Photos: John Verderame


(Both the Evolution and Atheism books can be purchased here at a discount, or they are also available online at Amazon, ebay, Abebooks, Alibris, Biblio, Barnes & Noble, and more.)

Yes God Exists

NEW EXPANDED EDITION includes an additional 73 pages of feedback and discussion packed with information pertinent to the question of why the theory of Evolution is not scientific and not supported by real science.

Here is an article about the book and its author that appeared in the Cody, Wyoming Enterprise.

List Price: $14.95

Read Some Reviews

(Use coupon code LSZ26M7S at checkout for a 20% discount!)

Released in December 2013

Yes God Exists

Atheism is neither logical nor rational and is certainly not an intelligent choice. It's a bankrupt belief, and yes, it's a form of religion too, and devoid of hope or any basis for morality. Its adherents have been duped into "imagining" that there's no God, no Heaven, no Hell. This book is about putting imagination behind and facing reality - before it's too late.

On the lighter side, the book includes the Atheist Psychological Exam, Atheist Anti-Hypocrite Code, and a "Merry Solstice" greeting!

List Price: $12.95

Read Some Excerpts
(Use coupon code LSZ26M7S at checkout for a 20% discount!)

Some Online Articles by John Verderame

  • Significant Nothings addresses the question of extraterrestrial life and why our "place in the universe" isn't what really matters.
  • Why Should We Listen to You? asks the question: If you're an "expert" who considers the Earth and humanity unimportant, then why is anything YOU have to say important?
  • The 'Evidence' for a Biblical Worldview addresses the fact that rarely will someone be convinced by "evidence" because we all have biases in our own interpretations of the evidence.

THINK About It!

B. Franklin, Printer
(Like the Cover of an Old Book
Its Contents torn Out
And Stript of its Lettering and Gilding)
Lies Here, Food for Worms.
But the Work shall not be Lost;
For it will (as he Believ'd) Appear once More
In a New and More Elegant Edition
Revised and Corrected
By the Author.

{The epitaph of Benjamin Franklin, just one more of those individuals who didn't really accomplish much because he believed in God.}
While it may be true that many scientists past and present believe(d) in God, scientists don't have a corner on the intelligence market by any means. Are there no intelligent people in other professions who also believe? Of course there are, so let's hear from you!
Many people complain that religions are just out for money. Has anyone complained about all the money some Atheists are making off something they claim doesn't even exist? Many of the major Atheist websites have a "donate" button. I can't help but ask myself exactly what the donor is getting for his or her money! If you want, I'll be happy to tell you you're a nobody whose life is without any real purpose, and I'll do it for free!
God-haters insinuate that if we did away with "religion," wars, strife and destruction would cease. Not only is that naive, it is a blatant denial of fact, history, and truth. More people have been killed and more destruction has been wrought in the last century by political enemies, regimes like Nazism that were fueled by the Evolution myth, and Atheistic governments that tried to eradicate God from their societies, than in all the religious wars from the beginning of history. You've heard that "guns don't kill, people do?" Well, "religion" doesn't kill either. Atheists just haven't come to grips with where the REAL problem lies. Time to get the mirror out.

News and Views

Now THAT's Using the Old Atheist Noodle!

Well, this one was just too "full of holes" to resist. A Massachusetts woman, Lindsay Miller, has won the right (?) to wear a pasta colander (strainer) on her head in her driver license photo. And what noble cause is she trumpeting? Is it a protest against burkas? Does she think she can outdo SETI by contacting aliens?

No. You see, she's an "intellectual atheist" as Richard Dawkins might say, who belongs to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a loose group of God-haters who claim there's as much evidence for the existence of the FSM as there is of God.

Well, I'll bet God's up there biting His nails right this moment, worried that these "smart folks" who claim their beliefs are backed by "hard" (read: al dense-te) science, are gonna dethrone Him for sure.

Well I, for one, support Mzzz Miller 100 percent! What better object could she have placed over her brain container than a SIEVE? What symbolizes the thickness of the Atheist skull better than a hard, non-expanding metallic bowl? Seeing her with that on her head immediately evokes a vision of intellectualism, erudition, and the advancement of human knowledge, as far as I'm concerned!

Miller is encouraging her fellow "Pastafarians" (aren't they clever?) to do as she has. After all, if you were a police officer who stopped her for speeding, you might look at the photo and say, "Holy linguini, Batman! This is one smart cookie and I'll bet she's gonna outsmart me on this ticket, too! I guess I'd better let her go!"

Now, in all seriousness, Mzzz Miller and her fellow lasagna worshipers have boiled all their knowledge down and understand that 15 minutes of fame is worth risking an eternity of flame, and we're not talking boiling salted water either. No doubt they have hard scientific proof that God doesn't exist and that when they die they'll just rot away like an old can of SpaghettiOs, even though He's feeding, clothing, and caring for them, not to mention the minor point of offering them eternal salvation while they mock Him. Ask them what "evidence" they'd expect to find to demonstrate that God DOES exist, and you'll see the sieve go into action as they selectively ignore reality.

Yes, Pastafarians, I'm ready to join your club, but can I wear a pizza pan instead? After all, your beliefs are stupid no matter how you slice 'em.

