<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Creationism Fails at the Polls</title>
	<atom:link href="http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/</link>
	<description>Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:39:23 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: THE MYSTICAL PANDA</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-386412</link>
		<dc:creator>THE MYSTICAL PANDA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-386412</guid>
		<description>God :-) this is one hell :-0 of a borring website !</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>God :-) this is one hell :-0 of a borring website !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-330162</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2007 20:31:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-330162</guid>
		<description>Jack: If you are worried about the whole &quot;rising from disorder to order thing,&quot; you can stop fretting. Sooner or later, our sun will go kaboom or just die out and all of the lovely order on Earth will descend once again into disorder, and entropy will be served ...

Our entire history is one tiny little blip in the whole astronomical timeframe.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jack: If you are worried about the whole &#8220;rising from disorder to order thing,&#8221; you can stop fretting. Sooner or later, our sun will go kaboom or just die out and all of the lovely order on Earth will descend once again into disorder, and entropy will be served &#8230;</p>
<p>Our entire history is one tiny little blip in the whole astronomical timeframe.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Johnson</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-320769</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 22:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-320769</guid>
		<description>&gt;
&gt;evoulution is flat out preposterous
&gt;

As is spell check, apparently. jfi, if you really want to find out about the topic, try TalkOrigins. There are a large number of FAQ&#039;s there that can explain quite clearly why your misunderstanding of order to disorder (essentially a thermodynamic argument) doesn&#039;t present even a minor stumbling block to biological evolution.

That is, if you are curious and interested. If not, try your argument out at Panda&#039;s Thumb, and spanked a few hundred ways from Sunday.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt;<br />
&gt;evoulution is flat out preposterous<br />
&gt;</p>
<p>As is spell check, apparently. jfi, if you really want to find out about the topic, try TalkOrigins. There are a large number of FAQ&#8217;s there that can explain quite clearly why your misunderstanding of order to disorder (essentially a thermodynamic argument) doesn&#8217;t present even a minor stumbling block to biological evolution.</p>
<p>That is, if you are curious and interested. If not, try your argument out at Panda&#8217;s Thumb, and spanked a few hundred ways from Sunday.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack for iraq</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-320246</link>
		<dc:creator>jack for iraq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2007 01:57:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-320246</guid>
		<description>ya well, im gonna go ahead and attack evoulution right about now. i ddont know how many times ive typed this same thing over and over... here i go...sorry if this isnt the topic to do this in.
evoulution is flat out preposterous. im gonna use the string example again...
say you had a string, or rope,o.k? does this string become worn, weathered and diirty throughout a period of time or does it become cleaner, brighter and stronger? it goes from better to worse right? all things generally go towards a downward spiral through time, they dont become more advanced like a frog to a bird as evoulution would suggest. things dont become more complicated throughout time, the get worse. evoulution suggests differently. use common sense. this is not just chance and all that, there has to be a Creator!!! please comment Justin or anyone else.

Oh yeah, and did you guys get hacked?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ya well, im gonna go ahead and attack evoulution right about now. i ddont know how many times ive typed this same thing over and over&#8230; here i go&#8230;sorry if this isnt the topic to do this in.<br />
evoulution is flat out preposterous. im gonna use the string example again&#8230;<br />
say you had a string, or rope,o.k? does this string become worn, weathered and diirty throughout a period of time or does it become cleaner, brighter and stronger? it goes from better to worse right? all things generally go towards a downward spiral through time, they dont become more advanced like a frog to a bird as evoulution would suggest. things dont become more complicated throughout time, the get worse. evoulution suggests differently. use common sense. this is not just chance and all that, there has to be a Creator!!! please comment Justin or anyone else.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and did you guys get hacked?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Johnson</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-320074</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2007 19:17:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-320074</guid>
		<description>&quot;declares the existence of life forms that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of 20+ million years ago.&quot;

...and in addition to the fakes and the gullible, there are the out-and-out loonies, too. My mistake for not including them previously.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;declares the existence of life forms that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of 20+ million years ago.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8230;and in addition to the fakes and the gullible, there are the out-and-out loonies, too. My mistake for not including them previously.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Herman Cummings</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-319549</link>
		<dc:creator>Herman Cummings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 21:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-319549</guid>
		<description>Guest Article: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses 
 
   The dictionary gives the following definitions for biological evolution: 

      1.  Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive 
           generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic 
           variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of 
           new species. 
      2.  The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. 

