The absurd myth of macroevolution

I was just read the book, "Now, That's a Good Question!" by R.C. Sproul, and a certain quote inspired me to finally get back to this blog and post this. Sproul described macroevolution as "one of the most unsubstantiated myths I've ever seen perpetuated in academic circles."

Here's the thing - Darwinists have tons of evidence showing that a degree of evolution can happen. That's basically a confirmed fact. Just look at dogs. Wolves, wild dogs, coyotes, foxes and domestic dogs all probably share a common ancestor. The same probably goes for a lot of bear species and felines, among others. However, that's microevolution, not the all-encompassing, life-from-one-cell macroevolution that Darwinists believe in.

So, you ask one of them to show you evidence. They'll come up with all kinds of things supposedly showing how it can happen. It all sounds very convincing. Here's the problem: showing that it "can" happen does not prove to any degree that it "has" happened. So where's their evidence that it HAS happened?

Nowhere.

It's not here.

It cannot be found.

It doesn't exist.

Proof that macroevolution happened exists the same way unicorns and fairies exist - in people's imaginations.

In other words, they expect reasonable people to accept that something happened against all odds that they have ZERO evidence for. They do not have a tape of matter appearing from nothing, or a primitive bacterium being spontaneously generated from chemical goo. Even according to atheists, the odds of such things happening are infinitesimally small.

First, we must assume that all matter in the universe appeared out of NOWHERE. We must then accept that this tiny ball of matter exploded and formed the entire universe, that some of that matter formed a spiral galaxy, and in that galaxy was formed a star just the right size, with eight planets at just the right size and positions to promote life on the third of them - Earth.

We must also convince ourselves that a planet-sized object then rammed into Earth, scattering enough debri to form a perfectly-sized moon that causes tides required for life in the oceans.

As if that's not impossible enough, we're then expected to believe that on this perfectly-sized planet there is just enough oxygen to promote life, but not enough that said life would spontaneously burst into flames. Next, supposedly, chemical goo somehow assembled itself into a fully-functioning reproducing, feeding, reacting proto-bacterium, which then, via mutations and natural selection, changed over eons into jellyfish, eels, dinosaurs, crocodiles, hamsters, trees, algae, eagles, and people.

Interesting thing - the odds of even ONE of these things happening are unbelievably small. Suddenly God doesn't sound so ridiculous, does He? The modern Darwinist flat out tell us that we should ignore our common sense and believe that all this happened. Why? What could POSSIBLY make the above absurdity ANY more plausible than the Bible's account? Especially considering that the Bible, over and over again, is being proven right, and even Richard Dawkins at least acknowledges that nature "overwhelmingly impresses us with the illusion of design." (FYI - a certain atheist I have debated claimed I was taking that out of context. I am not. I clearly included the word illusion, and my point still stands. Dawkins admits that nature looks designed, and we must convince ourselves that it is not.)

Just for kicks, here's an issue with biological evolution that throws it down for good. It can't happen. There is no way for organisms to gain genetic information. Mutations can alter or destroy genetic information, but it can't create new information. Oops. I just wrote a paragraph that kicks the legs out from under the current scientific paradigm.

For the record - I truly respect Charles Darwin as a scientist. He was intelligent, honest, and more than willing to acknowledge gaps in his theory - which is much more than can be said for those so-called "scientists" who blatantly say that they will only accept evidence that supports Darwinism. Did he take it back? No, because at his death it still seemed perfectly reasonable. A hundred years of science, though, and it has not held up. Darwin would have acknowledged this if he had been alive to see it.

Are all religions basically the same?

I know, I typically don't talk about religion. If I haven't offended you with my politics, odds are I'll now offend you in some other way. Sorry, but I've been running into the "all religions are the same" BS quite a bit recently, and feel the need to address it. Oops, just gave away my position. Now I shall elaborate.

One of the most insidious versions of this one is the claim that the God of Christianity and Islam are the same. They most certainly are NOT. The Bible makes it clear that God is Three and One. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Muslims consider this polytheism - Allah is NOT a triune god. Already, we've plainly distinguished that Islam and Christianity are incompatible. Also, Christians believe that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, sent to die for our sins. Islam teaches that Jesus was a prophet, but nothing more.

The rest of the "all religions are basically the same" argument falls apart. Islam is one of the religions that is most easily compared to Christianity. Buddhism? It teaches that there is no God. Hinduism has MANY gods. Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in the Trinity, and believe that Jesus was in fact the archangel Michael.

Jesus Himself said that He was the only way to Heaven, which makes Christianity 100% incompatible with other religions. There is only room for ONE religion to lead to eternal salvation, only room for ONE religion to be true.

That religion is Christianity. It's not a matter of personal taste, as liberals like to make it out to be. It's a matter of life and death.

Some thoughts on WikiLeaks

I cannot believe that I haven't posted on this subject yet. We all know what the statists say - "WikiLeaks is a threat to national security! Julian Assange is a traitor!"

