informed on the matter by your world view, at least?

[Guest Guest]

If I were inclined to believe in an opinionated supreme being, I would view the fossil record as the more perfect "word of god" rather than the man-made, edited, politically motivated literature of the antique scriptures. Many of those words and ideas will go the way of slavery: a superstition that is an embarrassment we have inherited from ignorant ancestors. Any god that values human sacrifice through painful martyrdom is impotent and does not reflect humanistic values. I am inspired by the divine within unique individuals.

Reverend Gene Queval Humanist Minister

Hamilton, New Jersey

"There never was in the world two opinions alike, no more than two hairs or two grains. The most universal quality is diversity. "

Michel Eyquem De Montaigne

"Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face".

Mike Tyson