Starting Points Revisited!

Bugaboo, I’m assuming you’re a wonderful person and I’d like to thank you for your comments.  You've made some incorrect assumptions about me, and other things, which would lead me to believe that your assumptions about the starting points of life are also incorrect.  Please allow me to explain.

First, since I’m not one to toot my own horn, I’m not going to list the degrees, training, and education that I have earned but rest assured my education is extensive and I have read a biology and chemistry book or two (thousand).

Secondly, if evolution were true, the goo (discussed in Starting Points) would've given rise to the bacteria responsible for decomposition first; before it gave rise to other higher life-forms.  You've made the assumption that higher life forms leaped past the point of being consumed by this bacteria that would cause the goo to decompose, yet you haven't explained how.  Don't feel bad; the scientific community cannot explain this dilemma either.

In your third assumption, you assume that RNA just “came together.”   But you need to explain how the strands of RNA were created without the ribosomal process that it needs.  Thankfully, the scientific community discovered, and has clearly proven, that the ribosomal process within a cell is absolutely required in order to produce RNA and, eventually, DNA.  You’re familiar with that, I hope, otherwise, we shouldn’t even be having this conversation. 

Before we can even have the conversation about RNA “just coming together,” we need to discuss how RNA was created without the ribosomal process, which requires a cell.  At the point you described (RNA coming together) we don’t even have a cell yet.  So neither you, nor the scientific community, have explained how that process came about without a cell. 

However, before we can even have that conversation, we need to determine, based on your assumption, how the amino acids “adenine, thiamine, guanine, and cytosine” (ATGC) came into existence.   Once ATGC “existed” how did these compounds know what they were supposed “to do?”  You are familiar with ATGC, the four basic amino acids required for the production of RNA and, eventually, DNA are you not?

I hate to do this to you, but before we can even discuss those items, we need to address the assumption that ATGC “just formed.”  Breaking ATGC down further, we need to discuss how the protein molecules that make up the amino acids, which in turn, make up ATGC were created.  Did these just randomly create themselves? 

So we’re at the point where we need a valid explanation of how several levels of building blocks “came together,” in proper sequence, without the scientifically-proven essential process that is required to create these very building blocks.  Therefore, your assumption that RNA “came together” is really an assumption that assumes many other things at many levels. 

For the sake of brevity, I’d like to ask you to show me anywhere in scientific literature where mutations have added to the genetic information.  It’s been proven that mutations do not add to genetic information but rather, modify or delete already existing information.  Mutations have never been shown to add new information. 

So your assumptions above can be summarized as follows:

1.   The building blocks needed to make other building blocks just “came together” without the scientifically proven processes needed to build those same building blocks.

2.   Change was created via mutations.

However, the very science in which you’ve placed your faith in has only shown mutations to change what already exists, or delete information entirely.  Science has never shown that mutations create something new from nothing.  The Creation of new information would absolutely be required for evolution to work.

Wow, that sounds very similar to God’s process of creation, where He created things from absolutely nothing, albeit, not through the fallacy of evolution but through the literal creation process the Bible teaches in the book of Genesis. 

Since science cannot prove your assumptions, and furthermore, it cannot disprove God’s story of creation, nor the Bible for that matter, what stands in the way for you to believe the real story of creation rather than the man-made fiction you choose to believe?  After all, I think it takes a lot less faith to believe in God the Creator than the process of evolution and all of its unexplained “science.” 

Now I’m not one to deny science, but I am one who cannot blindly follow man’s explanation for many things without thoroughly investigating.  I’d encourage you to do the same.  You don’t believe everything you hear or read do you?  It should be the same with this as well especially since your eternal destiny depends on it.

In closing, it’s my turn to make an assumption.  My assumption as to why you do not believe God’s edition of Starting Points is because of “accountability.”

So, remember when all else fails, there’s a God that loves you very, very much and He sent His Son Jesus for your forgiveness and salvation.  (John 3:16)  If you can believe the God that loves you and has your best interest in mind by believing in His son Jesus Christ, accountability becomes easily acceptable.

Starting Points!

These are my thoughts on Stephen Hawking's latest proclamation that there's no afterlife.  "The fool has said in his heart that there is no God." [iii]

 

There's no doubt that Mr. Hawking is an intelligent man; but is he really as intelligent as he and the media want you to believe?

