Modern Mythology

The theory of Evolution reads like an ancient legend:

"Eons ago, long before the first man walked the earth, there was nothing. And then, after many years, there was something. Creatures were formed which were so strange that to even look upon them would strike fear into the hearts of men. They began as small plants, but through the magical powers of the passage of time, the plants would spawn small creatures.

As time went by, the small creatures would beget larger creatures, and creatures that walked on land, swam in the sea, and flew through the air. And these creatures would beget creatures stranger still, and they would sometimes reproduce after their own kind. After many billions of years (because time and necessity are the keys to physical change), man was created, the greatest of all animals, the spawn of the monkeys and the monkeys' children.

By pure chance, and the providence of the almighty absolutely nothing, a human was spawned of the opposite gender somewhere nearby. The humans mated and reproduced after their own kind, despite the natural laws that would have rendered them impotent, and after many thousands of years, man (from the house of Monkey) filled the earth and formed a thriving species.

Man's attempts to Evolve always met with disaster. They came up with names for their own attempts at Evolution: they called their spawn which would be better suited for life than themselves such things as challenged, deformed, and retarded. The new super-humans were not treated as great triumphs, but rather as beings to be pitied."

"And that is how, by the all-sufficient grace of the omnipotent,
omniscient absolutely nothing, man came to be on the earth."

The unproven theory (more like a hypothesis) of Evolution has been the subject of debates since it was first conceived by Charles Darwin. It has a tendency to crumble under close inspection, and was even doubtful in its creator's mind. Even the Father of Evolution could not convince himself of the truth of his assertions! Obviously, an assertion with as many fallacies as Evolution has cannot have a place in true science.

And yet, it is treated as though it were truth. Those who accept the THEORY of Evolution and thus ridicule Creationism are, in the name of logic and reason, forsaking logic and reason. Those who accept Darwinism or any other form of the THEORY of Evolution are placing their faith in something less observable (for observation is part of the scientific method) than the existence of God.

Let's go over a few things about Evolution.

Evolution requires massive amounts of time (even under the punctuated equilibrium theory). However, there is a stifling lack of evidence supporting an old earth. Truthfully, all methods of dating the earth either require excessive amounts of guesswork and assumptions (such as carbon dating), or they reach the conclusion of a young earth (amount of helium in the atmosphere, amounts of rock or water).

Evolutionists also love relying on anecdotes to prove their case. Ask for a missing link, they point to Lucy or Homo habilis. They don't point to a species; they instead refer you to individuals that have been pieced together to an incomplete skeleton from shattered bone fragments. Why is it that we can find lots of trilobites, and lots of dinosaurs, and lots of coelacanths, but when it comes to missing links, we can only find individuals? And most of all, why is anecdotal evidence considered sufficient in this supposedly scientific theory?

Let's go back to the Coelocanths for a second... Why is it that they have gone for (according to Evolutionists' numbers) 400 million years, and not changed? Isn't it high time they became frogs or something?

Now, talk to any Creationist, and he'll tell you he believes in evolution on a small scale. Survival of the fittest and the genetic variations that are already present and possible within a creature's DNA make it and its offspring more likely to survive. The Evolution that Darwin suggested would require a major change in genetic information, as well as the creation of enough new genetic information to actually keep the new organism alive and capable of reproducing. Only problem is that this has never been done. Such drastic genetic changes always kill the organisms.

It would be a very exact touch to have an animal evolve and be capable of reproduction. The most minute problems in the gametes (which help organisms reproduce and transfer genetic information to their offspring) can cause great damage to the offspring, which are never considered to be "Evolved." One extra chromosome and you've got a child with Down's Syndrome. Missing a chromosome, and they've got Turner's Syndrome. Try adding or taking away other chromosomes and genes, see what happens. Neither an increase nor a decrease in genetic information will result in a healthy individual, much less one that is better suited for survival. The only beneficial genetic "changes" that have been recorded for any living organism are the changes that are already built into that organism's genetic information. The color of a human's eyes, the color of the peppered moths, or selective breeding are all examples of this. However, these characteristics can change for as long as you want, but they will never yield a new species.

Even the very foundation of Evolution is flawed. The Big Bang theory requires that somehow, miraculously, vast amounts of order spring from complete disorder. So essentially, Evolutionists would rather believe their own THEORY than a longstanding LAW (the Second Law of Thermodynamics). This is, again, hardly worthy of the label of "science." Any school of thought that would rather disregard an accepted scientific law than challenge its own theory (which requires a great amount of faith, I might add) cannot possibly be called "science."

