I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a

I thought about my days in college and how I found it relatively easy to stump my professors about evolution. But what one believes about this subject is even more profound than may immediately appear.

If there is no God, then there are no absolute rules. No one has a right to tell anyone else what they should do or not do. There is no evil; Societies only make social compacts that most of them feel that they can live with. Hitler, the Son of Sam or the worst persons that you can think of were only victims of their society. It’s survival at all cost. Lion against lion. This is evolution when taken to its natural logical end. A nation could end up doing anything. You get the same result, if there is a God and you decide to make him in your own image.

There is trepidation wither we believe in a God we make up or wither we don’t believe in God, if either is taken to it logical end at the whim of human beings. Somebody will sooner or later, go off the deep end. But I am digressing from my point a bit.

Now I am not one that believes that Science and the Bible are at odds. I have not found that to be the case. From childhood till now, I have loved science. In High School, you would likely find me doing experiments while my friends were partying. To this day I find the universe and the Bible fascinating. It enhances and does not stymie understanding as the person most often mentioned beside Einstein as the greatest scientist of all times, Isaac Newton, proved. We don’t need help from any of these men to show the reason many still believe in creation. Is it just silliness as Ms. Pelosi suggested?

LOGIC and the fundamental reasons that I could easily defeat my evolutionist professors: (simply)

Although, I was taught evolution from my childhood through college, I found some illogical assumptions involved. Let me illustrate absurdity by an absurd story.

We wake up one morning on another planet. We have no memory of where we come from or why we are there. On this planet are great stone structures that were built by a long extinct race of beings. Over time two ideas develop. One is that the structures were made by nature. The other theory is that beings built those structures.

This, by the way is not just a story, it is historical to what man has done regardless which idea was prevalent at different times. Now, let’s get back to the analogy.

Fact: The evidence in total only will vindicate one of these theories. It won’t prove the false assumption.

Axiom: If I accept either theory as absolute without accepting that there is scientific information that pertains to both, either substantiating or refuting them, I cannot prove either. That would be like finding foot prints of some kind of animal in the house and deciding that it is a chicken without knowing what a chicken’s foot tracks look like.

Get that thought in your head, so I can get through this easily and without complicating information.

We will remember this little rule.

I found in college, that some professors as do some scientists refuse to check the tracks. They find a reason to believe and ignore the reasons not to. I have long said that modern secular science is a RELIGION. Let’s check out one of that religion’s beliefs and the flimsiness on which it stands.

First: Macro evolutionist theory and the Design theory both deal with the concept of God. This is a fact that neither side seems to want to admit.

Modern Secular science believes that when you reverse time, the universe will arrive back to the big bang event. The beginnings of which they say is without, beyond and transcends the laws of physics. Without these laws of physics, there is no hope of understanding first beginnings according to them. One thing this sort of language does is declare that prior to what we know today as physics; there existed an unknowable cause of what we have today. A cause that was great enough to present us with the universe.

Thanks professor, for the sermon about God.

Secondly, after the universe exists: Here, the evolutionist is most powerful because they will show all how learned they are about past events and the biology of plants and animals. They sound very impressive.

Ask any evolutionist secular scientist to pick any animal that they know and follow the tracks. Tell him to demonstrate what in nature caused the changes in whatever prior creature, step by step, to get to the animal that they chose.

You will find that there is NO SCIENTIST that can do this. This proves that they did not know what the chicken tracks looked like. They are just making a wild guess.

Adaptation:

Adaption is their most powerful single argument. Animals, insects and germs all adjust to their surroundings. Most powerful to those that have bitten into the AXIOM that there is no other choice.

Professor, I would say, adaption is a deficient change mechanism to bring about new forms of life. In fact a chicken adapts to its environment to survive as a chicken and not as a monkey. All life forms have this ability. Now if you can show me some fossils demonstrating how it gradually changed forms over millions of years, I will believe you. In fact professor, the chicken would be long dead. Nature can change an animal in seconds to survive. This is as if it was designed that way for survival. Otherwise how can anyone say that they had to develop that form to survive and it took millions of years to do so? That would insure the non-survival of that animal.

Also Professor, since it is assumed that all the millions of forms of life evolved from lower forms, show me any animal along with their long list of slight changes till it makes the animal what it is that we see today.

Professor, there is simply no excuse for this. The books should be full of millions of transitional forms. Oh no you don’t professor, those old drawings of different kinds of human looking creatures, are just that, drawings. Besides, modern human bones have been found older than the few ape-like bones that have been found. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. This should be easy. Transitional forms should be ever where bones are found.

If he dares say, there are transitional forms. I will ask to see actual pictures. There are none.

CONCLUSION

So, what is this all about? It is about man saying “I have the right to do whatever it is that I want to do. You see having the freedom to do so is not enough. The BELIEVERS accept it because they want what is being sold. Even religious people shop around to find something that is most like what they want and when religion held the pre-eminence, those in power fought to keep logical minds from threatening their dominance.

