User Profile: AllWeatherPatriot


Member Since: September 01, 2010

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

  • April 17, 2014 at 3:49pm

    How did Canada_Goose get his/her razor sharp wit? Don’t know, go ask your average third grader.

  • April 14, 2014 at 4:29pm

    Those here who are trying to justify abortion are no different from “progressives” (and indeed probably are progressives). Let’s just cut through the nonsensical rationalizations (it’s a “choice”, the government can’t tell the mother what to do with “her body”, etc.). Be honest: The real reason you are for abortion (I know, “choice”) is that you want to engage in any behavior you happen to desire, and to do it without consequences. That’s the common denominator underlying virtually every progressive social policy.

    I also have a question for the progressives here: If abortion is OK because “the woman can do what she wants with her body”, then why couldn’t a conjoined twin decide that his sibling was inconvenient (of course I meant to say why couldn’t he make a “difficult and deeply personal choice”), and just kill his twin?

  • April 14, 2014 at 4:10pm

    First of all, I find it strange that you label those of us who believe in protecting innocent life “RINOs.” The actual RINOs are generally pro-abortion, among their other failings.

    We are true Conservatives. Conservatism involves protecting and preserving (“conserving”) what is good and just within society. Therefore, what could possibly be more appropriately conservative than protecting the God-given right of innocent, defenseless children to enjoy life without having it selfishly snuffed out by a mother who finds them to be “inconvenient?”

    And don’t start with the “it’s my body” nonsense. The developing child is not a part of the mother’s body at all. The baby has it’s own independent blood supply and its own blood type. It is dependent upon the mother’s body, but is not part of it. Also, since most of the genetic material comes from the father, where are those crying for the “right” of the father to determine what to do with “his body?” Mull that one over a while.

    The bottom line is that the mother has a choice, and that choice is whether to engage in sexual activity or not. Once she has made that choice in the affirmative, she shouldn’t get a “do-over” by murdering the resulting child. That’s simply barbaric and the pinnacle of self-centeredness. And to this so-called “Christian” running Planned Parenthood, all I can say is that she had better read what God thinks about putting your own desires first, while she still has time to

  • January 23, 2014 at 1:59pm


    Expose it to whom? That’s my point. There is such a massive group-think occurring in academia, media, and society at large these days, particularly with respect to the climate question, that it is impossible to break through the nonsense. Add the fact that the very livelihoods of so many depend upon perpetuating the myth, and you have a recipe for willful mass delusion.

    Think about it: What would happen if it were proven that “global warming” is not really occurring or is at least a natural phenomenon that human activities have no significant bearing upon? Entire industries, governmental departments, and political careers would crumble or at least diminish. So many careers and governmental empires have been built upon this theory that there is now no turning back, no matter what the facts actually are.

    Why would you think research scientists, receiving their incomes from these same politically-driven agencies, would be motivated by anything different? In the rare cases where someone does attempt to stand for the truth, they are ostracized and have their careers destroyed. We saw that clearly demonstrated by the scheming that was occurring in the East Anglia Climate Research Unit emails. That was proof positive of corruption, yet the media ignored it and governments moved ahead as if nothing had happened.

  • January 23, 2014 at 1:32pm

    What a well-reasoned response /s. Regardless of whether you accept it or not, every word of my post is true. My friend has witnessed rampant corruption within the academy as well as government research facilities, such as NCAR and NREL, driven by the need to continue to receive research funding.

    It’s no secret that if you are a research scientist who wishes to continue to eat, your self-interest will be much better served by proposing to study why or how “global warming” or “climate change” is occurring, than trying to study why it is not. The research grant pipeline flows from the federal government and is thus highly politicized. That’s a fact.

    Similarly, there is no funding available to anyone who proposes to study any other than a materialistic explanation for the origin of life. Is it any wonder, therefore, that we see so many people positing the “politically correct” theories upon which their livelihood depends?

    It’s funny, liberals would immediately sneer at a study that was funded by oil companies and concluded that there was no need for alarm over “climate change”, but will swallow without questioning a study that reaches contrary conclusions but which is funded by federal agencies that have everything to gain from that result.

    In the former case they scream “corruption”, but in the latter it’s just “settled science” and we should all just move along. Libs are nothing if not the ultimate hypocrites.

  • January 23, 2014 at 1:11pm

    Well, I have a very close friend who is a chemistry professor at the University of Colorado and holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford. He absolutely confirms the fact that politically-directed research grants have corrupted the sciences, particularly atmospheric science, and he dismisses out of hand the notion of human-caused global warming as well as the evolutionary theory of origins.

    But I know, he’s not a “scientist” because he disagrees with you. Sorry, but you are the one who has no clue regarding science.

  • January 23, 2014 at 1:00pm


    Your points are well taken and I think demonstrate why neither evolutionary nor intelligent design theories of life’s origin lend themselves to scientific proof. I certainly think we can gain insights one way or the other via scientific study, but in the end the ultimate answer is beyond our ability to directly observe it.