There has been no Evolution observed. Evolution has not been experimented with. Evolution has not been proven to have taken place in the past. Evolution contradicts at least one proven natural law. There is, therefore, nothing scientific about Evolution. It is pure philosophy, and is commonly accepted simply because it provides a (deeply flawed) alternative to the possibility that there might be something out there that's greater than us.

God forbid that there should actually be a God.

Chalk Up Another One for the Homeschoolers

Congratulations to Nathaniel Cornelius, winner of the 2005 National Geography Bee!

A 13-year-old home schooled youth from Minnesota won the 2005 National Geographic Bee on Wednesday.

Nathaniel Cornelius topped young people from across the nation to win a $25,000 college scholarship.

The winning question: "Lake Gatun, an artificial lake that constitutes part of the Panama Canal system, was created by damming which river?"

The answer: Chagres River.

Cornelius, of Cottonwood, represented the Marshall Area Home Educators Association. In addition to knowing his way around, he plays piano and classical guitar and enjoys photography. He also represented Minnesota in the 2003 and 2004 National Geographic Bees.

Way to represent, Nathaniel!

Compromise

Yes, it's true; Senate Democrats and Republicans have struck a deal to end the filibusters of three of Bush's judicial nominees.

"The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should 'only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances,' with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met."

"Under the terms of the agreement, Democrats said they would allow final confirmation votes for Owen, Brown and Pryor, three nominees all assailed by Democrats for what they say has been their conservative activism. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers."

Please note that the filibuster problem has not necessarily been fixed. It leaves room for Democrats to filibuster more nominees under "extraordinary circumstances," whatever those might be.

Yes, this compromise is better than nothing, but we'd be better off getting rid of the filibuster in its current form and going back to the original filibuster procedures. The minority was never intended to be able to impede progress like that, and judicial nominees were never supposed to be filibustered.

Of course, I favored the "nuclear option," but at least SOMETHING'S getting done now regarding Bush's judicial nominees. We'll just have to wait and see whether or not this compromise will work in the long run. I don't hold high hopes, as the Democrats seem to view any Conservative judicial nominee as an "extraordinary circumstance," but maybe they'll surprise me.

What do you think about the compromise?

If Only the Majority Had Rights...

Yahoo News has some interesting statistics in this article about the ID vs. Evolution controversy.

According to a November national Gallup poll, "only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence." The rest said they didn't know.

A CBS News poll taken the same month found that two-thirds of Americans want creationism taught with evolution. It also indicated that 55 percent of Americans believe God created humans in their present form and only 13 percent think that humans evolved without divine guidance.

So obviously, we know what the majority wants. Currently, a philosophical idea (Darwinism) is being taught as fact in science classes across the nation. This philosophy is not supported by the majority OR scientific evidence (circumstantial evidence has yet to prove this case), and yet it is being taught as an unquestionable fact. This is being done in the name of Separation of Church and State (another fictional idea).

So rather than teach according to the views of the majority, schools must appease the 13 percent who directly oppose the majority. Does this seem rather undemocratic to anyone else?

Trying My Hand At Relativism

According to Yahoo! News, Bush has proposed a corps to aid new democracies.

"This new corps will be on call — ready to get programs running on the ground in days and weeks instead of months and years," Bush said at a dinner hosted by the International Republican Institute, a federally funded group that promotes democracy worldwide. "If a crisis emerges and assistance is needed, the United States of America will be ready."

Bush cited a series of what he referred to as revolutions during the past 18 months in ex-Soviet republics and across the Middle East: in Georgia, Ukraine, Iraq, Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon.

"We are seeing the rise of a new generation whose hearts burn for freedom — and they will have it," Bush said.

Do you think Liberals are going to be outraged over this? I can just hear their shrill cries...

If there is going to be a corps to help young nations, it should embrace diversity! We should aid any young nation, be it a democracy, dictatorship, or monarchy!

This ethnocentricity that Bush exhibits by wanting to help only democracies is OBVIOUSLY the reason that the international community hates us! Conservatives think that democratic government is better than letting one person have all the power, but guess what? THE WORLD'S TYRANTS DISAGREE! Should they just be left out in the cold just because SOMEONE thinks their governing habits are wrong? I mean, hey, if a dictator gets a kick out of a little genocide, who are we to deny them the help they need to retain power in the early stages of their government?