 

The Bible’s first verse says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth …”[i] Hawking states that matter always existed and at one time, it was all in a container smaller than the size of a pin head. What? All the matter in the universe was confined in something smaller than the head of a pin? If this were true of matter, shouldn't you be able to stuff an unlimited number of garments in a suitcase? We'd need only one garbage bag for a lifetime!

 

So when it supposedly exploded, (the so-called big bang) it all came out and organized into solar systems, galaxies, planets, moons, stars, etc. with the incredible order that it now possesses? How does Hawking know it exploded? Was he there? Now that takes faith to believe!

 

Mr. Hawking, and the scientific community for that matter, would really be on to something if he could explain the following: 

1. How matter generated from nothing. The big bang theory doesn't explain that. In the beginning there was absolutely nothing, no matter, no space, no vacuum, no heavens, no earth. Absolutely nothing existed. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that. 
2. If you take a frog, place it in a blender and turn it on for a minute and then turn it off. Pour out that “goo” somewhere in an atmosphere that would support life. Since all the things needed to create life, both atmospheric and chemical are present, how long would it take before all of these things "evolve" into a frog? It wouldn't! It would either dry up or become infected with bacteria due to decomposition long before anything else happened. Bacterial infection is not evolution! For this reason alone, evolution is impossible because the “goo” Hawking claims we came from couldn't survive since it would either dry up or decompose long before any of this happened. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
3. How do you get around the decomposition dilemma? Since microbes like bacteria are further down the evolutionary chain than human beings, the microbes would prevent further evolution from ever happening. Since these microbes are responsible for the decomposition of organic material, like the "goo" that Hawking claims we have come from, the evolutionary process would've ended at this point. If the primordial soup would have everything available for life to form, it would have been infected by the bacteria responsible for decomposition, which already formed earlier in the evolutionary sequence, and would cause the primordial soup to decompose. This would be an endless cycle at this point, the goo would form once again and once again, decomposition would run its course. So how did life make the leap past this dilemma? Hawking, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
4. How DNA would've formed from nothing. How DNA could progress from a simpler form to a more complex form; i.e., how information was added to DNA to make it more complex. Yet when cells split, we see that a small piece of information is only lost. Throughout history, there is not one single example of information being added to DNA. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
5. How our ability to reason works or was developed. It's what sets us apart from animals. Some incorrectly believe that animals can reason in that they do tricks, fetch food, etc. However, these are the result of instincts and training, not reasoning. Reasoning includes planning, logical thought, and anticipating reactions, etc. He, nor the scientific community, can explain that.
6. When he says that we should live the best life we can: Who, or what mechanism, would set the standard for good? “Society” is not a correct answer. If society suddenly deemed that murder, pedophilia, or rape are acceptable, does that make it good or right? He, nor the scientific community, can explain that. 

Since Mr. Hawking, nor the scientific community, cannot explain these things it is merely opinion. The bible says that the “wisdom of man is but foolishness to God.”[ii] I like my chances of putting my faith in Jesus Christ a whole lot better than putting my faith in the statements of a man with a high level of so-called "intelligence."

 

If I'm wrong, I'm no better off than Hawking but if I'm right; oh man, if I'm right, I can't even come close to imagining what God has prepared for me as His word says. It’s my hope Hawking seea this logical conclusion before he dies as well. "

 

Note: Your comments are welcome as long as you provide your name and email address to allow for reply. 

[i] Gen 1:1, KJV[ii] 1 Cor 3:19, NIV[iii] Psalm 14:1, NIV

Arizona Speech: Made for TV

Although President Obama did a nice job with his speech last night, I see it for what it was.  A "Wellstone funeral-like" moment designed to score political points for the President.  He's rarely, if ever, been to Arizona and when he filed a lawsuit against the state has shown that he doesn't really care about it.  It's evident that he followed Rahm Emanuel's philosophy:  "Don't let a good crisis go to waste." 

Since when does the President show up for the funeral of a commoner?  Dare I say, if this didn't involve a US Representative, this would've been another mad man story; just another one that went over the edge, and after his15 minutes of notoriety, he would've warranted no further comments from the media.  Nonetheless, mass hysteria has ensued because the liberal media has fanned the flames of hyper-partisan dialog.

However, have you noticed how the liberal media is trying to build this up to be an event equivalent of another 9/11 and that we need the national healing that only Obama can provide?  Admittedly, it was a serious tragedy, but nothing on a scale that caused the serious mourning and introspection of 9/11, yet the media has hyped this event to be as large (or larger) than that.