    This is why I appeal to the use of logic in addition to science. Science has a limited frame of reference, and therefore logically it is at least possible that constraining ourselves only to what science can directly observe could lead to the wrong answer.

    As for your comparison to technologies and devices that science has created, I would say that is not analogous to the study of origins. If anything, in fact, the application of physical scientific principles, derived from knowledge and applied via intelligence is actually a strong indication that life must have been created in the very same (generally speaking) manner.

    That process makes logical sense and correlates with creation processes we CAN observe every day. The contrary notion that inanimate matter and undirected energy, by virtue of nothing more than their inherent properties, can spontaneously create life and direct it upward toward something as unimaginably complex as a human being contradicts what we observe and therefore could be said to be quite UNscientific.

  • January 23, 2014 at 12:25pm

    Read my post immediately above yours and then get back to me on your uninformed rant.

  • January 23, 2014 at 12:22pm

    While materialistic scientists attempt to paint a veneer of scientific authority over their theory of origins, in reality if you really listen to them for any length of time it becomes obvious that their “evidence” is mostly supposition and conjecture. Read Dawkins, Gould, or a number of others and you will find their language peppered liberally with phrases such as “…must have happened”, “probably”, “might have been”, etc. Reading Steven J. Gould’s work, in particular, is much more like reading a fictional narrative than an objective scientific treatise.

    Evolutionists are not scientists, they are storytellers masquerading as scientists. As an aside, a close friend of mine is a chemistry professor and holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry from Stanford. He dismisses the notion of life arising from the inherent properties of matter and the unguided application of energy as unscientific nonsense. His opinion is that it is not even remotely plausible. But I guess to Bill Nye and his ilk, my friend is just another uneducated, backward rube.

    Responses (1) +
  • January 23, 2014 at 11:53am

    Just wanted to clarify my point in my last post:

    Is used the car key analogy because scientists only appealing to evidence from the observable, natural world as a basis for determining the origin of life are possibly looking for the answer in the wrong place, but doggedly doing so only because those processes are more easily observed. That’s understandable, but what if they’re looking in the wrong place?

    Whatever the truth is regarding life’s origin one thing is certain: The truth is what the truth is regardless of anyone’s opinion regarding it, and regardless of whether the answer lends itself to a dogmatically materialistic explanation or not. If it is true that God created life then limiting the search for the truth to the limited domain of science is foolish and incapable of discovering the answer.

    Scientists therefore may be looking for their car keys on the roof, when in reality they are sitting at the bottom of a dark drawer, only because they can see better on the roof.

  • January 23, 2014 at 11:33am

    I think your list of criteria quite clearly demonstrates why science is inadequate to the task of discovering how life arose on the Earth.

    Yes, for practical reasons science is limited to what is observable and testable (though that brings evolutionary theory into serious question), but logic must also be applied here. It is at least possible, is it not, that a creator rather than natural properties alone led to the creation of life? If that is possible, and logically it is at least possible, then limiting the search for life’s origin to only natural processes is analogous to looking for your car keys on the roof simply because the light is better there.

    Responses (4) +
  • September 10, 2013 at 7:41pm


  • July 18, 2013 at 11:57am


    Rather than make pathetically juvenile comments, how about you enlighten us all with a display of your intellectual prowess? Try responding rationally to my comments on this page as a start. Otherwise, feel free to continue amusing yourself. Certainly no one else is taking you seriously.

  • July 18, 2013 at 11:53am


    I am well aware of the assertions of evolutionists, but in most cases that is all they are, assertions.

    Read evolutionary literature for any length of time (Steven J Gould’s writings were a classic example) and an objective reader will eventually realize that the evolutionist’s favorite phrase is “must have.” They constantly state that “must have happened this way”, yet when pressed can present little or no evidence other than their assumption.

    Heck, Gould invented the entire theory of Punctuated Equilibrium completely from his own musings. Not only was it not based upon any empirical evidence or actual science, it was actually based upon a LACK of evidence. He was attempting to explain the clear lack of evidence of the hypothesized gradual change observed in the fossil record. Of course, zero actual scientific basis for his theory never stopped him from imperiously declaring that this was how “it must have happened.” Evolutionists are therefore not scientists, but storytellers or perhaps philosophers.

  • July 18, 2013 at 11:30am

    Sorry, my previous comment was cut off at the end. I was stating that no other conclusion is rational.

    My point is simply that a system devised to encode, store, transmit, and decode information can only exist if an intelligence external to the raw, “dumb” materials assigns meaning for each unique combination and establishes the rules for encoding, decoding, and utilizing the information.

    The fact that so many evolutionists simply avoid this question when presented to them is astonishing. It is a straightforward, logical question that MUST be answered if one purports to have a theory that explains the origin of life.