  The definition for phylogeny is as follows:

  The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a 
  species or taxonomic group of organisms

  Evolution is a fundamental concept in modern biology.    Biology is defined 
  as being: 
                  The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, 
                  function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany 
                  and zoology.   The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a 
                  group or category of living organisms.

  Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms.  When 
  biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to 
  learn?  It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are 
  excluded.  Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution 
  as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other 
  possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.

  Lets look deeper into evolution.  The theory does not take the responsibility 
  of stating how life originated.  It delegates that to the theory of the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œBig 
  BangÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained 
  In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded 
  into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe,  about 16 billion 
  years ago.  Never mind what caused that to happen, the origin of the 
  dense entity, or what was in existence thirty trillion Earth years ago.  
  Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic 
  attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to 
  planet Earth and begin to grow.  

  But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the 
  theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star, 
  which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.  
  However, this was on a relatively small scale.  This is called the Nebular 
  Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and 
  flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in 
  the middle.  As the nebula collapses further, instabilities in the collapsing, 
  rotating cloud cause local regions to begin to contract gravitationally. 
  These local regions of condensation become the Sun (which was the 
  bulge in the center) and the planets, as well as their moons and other 
  debris in the Solar System.  Never mind that the nebula was not uniform 
  and that the local regions had their own unique composition, and that 
  dust and gas somehow hardens to become gold, silver, copper, and 
  other metals.   Also, never mind about the elliptical orbits. 

  Now, with supposition upon supposition, we have the Earth formed, 
  and many years passing by as it cools and becomes suitable for life.  
  I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern 
  around Earth until the conditions were ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œjust rightÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? to sustain life 
  and get the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œprimordial soupÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? ready.  The Primordial Soup theory 
  suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the 
  combination of chemicals from EarthÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s atmosphere and some form 
  of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, 
  which would then supposedly evolve into all the species.  It seems 
  that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best 
  sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of 
  the supernatural.

  For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life 
  on Earth appeared in that &quot;primordial soup&quot; consisting of some 
  body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life. 
  This &quot;warm little pond&quot; was believed to have been struck by an 
  electrical discharge (the energy source) which caused the chemicals 
  to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth 
  life. From this first life, evolutionists hypothesize, all other life on 
  Earth evolved.   Never mind how water formed on Earth, we will 
  only unravel just so much in this article.

  Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is 
  the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic 
  ages on Earth.  We have tangible data, but secular science has its 
  own conclusions concerning that data.  Science concludes that since 
  the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the 
  earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1 
  Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex 
  and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œfactÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? of 
  evolution.  Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed 
  species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional 
  forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent.  If 
  there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find, 
  and abundant, as the other fossils.

  Enough about evolution.  What about the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œObservations of MosesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚??  
  Well, we have to clarify some things first.  Those that try to compare 
  creationism with evolution do not understand the facts. Creationism 
  is the undisciplined doctrine that the Holy Bible (Genesis) teaches 
  how God created the Earth.  That is false.  There are no ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œcreation 
  accountsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? in Genesis, as stated by the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œforemost terrestrial 
  authorityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? on the book.  Genesis states that God created our universe, 
  but it does not give us details on the process.  The Bible only gives 
  us the amount of time (144 hours) it took to complete.  What we can 
  gather is that the supernatural realm, gave birth to our natural 
  existence in one week, about 4.6 billion years ago.

  What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations 
  of Moses (OM).  God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six 
  days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or 
  have written) in the book of Genesis.  Theology mistakenly calls them 
  the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œSix Days of CreationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, but that too is false, because bible 
  scholars, other creationists, and theologians do not understand the 
  text, and have misled mankind into thinking that early Genesis is 
  just ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œfolkloreÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?.

  What mankind in general does not know is that God was defining 
  geologic time to Moses, but Moses did not understand.  Centuries 
  before mankind discovered the fossil record (of death), and the 
  notion of the Geologic Time Scale, the only account of prehistoric 
  history was given to the chosen nation of Israel.  God did not show 
  Moses how the sphere of outer space and our Earth were created, 
  but showed him one day from each of the different past geologic 
  ages of time, as defined by God, in biblical orderÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦, not 
  chronological order.

  Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students the 
  suppositions of biological and stellar evolution, and exclude what 
  is taught in Genesis. Why?  Is it because there is no evidence?  
  They canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t say that, because Genesis reveals the previous living 
  existence of fossils of the life forms that mankind would later find 
  in the geologic strata, and also declares the existence of life forms 
  that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of 
  20+ million years ago.

  The Observations of Moses tell us that God created different life 
  forms on Earth in each of seven different geologic ages in which He 
  defines.  The Eternal Spirit allowed Moses to be the only modern 
  human to see those prehistoric animals, living as they were in the 
  geologic age in which they lived on Earth.  This is why there are no 
  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œtransitional formsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, because when a total extinction occurred to 
  all surface life, God would created new life forms out of the ground 
  to replace them, after an interval of time.

  Every state governor and their educational supervising 
  administrators were contacted in the fall of 2005 about this.  Yet 
  none of them have taken any step to secure training for their 
  teachers.  They continue to allow indoctrination of their students 
  in the prejudice of secular science, which refuses to investigate the
  reality of our origins.  A twelve hour course is available for science 
  teachers in order to help them to give a more balanced education to 
  their students.

  If we learn nothing else, please be advised that there is no such 
  controversy between evolution and creationism.  The correct 
  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œmatch upsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? are the combined theories of both the Big Bang and 
  Nebular Breakdown against Biblical Creation,  and also evolution 
  against the Observations of Moses.   With the discovery of extra-solar 
  planets, the Nebular theory has fallen out of favor.   Perhaps with 
  future discoveries, other current unrealistic theories will be discarded 
  as well.