The radical left is trying to use this as an opportunity to push the Fairness Doctrine, squash free speech of dissenters and, more importantly, renew a strong call for gun control.  The left knows it's much easier to control sheep rather than people. 

I'm not ready to cede to the notion that President Obama did a great job on this speech.  After all, his liberal media friends painted a picture in which the President would arrive on the scene, in the nick of time, so that he may appear as a national savior.  Obviously he is not.  Many people coached him on what and what not to say last night.  I'm sure his speech writers have been working on this as soon as word was received that Rep. Giffords was involved.  There's no doubt he's a good orator; perhaps a great orator.  Wonderful speaking skills do not make a good President.  Need I say more?

Overstepping Boundaries

Superior, Wisconsin City Councilor Greg Mertzig wants to ban toys in Happy Meals and is proposing an ordinance to do so. Don't we have bigger issues to worry about than the toys in a Happy Meal? When will government over stepping its boundaries stop? Will you start banning toys in foods like Fruit Loops, Lucky Charms, and Cracker Jack because they have toys in the boxes along with high calorie counts? They too would have to be removed from the shelves with this logic.

Mr. Mertzig, weren't you the councilor who claimed you didn't have time to serve on other committees so you quit them while still collecting your full pay? That's $650/month or $325/hour. That salary makes you the highest paid elected official in Wisconsin. Is this what you conjured up with the extra time you had from not serving on those committees? The City Council of Superior will be the laughing stock of Wisconsin. This is government over-reach of the highest degree.

A few more questions Mr. Mertzig: You were the only councilor that voted against banning the K-2 drug but you support banning toys in a Happy Meal; why? What makes you think you have the right to replace parenting with legislation? Why does a very small minority trump the freedom of the majority?

Has it occurred to you that perhaps that's the bright spot in some kid's day; the fact that they get a toy with their meal? The home life of some kids leaves them in the situation in which the toy in the Happy Meal is all they have to look forward to and you want to take that away? Are you going to tie the police up to enforce this?

As a city taxpayer, it's my desire that you concentrate on tackling more important problems rather than the toy in a Happy Meal. The only thing that should be banned is Cracker Jack ideas like this.

To be clear, the issue is not the toy in the Happy Meal but rather the misguided idea that a legislator believes he has unlimited authority. This is another liberal "feel good" idea that is a blatant waste of tax dollars.

Political Correctness Run Astray

The truth is the liberal "feel good, do-gooders" that are promoting political correctness with the intention of uniting America are actually polarizing this country; yet they refuse to see it. 

For example, my employer is already talking about the "Holiday Social."  The previous administrative assistant used to call it a "Christmas Party" after I kept telling her that it's not illegal and that I don't attend "holiday socials" but I do attend Christmas Parties.  After a couple of years of telling her that, and telling her that if she would call it a Christmas Party and place it in the written announcements as such, I would attend.  She finally called my bluff (so to speak) and did it.  Of course she never received a single complaint and only comments of thanks for doing so; I was committed to keeping my promise.  I went to the Christmas Party for the last two years now and they were fantastic.

Unfortunately, she retired and her replacement refuses to do it stating, "She was told not to."  I have my doubts about that but that's another story.  Nonetheless, the political correctness of not calling it what it is so that no one is offended is hypocritical!  What if I'm offended that it's not called a Christmas party?  As a Christian, I do believe we need to be sensitive to others but I also believe that we don't have to be a door mat for everyone else to walk on our beliefs.

Political correctness intends to not offend anyone except that it always detracts from the beliefs of one group (or individual) to attempt to satisfy another group (usually a small minority).  What could be more polarizing than political correctness?  In light of the United States Constitution, where does political correctness allow for one group's belief to trump those of another?  Where does it become acceptable to trample on one group's beliefs and traditions to favor anothers; especially when the group trampled is a vast majority?

In conclusion, what political correctness intends to do - unite Americans - actually has the opposite effect of polarizing our people.  Just look at the politics of the day for proof.  Could this country be more polarized?

Democrats Lead Legislative Sham

This is my response to Herb Kohl's letter telling me why he supported the sham small-business legislation. 

Senator Kohl,

Small businesses don't need loans, they need customers.  Loans create more debt and small businesses can't afford it.  Based on your voting record, I'm convinced that you have no idea how debt affects a business, state, economy, and nation.