Zircons and Dating Cons

I don't have time to comment on this right now, but an interesting article was featured today (October 21, 2015) on an astronomy website, concerning problems and flaws with zircon dating, especially with regard to dating the age of our Moon : Study questions dates for cataclysms on early moon, Earth

Creationists are forever hammering at the flaws and assumptions involved with dating methods, so it's always good to see a secular article that admits to their failure.

Are We That Desperate?

The latest news "flash" (pun intended) from desperate ET watchers is that a star with the rather boring appellation KIC 8462852 has shown some flickering in its light footprint (that's like a carbon footprint, only lighter - keep reading, the puns aren't going to stop) and - ARE YOU READY FOR THIS? - that might perhaps could possibly may be a SIGN THAT THERE IS INTELLIGENT LIFE OUT THERE! So why not name it "My Friend Flicker" instead of just assigning a number to it that sounds like the number of fried chicken breasts sold by a certain fast food operation? After all, there might possibly perhaps be some kind of BEINGS out there, so let's get personal!

Now, this star is 1,481 light years distant. So we don't expect to be visiting it any time soon, but - hold onto your seats - one theory is that it's possible the flickering is from GIANT SPACESHIPS that were built by alien spaceship builders (well, who else would have built them?) that are passing in front of the star.

However, as the chief astronomer involved (Jason Wright of Penn State University) stated, it's "unlikely to be aliens." How boring is THAT? Talk about throwing cold water on a hot star that's just flickering for attention! Won't he be embarrassed when it turns out that the aliens have actually built a giant KFC after all, and the reason it's orbiting the star is that that's how aliens like to fry their birds! A giant rotisserie! They could call it "Finger lickin' flickerin' chicken!"

Y'all want some fried okra and slaw with that order?


Just putting a word of praise in for the release of Kim Davis from homosexual prison, where they were very gleeful to see her go. I hope many more people, whether they are Bible believers or not, will recognize that marriage is GOD's institution, not man's. It was not invented by a couple of advanced apes, who would have had no reason to invent it in the first place. The fact that it is God's institution is the only reason corrupt sinners want to corrupt the institution too.

At a time when many heterosexuals are choosing not to be married, exactly what, we should ask, other than economics, is the impetus for homosexuals and lesbians to "marry"? If heterosexuals can be contented to just "live together," why can't homosexuals do the same? I'm not condoning the former, just asking the question.

The hateful vitriol that has been spewed against an innocent and courageous woman is actually a good thing because it exposes her detractors for who they REALLY are. THEY don't want to be persecuted. THEY don't want to be victimized. But if it's somebody else with whom THEY disagree, well, no problemo!

And let not anyone bring up the oft-misinterpreted "Judge not..." quote here. Jesus was no wimp, and He called sin "sin." As His followers we are commanded in Ephesians 5:11, "Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." You can't expose sin by not exercising judgment, and if everybody else really followed their abused version of "judge not..." we would have no police, no lawyers, no judges, and no jails for homosexuals who are JUDGING Kim Davis, to throw her in.

Again I say: GO KIM! I hope the rest of us will be that courageous in the face of persecution, especially by those who are trying to force others to accept what was once rightly considered dysfunctional behavior. Again I ask, as I have often before, how can anyone - ANYONE - consider two men or women kissing each other and having sexual relations normal behavior? Even by the malleable standards of the Religion of Evodelusion it's not normal behavior, as it detracts from the survivability of the species. How badly have our consciences have been seared that we can even vaguely find that acceptable?

Time, and Time Again

If you don't believe what I said at the end of the article below this one, here's another item for you from none other than Carl Sagan in his book The Varieties of Scientific Experience. It is a book in which Sagan seems obsessed with trying to demonstrate that God had nothing to do with the universe. To quote:

"Now, an essential aspect of this idea [viz, that Natural Selection "created" everything] is that you need to have enough time. If the universe is only a few thousand years old, then Darwinian evolution is nonsense. There isn't time. On the other hand, if the Earth is a few thousand million years old, then there is enormous time, and we can at least contemplate that this is the source, as certainly all of modern biology suggests, of the complexity and beauty of the biological world."

So, here's what Sagan is suggesting scientists do. First, they must dismiss a priori any evidence that "suggests" that the Earth ISN'T millions of years old. Like blood cells and C-14 in dinosaur bones, for instance.

Second, they must adopt the assumption, no matter how demonstrably false, that with goddess Time, all things are possible. Oh, but forget that! They should at least "contemplate" (read: use their imaginations) that Time is the "source" of all being.

Third, they must accept, despite all evidence to the contrary, that natural selection is the engine behind all biological development, activity and "beauty," though there is no definition of "beauty" given by Sagan. If mindless evolution is responsible for all creation, then "beauty" is a totally irrrelevant and metaphysical property that we assign to something randomly, and it has no real meaning.

HONEST scientists will admit, as many have done and more are doing, that mutations and natural selection cannot explain either the origin or the complexity of any living thing. Neither of those mechanisms has ever been shown to create anything new, or add any new, useful information to a biological entity.

So where does that leave us other than to say that Sagan's statement is patently false, unscientific, unprovable, untestable, and downright misleading?

I guess, once again, Time will tell...

(P.S. : Darwinian evolution IS nonsense. Take it by faith.)

More News and Articles