is filling out his status report.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
August 30, 2005
The case against Darwin
By Timothy Birdnow
[Editor's note: Questioning Darwin's explanation for the origins of life has become a taboo in many quarters, the supposed mark of what the San Francisco Chronicle sneeringly calls "the caveman club." Intelligent Design Theory, with its origins in pagan classical Greek philosophy, is denounced as a crude tarting—up of Biblical creationism. Many intelligent and educated people, including readers of and writers for this site, are uncomfortable with the entire subject, and fearful of being branded as anti—science by their associates.
But Darwinism is no more than a theory, as yet unconfirmed by evidence, in its explanation for the origins of life. The conduct of many of its defenders, demonizing and distorting those who raise legitimate questions about the scientific evidence, is highly disturbing. It is this reaction, at heart an anti—intellectual exercise supposedly in defense of science and reason, that concerns us most. The controversy provides the opportunity to examine the entire process of theory—generation and testing.]
Since Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species in 1859, there has been a continuous ongoing debate on the validity of Darwin`s theory. Through much of the Twentieth Century the mainstream scientific community considered Evolution to be a settled matter. Yet there were always weaknesses in Darwinism which brought into question the entire theory. Serious criticisms of their particular view are slowly eating away at their intellectual monopoly.
In 1905 a young Albert Einstein offered the world a direct proof of the existence of atoms . His case rested on a biological curiosity known as Brownian Motion, named for botanist Robert Brown who, in 1827 observed in his microscope small particles (called vacuoles) on pollen spores jittering about madly. At the time no one understood why these tiny particles were in such frantic motion. Einstein, pondering a way to see something which is too small to be visible, thought of an analogy; suppose you are a hundred foot giant, and you observed beach balls being knocked around by ping pong balls. You can prove the existence of the ping—pong balls by observing the motion of the beach balls. When applied to our case, we may not see the atoms, but we can observe their effects on larger (but still tiny) objects. Einstein argued that Brownian Motion was a result of these tiny Vacuoles being struck by fast moving atoms. (He would have won the Nobel Prize for this theory probably, if he hadn`t come out with his explanation of the photoelectric effect the same year!)
What, you may ask, is the connection between Einstein`s proof of atoms and Darwinism? Darwinism argues that all life evolved from a less complex state. Following the chain of life backwards, one eventually comes to the most basic unit of life—Deoxyribonucleaic Acid (the DNA molecule). The DNA molecule is composed of the even simpler RNA molecule, and is the fundamental building block of life. It is the largest, most complex molecule in nature. According to Einstein`s theory, the original DNA (and RNA) Molecules should not have formed and survived since there are being constantly buffetted by energized atoms. The establishment of life required energy, and that energy meant that the nascent DNA was exposed to more energetic particles which should, logically, have prevented the formation of such a large and complex molecule. That this molecule not only formed but spread suggests different mechanism at work then those proposed by the Darwinists.
In fact the Second Law of Thermodynamics is squarely against the development of life, and soundly against the evolution of species as conceived by the Darwinists. The Second Law states that organization breaks down within a closed system, and that disorder naturally increases.
According to Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking in ``A Brief History of Time``:
"It is a common experience that disorder will increase if things are left to themselves. A precise statement of this idea is known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It states that the Entropy of an isolated system always increases, and that when two systems are joined together the entropy of the combined system is greater than the sum of the Entropies of the individual systems.
He continues,
"In any closed system disorder, or entropy, always increases with time"
If entropic decay is an inevitable part of any system, then the original development of life is unlikely, and it`s upward evolution doubtful. Remember, life developed from the original RNA molecules, which became DNA, which became unicellular, then multicellular life. The earliest life developed using chemosynthesis (that is, derived it`s energy from chemicals) and this meant it must have developed around volcanoes or sea vents. Such an unlikely place would be a closed system, and subject to entropic decay. We are supposed to believe that life formed under harsh conditions, and then spread into the larger system of the Earth! According to Hawking, entropy increases when two or more systems come together, therefore the newly created life forms should have died out. The reality is that didn`t happen, and instead life thrived and spread, and increased in complexity.
