Rick
Having spent some time on various forums having to do with various subjects, I find that many of the posters who espouse pro-choice, abortion, and evolution, seem to have a deep hatred for creationists, pro-life supporters, conservatives, and Christians in general. On political blogs I recognize the same ID’s of the same posters who also seem to hate President Bush, Vice-President Chaney, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfelt, and even Secretary of State,Condoleezza Rice.
Now that Kansas is re-writing the science standards to be used as guidelines for Kansas Public Schools, the blogs are rife with evolutionists duking it out with creationists. Creationists use arguments about Intelligent design in forum debates against evolutionists while evolutionists use cliched Darwinian arguments against creationists in attempts to win their points. When viewing the comments from both sides however, it becomes evident that evolutionists, especially those claiming there is no God, hate that God and are hateful of those supporting the existence of God,
creation, calling them many names such as ignorant, uninformed, feeble-minded, stupid, bible-thumpers, fundies, right wing extremists, fuzzy thinking, yahoos, pathetic, and even out and out liars. And I, myself, have been called a liar on some of my posts on topix.net and other forums.
Evolution is based on a lie and any attempt to justify it is also a lie. Evolutionists lose debates and now refuse to debate claiming they have no need to debate and that creationists need the publicity. This is why they resort to name calling which is what people do when their arguments run out of substance. Evolutionists are mean-spirited in their arguments and it is obvious in current blogs and forums today in discussions about the science standards of Kansas.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Biggest Evolution Problem: Life from Non-Life
Rick
The major problem with evolution is that no explanation exists for the origin of life from non-life. The teaching is that the cell is the foundation of all life but no scientist has been able to explain how that supposedly happened. Until the nineteenth century, the word, ‘spontaneous generation’ was thought to be the process wherein life came from non-life, until this was disproved by Louis Pasteur. “Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders” (Wikipedia, “Biogenesis). Some explain it in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis: “Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, ‘non biological origins’) is, in
its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis) (Wikipedia, “Abiogenesis.”). Note the term “most probably” is used. It is an assumption as no other explanation, in a strictly material sense, can explain the development of the living from the non-living. Modern scientists
with the latest in the state of the art equipment have not been able to produce life from non-life. Sir Francis Crick, who discovered the genetic code, DNA, has given the probability of life coming from non-life as 1 to 10 to the 260th power. In conclusion, the possibility of life coming from non-life is zero.
The major problem with evolution is that no explanation exists for the origin of life from non-life. The teaching is that the cell is the foundation of all life but no scientist has been able to explain how that supposedly happened. Until the nineteenth century, the word, ‘spontaneous generation’ was thought to be the process wherein life came from non-life, until this was disproved by Louis Pasteur. “Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which form into spiders” (Wikipedia, “Biogenesis). Some explain it in the hypothesis of Abiogenesis: “Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, ‘non biological origins’) is, in
its most general sense, the generation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as from a primordial sea or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis) (Wikipedia, “Abiogenesis.”). Note the term “most probably” is used. It is an assumption as no other explanation, in a strictly material sense, can explain the development of the living from the non-living. Modern scientists
with the latest in the state of the art equipment have not been able to produce life from non-life. Sir Francis Crick, who discovered the genetic code, DNA, has given the probability of life coming from non-life as 1 to 10 to the 260th power. In conclusion, the possibility of life coming from non-life is zero.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Kansas to change science standards again
Rick
The Kansas Department of Education is once again planning on changing the science guidelines to that of promoting evolution in Kansas public schools once again. But after the next election when the naive voters of Kansas realize they have been mislead by evolutionists prior to the 2007 November election, who claimed social conservatives wanted to remove evolution from school biology classes which was not true, may again elect social conservatives who will change the standards once again. Political ads before the election mislead voters into believing creationists wanted to do away with teachings on evolution. Conservatives want to allow local school districts to teach both creation and evolution.
The Kansas Department of Education is once again planning on changing the science guidelines to that of promoting evolution in Kansas public schools once again. But after the next election when the naive voters of Kansas realize they have been mislead by evolutionists prior to the 2007 November election, who claimed social conservatives wanted to remove evolution from school biology classes which was not true, may again elect social conservatives who will change the standards once again. Political ads before the election mislead voters into believing creationists wanted to do away with teachings on evolution. Conservatives want to allow local school districts to teach both creation and evolution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