First of all, it is NOT a threat, in any way, to national security. The only thing that MIGHT be dangerous in some vague way are the documents listing "vital" locations across the world. They consist almost entirely of mines (palladium, cobalt, etc.) and undersea cables, with a few other locations that aren't in either category. My thoughts are:

#1: Just how do you expect terrorists to get to undersea cables?
#2: If terrorists thought strategically, most of these places would have been attacked already. Listing them isn't doing any damage.
#3: Terrorists DON'T think strategically. They want to kill as many people as possible, and visibly destroy as much as possible. Attacking a mine, no matter how important or how valuable, is not going to achieve the same effect on the public as bombing buildings, turning them into very visible ruins, which causes TERROR.

I'm also still curious as to how Assange could be a "traitor," considering that he's not a citizen of the United States.

Thoughts on schooling

I've recently been reading an excellent book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, by John Taylor Gatto, and it's gotten me thinking about what I've learned. As you probably know, I'm homeschooled, and I love it. Still, I've noticed something odd. The subjects that I know in-depth have not been a major part of our curriculum. Economics, for instance. Last year it was a part of our "official" school, but I knew most of what we learned already thanks to independent study.

Global warming, another subject I know fairly well, has not been in the curriculum at all. Almost all of my knowledge about it came from my own interests and spare time, and doing my own research. Then there's government. Again, it was a subject last year, but most of my knowledge about it was gained independently of the curriculum. Then, of course, there's Abraham Lincoln and the War for Southern Independence. That has never been a subject, but it's my specialty.

I'm not trying to bash our curriculum - I think it's great - but I can't help but notice that my best areas are not taught primarily in "school." This actually, as pointed out by Gatto, is the case with most successful people, whether statesmen or businessmen. School might be a good foundation depending on the curriculum, but it WILL NOT lead to success. Education is the key, not schooling, and there is a difference. What I've come to believe is that education is rarely provided by a school curriculum, rather it is provided by one's own studies and experiences. In fact, from what I can tell, most schools, especially public, are actually designed to SUPPRESS education, and instead create good, pliable, uncomplaining citizens. It's a propaganda machine. I, for one, am glad that we still have the freedom to homeschool!

Happy Earth Day!

Oh, wait, it's not Earth Day, it's Vladimir Lenin's birthday. Wait, no, it IS Earth Day. Hold on, it appears to be BOTH! Yes, folks, Earth Day is on Lenin's birthday. You know, Communist, mass-murderer, all that good stuff? If this wasn't so disturbing it would be hysterically funny. Apparently, when Earth Day was started, the ones who started it said, "What better day than Lenin's birthday, since capitalism destroys the environment?"

Riiiiiiight. And Communism has such a sterling track record. Frankly, I don't feel like going on a long rant (I know what you're thinking: "Drake doesn't feel like ranting?! Take cover, the world is ending!") so I'll just recommend a great book.

The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About-Because They Helped Cause Them

If you just want quick proof of socialism's environmental record, Google "Aral Sea Dried Up."

Hey, Obama Supporters!

So, you voted for Obama because you wanted Change? This is directed mostly at you who voted for him based on his position on the Iraq war. Look what you got. The Iraq war continues. He plans to begin focusing on Afghanistan. Wow. Talk about "change." He hasn't "changed" anything. He's just continued what our past Communist-in-Chief Bush was doing. Not saying McCain would be any better. The government wouldn't have messed with the economy quite as much, but we'd probably be at war with Iran by now. Besides, if you wanted to end the Iraq war, you should have voted Ron Paul. He has been a Congressman for how long? He has voted consistently the whole time. Yes, I am rubbing it in your face. Next time you vote, look at how consistent each candidate is in his/her voting record, and look at their other ideas as well.

Thank you for taking the time to read this rant.

Great News!!!

Ron Paul's new book, End the Fed, is #4 on the Amazon nonfiction bestseller list. Be afraid, Bernanke. Be very afraid.

Memorial Day: Just who are we honoring?

If it's only the soldiers who truly fought for freedom, then I guess we're just celebrating the patriots in the War for Independence, possibly the War of 1812, and the Confederate soldiers. Now, I have nothing against the soldiers themselves, but look back at all the wars we have fought (and are fighting) and ask yourself "Are/were our freedoms threatened?" Looking back, aside from the wars mentioned above, the answer is no. In fact, wars are more of a threat to our freedoms than any country around today. Most wars have been a means to gain more government power by scaring the daylights out of citizens. I'm not saying we shouldn't honor the soldiers who have died, but it should be in memory of those killed by the government who were essentially tricked into believing they were fighting for freedom. Memorial Day should give everyone a feeling of anger toward the government and its pointless wars and power grabs.

Absurd Conclusions About the Secession of Texas

It's really weird. It seems like almost any liberal talking about the possibility of Texas seceding reaches the conclusion that it will be taken over by Mexico. Huh? If Mexico would take over Texas, why don't they also take over Ecuador, El Salvador, any of those little countries in Central America? They'd be easier than Texas.