Many defenders of evolution try to argue that entropy only applies to a closed system, and that the Earth is not a closed system. This is facetious; entropy increases when systems are mixed, and the first life forms could not have survived except under very particular conditions. They had to have a closed system, or at least a very sheltered system, initially to survive! Any way you look at it, a self—replicating entity had to gain in complexity at the molecular level despite increasing entropic pressures. There has to be a guiding principle involved. You just can`t make order out of chaos! Systems decay.
In fact, genes and chromosomes decay on a regular basis. One of the largest causes of mental retardation is called fragile X syndrome, and it is the result of chromosomal decay where one of the legs of the X has crumbled away. The Chromosome is no longer an X but isn`t a Y either, and this results in numerous problems. Mutations of genetic material happens regularly, and is rarely of any benefit to the unlucky inheritor. A benevolent mutation generally requires an increase in complexity, not a disintigration of the chromosome or gene. Disintigration generally means decay. Decay makes you sick, or dead; it does not make you grow. Evolution claims you can decay your way up!
Another paradox in Darwin`s theory is the lowly virus. A virus is basically a free floating strand of DNA (or RNA for the most ancient varieties like the Filoviruses which cause Ebola) which invades a cell and takes over the cell`s control functions. The virus suddenly comes to life, reproducing at a prodigious rate. After exhausting the cell, the virus returns to it`s quiet slumber.
Now, the virus must predate the cellular organisms, and yet there is no way a virus can reproduce without a host. We have no examples of self—replicating viruses, viruses which can exist on their own. What we see is reverse evolution; the virus is evolved to feed on the more complex organism.
It is possible that early viruses were able to exist without a host, and that the change in the Earth`s atmosphere killed them. Perhaps none of them could tolerate oxygen. One would still expect to find remnants of these ancient viral life forms in sheltered places. We don`t, and regular viruses require a host. The problem is that there doesn`t appear to be any way for these organisms to have flourished.
Next we come to the problems with the fossil record. Everyone has heard of the missing link; the transition creature between Man and the Apes. We`ve never really found him—in fact, we`ve never really found any link between one species and another. Scientists have found species with similarities, but the transitions are simply not there. It is inherent in Darwinism that species make a smooth, seamless transition from one form to another. The reality is that we see no such transitions in the fossil record, and evolutionists struggle to hide or explain away this embarrasing fact.
Furthermore, we don`t even see crossovers between the 5 Phylla (classes of animals) anywhere, at any time. Where are the giant mammaried mosquitos? Where are the snakes which deliver live young? I haven`t seen too many feathered fish around lately!
The species remain distinct, and they shouldn`t if Darwin is correct. Consider the Permian Triassic Extinction, the so called ``Great Dying``, 250 million years ago,in which 9 out of 10 marine creatures and 7 out of 10 land creatures died. Before the Great Dying five phylla walked the Earth; insects, mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles. After the Great Dying we had the same 5. If Darwin`s concept of Natural Selection is correct we should have seen numerous crossovers as species from all branches competed to fill in the newly vacated gaps in the ecology. That we can find no evidence of any crossover is damning of Darwin`s theory.
Another point to consider is the matter of the size of animal life on Earth. During the Jurassic, Dinosaurs grew to enormous sizes, fueled by plentiful food and a high atmospheric oxygen content. Yet we see mammals grow large during the Pleistocene, with Mastadons, giant beavers, Saber—Toothed Tigers all being larger than creatures today. This was an era of scarcity and lower oxygen, yet we witness the same response to the environment. Why? If Natural Selection is correct, the most successful creatures during the Ice Age would be the smaller ones. We see the same biological response to two radically different conditions.
Speaking of Dinosaurs, why are they all gone? Dinosaurs came in all sizes, some quite small and nimble. Birds are the last remnants of the beasts which once ruled the Earth. Why? Granted, the large ones were unfit to survive, but the small ones should have been able to adapt without having to develop flight. We should still see some of the smaller ones like Procompsognathus. They were every bit as nimble, as fit, to survive as their mammalian rivals. Yet they are gone. Why did they all turn into birds? Evolutionary theory suggests that the surviving dinosaurs should have scattered in all directions genetically after their extinction. They didn`t; they went in only one direction, while mammals evolved to fill their former niches.
