About Me

Name: The Hunter
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

The Death of Evolution

Posted by The Hunter on Monday, February 11, 2008 9:14:32 AM
It doesn't take data to conclude that evolution is a sham.

All you need to know is basic, say, third grade education to realize that evolution contradicts reality.

Let's look at evolution. Evolution is the ongoing process through which organisms change over time. Monkeys into men, fish into whales, velociraptors into birds. The premise for all life today is that it evolved from simpler life forms.

But why do we have the vast gaps between the evolution that supposedly occurred? Evolution should be an ongoing, continuing process, but it appears to have stopped. We have fish. We have birds. We have apes and we have men.
Exactly why is it that every single transitional form between man and ape is dead? They shouldn't be. Supposedly, when an organism spontaneously mutates a beneficial quality, it becomes better able to compete, yada yada, and it dominates the species. Eventually all the organisms in the  species have the mutation, assuming its hereditary. So why do we even have apes? Why didn't the "next step" above apes dominate the apes until all the apes became holders of the mutation?

What we have is a number of gaps that shouldn't be there. Fish growing legs? Evolution should be constantly repeating itself. Why aren't there fish growing legs today? Think about it. Over a period of millions of years, supposedly, we find ourselves at a point in evolution, where every creature fits neatly into categories?


We should see evolution demonstrated as true in our daily lives, that is, if it is true. We should see the developing wings on reptiles, legs on fish, fur on amphibeans. Like the fossil record should be the greatest evidence for evolution, and instead is the greatest evidence against it, our own observations should steadfastly prove evolution, and instead steadfastly deny its very possibility.

The point stands. If evolution happens, it should be an ongoing process, observable. We may not live long enough to detect changes while we are alive, but it should be obvious that the changes are in motion. And they are, most definitely, not.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Posted by The Hunter on Thursday, February 07, 2008 12:54:51 PM
Global Warming.

Let's look at some of the problems with the theory.

1. Global temperatures are near impossible to take accurately. You take ten thousand readings all around the globe, and you're still missing immense data. How accurate can this stuff be?
2. Temperatures are generally taken around airports, airports generall being around, or near cities. When directly next to a city, the temperature tends to be almost unnoticably higher than otherwise. So the readings tend to be innaccurate.
3. While there are those only next to cities when we started taking global temperature(past thirty years, I hear) cities have grown around airports and the readings that used to be more accurate now are very slightly raised, against in the direction supporting global warming.
4. Temperatures taken for thirty years? One would expect the global temperature to change slightly over periods of time. Why not up? We don't have nearly enough data to make reasonable suggestins that what we are observing is not natural.
5. Say the temperature goes up five degrees? Is it 30 degrees at the North Pole? Unless I'm mistaken, It's a lot colder than that. So if the temperature goes from -10 to -5, who cares? Ice doesn't melt at -5.
6. The basis is taken off a theoretical occurrence of CO2 increasing temperature. Not only is it theoretical, but we're dealing with an extremely slight temperature change, and an extremely slight CO2 atmosphere change. The differences are far too small to deserve the life-changing action we supposedly need to take.
7. We're pretty short on evidence, too.


Most claims for global warming are purely theoretical. Others are unable to distinguish between man-made global warming claims, and what could be very easily a natural occurrence. The remaining claims can't provide a link between carbon dioxide and increasing temperature. Water vapor is a much higher greenhouse gas, why do we assume that its carbon dioxide that causing any warming that's supposedly happening?

I'm aware that CO2 emissions are up, but there's no link provided between emissions and temperature changes.
Global Warming is a fraud.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberty and Justice for All

Posted by The Hunter on Wednesday, February 06, 2008 2:51:04 PM
Campaign finance reform has done just the opposite. It has created a system which allows for corruption, favors the rich candidate, and reduces competition in election.

Specifically, donation limits restrict the freedom of the people. As the earners of their own money, people have every right to give it away if they wish to do so. The old corruption justification no longer holds water. From the beginning, there have been flaws in its argumentation. Why is the donation limit at $2300? What is so inherently corrupt about $2350 or $23000? Or even $23 million? Politicians have no business attempting to define corruption for the people. The people should be the only deciding power in an election. And since regulation have been instituted in the name of "cleaning up Washington", results have found that politicians are the ones who benefit from them. When an incumbent, or politician running for reelection, is challenged, the policies instituted by politicians favor the incumbent. Before, challengers were certainly disadvantaged. Incumbents were favored by the media, already have support, don't have to spend money just to get their name out, and have pregathered funds. But each of these advantages are caused by the people. The people support, the people donate, the people in the media decide to follow incumbents.

The government has taken the power that used to lie only with the people, and given it to the government. While the people used to decide for themselves if a politician was accepting bribes or being corrupted by funds, the government has imposed artificial standards, based on no evidence, and stolen the power and freedom of the people to follow their own standards.

To present a better system, all donation and spending limits and regulations should be overturned. People should be free to donate their money, and spend their money how they please.
For those worried about corruption, and more directly, those that favor government protection over individual freedom, rapid disclosure should also be instituted. By telling people who's been giving to a candidate, you allow the people to make better informed decisions, and most importantly, allows the people to make their own judgements regarding corruption.

Increased freedom and knowledge for the people will result in fairer and more competitive elections. And the greatest advantage is greater individual freedom.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »