Recent Comments

1. 1 day ago on Frank and Ernest

   Not even sure why I’m replying to you.

   The reason I’ve lost interest is because you just make up stuff.. Your A B Cs of fossils is totally bogus, as well as your explanation for nucleotides. You totally ignore the scientific law that life only comes from life, something I learned in basic high school biology class.

   I wish you well my friend and hope someday you learn the truth and see the foolishness of evolution as I did.

2. 3 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   One last thought. DNA is made up of molecules called nucleotides. Each human cell has 3.2 billion nucleotides. These compounds are arranged in a precise pattern so that the cell can make enzymes and proteins.The chance of even the simplest strand of nucleotides spontaneously forming the right pattern has been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 150 power (1 followed by 150 zeros). If the chance of something happening is 1 in 10/to the 50 power (1 followed by 50 zeros) it is considered statistically impossible. The fact is that no scientific experiments have proved that life can arise spontaneously from nonliving matter. Believe what you want but I will follow the science. Just for clarification I believe in creation but I’m not a Creationist and yes there is a difference. Don’t bother responding because quite honestly I’ve lost interest.

3. 3 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   Yes the theory of evolution is under attack and not just by the “religious community” but also by scientists. Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new. Chandra Wickramasinghe, a highly acclaimed British scientist, takes a similar position. “There’s no evidence for any of the basic tenets of Darwinian evolution,” he says. “It was a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I think it has been a disaster for science ever since.” T. H. Janabi investigated the arguments put forth by evolutionists. “I found that the situation is quite different from that which we are led to believe,” he says. “The evidence is too scarce and too fragmented to support such a complex theory as that of the origin of life.” Physicist Fred Hoyle calls it “the Gospel according to Darwin.” Even Dr. Carl Sagan, has been quoted as saying that “evolution is a religion which masquerades as science”.Dr. Evan Shute takes it further. “I suspect that the creationist has less mystery to explain away than the wholehearted evolutionist,” “When I contemplate the nature of man,” admits astronomer Robert Jastrow, “the emergence of this extraordinary being out of chemicals dissolved in a pool of warm water seems as much a miracle as the Biblical account of his origin.” I find this quote quite funny“Evolutionists don’t want to fight. They have already declared victory and view any assault on their domain as pretension. Could it be that the reason they want to avoid a fight is because they evolved from chickens?”—Cal Thomas’ column in the New York Daily News, Friday, August 22, 1986.

   I could challenge you on your statements concerning the fossil record but it would be a waste of time.

4. 6 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   On September 30, 1986, The New York Times published an article by a New York University professor, Irving Kristol. His contention is that if evolution were taught in the public schools as the theory it is rather than as the fact it isn’t, there would not be the controversy that now rages between evolution and creationism. Kristol stated: “There is also little doubt that it is this pseudoscientific dogmatism that has provoked the current religious reaction.”“Though this theory is usually taught as an established scientific truth,” Kristol said, “it is nothing of the sort. It has too many lacunae [gaps]. Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact.”

   Science, the official magazine for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also spiked Gould’s argument: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in the physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [a position about midway between extremes].”

   In both plants and animals, variations within a species will oscillate or move about like pellets shaken in a glass jar, the variations are held within the boundaries of the species just as the pellets are confined within the jar. Just as the Bible’s account of creation says, a plant or an animal may vary, yet it is restricted to reproduce “according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:12, 21, 24, 5.

5. 6 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   I rarely read Wikipedia and I never read it for definitive information about anything or anyone. If you want to believe your rabbit-hole theory go right a head, I though will except it as most others have and what I believe it truly is, the astute observations of a brilliant man.

   As for the humming bird I mentioned it because I can’t imagine, how many scientist it would take, how many engineers, how much research, how much time and how much money would it take for science to even come close to duplicating such an amazing flyer. Yet we are told to believe that it came about by blind chance. Sorry but you’d have better luck trying to convince me that you could put all the parts of a simple toaster in a large bag and after shaking it for awhile all the parts would assembled themselves into a functioning toaster. You and I both know that it would never happen because it would take an intelligent mind to assemble the toaster. Just as it took an intelligent mind to assemble the hummingbird.

   “There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”—Biology and Comparative Physiology, W. E. Swinton, Vol. 1, p. 1.

6. 8 days ago on Peanuts

   I wonder how many Gen-Z would be able read Sally’s cursive writing?

7. 8 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   Since alchemy is usually considered as the early stages of modern chemistry it’s easy to understand why someone like him would look into it. So I think we can forgive him for that. As for your other accusations against him I would need more than your say so to believe it. Also it seems unlikely considering his extensive knowledge of and respect for the Bible and it’s condemnation of those very things you are accusing him of spending time on. As an example read Deuteronomy 18:10-12.

   Since you are dissing Newton as a critical thinker perhaps you could explain why the “Encyclopædia Britannica“ calls his book on “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” “one of the most important single works in the history of modern science.” Or why he is described by many historians of science as “the greatest scientific mind the world has ever seen,” Did you know he was the first to really explain gravity and how the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. I could go on with many many more of his accomplishments but I doubt you would be prepared to listen.

   I suggest you check out a book by Douglas Axe, simply titled “Undeniable”. As a distinguished enngineer-turned-molecular-biologist he has the experience and the knowledge to speak on the creation / evolution debate.

   Oh and one more thing, the incredible flying agility and aerial acrobatics of the humming bird, it is a marvel of flight engineering. Ask any aviation expert.There, I gave you one example.

8. 9 days ago on Ripley's Believe It or Not

   A highly respected Japanese mathematician (I forget his name) crunched all the numbers, taking into account all the requirements needed for life to exist including a suitable planet and a stable enough sun. He also factored in the age of the universe (14 billion years) and determined that the chances of other life forms existing in the observable universe are basically zero. Other studies have come up with similar conclusions.

9. 9 days ago on Frank and Ernest

   Isaac Newton who is widely recognized as one of the most influential scientists of all time is quoted as saying "In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence. Even though they didn’t call it intelligent design back then it’s obvious that one of the most intelligent men of science believed in it.

   The list of things that could never have happened through mutation and so called natural selection is almost endless.

10. 12 days ago on Luann

    I read an article a few weeks back about blood transfusions and apparently they are far more risky than doctors realize. According to the article, 45 studies have been done and in 42 of the 45 studies they found the risks of transfusion outweighed the benefits. Maybe Jehovah’s Witnesses had it right all along.