Recent Comments

1. about 3 hours ago on Over the Hedge

   That’s the point and popularity of Pickleball. It’s a game, and people of all ages like games. Some may look down on it, but when one reaches a certain age and can’t play tennis any more but wishes to stay in shape, Pickleball can be a fine alternative.

   I am of the thought that maybe it was the name they chose that causes the problem. What if they’d called it FunBall or something similar? But PickleBall? (Then again, maybe the odd name is part of what caught national attention.)

   But we don’t see people badmouthing Badminton or Ping Pong. It’s all fun. : )

2. about 3 hours ago on Bloom County

   To all readers in general, whatever your beliefs:

   Wisdom and truth are seldom the result of hubris and attitude. Most of us already know that.

   It is my experience that people are diverse, and they will believe whatever they choose to believe. Some beliefs have a solid foundation… some do not.

   Science— like any other form of study— can be true or false. Peer review does not make science infallible, as extensive history shows. Time was once universally thought to be a constant. Now we know it is not. “Known” science can change its mind… and does.

   Some science is “fact” (as we understand it). Other science is theory or hypothesis. Some is pseudo-science, and some (like all fields of human endeavor) is fraudulent. It is important to discern the difference and not just swallow the claims of anyone who promotes a popular (but possibly false) idea.

   Evolution is taught to our children in schools as fact. That is as shameful as the church telling people they’re going to burn in hell if they don’t do the church’s bidding. They are opposite pendulum swings, but the same extremes.

   As Old_Geek pointed out above, evolution is just another belief system. It does not have the solid, absolute scientific foundation that some would have us believe. Not all scientists believe evolution.

   Those who are confident in their beliefs do not feel threatened by the beliefs of others. They defend their beliefs, but have no need to twist the words of others to make their point. When people do that, we might question their claims and look beyond to see if there are viable alternatives and explanations to their observations.

   I have neither the time nor desire to reply to every such post here; experience proves they will be endless. So I leave it at this:

   We all have free will and can believe whatever we wish. But we should make sure we have both eyes open when looking for knowledge and understanding.

3. about 4 hours ago on Bloom County

   “That nature creating life may seem or be highly improbable is irrelevant.”

   Not “highly improbable”. Scientifically impossible. I covered that concept in my first post here… and did the math for the skeptical.

   Choosing to call something “highly improbable” does not make the impossible, possible. It remains impossible. Logically, scientifically, statistically impossible. No matter how many times you claim otherwise, nor how many times you disrespectfully make fun of those who believe differently from you, that scientific reality will not change.

   Scientific fairy tales are just that: conjecture based on vivid imagination. Abiogenesis isn’t just errant; it is a scientifically fraudulent concept.

4. about 4 hours ago on Bloom County

   "Another poster child example of the danger of a little bit of poorly understood knowledge being (intentionally?) misinterpreted and being used to promulgate misinformation and/or religious agenda. The Earth’s orbit is NOT circular. Its eccentricity is currently ~0.017 (perihelion and aphelion differ by about 3%).

   I would think that any rational human being would readily understand that my use of the term “circular orbit” would be relative in the context of the discussion. Do you actually think any of us is unaware that the orbits in our solar system are elliptical? We know that already. I was using a phrase of general concept, not precise specific form. To be more precise: elliptical orbits in a concentric manner..

   Your post sounds like an ill-mannered child correcting adults in a conversation— all the time missing the actual point being made. You even stated it’s “too much fun to tweak the fanatics”. That’s both disrespectful and immature. So you may not wish to be patting yourself on the back so hard.

   The core point (that you appear to have missed or ignored) was that those orbits are not chaotic. This repeated throughout the universe indicates an order that by evolutionary concepts should not exist.

   This is only one of the many paradoxes and complexities in creation that those who believe in a Creator choose to not blindly ignore. There are other paradoxes that are far more complex and demanding.

5. about 4 hours ago on Bloom County

   "Have these compounds been observed forming a protein molecule? Or even a peptide? So, it really hasn’t gone beyond the stage of imagination.

   Please present actual data of observations of an eye evolving from cells that react to light. Again, that has not gone beyond the stage of imagination.

   If you want to believe things for which there is no observable data, that is fine. But how are you any different in this way than one that believes in a creator?"

   One of the best-worded posts I have read on these forums… and without being dismissive or disrespectful of other’s beliefs.

   I’ve stated several times on these boards that there is nothing in the concept of evolution that cannot be as accurately and even more sensibly explained by intentional creation. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that is formed of other than conjecture based on imagination, rather than undeniable fact. There is nothing in evolution that does not have viable alternative explanation in creation.

   As such, evolution is in reality simply another belief system… and people will believe what they choose to believe. That many evolutionists are so dismissive and insulting of the beliefs of others does not convince me they are correct. Quite the opposite.