  Herman Cummings
  PO Box 1745
  Fortson GA, 31808
  Ephraim7@aol.com
  (706) 662-2893</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Guest Article: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses </p>
<p>   The dictionary gives the following definitions for biological evolution: </p>
<p>      1.  Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive<br />
           generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic<br />
           variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of<br />
           new species.<br />
      2.  The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny. </p>
<p>  The definition for phylogeny is as follows:</p>
<p>  The sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a<br />
  species or taxonomic group of organisms</p>
<p>  Evolution is a fundamental concept in modern biology.    Biology is defined<br />
  as being:<br />
                  The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure,<br />
                  function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution. It includes botany<br />
                  and zoology.   The life processes or characteristic phenomena of a<br />
                  group or category of living organisms.</p>
<p>  Now, we reach the point of discussing the history of living organisms.  When<br />
  biology is taught to our students in public schools, what are they required to<br />
  learn?  It is the theory of evolution, and any and all other explanations are<br />
  excluded.  Secular science is dogmatic about trying to establish evolution<br />
  as an undeniable fact, and is not interested in accepting or exploring other<br />
  possibilities, no matter how plausible they may be.</p>
<p>  Lets look deeper into evolution.  The theory does not take the responsibility<br />
  of stating how life originated.  It delegates that to the theory of the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œBig<br />
  BangÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, which states that all matter in the universe was somehow contained<br />
  In a very small dense hot atom, molecule, or singularity, which exploded<br />
  into all the elements and celestial bodies of the universe,  about 16 billion<br />
  years ago.  Never mind what caused that to happen, the origin of the<br />
  dense entity, or what was in existence thirty trillion Earth years ago.<br />
  Somehow, that explosion of inorganic matter is to have produced organic<br />
  attributes somewhere in outer space that would later find its way to<br />
  planet Earth and begin to grow.  </p>
<p>  But before we talk about the growth of life forms, we have to accept the<br />
  theory that our solar system was formed from a previous exploded star,<br />
  which condensed and re-exploded, much like the Big Bang theory.<br />
  However, this was on a relatively small scale.  This is called the Nebular<br />
  Hypothesis, which has the cloud of gas and dust to start spinning and<br />
  flattening out to form the shape of a rotating pancake, with a bulge in<br />
  the middle.  As the nebula collapses further, instabilities in the collapsing,<br />
  rotating cloud cause local regions to begin to contract gravitationally.<br />
  These local regions of condensation become the Sun (which was the<br />
  bulge in the center) and the planets, as well as their moons and other<br />
  debris in the Solar System.  Never mind that the nebula was not uniform<br />
  and that the local regions had their own unique composition, and that<br />
  dust and gas somehow hardens to become gold, silver, copper, and<br />
  other metals.   Also, never mind about the elliptical orbits. </p>
<p>  Now, with supposition upon supposition, we have the Earth formed,<br />
  and many years passing by as it cools and becomes suitable for life.<br />
  I guess that the molecules of life had to remain in a holding pattern<br />
  around Earth until the conditions were ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œjust rightÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? to sustain life<br />
  and get the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œprimordial soupÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? ready.  The Primordial Soup theory<br />
  suggests that life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the<br />
  combination of chemicals from EarthÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s atmosphere and some form<br />
  of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins,<br />
  which would then supposedly evolve into all the species.  It seems<br />
  that secular science is only interested in theories that are the best<br />
  sounding fantasies, as long as it does not address the reality of<br />
  the supernatural.</p>
<p>  For decades, evolutionists have been claiming, that the first life<br />
  on Earth appeared in that &#8220;primordial soup&#8221; consisting of some<br />
  body of water loaded with chemicals necessary for the start of life.<br />
  This &#8220;warm little pond&#8221; was believed to have been struck by an<br />
  electrical discharge (the energy source) which caused the chemicals<br />
  to form complex protein molecules, which eventually brought forth<br />
  life. From this first life, evolutionists hypothesize, all other life on<br />
  Earth evolved.   Never mind how water formed on Earth, we will<br />
  only unravel just so much in this article.</p>
<p>  Now, we have finally reached solid evidence to examine, which is<br />
  the fossil record of past life forms, and the evidence of past geologic<br />
  ages on Earth.  We have tangible data, but secular science has its<br />
  own conclusions concerning that data.  Science concludes that since<br />
  the simplest organisms of life appear at what is considered to be the<br />
  earliest periods of time that Earth was inhabitable (maybe about 1<br />
  Billion BC), and the life forms found seems to become more complex<br />
  and abundant as time progresses, that this constitutes the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œfactÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? of<br />
  evolution.  Never mind that the theory allows for the fully formed<br />
  species to be much more abundant, and the expected transitional<br />
  forms are extremely hard to find, or are actually non-existent.  If<br />
  there were transitional forms, they should be just as easy to find,<br />
  and abundant, as the other fossils.</p>
<p>  Enough about evolution.  What about the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œObservations of MosesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚??<br />
  Well, we have to clarify some things first.  Those that try to compare<br />
  creationism with evolution do not understand the facts. Creationism<br />
  is the undisciplined doctrine that the Holy Bible (Genesis) teaches<br />
  how God created the Earth.  That is false.  There are no ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œcreation<br />
  accountsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? in Genesis, as stated by the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œforemost terrestrial<br />
  authorityÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? on the book.  Genesis states that God created our universe,<br />
  but it does not give us details on the process.  The Bible only gives<br />
  us the amount of time (144 hours) it took to complete.  What we can<br />
  gather is that the supernatural realm, gave birth to our natural<br />
  existence in one week, about 4.6 billion years ago.</p>
<p>  What Genesis does give us is what we will call the Observations<br />
  of Moses (OM).  God showed Moses, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC, six<br />
  days from the ancient past which Moses would later write down (or<br />
  have written) in the book of Genesis.  Theology mistakenly calls them<br />
  the ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œSix Days of CreationÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, but that too is false, because bible<br />
  scholars, other creationists, and theologians do not understand the<br />
  text, and have misled mankind into thinking that early Genesis is<br />
  just ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œfolkloreÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?.</p>
<p>  What mankind in general does not know is that God was defining<br />
  geologic time to Moses, but Moses did not understand.  Centuries<br />
  before mankind discovered the fossil record (of death), and the<br />
  notion of the Geologic Time Scale, the only account of prehistoric<br />
  history was given to the chosen nation of Israel.  God did not show<br />
  Moses how the sphere of outer space and our Earth were created,<br />
  but showed him one day from each of the different past geologic<br />
  ages of time, as defined by God, in biblical orderÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦, not<br />
  chronological order.</p>
<p>  Science teachers are required to learn and teach their students the<br />
  suppositions of biological and stellar evolution, and exclude what<br />
  is taught in Genesis. Why?  Is it because there is no evidence?<br />
  They canÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t say that, because Genesis reveals the previous living<br />
  existence of fossils of the life forms that mankind would later find<br />
  in the geologic strata, and also declares the existence of life forms<br />
  that have not yet been discovered, such as prehistoric mankind of<br />
  20+ million years ago.</p>
<p>  The Observations of Moses tell us that God created different life<br />
  forms on Earth in each of seven different geologic ages in which He<br />
  defines.  The Eternal Spirit allowed Moses to be the only modern<br />
  human to see those prehistoric animals, living as they were in the<br />
  geologic age in which they lived on Earth.  This is why there are no<br />
  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œtransitional formsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚?, because when a total extinction occurred to<br />
  all surface life, God would created new life forms out of the ground<br />
  to replace them, after an interval of time.</p>
<p>  Every state governor and their educational supervising<br />
  administrators were contacted in the fall of 2005 about this.  Yet<br />
  none of them have taken any step to secure training for their<br />
  teachers.  They continue to allow indoctrination of their students<br />
  in the prejudice of secular science, which refuses to investigate the<br />
  reality of our origins.  A twelve hour course is available for science<br />
  teachers in order to help them to give a more balanced education to<br />
  their students.</p>
<p>  If we learn nothing else, please be advised that there is no such<br />
  controversy between evolution and creationism.  The correct<br />
  ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œmatch upsÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? are the combined theories of both the Big Bang and<br />
  Nebular Breakdown against Biblical Creation,  and also evolution<br />
  against the Observations of Moses.   With the discovery of extra-solar<br />
  planets, the Nebular theory has fallen out of favor.   Perhaps with<br />
  future discoveries, other current unrealistic theories will be discarded<br />
  as well.</p>
<p>  Herman Cummings<br />
  PO Box 1745<br />
  Fortson GA, 31808<br />
  <a href="mailto:Ephraim7@aol.com">Ephraim7@aol.com</a><br />
  (706) 662-2893</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil Johnson</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-319116</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil Johnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 00:18:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-319116</guid>
		<description>And here&#039;s an even better quote:
&quot;In the first place, science and scientists are totally owned by the government, and believe whatever will get them a grant, like this ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“global warmingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ idiocy.&quot;