    To believe that a code of any kind can arise by chance and the innate properties of inanimate materials is beyond ludicrous; it actually suggests a form of insanity, a complete disconnection from reality. Since I don’t believe that most evolutionists are actually insane the only conclusion I can draw is that they are forced into nonsensical beliefs by their drive to defend materialism. I think evolutionary theory is driven, as are most negative pathologies in today’s broken culture, by human rebellion against God. The story, ironically, is as old as Genesis and the Garden of Eden. Man’s selfish desire to chart his own course without God inevitably leads him into darkness, in this case darkness of thought and understanding.

  • July 18, 2013 at 11:15am


    Just something for you to think about (and I mean that in all sincerity, not sarcastically):

    While evolutionary theorists and creationists will argue over the origin of the raw materials of life, including the origin of the DNA double helix, the one thing that evolutionists always dodge is the origin of the code, or INFORMATION that resides on the DNA substrate.

    The genetic code, after all is a code, that is it is a system designed to carry information and to encode and decode that information or data. A simple comparison would be to the English alphabet. Our alphabet has 26 symbols, letters, that when arranged in specific sequences form words, which further arranged form sentences, then paragraphs, etc. In so doing, the alphabet is able to communicate limitless information. Yet no sane person would ever attempt to argue that that the alphabet, much less a creation such as “War and Peace”, came into being simply by the random interaction of ink molecules with paper molecules, aided by unimaginably long time periods.

    The alphabet only has MEANING, and is able to convey any information at all because an external intelligence, in this case Man, assigned meaning to what would otherwise be mere arbitrary ink blots on a page. Similarly, the complex arrangements of amino acids in the DNA chain can only store and convey the complex instructions necessary to build a living organism because the Creator assigned meaning to them. No other conclusion is rat

  • July 8, 2013 at 10:49pm

    My wife and I were there, and once the flag raising scene began I immediately knew what the message was. It was very touching and really drove home the current state of our nation.

    The show as a whole was wonderful. Using the man in the moon as an observer of human history was brilliant. As we left, we both remarked upon how great The Man in the Moon would be for kids. Its fascinating visuals and sense of humor will draw kids in while the storytelling educates them about who we are, why we’re here, the good and bad of our history, and how we choose where to go from here.

    Thanks so much Glenn for having the imagination and courage to create this vision, and thanks to everyone who made it a reality. You should all be very proud.

    Responses (1) +
  • June 6, 2013 at 5:04am


    I think you scrambled my point up with those made by others. You seem to be replying to other posters’ arguments in your reply to me. My point was singular and direct: How does a code, information, arise by chance?

    You didn’t answer that question, other than to take exception with my use of the word “chance.” Also, I am quite well-read when it comes to evolutionary theory. In addition, one of my closest friends has a Phd in Physical Chemistry from Stanford and similarly thinks that the theory of evolution is a complete absurdity.

    So, I’ll pose the question again: How do you explain the existence of the genetic code by virtue of purely natural processes? Think about a much simpler example. Our alphabet is a code of sorts, one which communicates information by use of 26 different symbols we call “letters.” These letters, when arranged in specific combinations form words, and those words arranged in further combinations form sentences, etc.

    What would otherwise be mere meaningless blobs of ink on a page are instead capable of conveying information because an INTELLIGENCE, in this case human, assigned meaning to each ink blob and developed rules for interpreting them. No sane person would propose that War and Peace, as an example, magically came into existence merely through the physical properties of ink and paper molecules. Yet evolutionists foolishly believe that a vastly more complex code exists only because of the properties of amin

  • June 5, 2013 at 10:55pm

    @ Moderation:

    Your discussion regarding proof is an important one. Actually, I would say “evidence” is a better word as in the end, some degree of faith will always be required in this life to believe in things that are beyond our physical existence. My own belief in God is in very large part based upon hard, physical evidence.

    While there are limitless examples available, I would direct your attention to one piece of evidence in particular. We hear all the time about the creation versus evolution debate, and there are solid arguments on both sides. However, these arguments usually are limited to disagreements over how the raw materials of life, the substrate that makes it possible in the form of proteins, peptides, and amino acids arose. What is usually ignored, particularly by evolutionists is the question of how an extremely sophisticated code (the genetic code) came into being via chance.

    The components of the DNA double helix are one thing, but the INFORMATION that rides on that DNA is an entirely different matter. No code in existence, nor ever created in the past, has come into being without an INTELLIGENCE assigning meaning to what would otherwise be just arbitrary characters on a page, or in the case of DNA an arbitrary arrangement of chemicals. It is the MEANING that can only be assigned by an intelligence to the otherwise meaningless components of a code, as well as determining encoding and decoding protocols, that cannot be explained any other wa

  • June 5, 2013 at 4:26pm


    The only one you’re entertaining is yourself. Your comments are reminiscent of a child who discovers a new “dirty word” and then thinks he is clever as he relentlessly spouts it for all to hear. Pathetic.

    Incidentally, God saw you coming when he said, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” I fully expect you to ridicule that verse as well, therein proving its applicability to you.

    Responses (13) +