(Specifically those of you inhabiting the Unites States of America)

With the presidential elections near at hand, I would like to take this opportunity to share my thoughts with you on the important civic duty of voting. I want to encourage you to vote for principle, and not to waste your vote on a candidate that would horrify our founding fathers.

Yes, game theory is important. In certain cases, I agree that it could make sense to cast a vote for someone that isn't your first choice to help prevent someone that would be your last choice from becoming the president. But in my opinion, arguments like the above have no place in discussions regarding this election.

As far as anyone can tell, Obama may not be a natural born citizen of the USA, and would therefore be constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of president. Both Obama and McCain have contemptible positions on the sanctity of human life. Neither Obama nor McCain have any respect for the 2nd amendment - or the rest of the constitution, for that matter. Listen to them debate - they have few things to offer besides socialism and meaningless, empty mantras of "change" and "straight talk".

As many of you know, I have long supported Ron Paul - and although he has switched gears to the Campaign for Liberty, Chuck Baldwin is now carrying Paul's banner.

I honestly don't expect to see a "third party" candidate win the election - but by voting for someone you can truly support, you can at least have a clear conscience that you weren't a party to one small step in the gradual demise of our once-great republic.

Below is a short video I produced nearly a year ago.
Before you cast your vote this year, please take a minute to consider the implications of the course you are taking.

-Aubrey

 I believe the webmaster should leave his/her politics regarding Ron Paul off this site, considering Ron Paul doesn't represent effectively the cause of freeing Kent Hovind. 

Some biologists like to say that massive coral reefs represent more than 100,000 years of growth, supposedly nullifying the Bible's account of a world that is only thousands of years old. However, many known factors can affect coral reef growth rates. Now, a 50-year study of Caribbean coral reefs confirms the unpredictability of using such growth as a "clock."

Researchers in the past have assumed that by measuring the rate of growth of a coral reef, as well as the total size of the reef, they can estimate how long it took corals to build it. One big problem with this "natural clock" system is that the growth rate of corals is inconsistent and relies on a host of changing variables.

Coral reef growth rates change with available nutrition, physical weathering, water temperature, light penetration (and therefore sea floor depth or sea level changes), and other factors. Soft corals have soft bodies that do not deposit limestone "homes," but hard corals can leave behind rocky records if subsequent generations continue to add material. So, since hard corals grow very fast in some conditions and very slow in others, there is no reliable rate of growth to apply when estimating the age of hard coral reefs.

One 1972 "largely hypothetical" estimate of coral reef growth rate, based on adding up guesses for those factors affecting reef growth, was 1,000 grams (over two pounds) per square meter (more than 10 square feet) each year. But the authors admitted that "more rapid rates of sea level rise several thousand years ago probably were accompanied by greater net (and gross) production."1

Gene Shinn, now a researcher with the United States Geological Survey, began measuring coral reef growth rates in the Florida Keys back in 1960. He inserted stainless steel rods into live hard corals and took pictures throughout the Caribbean over the years. By comparing photographs taken from then until 2010, Shinn tracked coral reef measurements for 50 years.

He found that starting in the late 1970s, disease diminished the corals and that "unfortunately, coral reef growth and structure continues to deteriorate today."2 Thus, disease is yet another important factor that can alter coral reef growth rates.

Applying Shinn's measured growth rate of zero during the period from around 1980 to 2010, coral reefs would take infinite time to grow—which is to say they should not exist. On the other hand, corals can grow extraordinarily fast in the absence of disease and with slightly warmer water and a gradually subsiding ocean floor to keep the coral near to light.

Drs. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris noted this in 1961, citing a study that found 20 centimeters of coral reef growth in five years. They wrote, "This rate of growth could certainly account for most of the coral reef depths around the world even during the few thousand years since the Deluge."3

Like any process used as a natural clock, one must assume a constant rate for that process through history. But when it comes to using coral reefs as such a clock, their growth rates have proved to be less than reliable and therefore do not challenge the Genesis record of a young world.

References

1. Chave, K. E., S. V. Smith and K. J. Roy. 1972. Carbonate production by coral reefs. Marine Geology. 12 (2): 123-140.
2. Corals: A 50-Year Photographic Record of Changes. U. S. Geological Survey online video. Posted on usgs.gov, accessed January 17, 2011.
3. Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 408.

Image credit: NOAA

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on January 28, 2011.

Better reason to not debate Ronnie Online:

because if youre and evolutionist sock puppet who uses the same stupid circular arguments over and over, then i'm going to give U the same answer over and over.

Who Will sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as THE FAKE ronnie(l.a.)(Ronnie)/the FAKE bigdog (spelling it bIgdog)/Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney)  return as Next?

notice how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ. He doesn’t even care if kids can read his filth. May God forgive him. It shows you the type of mind and person he really is. He's lost all credibility with me. He doesn't care about the truth. he's unaware of the demonic influence over him (from the doctor of lies). 

evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

Ben/Sci-Borg "doctorofscience" has hacked into my old account. Now if you go to any of my posts it takes you to his posts. What a snakey sock puppet.

Who Will sci-borg (the "FAKE" doctor of science), also known as THE FAKE ronnie(l.a.)(Ronnie)/FAKE bIgdog / Geoff Stilus (Stiles) /kevin(pauliexcluded) / the "dude" (FAKE christian evolutionist) / Ben "the rationalist" (accountant) / Ronnie's evil twin (the Attorney) / bIdog (the imposter), return as Next?

I think it's funny how he left after making perveted jokes about Christ. He doesn’t even care if kids can read his filth.

May God forgive him. It shows you the type of mind and person he really is. He's lost all credibility with me. He doesn't care about the truth. He' unaware of the demonic influence over him (from the doctor of lies). 

evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word. They will be relentless. This is all part of getting you to waste your time, which the spiritual enemy just loves to see you do (the evolutionist person does not necessarily love that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them).evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability. Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal. This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"