Humanity, too, presents a big problem to the theory of evolution. Homo Sapiens (Man the Wise) first appeared in the rift valleys in south east Africa around 150,000 years ago, and he stayed there for thousands of years with little change. Suddenly modern Man began migrating, and in just a few thousand years had settled most of the Planet. Man was exposed to enormous evolutionary pressure, yet we see little physical difference between people. If Natural Selection is the driving mechanism behind Evolution, then we should have seen Mankind begin dividing into different species. That hasn`t happened.
But it should have, according to Darwinian theory, and it was that devotion to this theory which lead to the horrors of Naziism. Social Darwinism was a 19th Century concept which argued that races were more or less advanced, and that there was a pecking order to Mankind. White Northern Europeans occupied the top rung of the evolutionary ladder with other Caucasians below them, followed by the red and yellow races, and with the black Africans at the bottom of the hill. If Mankind was ever going to amount to anything, He must be freed from the rubbish in the gene pool, the thinking went. That is why Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood. She sought to reduce the birthrate of the "inferior races" through abortion and contraception. That was why Hitler sought the ``final solution`` to the problem of non—Aryans diluting the purity of Germany. That was why Joseph Stalin felt free to starve millions of Ukrainians to death.
Darwinism has twisted the fabric of Western Society for over a Century. Darwinism has was used to justify the ``free love`` movement of the late 19th and early 20th century, which has led to the corruption and degeneracy we see today. Broken families and illegitimacy have done enormous damage to the West, and the justification for this went back to Darwinism and the mechanistic arguments used to defend Darwin. Darwinism has been used by atheists to attack Christianity, with the end result that the West has become antithetical to God.
Everyone remembers the play and later film Inherit the Wind (remade no less than three times since it was released in 1960), in which Clarence Darrow, defending the brave and honest schoolteacher, gets William Jennings Bryant on the stand and has him ranting hysterically. Little of that play is true; Bryant`s prime argument was that education was a State and local matter, and that the courts had no jurisdiction, and the brave and noble schoolteacher was there because he was getting paid to challenge the law. Liberals have reconstructed the Scopes trial (Scopes lost, by the way) to turn it into a triumph for Darwin and nihilism, and Darwinism has been a pillar of liberalism`s anti—Christian rhetoric ever since.
The fact is, as Jonas Salk pointed out to Herb Meyer, the left tries to use Darwin to fight an either/or battle over the validity of the Bible, and by extension the existence of God. It is foolish for us to get drawn into this type of debate; God is far larger than our human intellects can grasp, and is certainly larger than any criticisms which Darwinism may foster.
The Judeo—Christian view is that God is transcendent, that is, outside of nature. Even if Darwin is correct, and a monkey turned into man, at some point it was the Creator who put that immortal soul into that ape. So what if we can`t prove the Book of Genesis is technically correct? It was written for a less technically advanced people. And besides, who says that Genesis occurred here? Eden needn`t have been the physical Earth we know.
Any way you look at the issue, Darwinism is on the ropes. The supporters of Darwin have resorted to frauds in the past to prove their theory—Piltdown Man was a combination of human and ape remains. Remember the famous Moth hoax where evolutionists claimed they had found moths in London which had changed from white to black because industrial soot had made being black safer? Turns out they faked their evidence. Now the evolutionists are trying to silence any competing theories through scholastic bans and mockery. They seem desperate.
I wonder why?
Timothy Birdnow blogs at Birdblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/the_case_against_darwin.html
fuagf: if you don't mind, I would like to focus on the unscientific elements of evolution. If you are satisfied that I'm attempting to discuss this as purely scientific and logical, as possible, and devoid of emotional ties, then we can expand the discussion. http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number9/Darwin9Part1.htm
fuagf: your first link proved my point, although I should have made the primary propulsion distinction. The second link is pure fantasy. The fossil inventory has always disproved evolution.
bagwa-john: the greatest combat benefit was seeing first hand how we were lied to by the feral gumit. Many lonely nights of sitting with an arc of weaponry, while I watched, I expanded my mind and it gave me so many advantages, especially the willingness to take chances. I create my own benefits. I want nothing from the feral gumit, except to uphold The Constitution and the rule of law.
fuagf: while primates can walk on two "peds" for short distances, it becomes a case of that which proves too much, proves too little. Only humans are foot propulsion and exhibit poise, grace and balance. Primates are knee-joint propulsion and in fear and/or aggression are simply four-legged creatures. The human foot is an engineering marvel. It is a weak foot by all animal standards, i.e. no claws, no hoofs. The human foot has no muscles of its own. All muscles originate from the knee joint area. The three arches give humans their great flexibility.
