[This has everything to do with FREEDOMversusCommunism, Socialism, and Fascism.]

This has nothing to do with Republican versus Democrat.

This has everything to do with FREEDOM

versus

Communism, Socialism, and Fascism.

I'll take FREEDOM, and I'm determined to keep it - just like many millions more just like me - the vast majority of this country.

Bluntly, voters were deceived, and this administration isn't doing anything that the people will TOLERATE. Far LEFT liberal talking points don't get far at all with those who are informed. The so-called health reform has nothing to do with healthcare OR compassion - rather government takeover and government tyranny over a FREE people. This is something that the States and the People will NOT permit.

Your comment has EVERYTHING to do with republicans versus democrats. NONE Of this language was around when Bush was socializing corporations and providing them with HUGE welfare checks....giving them unlimited funds.

Now that we are using tax dollars to help the poor, republicans are screaming.

Christ TOLD us to help the poor, not the rich.  Your prosperity teachings come from republican men who made up a religion.  Socialism is an economic institution, like capitalism and communism.  England, Canada and most of Europe are nations which have a democracy for the form of government and their economic system is socialism.  You have been made to be fearful of socialism, yet Bush created more socialism programs than Clinton.

Tell me.  How has capitalism been such a great economic system for most Ameicans?

[The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” - Stephen J. Gould - “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.]

Hello my brothers and sisters.
I am sorry it's been so long, but I am happy to have this forum to come to anytime.

I have come up with what I feel is a very effective challenge for anyone who believes in evolution, and more specifically in those who believe the lies being indoctrinated into our children's minds in about every major university on the continent in regards to the overwhelming "evidence" of graduated transitional fossils.

First of all, and right off the top, I emphatically deny any G.T.F. exist anywhere on the planet. Every time I have asked for photos or any other proof of these G.T.F. I inevitably am directed to some obscure web site which will show very impressive charts and explanations accompanied by really nice artwork depicting such fossils, but never any real, actual photos, or locations of the real fossils.

One of the most respected evolutionists of our generation, the late Steven J. Gould, was an American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science. He was also one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation, made the following remark...

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.” - Stephen J. Gould - “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.

Now what he means about "data only at the tips and nodes of their branches" is that what we observe in the fossil record exclusively, are fully formed animals, and not ever any intermediates.
In other words, we do not see any animals in the process of becoming another , different species.
For example, we don't see any fish with back legs.

If we think about it logically, we would expect the "transitionals to make up the vast majority of the fossil record.
Let's say for example there was a fish...a fully formed fish just swimming around minding his own business.
Then, one day it has young ones, and one of them happens to have grown one tiny toe out of the side...then when that fish has young ones, the same thing happens with all it's off spring.
Over the life of that one fish, it may have thousands and thousands of young ones with that same toe.
Then, thousands and thousands of years later, one of the fish with the toe has offspring and on of them has four toes...take this to it's logical conclusion until we have a fully formed lizard.
Toes would then have a foot, then there would be toes on the other side and a foot, then the legs, then the lungs then all the other thousands of slow random unaided changes which are needed to finally go from the first original fish the final outcome, the lizard.

So, the fossil record should show many many millions of in betweens, or graduated transitional changes...but it doesn't. As Steven J. Gould states, "the trade secret of paleontology" is that these in betweens simply do not exist!
It's a secret because our children are not being told about it! This has serious connotations when we consider how the courts voted against having the "other side" told in class. The other side includes inconvenient truths such as this one, and many many more.

Many people do not know this but the supreme court ruled that atheism is also a religion, and so why is one religion allowed to be taught in our schools and not the other?

OK, now evolutionists have tried explain this away by saying the conditions which allow fossils to be created is very unstable and most of these missing fossils were obviously washed away before they could form!
What!?? OK, let's try and set this most unlikely explanation aside and think about the odds of this happening.
Here's my challenge to evolutionists.

Imagine you have taken a photo of a person who has lived let's say for sake of argument 80 years, once a year on his/her birthday.
OK, so we have 81 photos starting from birth to one year old to death at eighty.
Let's say these photos represent the fossil record of one species, which is represented as the new born photo, and another fully formed different species which is represented by the final 80 year old photo.

OK, now, let's scatter all these photos over a one thousand acre farmer's field.

OK, a few months go by and you go back to see what is remaining of the 81 photos.
What would you logically expect to find? The newborn photo and the 80 years photo only? I doubt it.
You would find a scattered remnant of a mixture of the photos representing all ages roughly.
You may find photos of the baby years...some would be in seriously poor shape, and others would be not so bad, but you would find other photos representing the teen years, and others representing adult and finally old age.
Let's say you only found twenty of the 81 photos.
You would no doubt have a vast majority of the in between years as opposed to only the first and last photo right?

