Why this blog has been slowing down

This blog has really been slowing down lately. When I started out, I tried to post an article about once every one or two days -- now I post only about 2-3 articles per month. The main reason for that is that I have run out of things to say on the subjects I have been blogging about -- mostly the evolution controversy and the holocaust. This blog was created mainly to present my unorthodox views on these subjects because I was banned and censored on so many other blogs. I don't have a lot to say about these subjects because I try to reduce the debates to the simplest terms. For example, on the subject of evolution v. religion, I have just one simple question for Darwinist cafeteria Christians: Considering that the bible's creation story makes much more sense than the gospel, why do you take the gospel literally while not taking the creation story literally? The creation story is fairly straightforward whereas the gospel is full of illogic, ambiguities, inconsistencies, and unintelligibility, and the creation story is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful god whereas the god of the gospel is a weak, limited god who must struggle against Satan for control of the world. I feel that unless the Darwinist cafeteria Christians can satisfactorily answer that question -- and I don't think they can -- or at least admit that they cannot satisfactorily answer it, then to me they have no credibility, and I therefore have no desire to debate them further. However, the debates about evolution v. religion go on endlessly on other blogs. My comments about the holocaust have also been an attempt to present issues in very simple terms -- my main argument has been that a "systematic" holocaust was impossible because the Nazis had no objective and reliable way(s) of identifying Jews and non-Jews. My main criticism of evolution theory has been about co-evolution (i.e., adaptation to other organisms as opposed to adaptation to the physical environment -- co-evolution is sometimes defined as mutual adaptation between organisms) -- I have argued that co-evolution is a big problem for evolution theory even where there is no doubt that the individual co-dependent traits are not "intelligently designed" and can arise through random mutation. I argue that in co-evolution, unlike in evolutionary adaptation to widespread fixed physical features of the environment, e.g., air, water, and land in its various forms, there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism is likely to be initially absent. Thus, I can avoid the issue of intelligent design altogether. However, a lot of people seem to think that ID is the only criticism of evolution theory.

A lot of trolls claim that my arguments were refuted a long time ago, whereas the truth is that many of my arguments are practically unheard of.

I will try to continue posting articles from time to time. Getting into new subjects will help.