I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a

LOGIC and the fundamental reasons that I could easily defeat my evolutionist professors: (simply)

Although, I was taught evolution from my childhood through college, I found some illogical assumptions involved. Let me illustrate absurdity by an absurd story.

We wake up one morning on another planet. We have no memory of where we come from or why we are there. On this planet are great stone structures that were built by a long extinct race of beings. Over time two ideas develop. One is that the structures were made by nature. The other theory is that beings built those structures.

This, by the way is not just a story, it is historical to what man has done regardless which idea was prevalent at different times. Now, let’s get back to the analogy.

Fact: The evidence in total only will vindicate one of these theories. It won’t prove the false assumption.

Axiom: If I accept either theory as absolute without accepting that there is scientific information that pertains to both, either substantiating or refuting them, I cannot prove either. That would be like finding foot prints of some kind of animal in the house and deciding that it is a chicken without knowing what a chicken’s foot tracks look like.

Get that thought in your head, so I can get through this easily and without complicating information.

We will remember this little rule.

I found in college, that some professors as do some scientists refuse to check the tracks. They find a reason to believe and ignore the reasons not to. I have long said that modern secular science is a RELIGION. Let’s check out one of that religion’s beliefs and the flimsiness on which it stands.

First: Macro evolutionist theory and the Design theory both deal with the concept of God. This is a fact that neither side seems to want to admit.

Modern Secular science believes that when you reverse time, the universe will arrive back to the big bang event. The beginnings of which they say is without, beyond and transcends the laws of physics. Without these laws of physics, there is no hope of understanding first beginnings according to them. One thing this sort of language does is declare that prior to what we know today as physics; there existed an unknowable cause of what we have today. A cause that was great enough to present us with the universe.

Thanks professor, for the sermon about God.

Secondly, after the universe exists: Here, the evolutionist is most powerful because they will show all how learned they are about past events and the biology of plants and animals. They sound very impressive.

Ask any evolutionist secular scientist to pick any animal that they know and follow the tracks. Tell him to demonstrate what in nature caused the changes in whatever prior creature, step by step, to get to the animal that they chose.

You will find that there is NO SCIENTIST that can do this. This proves that they did not know what the chicken tracks looked like. They are just making a wild guess.

Adaptation:

Adaption is their most powerful single argument. Animals, insects and germs all adjust to their surroundings. Most powerful to those that have bitten into the AXIOM that there is no other choice.

Professor, I would say, adaption is a deficient change mechanism to bring about new forms of life. In fact a chicken adapts to its environment to survive as a chicken and not as a monkey. All life forms have this ability. Now if you can show me some fossils demonstrating how it gradually changed forms over millions of years, I will believe you. In fact professor, the chicken would be long dead. Nature can change an animal in seconds to survive. This is as if it was designed that way for survival. Otherwise how can anyone say that they had to develop that form to survive and it took millions of years to do so? That would insure the non-survival of that animal.

Also Professor, since it is assumed that all the millions of forms of life evolved from lower forms, show me any animal along with their long list of slight changes till it makes the animal what it is that we see today.

Professor, there is simply no excuse for this. The books should be full of millions of transitional forms. Oh no you don’t professor, those old drawings of different kinds of human looking creatures, are just that, drawings. Besides, modern human bones have been found older than the few ape-like bones that have been found. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. This should be easy. Transitional forms should be ever where bones are found.

If he dares say, there are transitional forms. I will ask to see actual pictures. There are none.

CONCLUSION

So, what is this all about? It is about man saying “I have the right to do whatever it is that I want to do. You see having the freedom to do so is not enough. The BELIEVERS accept it because they want what is being sold. Even religious people shop around to find something that is most like what they want and when religion held the pre-eminence, those in power fought to keep logical minds from threatening their dominance.

I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a

First: Macro evolutionist theory and the Design theory both deal with the concept of God. This is a fact that neither side seems to want to admit.

Modern Secular science believes that when you reverse time, the universe will arrive back to the big bang event. The beginnings of which they say is without, beyond and transcends the laws of physics. Without these laws of physics, there is no hope of understanding first beginnings according to them. One thing this sort of language does is declare that prior to what we know today as physics; there existed an unknowable cause of what we have today. A cause that was great enough to present us with the universe.

Thanks professor, for the sermon about God.

Secondly, after the universe exists: Here, the evolutionist is most powerful because they will show all how learned they are about past events and the biology of plants and animals. They sound very impressive.

Ask any evolutionist secular scientist to pick any animal that they know and follow the tracks. Tell him to demonstrate what in nature caused the changes in whatever prior creature, step by step, to get to the animal that they chose.

You will find that there is NO SCIENTIST that can do this. This proves that they did not know what the chicken tracks looked like. They are just making a wild guess.

Adaptation:

Adaption is their most powerful single argument. Animals, insects and germs all adjust to their surroundings. Most powerful to those that have bitten into the AXIOM that there is no other choice.