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that by some amazing fluke, we did only find the first and last photo...this is only representative of one transitional right?
So, now let's do the same photo experiment representing all human history. So, for every human being do the same experiment.

Now toss all these photos over the same field and return a few months later.
What are the odds that you would find only the new born and final photos for all humankind??
Right...
This is exactly what evolutionists are teaching our children. This is why Steven J. Gould exposed this lie in his honest assessment of the actual facts surrounding evolution as it pertains to graduated transitional fossils.
All we find are fully formed animals and zero in betweens which Darwin himself admitted would be the death of his theory.

John

You certainly write well.  However, there are no links to prove your statement.

The evolutionists are teaching us how the earth came to be.  And what has transpired during that time.  If that threatens your belief in your deity, I'd say you have little faith.

[WATCH and see what they're about to do.]

In varying degrees, this is the opposite of FREEDOM, and that's where we are headed.

Things started out gradually with the "NEW DEAL". It was argued that it was okay for many reasons, but mainly because there was an emergency. INCOME TAX started out in the same way - as a temporary emergency. UM? - things like this rarely end up being temporary - DO THEY?

There was a time when hungry people and people with other life-sustaining needs were taken care of by churches and the generosity of big-hearted people who wanted to help. This is called FREEDOM. The government didn't STEAL your money by force and give it to someone you don't know - for a reason you don't know.

There was a time when the individual person chose what charities they wanted to support financially, and that's part of FREEDOM. You got to look at all of the circumstances and decide YES or NO on helping - based on your own opinions, not those of government. This pertained to every NECESSITY OF LIFE, and nobody dreamed of trying to make you buy someone a house, a car, a television, and other NON-NECESSITIES OF LIFE. It was just a MATTER OF COMMON SENSE. A BASIS RULE OF THUMB involved EATING:  you worked if you wanted to EAT. You didn't STEAL someone else's food or ask the government to do the STEALING FOR YOU because that wouldn't be FREEDOM. Things did start out gradually and most didn't object too harshly because people were starving to death. We've made a lot of SO-CALLED PROGRESS since then, and now they want to force us to pay for ABORTIONS in our country and others. Under the theory of COMMON SENSE AND FREEDOM, one would have to think that things like this COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE FORCED! WATCH and see what they're about to do.

Average Christians, regardless of wealth, still help more people than anyone else - AND that's over and beyond the money that the government STEALS from them. Being big-hearted and wanting to help someone is also a MATTER OF FREEDOM. Please keep in mind this is the opposite of being FORCED - COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY - FREEDOM! In a free country, you get what you earn, and you keep what you earn to spend however you wish, and that certainly includes helping others you want to help. There IS NO RIGHT to a house, a car, television set, or many other things that we are CURRENTLY FORCED to buy for others. This is SLAVERY - NOT FREEDOM! There is NO RIGHT to lay around getting drunk or high and thinking that it's only right for the government to force someone else to pay your bills. There shouldn't be ANY FREE LUNCH unless someone WANTS to VOLUNTARILY GIVE you one. Otherwise, you WORK if you want to EAT. It was WRONG to give generations of people what they need or want FROM THE LABOR OF OTHERS. This sent the WRONG MESSAGE to everyone and ended up victimizing the ENTIRE SOCIETY: the receivers - the government FORCIBLY STEALING - and the people being STOLEN FROM. This was a disaster of EPIC proportions where NOBODY WON - MORALS WERE DESTROYED - AND FREEDOM STARTED DISAPPEARING at an ever-increasingly rapid rate. NOW we are being FORCED to rescue banks and other businesses because their OWN CORRUPTION SUNK THEIR SHIP. The same people responsible for the CORRUPTION, including our GOVERNMENT, are the ones applying the funds we were forced to give in THE BAILOUT! Our GOVERNMENT doesn't know where 350 BILLION DOLLARS WENT - so they WANT 800 BILLION DOLLARS MORE! What happened to FREEDOM, morals, values, and ethics in the meantime? NEWSFLASH - Those things are either gone, or they are disappearing rapidly. The BIG QUESTION is not "Are we becoming a SOCIALIST COUNTRY," rather "HOW FAR ARE WE FROM BECOMING A HARDCORE COMMUNIST COUNTRY? Those of us who are old enough can reflect back on what FREEDOM AND A FREE COUNTRY used to mean!

How sad to have such fears of a nation that wants to help the least of these.  You were not afraid under republican rule when there were decisions to cut back on health care for poor children, cut off food stamps for poor families, take jobs out of this nation, give taxes to the rich?  To use tax dollars to fight wars where more civilians were killed than soldiers?

It sounds as though you fear compassion for the least of these and have nothing but a great fear of those who want to help others.

Tell me.  How much money do you think it takes to take care of over 45 million people without health care?