There really is no way to adequately respond to this. Ms. Wyper appears to believe things that are completely at odds with physical reality, rather like the people who will pour money into perpetual motion machines or will cling to the idea that the Earth is flat or that there is a giant face on Mars.

The fact is there is no &quot;highly political curricula&quot; about science in general, or evolution (or global climate change, for that matter) in particular. Evolution is accepted by knowledgeable people across both religious and political spectra. It is only a few cranks who have an extremist (generally theocratic) agenda and their breathtakingly gullible followers like Ms. Wyper who try to argue against it.

The reason creationists sound like fakes, Ms. Wyper, is because they are. Period. You can choose to actually learn about the topic from serious people, or you can leave your head in the sand (or worse!), in which case not even God can help you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And here&#8217;s an even better quote:<br />
&#8220;In the first place, science and scientists are totally owned by the government, and believe whatever will get them a grant, like this ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‹Å“global warmingÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ idiocy.&#8221;</p>
<p>There really is no way to adequately respond to this. Ms. Wyper appears to believe things that are completely at odds with physical reality, rather like the people who will pour money into perpetual motion machines or will cling to the idea that the Earth is flat or that there is a giant face on Mars.</p>
<p>The fact is there is no &#8220;highly political curricula&#8221; about science in general, or evolution (or global climate change, for that matter) in particular. Evolution is accepted by knowledgeable people across both religious and political spectra. It is only a few cranks who have an extremist (generally theocratic) agenda and their breathtakingly gullible followers like Ms. Wyper who try to argue against it.</p>
<p>The reason creationists sound like fakes, Ms. Wyper, is because they are. Period. You can choose to actually learn about the topic from serious people, or you can leave your head in the sand (or worse!), in which case not even God can help you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharon Wyper</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-319056</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharon Wyper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 21:31:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-319056</guid>
		<description>Here&#039;s the best quote: &quot;(...Christian) people committed to fairness and ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œequal timeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? who donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t appreciate that in the scientific method, facts and consistency rule with ruthlessly (sic) authority and democracy has no place).&quot; 

That quote just perfectly sums up the fallacy of the evolutionists&#039; politics and their highly political curricula for America&#039;s kids.