Professor, I would say, adaption is a deficient change mechanism to bring about new forms of life. In fact a chicken adapts to its environment to survive as a chicken and not as a monkey. All life forms have this ability. Now if you can show me some fossils demonstrating how it gradually changed forms over millions of years, I will believe you. In fact professor, the chicken would be long dead. Nature can change an animal in seconds to survive. This is as if it was designed that way for survival. Otherwise how can anyone say that they had to develop that form to survive and it took millions of years to do so? That would insure the non-survival of that animal.

Also Professor, since it is assumed that all the millions of forms of life evolved from lower forms, show me any animal along with their long list of slight changes till it makes the animal what it is that we see today.

Professor, there is simply no excuse for this. The books should be full of millions of transitional forms. Oh no you don’t professor, those old drawings of different kinds of human looking creatures, are just that, drawings. Besides, modern human bones have been found older than the few ape-like bones that have been found. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. This should be easy. Transitional forms should be ever where bones are found.

If he dares say, there are transitional forms. I will ask to see actual pictures. There are none.

CONCLUSION

So, what is this all about? It is about man saying “I have the right to do whatever it is that I want to do. You see having the freedom to do so is not enough. The BELIEVERS accept it because they want what is being sold. Even religious people shop around to find something that is most like what they want and when religion held the pre-eminence, those in power fought to keep logical minds from threatening their dominance.

I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a

Professor, I would say, adaption is a deficient change mechanism to bring about new forms of life. In fact a chicken adapts to its environment to survive as a chicken and not as a monkey. All life forms have this ability. Now if you can show me some fossils demonstrating how it gradually changed forms over millions of years, I will believe you. In fact professor, the chicken would be long dead. Nature can change an animal in seconds to survive. This is as if it was designed that way for survival. Otherwise how can anyone say that they had to develop that form to survive and it took millions of years to do so? That would insure the non-survival of that animal.

Also Professor, since it is assumed that all the millions of forms of life evolved from lower forms, show me any animal along with their long list of slight changes till it makes the animal what it is that we see today.

Professor, there is simply no excuse for this. The books should be full of millions of transitional forms. Oh no you don’t professor, those old drawings of different kinds of human looking creatures, are just that, drawings. Besides, modern human bones have been found older than the few ape-like bones that have been found. There are NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS. This should be easy. Transitional forms should be ever where bones are found.

If he dares say, there are transitional forms. I will ask to see actual pictures. There are none.

CONCLUSION

So, what is this all about? It is about man saying “I have the right to do whatever it is that I want to do. You see having the freedom to do so is not enough. The BELIEVERS accept it because they want what is being sold. Even religious people shop around to find something that is most like what they want and when religion held the pre-eminence, those in power fought to keep logical minds from threatening their dominance.

I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a

I say RELIGION, because truth is not synonymous with either of these ways of thinking, but at the heart of both is wither or not there is a God and what the answer means to the believer.

Now, we awaken back on earth and the AXIOM and FACTS are played illogically on both sides. Secular scientific RELIGION has the pre-eminence and makes like the facts cannot be used to see if design is logical. Just to examine the logic is a SIN to them and believing otherwise could destroy your career.

One thing they cannot say to someone who has thoroughly examined their theory and doesn’t have a dog in the fight is that their theory even gets out of the door of proof. They count on consensus, like the religions of the past. Consensus is not science.

Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Matthews, Show me how you get a universe without something so overshadowing, beyond the laws of physics and the attributes of God that science uses today. No one has ever done so.

Show me all the gradually changed fossils that eventually changed to the life forms of today. Not Germs and different types of trilobites because they remained whatever they were. Show me these things and I will acknowledge that I have dwelled with ignorance.

Can you admit that what you dwell with is at best personal choice and not science?

Can you admit that it is these very things that separate me and you in our way of thinking about almost everything?

This is why I am pro-life because I hold that there is evidence for God’s existence and that he has made the rules of death and of life. That a child is there from conception and if I could read DNA perfectly, I could tell you everything about how the child looks before it is unfolded spatially, as though I saw them in a mirror. Science has made me to have understanding of the saying of God, “Before you were shapen in the womb, I knew you.”

This is why I am against growing embryos to fill some capitalist pocket even to help others. In fact nature has agreed with me and no one in the last 10 years has been able to use embryonic stem cells to do anything worth while. While adult stem-cells and cord blood stem-cells are already saving lives. Maybe nature is trying to tell you something, that its God makes it easy to do right and harder to do wrong. Let’s not strain at a gnat but be willing to swallow a camel.

This is why I believe that the rules of society should be as close to the laws of God as possible. Most are proven by history and at the same time that as long as people do not disrupt society, they should be left alone to find their own way.

This is why I believe that hate crimes, is when anyone commits a hateful act against anyone else regardless of race.

This is why I believe that people should be charitable, but you have no right to take from one to give to another.

Yes, I know why I believe what I do believe and am comfortable with the evidence supporting me.

I also know why you can find it easy to believe what you do. I do not begrudge your freedom to do so but when you make like these things are founded on logic, you must be weighed in the balances.