Primates have three heart ventricles.
You folks have an interesting board here. My congratulations to you.
jawmoke: thanks; that map helps puts things in perspective when posting to pseudo-conservatives and as simple as paint-by-the-numbers.
Great post in one of my news groups:
************
CNN- The leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq has been wounded and his top aide killed in a clash with police, the Iraqi Interior Ministry says.
Top Al-Qaeda leader in the US is Bush.
More Irving Kristol, the founder of "neo-conservatism."
http://alicelillieandher.blogspot.com/2006/05/irving-kristol-born-1920.html
Irving Kristol is considered to be a "neo-con" (neo-conservative). During the first Ronald Reagan Administration, he was the pre-eminent neoconservative writer, prompting the epithet "If Irving Kristol says you're a neo-conservative, you are." He has ties to the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). He is the father of William Kristol.
Funding: According to Washington Babylon, Kristol "took in $376,000 (from the John M. Olin Foundation) for his general support in 1988 alone".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is from PBS.org:
"Irving Kristol (b. 1920), City College '40; co-editor of The Public Interest magazine; John M. Olin Distinguished Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. During World War II, he served in Europe with the Armored infantry of the 12th Armored Division.
"From 1947 to 1952, he was managing editor of Commentary magazine; he was co-founder and editor, with Stephen Spender, of Encounter magazine from 1953 to 1958; from 1959 to 1960, he was editor of The Reporter magazine; from 1961 to 1969, he was executive vice president of Basic Books Inc., a New York publishing house, from 1969 to 1985, he was on the faculty of New York University, and was Professor of Social Thought at the NYU Graduate School of Business Administration. Books include, Neo-Conservatism, Autobiography of an Idea, On the Democratic Idea in America. Past editor of Encounter Magazine and former assistant editor of Commentary. Widely considered to be a key founder of the neoconservative movement. Mr. Kristol considers himself a conservative.
"QUOTE: 'Ever since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a neo-Marxist. I'm going to end up a neo-that's all, neo dash nothing.'"
Retrieved from "http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Irving_Kristol"
iamshazzam: how about this quote?
"Any high elected official participating in terrorist actions against any of the American populace shall be immediately impeached, then indicted, tried, and sentenced. All appointed officials shall be immediately indicted, tried, and sentenced."
This has been largely ignored:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy2.html
jawmoke: excellent! You have a link for that; pretty please?
I hope this poster doesn't mind my repost.
*****************************************
Unbelievable is an appropriate descriptor! This is as I, and many others, suspected. It's just another stage in ratcheting up the anit-Iranian propaganda to justify military action against Iran. Here's what to look for next, I strongly suspect, from this administration. This so-called "Quds" force, it will soon be announced has been determined to be operating primarily out of Khuzestan! This is a small province of Iran that borders Iraq. It possesses 90 per cent of Iran's oil reserves! Now do you see why a troop surge of 21,000 + is in order. There is a small Arabic population in Khuzestan and the Mossad and CIA have been operating there since 2005 to stir up ethnic tensions, as they obviously have done between the Shiites and Sunni's in Iraq. Lessons learned from British colonialism in India and other parts of the world.
This administration has become so transparent. The administration knows that it cannot hope to occupy all of Iran, but it knows that it doesn't have to. Here's the most likely scenario to unfold as I see it. When the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan carrier battle group arrives on station in early to mid-March all the pieces will be in place. They have targeted military installations in Iran (they will claim they are targeting only nuclear power sites). In concert with the air war against Iranian military targets, including command and control centers, the administration will launch an invasion of Khuzestan claiming that it is striking at the "Quds" force operating from there! The massive air war against Iran's military targest will allow them to occupy Khuzestan without risking a counter offensive.. Expect the propaganda war to go into overdrive. I imagine once they have occupied Khuzestan and established a presence there, next year about this time you will here this administration claim that they just can't up and leave, cut and run, because of the violence and destablization that will occur because of the ethnic tensions.