In the first place, science and scientists are totally owned by the government, and believe whatever will get them a grant, like this &#039;global warming&#039; idiocy.  The &#039;scientific method&#039; is a bigger myth than &quot;journalistic objectivity&quot; or even &quot;judicial impartiality&quot;, to name just a few of the big sticks that the establishment uses to propagandize the minds of ordinary people.

In the second place, the Christians caused their own grief by gullibly swallowing the hucksterism &quot;fairness and equal time&quot; when it was used a generation ago, and even still in this article, to move them off their solid majority conviction that indeed, &quot;facts and consistency rule with ruthless authority and democracy has no place&quot; in the interpretation of Christian doctrine as set forth in the HOLY BIBLE.

IMHO, the reason Creationist school boards don&#039;t get the desired results is because they always try to play by the opposition&#039;s rules, defining the problems by the opposition&#039;s terms, and end up sounding like fakes.  Better they should stand up with a Bible, and shout, &quot;This is God&#039;s Word.  Read it and weep.&quot;  That would derserve respect AND maybe some help from the Creator.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s the best quote: &#8220;(&#8230;Christian) people committed to fairness and ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œequal timeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? who donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t appreciate that in the scientific method, facts and consistency rule with ruthlessly (sic) authority and democracy has no place).&#8221; </p>
<p>That quote just perfectly sums up the fallacy of the evolutionists&#8217; politics and their highly political curricula for America&#8217;s kids.</p>
<p>In the first place, science and scientists are totally owned by the government, and believe whatever will get them a grant, like this &#8216;global warming&#8217; idiocy.  The &#8217;scientific method&#8217; is a bigger myth than &#8220;journalistic objectivity&#8221; or even &#8220;judicial impartiality&#8221;, to name just a few of the big sticks that the establishment uses to propagandize the minds of ordinary people.</p>
<p>In the second place, the Christians caused their own grief by gullibly swallowing the hucksterism &#8220;fairness and equal time&#8221; when it was used a generation ago, and even still in this article, to move them off their solid majority conviction that indeed, &#8220;facts and consistency rule with ruthless authority and democracy has no place&#8221; in the interpretation of Christian doctrine as set forth in the HOLY BIBLE.</p>
<p>IMHO, the reason Creationist school boards don&#8217;t get the desired results is because they always try to play by the opposition&#8217;s rules, defining the problems by the opposition&#8217;s terms, and end up sounding like fakes.  Better they should stand up with a Bible, and shout, &#8220;This is God&#8217;s Word.  Read it and weep.&#8221;  That would derserve respect AND maybe some help from the Creator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Darwiniana &#187; Creationism vs public opinion</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-319013</link>
		<dc:creator>Darwiniana &#187; Creationism vs public opinion</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 19:40:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-319013</guid>
		<description>[...] Why Creationism Fails at the Polls Having watched the creationism insurgency flare up in half a dozen different school boards since the mid-1980s, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve noticed a pattern. It helps me reconcile some aspects of this issue that donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t seem to fit. Most Americans, according to polls, lean toward religious explanations of the origin of life, and most favor some discussion of that in science classes (a false, but understandable, position for a people committed to fairness and ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œequal timeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? who donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t appreciate that in the scientific method, facts and consistency rule with ruthlessly authority and democracy has no place). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Why Creationism Fails at the Polls Having watched the creationism insurgency flare up in half a dozen different school boards since the mid-1980s, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ve noticed a pattern. It helps me reconcile some aspects of this issue that donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t seem to fit. Most Americans, according to polls, lean toward religious explanations of the origin of life, and most favor some discussion of that in science classes (a false, but understandable, position for a people committed to fairness and ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œequal timeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚? who donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t appreciate that in the scientific method, facts and consistency rule with ruthlessly authority and democracy has no place). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Justin Gardner</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-318630</link>
		<dc:creator>Justin Gardner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2007 04:08:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-318630</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t hate Christians, but I&#039;m not too fond of their politics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t hate Christians, but I&#8217;m not too fond of their politics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jack for iraq</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-318510</link>
		<dc:creator>jack for iraq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-318510</guid>
		<description>why does everyone hate christians?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>why does everyone hate christians?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: john</title>
		<link>http://donklephant.com/2005/11/09/why-creationism-fails-at-the-polls/comment-page-1/#comment-3624</link>
		<dc:creator>john</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:56:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://donklephant.com/?p=1302#comment-3624</guid>
		<description>Nice article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