Speaking as a small business owner, I can tell you that we need customers! You and the Democratic machine still don't get it.  Tax cuts across the board will free up money that will allow consumers to purchase what we're selling.  We don't want more debt, we want customers.  Why not look at creating jobs through helping businesses create demand for their products and services rather than through credit?  Your approach has never worked and it never will.  This is a political ploy to save your party's butt in an election year.

Tax cuts across the board free up money that consumers would normally spend on taxes, thereby, giving the consumer more buying power.  Business tax cuts free up money that businesess would normally spend on taxes and allows them to make investments in growing their business while consumers have increased demand for the businesses' products and services.  When businesses grow so do job opportunities.  Tax cuts fuel a two-way approach to jump starting the economy; one from the demand side and the other from the
supply (business) side.

I'm amazed that Kohls stores are still in business with the approach you always take.  But then again, I'm forced to remember that it was a business savvy CEO that built the empire and not you personally.  In other words you talk tax cuts but have a record of voting for spending, debt, and higher taxes.  I can't wait til your up for re-election.

Some Voters Just Don't Get It

I'm reviewing some of the primary results for several states that held their elections on August 10th.  Particularly, the state of Minnesota's race for Governor.  Mark Dayton, pulled off a late night upset to win over the Democratic Farm Labor (DFL)-Endorsed Margaret Anderson-Kelliher but after looking at both candidates, there's really no winner for the citizens of Minnesota on the Democratic ticket.

The two candidates ran on different platforms.  After being endorsed by the DFL party, Anderson-Kelliher ran on the common sense platform of making budget cuts to cover the MN budget shortfall.  This is the smart approach, however, in the end it was rejected by the voters of Minnesota.  When your personal funds are running short, do you keep spending?  Heck no, you cut back on your spending and start saving to make your ends meet.  What the heck are you Minnesotans thinking?

Mark Dayton said that he'd raise taxes on the wealthy which, in this case, he deems "wealthy" as households with an income of over $130,000.  That's not much by any means, but again, it's Mark Dayton who was a dismal failure as a one-term United States Senator that voted for nearly every tax increase that came through Congress during his term.

Both candidates promoted the fact that Minnesota needs jobs.  Lots of jobs!  With an unemployment rate just slightly below the national average, both candidates had the same old usual song and dance that each would cater to businesses and come up with ideas and incentives to bring jobs to the state.  So far, neither candidate has produced any tangible plans or policies on how they'd accomplish this.  But I ask, how can you say on one side of your mouth that you'll cater to businesses with ideas and incentives, but on the other side of your mouth you want to raise taxes on the rich?

To understand how insane of an idea it is to raise taxes on the rich, we need to look at who the rich are and what they do.  Job creators are usually the people with the money that invest into businesses that create the jobs.  The same people that earn more than Dayton's $130,000 earmark.  If you haven't figured it out yet, the rich are the job creators!

Dayton plans to create a fourth tax bracket for these high income earners.  Using my common sense, I will call this tax bracket the "Special Tax Bracket for High Wage Earners" or "Special Tax" for short.  These job creators are usually the people with a higher education, motivated from an early age to work and study hard, etc.  You get the picture.  Now if the job-creators are going to pay special taxes, where's the incentive to further one's education, or to take a financial risk to create a company or, for that matter, create jobs?  There is none and, therefore, Dayton's plan is doomed to failure before it even gets off the ground.

Dayton's campaign slogan should be, "Love jobs, it's job-creators I don't feel for."  Throughout history, there has never been a country that has taxed and spent itself into prosperity and it will not work for the United States or the state of Minnesota.

People of Minnesota, wake up!  The insanity lies in the fact that this is nothing new.  It's never worked and it's been tried over and over again.  You're repeating the same thing but expecting a different result.  That's insanity!

In my opinion, Dayton's Republican opponent, Tom Emmer, seems best suited for this job.  Emmer understands that you need to provide incentives to companies and (the rich) to create jobs in the state.  Yes, the rap on the Pawlenty administration is that he was a friend of the rich.  Well who in the heck do you think creates the jobs, the poor?  It's a fact of life, you need to lure the rich to your state to get them to invest there.  Investing in your state creates jobs!  Yes, it's the rich that create the jobs and yes we need to befriend them whether or not you like it!  It's simple economics and it will never change.  Expecting it to do so is purely insane.

There's a reason that liberals are usually non-business people.  They don't understand economics and business and, therefore, they will tell you to vote for those that will tax the rich because it's only fair!  That's what I'd call trickle-down insanity because they're preaching it and the people of Minnesota are buying it.