The Orwellian like slogan reverberates in my mind now, as I imagine the headlines we read 2 years hence, "We have always been at War with Persia!"
I hope I am wrong. I hope the fighting stops today! I hope the U.S. redeploys from Iraq with the same speed that it invaded with. It's hard to kill Iraqis and be killed by Iraqis when one is no longer in Iraq. The killing stops and we can begin the long task of picking up the pieces.
Regards,
Joey
chunga1: Oooooooohhhhh! Nooooooooo! A certified Zappaite. Truly the most underrated player there ever was.
Razorbucks: you and your commie buddies take your organized labor and shove it where the sun don't shine. You are dismissed; you commies hate The Constitution. That is a fact. Tariffs are constitutional. So you admit that you and Drug Rush hate The Constitution. I knew it right along. I just snicker watching you smack the tar baby. Go ahead and smack again.
Koikaze: oh, this will be up your alley:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110005482
Koikaze: time to rouse up Hands Across New Jersey, again.
PegnVA: being in the military is a mixed bag. A soldier has zero rights, as he/she is chattel/slave of the feral gumit. Still, it wakes one up to the tyranny. This constitutional republic was formed with an eye on abhorring standing armies.
In the final analysis, mandatory service for the feral gumit is statism and diametrically opposed to a free society. I understand your point and I sense you were being a bit tongue and cheek about it.
otcbargains: this is quite a quote:
"I am often surprised to hear opinions expressed by supposed conservatives that unknowingly support the demise of the Americas future. Some conservatives have more in common with Socialist dictators than they care to recognize."
Man-o-man, you sound like me.
SoxFan: yeppers, the war on drugs continues as illegal aliens stream across the porous borders, made easier passage under The Department of Homeland Security. The designated-addicts-to-be are needed to increase demand. That will bring the market price back up.
jawmoke: the think tanks had this all laid out for decades. Zbigniew Brzezinski spilled the beans in The Grand Chessboard. Their initial plan was via The U.N. However, it was so corrupt and ego-ridden that The NWO turned to an imperial U.S. The whole PNAC/neocon thing was a bit of misdirection. Anyone that believes Dubaya is a conservative needs to meet with me immediately for some rare investment opportunities.
SoxFan: The Taliban, which was supported, at one time by The CIA and The State Department, forced the farmers to destroy all their poppy fields. Afghanistan has quickly become the number one supplier of raw opium in the world.
Who other than The CIA has the contacts, control, wherewithal, and profit centers to have made this happen? BTW, Afghanistan was never on the list of terrorist harboring nations.
Alex G: there will be a lot of disappointed folks looking for a poly, outside of Ron Paul, who has a backbone.
Razorbucks: you dodge again. The NWO and your Marxist labor unions ensure that American-soil-based companies ship their jobs to somewhere else. You're the commie that wants native Americans to pay for illegal aliens' benefits.
American jobs started going bye-bye, when during the Eisenhower administration, American workers were told that their labor overseas would be taxed. The U.S. was the only nation that did this. Then the unionized autoworkers lazed themselves out of jobs. Textiles went poof.
Tell us what trade barriers were there, before NAFTA, to Mexican/American trade and that of Canadian/American trade? Please name 25 trade barriers of pre-NAFTA America?
The employment rate is a farce with 30 million illegals taxing the system.
Razorbucks: my points about you exactly. Name 25 jobs NAFTA has created for American-soil-based companies. You are so full of caca, it's not funny.
Razorbucks: yeppers, chew on your NAFTA wonder:
Question: When is a four football field wide road linking three "sovereign" nations more than just a four football field wide road linking three "sovereign nations?
Answer: When that monster super-highway extends through the heart of America like a dagger from Mexico to Canada and paves the way for an invasion of vehicles carrying millions of foreign workers; thousands of dangerous felons and terrorists; and tons of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin.
****************
NO WONDER YOU DRINK THE DRUG RUSH KOOL ADE.
Razorbucks: my points about you exactly. Name 25 jobs NAFTA has created for American-soil-based companies. You are so full of caca, it's not funny.
