Free Republic

I also read Case for a Creator this year. Great book. Also read Case for Christ and Case for Faith. I highly recommend all of them.

The first 3 books were made into movies and are available on VHS/DVD

Voted in Socialist Republic of Massachusetts early. Mitt of course and Pubbies across the board. Unfortunately, over half the races go to Dims by default....I left those blank.

He'll have my vote and one from my wife. Couple dozen more and he'll be the most successful GOP senate candidate in years from this socialist republic!

AMEN!!!!!

The moth that changed color was still a moth. The moths with darker coloration were better able to survive because they were more difficult for predators to see and therefore, there were more of them left to procreate. No new species was established by this selective breeding. Microevolution is not in question here and few doubt its validity. Macroevolution and abiogenesis are the crux of the debate and Darwinism cannot adequately explain either the origins of life or origins of species.

There is no proof or evidence of a new species emerging through natural selection. There are NO transitional species in the fossil record. Even the much celebrated Archaeopteryx is now considered to be a bird and not some transitional species between a reptile and a bird. The fossil record shows statis, the emergence of fully formed species followed by long periods (sometimes millions of years) of little or no change.

How could anything be stupider than a theory claiming that natural selection creates new kinds of animals?

How about a theory claiming that a bunch of free-roaming molecules organized themselves into a self-sustaining, self-replicating fully-functioning living cell?

I live 20 miles outside that hotbed of socialism and would love a beachfront property!

The term natural selection as used by Darwin simply means an ability to produce more offspring. The human eye, or any eye for that matter, caused considerable consternation for Darwin himself as it certainly would not be a positive mutation unless fully functioning. Therefore, it is inconceivable that "natural selection" would have continued to select for each infintesimal improvement that would eventually lead to a usable eye. The term "guided natural selection" is a contradiction. Guided would imply an intelligence such as in human-engineered selective breeding. But, after intelligently directed selective breeding for hundreds of years, thousands in the case of goldfish, no new species has been created. If there is a guidance mechanism in natural selection, it would seem a powerful argument for intelligent design, which is what the debate is all about.

Evolutionary theory is completely based on blind chance.

The argument isn't really with evolution, but more with the theorized method of evolution...natural selection. If anything, cosmology and astrophysics have shown us that God does work through science and created everything within very narrow tolerances that made any life possible. Naturalistic or Darwinian evolution assumes that complex and interrelated systems such as eyes, hemoglobin, the avian lung, etc. are all the product of thousands or millions of tiny, imperceptible mutations that nature selects from populations.

Belief in an Intelligent Designer can certainly be reconciled with a "directed evolution", meaning that progressive increases in complexity have been preordained with the ultimate manifestation in the human.

The early atmosphere of the Earth contained oxygen, this would prevent the formation of amino acids and nucleotides, since atoms and molecules would bond with the oxygen atoms rather than with hydrogen. If some amino acids were formed, oxygen would cause them to decompose quickly and terminate further reactions could eventually produce life. The Miller-Urey experiments only work in the total absence of oxygen.

Even with the total absence of oxygen, life would not be able to self-organize. Without oxygen, there would be no ozone layer protecting life from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. This radiation would break down organic compounds soon after they were made. Basically a Catch-22 situation.

Journal of Geophysical Resources, R.T. Brinckmann

Prebiotic Atmospheric Oxygen Levels, J.H. Carver "Nature"

Amen! This author provides no scientific proof of evolution simply because very little, if any, exists. Darwin claimed that the greatest proof of his theory would come from the fossil record which was very incomplete at in 1859. He opined that there would be countless "transitional" species found once the fossil record was more complete. To date, after millions of additional fossil finds, not one record of a "transitional" species. In fact, ALL remains in the fossil record point to periods when new species are introduced intact and remain in statis for periods of up to millions of years (Remember the Coelcanth discovery early last century).

The creation of amino acids from a knockoff of "primeval soup" refers to the Miller-Urey experiments in the 60's. They used an oxygen-reducing atmosphere made up of methane, ammonia and hydrogen to achieve the desired result. It is generally accepted within the scientific community that the Earth's early atmosphere did not have these characteriestics.

Abiogenesis is a greater leap than faith in God. Even the simplest organism capable of sustaining an independent existence is incredibly complex. The simplest known organisms, prokaryote bacteria, are miniturized factories more complex than the Space Shuttle. Add to this the fact that DNA, RNA and proteins are mutually interdependent and it is more difficult to believe in self-organization from inanimate building blocks.

The holes in the theory of evolution are growing larger and more inexplicable coincident with advances in microbiology, chemistry and physics. While evolutionists like to lump all creationists into the "young Earth" camp, the origins of the universe and the origins of life are far more complex and scientific evidence uncovered in recent years is increasingly pointing to intelligent design.

Amen! No one could possibly state the case better.

Read "Show Me God" by Fred Heeren or "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Schroeder (sp?). Both are filled with scientific proof and theories that point to a personal, omnipotent God.

Yes, it's true that the leftists in education and the media have hypnotized most of America into an alternate reality for much of my lifetime, but wouldn't you think that after 8 years of criminality, corruption and the perversion of our laws, punctuated by the most horrific attack on our soil ever; that the sleepwalking would end? Maybe I've underestimated the depths to which the general public has sunk. It's demoralizing how most of the sheeple think (or maybe lack the ability to think entirely). This is the greatest threat that currently faces our nation.

Totally agree with you. It is utterly depressing how many people still do not understand how the socialists have undermined our freedoms and security. These polls should show overwhelming preferences for Republicans if there was an iota of intelligence left in this nation.

When did that aberration ever act as President? Did I miss something?

I have noticed a new twist in their tactics though. The apologists are not nearly as shrill or partisan when compared to the glory days of defending Clintoon's neverending parade of corruption scandals. While always claiming that the scumbag did everything possible to dismantle terrorism, they haven't taken their usual obligatory swipes at Republicans in general or Bush in particular. IMHO, this approach belies the serious trouble they are now faced with...public opinion (formerly their reliable savior) is solidly behind Bush, the sheeple are demanding answers as to how this tragedy could have happened and the public are rallying for a decisive response (again not a strong suit of the last aberration to occupy the White House).

The cumulative effects of the degradation of our military, the perversion of our public morality and the vacuum of real global leadership under Clintoon are now being felt worldwide.

Does anyone truly believe that the general public will somehow connect the dots and realize what a demoralizing, criminal empire we were subjected to during the last eight years? Will the lamestream press finally take the only ethical path and expose this criminal? One can only pray....

Excuse me please. The response I received was regarding an email supporting the company for withdrawing advertising for Maher's show.