Evolution an easily refuted notion
Evolution as an explanation for life is a lie.
It was dismissed as a mathematical impossibility over 100 years ago. Yet, this easily refuted notion is still being taught, as fact, at every level of education. The false premises are routinely woven into nearly every "scientific" nature program on television, with colorful graphics.
A normal, healthy child of 7 will look at a tank of tropical fish and know that someone painted and shaped them. He observes the stunning evening grosbeak or a photo of the beautiful wood duck with its green head, brown-speckled breast, red eyes, white neck, cream belly and blue wings andndash; and knows intuitively it was made.
Today, the evidence for creation grows brighter, and the case for evolution more ludicrous, with microscopic examination. One example, can be found at Randall Niles' free site: AllAboutTheJourney.org., where a bacterium is revealed that has a 40-part motility subsystem powering a flagellum to 100,000 rpm, using electron micrographs. Other studies there include the Human Eye, DNA Molecule, Microscopic Organisms, Cell Structure, Spontaneous Generation, etc.
When you leave his site, you will have the truth. You'll never doubt creation as the origin of all life again. Evolution theory is shameful misinformation. It's a fairy tale.
Another readily available and powerful tool you can use (today) to enlighten yourself and your children is a book called "The Evolution Handbook," a low-cost 992-page work in depth of honest (true) scientific study and evidence that devastates the silly idea of "life by chance," on every page. Start on page 245, the DNA Molecule, and within five minutes you will know more than do the pseudo scientists. Read it free online at Evolution-Facts.org.
"To suppose that the eye andhellip; could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible." andndash; Charles Darwin.
Paul D. Pomerville
Call abortions what they really are
Recently a writer to letters made some very interesting comments concerning what he repeatedly called, "unwanted impregnation" (Pilot, June 19).
Now the rest of us know this term to mean abortion. He stated he feels this is killing.
But then he justifies this slaughter of human life by saying they "usually" become welfare cases, gangsters, runaways and so forth. That's quite a claim. These unborn never had a chance at life or to become productive members of society. We're justifying the killing of the innocent because of what they might become?
The writer then equates these killings to being for the "greater good of our America" and "make our country stronger." Really? Consider this. In the last four or so decades it has been estimated that more than forty million unborn have been killed. If even half of those had been allowed to live, work and pay taxes like the rest of us our beleaguered Social Security system might not be in the mess it's in.
I submit that the taking of any innocent human life desensitizes us all, weakens our country and adds to our moral decline.
So for those who rationalize abortions, at least call them what they are. Don't marginalize the killings with semantics. And to the writer of the letter I'm referring to, he should thank his own mother she didn't feel like he does.
Politicians are not part of the solution
Recently, Mr. Empson wrote, Jun 16, about our county not showing fiscal responsibility.
In his article he states that our county budget has undergone an increase by 75 percent, and our sheriff's department has increased its budget by 73 percent in the past 10 years. Right now we have a former commissioner re-running for office. Wasn't she in elected office during eight of those past 10 years? What does it take for us, the residents of this county, to wake up.
Then too if you read other news items you read about states, not counties, but states going broke. For instance, recently Illinois, Colorado, New Jersey, Arizona, New York, Missouri, Mississippi and California are taking to task their ever-increasing Public Employee Retirement costs. Unless my memory serves me wrong andndash; years ago Oregon voters voted down the Oregon Public Employee Retirement issue. But somehow it made it through the courts. Now every time the subject of PERS comes up it has millions of dollars attached to it. Millions of dollars that, as I understand, we have to pay.
How much does the employee contribute? How much does an employee contribute for medical benefits? How much is a public employees pension? Does the retirement include medical benefits? Have our county commissioners, the ones that increased the county budget in the past 10 years, done anything to slow down this issue's acceleration.
Why can't we ask our representatives for fiscal responsibilities? In Washington our senate and congress have passed bills that specifically provide for their full retirements and full medical benefits even if they only serve one term. Do any of us have that kind of retirement and benefit package?
Why can't we the public demand that, from now on, any bills, any benefits our public employees get we should get? Why can't we? If we can't, why vote for an incumbent or anyone that was once a part of giving us this burden.
Another round of Bush for America?
In response to Kathy Howard (Pilot, June 10): Did you say you wanted to give George Bush back to America?