Razorbucks: of course you and Drug Rush and the rest of the commies support The U.N. Billy Jeff signed NAFTA, so that makes it okay??????? So you're a Clintonite commie, rather than a homophobic homosexual, like Drug Rush?
Razorbucks: duh? I keep posting of the threats. Stay away from the Drug Rush Kool Ade. Yeah, you're anti-immigration and then feed at the Rush pig trough; what hypocrisy. He gives all you commies your pro-NAFTA, pro-GATT, pro-NAU marching orders.
Keep supporting the terrorists; supporting The U.N.; supporting The Federal Reserve, errand boy.
Razorbucks: you are a communist. It is that simple. You support terrorism and the destruction of America. Deny it all you want. You got caught.
gp100357: this is America, please post in English. I don't play this multiculturalism nonsense. Please interpret your post, as I do not speak imbecilese.
gp100357: we agree on that: blaming the terrorists. Yeppers, Cheney and The CIA operatives that conducted the false flag operation against our nation and against Americans need to be jailed. The solution is simple: impeach, indict, try, and jail.
Razorbacks: bull, you back this administration on its immigration policies and its advance to eliminate American sovereignty via The NAU. You are communist. Your logo signature is "red." You hate those patriots trying to remove the criminals and traitors to our nation and restore the rule of law.
I tried to discuss a solitary point, but you refused and insisted on your name calling. NOW YOU ARE WHINING ABOUT IT.
It figures.
Razorbucks: of course, you hate hate The Constitution. Don't be coy with us. You salivate for a communist dictatorship. You haven't a clue about national security. That is why you are so gung-ho along with your Comrade Dubaya to continue to allow 20-30 million illegal aliens to stream across porous borders and have the native Americans pay for them and even build a super highway to make it all easier. But for native Americans, you don't want any rights for them.
Yeppers, spoken like a true communist.
Razorbucks: okay, I tried, but you are VERY dishonest. You HAVE REFUSED TO ANSWER MY POINT. It's easy to see through your communist globalist occupation agenda.
Like all Marxists, you can't have a civil debate, because you have a lost cause, so you have to resort to childish name calling.
You hate America and all it stands for.
You hate The Constitution and the rule of law.
You hate due process.
You love tyrannies.
You love murder, mayhem and war.
You love traitors.
Terrorists, like you, should be jailed under The Military Commissions Act, so then you can be in harmony with the type of government that you love.
Razorbucks: once again, here is the debate point; please stuck to it and it alone. TIA
"1. One needs a passport to reenter the jurisdictional parameters of The United States of America."
Under the Articles of Confederation, Canada was offered to join the Union. The free and open relationship between the two nations has suddenly changed. To come back into the jurisdictional parameters of The United States of America from Canada, I now need a passport. Previously, my drivers license or birth certificate would do. Somehow, I think that you need to ponder the depths of this. This has nothing to do with stop signs, traffic lights or speed limits. This goes against case law and the basis for law in this nation. I supplied the necessary information for you. So the aforementioned point #1 is what you and I are presently debating.
Razorbucks: please click the links. One is your post and one is mine. And please stop wasting time between you and me with liberal rants. I am a constitutionalist, and I already pointed out that I'm a laissez faire capitalist (Anglo-American). Also I'm a combat vet. http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=5850
So do you want to methodically debate the points of these lost liberties, one by one?
m_stone_14: the expanding bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. Sometime after the onset of social engineering, voter blocs were established with virtual guaranteed results. Just like the British Empire accomplished in Hong Kong years ago, by creating 25% drug addicts, the feral gumit has created helpless gumit addicts. The addiction destroys all semblance of individuality and free thought and productivity. Had these addicts been born in China, then they would be put on Chinese gumit slave assembly lines making Dell computers and plastic ducks. Since they are here in Amerika, elements of the feral gumit enslave the few remaining productive individuals to supply their fix. It's called democracy.
easymoney101: if m_stone_14 was referring to The State department, etal, then you are both correct.
nwsun: 5% rat poison can kill just as proficiently as 100% rat poison. Human beings are the only creatures that are foot propulsion. Primates have three heart ventricles.
Evolution started as a theory that was discarded by the originator, because scientific data was disproving it. Others picked it up from the rubbish bin and made a religion and law out of it. Evolution is 100% scientifically impossible, as it flies in the face of laws of science.