6. about 5 hours ago on Bloom County

   Given all that, which is fantasy by the way, just how probable do you think it is that “something far, far more powerful and intelligent than humans, and with ultimate authority” would have done it all just so that it could monitor the lives of the sentient beings that came to exist on this one tiny infinitesimal speck in the huge space which is the universe some 13 billion years after it all began.

   What is 100% probable… is that you have no actual knowledge of what you’re talking about. Your post is so completely contrary to Scriptural teaching that it evidences hearsay and bias rather than actual examination and research. As such, your question is irrelevant.

   What is relevant however, is that if the Earth is indeed the only planet in this universe that contains intelligent life… then this “infinitesimal speck” you speak of so derisively… would in reality be the most unique and important planet in the cosmos.

7. about 5 hours ago on Bloom County

   “Sadly, there is zero proof for your little religious theory. A better argument is that the universe has been created and destroyed countless times and this time it turned out right. Just curious; if circular obits are not natural what shape should they be?”

   It is to your credit you use the word “Sadly”. But on the contrary Richard, there is an astounding amount of scientific evidence supporting creation. Just because some humans refuse to accept that evidence does not negate its existence.

   We must be careful of swallowing whatever we’re taught in school, without questioning those teachings.

   For example, the basic complexity of life. Since it could not have happened by accident (see above), we must look to intent. As the link I provided above states, those are the only two possibilities we’re aware of: accident or intent. And accident is already debunked by science, whether they wish to admit it or not.

   Secondly, the thought that “the universe has been created and destroyed countless times” is nothing but imaginative conjecture, with no evidence at all. On the contrary, scientists discovered (relatively recently) that instead of the “big bang” theory they used to believe (where the universe collapsed in upon itself time and time again)… the universe is instead moving away from universal center, and is actually accelerating for no known reason (something Bloom County brought out in one of its strips). So much for that theory.

   Then you ask if circular orbits aren’t natural, what should they be? Here is your answer:

   httpS://en.wikipedia.Org/wiki/Three-body_problem

   Physics is a paradox: it has very specific rules, but those rules do not automatically form order. Chaos is the rule of the day. But we see instead amazing order throughout the Universe… especially on this planet.

   The three body problem is just one example of why there are so very many things scientists do not understand: sheer hubris and absolute refusal to believe in a higher authority.

8. about 5 hours ago on Bloom County

   If you really want a (simplified) concept of what it would have taken to form a single cell, check out this web page, just to envision the complexity:

   httpS://science.howstuffworks.Com/life/evolution/

   That article is one of the most balanced I’ve seen in properly explaining the situation… and even it uses a whole lot of “Perhaps” in its hypothesis. In the end, it admits atheistic science really has no concept of how the first living cell could have come into existence… even though the article itself seems to support evolutionary concept. (One has to wonder why, considering the flaws they found in the concept of abiogenesis.)

   So as you can see, I’m not ignoring the vast amount of “items”, “space”, or “time” involved. On the contrary, I’m quite aware of such… and it’s precisely because I appreciate true science that I don’t swallow pseudo-scientific fairy tales such as abiogenesis and species evolution.

9. about 5 hours ago on Bloom County

   “Why do you and other creationists always ignore the factors of time and the sheer numbers of items involved?”

   I don’t ignore that concept at all. I do disrespect evolutionists using that concept as an excuse for their scientifically impossible hypothesis.

   You are basically speaking of the “infinite number of monkeys” concept, which many consider poor logic. If something is scientifically impossible… it remains scientifically impossible no matter how much space, time and items one cares to imagine.

   When something is so improbable that the odds of it happening is 1 in (the number of atoms) in 10^70 universes… that is not a “conceivably possible” event. Then that same event happening two dozen times in two dozen forms in exactly the same location, all at the same time in all of eternity… that would be scientifically ludicrous.

   You do understand 10^70 universes worth of atoms, yes? Do you know of that many “items” laying around?

   You mentioned time; what “time” are you speaking of in the absence of energy, known space, mass and speed?

   People either swallow the scientifically impossible claims… or they have the good sense to realize the very concept is faulty and that something else must have happened.

   A Swiss watch has some 400 parts. Those parts must be meticulously assembled, springs wound, parts tightened to exacting tolerances. Put all those parts in a bag and shake them continuously… and no matter how many bags you have and how long you shake them, you will not wind up with a functional Swiss watch. Ever. It’s impossible.

   If anyone thinks “Well, maybe that might be possible”… that’s their problem from the start: delusional reasoning.

   Respectfully: Do the math. 1 in 20^200. Two dozen times. All at exactly the same time, at exactly the same place. And that’s just to provide the essential catalysts, not the entire cell itself.

   Then believe whatever you will.

   cont

10. about 6 hours ago on Bloom County

    " Over and above the fact that we see only a tiny slice of the universe, the orbits we see are elliptical."

    Elliptical, circular… it’s the same concept. And I believe you know that. It’s totally different than the expected result of the three body problem.