Sheesh, learn a little tolerance, people!

Kansas Reconsiders Definition of "Science"

According to Yahoo News, Kansas is attempting to redefine science.

"The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution weren't limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself. Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world."

"Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals."

"One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as 'a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us.' That's close to the current definition."

The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as 'a systematic method of continuing investigation' using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena."

This, of course, has Evolutionists in quite a tizzy. They love to study natural phenomena, but they refuse to believe (despite the abundance of proof) that something supernatural might cause (or have caused) natural phenomena.

Now, it doesn't seem too scientific, in the study of natural phenomena, to exclude certain possibilities from even being considered. That's actually quite arrogant! How can you completely exclude a possible cause without scientifically disproving it, and continue to call your study "scientific?"

Science is the study of natural phenomena, but in order to study natural phenomena, it is necessary to consider the possibility of the supernatural. We can't rule out possibilities before they've been disproved.

Why Bother?

The judges are at it again! Who needs the Constitution and a majority when you've got a black robe?

Reggie asks a good question: "Why do we even bother holding elections anymore?" It seems that the only way to have your voice heard in government nowadays is to be a judge! So much for that "by the people, for the people" stuff; now it's just a bunch of power-hungry activists, crushing the rights of the people with every tap of their gavel.

Why don't we impeach these buffoons?

Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

UCAUTION

IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY IT IS ADVISABLE TO KEEP NEOFASCIST? AWAY FROM FIRE AND FLAMES.

Username:

From Go-Quiz.com

"Welcome to the Republican Party"

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and supported the distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & the addition of more government welfare programs. Based on the lectures that she had participated in and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that for years her father had obviously harbored an evil, even selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He stopped her and asked her, point blank, how she was doing in school. She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. She studied all the time and never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying because of her more difficult curriculum.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your good friend Mary doing?"

"Mary is barely getting by," she replied. "She barely has a 2.0 GPA, and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies. But Mary is extremely popular on campus. College, for her, is a blast. She goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."

Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0? That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done little or nothing! She played while I worked real hard!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."

Hat tip: The Conservative Legion

Go, Fight, Win!

So there may be hope for decency in the public forum after all...

Does it appear to anyone else that problems like suggestive cheerleading are being addressed with renewed vigor? First a principal who bans "freak dancing," then in Virginia the legislature tried to pass a law requiring that one's undergarments not be visible in public, and now Texas is attempting to restrict suggestive cheerleading. Maybe some other states will take the cue from Texas and Virginia and bring back decency within their borders as well...

Of course, suggestive cheerleading is by no means the only representative of indecency in our nation, but it's a start. Think about it: At a high school game, is it really doing the adult men any good to see underage girls dancing in ways that most adult women would be ashamed to? Heck, is it even good for the boys? Tell me, what purpose can such suggestive cheerleading really serve, besides promoting unhealthy lust?

Rah rah.

You Know You're From 2005 When...

1. You accidentally enter your password on the microwave.

2. You haven't played solitaire with real cards in years.

3. You have a list of 15 phone numbers to reach your family of 3.

4. You e-mail the person who works at the desk next to you.

5. Your reason for not staying in touch with friends and family is that they don't have e-mail addresses.

6. You go home after a long day at work and you still answer the phone in a business-like manner

7. You make phone calls from home and you accidentally dial "9" to get an outside line.

8. You've sat at the same desk for four years and worked for three different companies.

10. You learn about your redundancy on the 11 o'clock news.

11. Your boss doesn't have the ability to do your job.

12. You pull up in your own driveway and use your cell phone to see if anyone is home.

13. Every commercial on television has a website at the bottom of the screen.

14. Leaving the house without your cell phone, which you didn't have the first 20 or 30 (or 60)
years of your life, is now a cause for panic and you turn around to go and get it.

15. You get up in the morning and go online before getting your coffee.

16. You start tilting your head sideways to smile. :)

17. You're reading this and nodding and laughing.

18. Even worse, you know exactly to whom you are going to forward this message.

19. You are too busy to notice there was no #9 on this list.

20. You actually scrolled back up to check that there wasn't a #9 on this list.

I hope this redeems me, after that Napoleon Dynamite joke...