Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

Who keeps bringing up idea of senior housing in Sanbornton

To The Daily Sun,

In March 2005, the taxpayers of Sanbornton voted to repeal the Senior Housing (Article 4Q) ordinance; so why is the Sanbornton Planning Board and Town Planner currently trying to resurrect this ordinance? How many times must the residents of Sanbornton have to say "no" to this ordinance?

It would be interesting to find out who submitted a formal request or a petition to have the Planning Board spend its valuable time working on this project? It seems that our planner's time could be better spent on more-demanding issues during his 20-hour work week.

Just a note, over the years while the ordinance was in force the town has had two failed attempts at senior housing. One project was the responsibility of Sanbornton Senior Housing Corp. Inc., and the other was a private enterprise, which did not work out.

It should also be noted that a petitioned warrant article (#13) was voted on at the 2014 Town Meeting called for the selectmen to appoint a committee to develop a senior housing plan for the town and that article failed to pass.

The taxpayers have already spoken on this issue. They are not in favor of spending additional taxpayers money on further elderly housing studies by our town boards.

Bill Whalen
Sanbornton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 361

Look at Darwin'slife; his motive was a rebellion against God

To The Daily Sun,

In response to James Veverka's letter of Nov. 5, "Creationists actually believe Earth is only thousands of years old," Jim is correct in stating that I am a young earth Creationist. I'm not a gap believer as a recent writer proffered in his wonderful letter. It's a small difference in this discussion. I wasn't there so I really don't know as some claim to. So I believe what God says in the scriptures. He was there. Over the years I've written a fair amount concerning this and probably will write more in the future, but I won't at this time.

Jim's letter was a response to a letter I wrote, that appeared in the Nov. 4 addition of The Daily Sun, which was a response to E. Scott Cracraft's column of Oct. 27, Faith Philosophy & Science. My purpose was to expose the device that evolutionists almost always use to promote the theory of evolution in the public eye by associating it with the Copernican revolution and to address the claim that evolutionists make that they are merely following the evidence. Not at all to my surprise Jim didn't respond to any of that, but rather focused on my fairly well known Creationist belief. The tactic is to appeal to the public consensus that a creationist view is outside of serious conversation and that anything that I say should be dismissed. This is a tactic so many on the left use in various forms to avoid having an actual intellectual conversation, while claiming intellectual superiority. Thus he figures he's off the hook in accounting for the deficiencies in the evolutionary model.

I have been highlighting intelligent design in my past letters in response to evolutionists' claims that evolutionists are merely following the evidence. Here it becomes clear that they are not. Listening to actual debate between scientists who are proponents of I.D. and those who are evolutionists it breaks down like this: The evidence seems to support the intelligent design view, the evolutionist have the consensus view and they make the rules. The evolutionists end up looking silly admitting that they haven't demonstrated that evolution can account for what the I.D. scientists describe as Irreducible Complexity, but ask, give us more time we're working on it. The evidence supports intelligent design.

I'm going to turn philosophical here. One of the foundational claims that Darwin makes in support of the theory of evolution is that nature does not actually give us evidence of design but merely the appearance of it, that everything that we see in living things that look like design can be explained by natural selection. He presents physical evidence of only variation in kind in all of his studies. He is aware of and admits the problem of the abrupt appearance of complex life forms in the Cambrian explosion and the lack of any transitional form in the fossil record that would show the transition from simpler life forms to these animals. Whatever it was that prompted him to posit this "appearance of design" hypothesis, it wasn't the evidence.

If you study Darwin's life it's not at all a stretch to posit that his motive was rebellion against God, his creator. This rebellion against God and not the evidence as evolutionists ignorantly claim is the salient trait of the theory of evolution to this day. That many Christian denominations endorse this theory is a testimony to just how compromised much of the church has become.

Jim is always recommending websites. I would recommend that anyone who is interested in sorting this thing out watch Ben Stein's movie "Expelled — No Intelligence Allowed" on YouTube. It outlines the controversy and introduces you to some of the prominent players on both sides of the debate.

John Demakowski
Franklin

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 196