Considering this matter of Science.....

In lieu of my last post, let us consider what science is and what it is not. Since the apotheosis of science, scientists have been given the most respected positions in modern times that the government now considers science in most of its policies that rule over man (i.e.climate change). Because of this, let us ponder the limitations to science and man and how the modern world has failed to grasp these limitations. Continuing to build on Dave Breese's book, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, we will discuss these very important points. We certainly do not want our modern-day scientists to be Frankensteins or for science to be science fiction!

"It might even be argued that modern times have themselves been created by the phenomena denoted in the phrase the advance of science. Science and the scientist have taken to themselves credentials deemed unassailable in our culture" (Breese 35). Because they have applied science to unscientific  concepts, (science has taught us), many strange notions have been deemed truth. Science has essentially become a god in academia and all over the world that it has been rendered above reproach. Sometimes even the most bizarre phenomena have been labeled scientific. Our society assumes that science has the answers to all things and can solve all the problems of our world and as Breese points out, it has been moved from the area of debate into an actual article of faith in which they gullibly and readily accept, "science is only valuable to a certain point after which it becomes a false legitimizer of a whole set of unwarranted and dangerous conclusions" (37). Before we will discuss the limits of science, let us go back to the basics of what science actually is:

• First, science is observation. It observes with a more studious and careful analysis and with patient detail as opposed to more casual observation. Science observes entities. It moves from the outward or superficial into a much more analytic or deeper observation. For example, science can observe that there is a rock in front of them. Upon deeper analysis, it can tell us specifically that the rock is sandstone.
• Second, science observes combinations of entities. Science can tell us that the air is composed of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace elements. It can also tell us that the atmosphere is a combination of several layers such as the thermosphere, troposphere, and stratosphere. It can tell us that this thunder and this lighting are often present together. 
• Third, science observes phenomena. Science can tell us that when you mix sodium and water, the result is fire. It can also tell us that this rock was changed from a particular weather pattern or that this rock changed it's composition from this particular temperature. 
• Fourth, science performs experiments. Science can observe phenomena by bringing together entities that do not combine in a predictable manner in nature by performing experiments. By this, they can gather the evidence to predict natural phenomena that they observed artificially in a laboratory and the controlled experiment is the most dependable. 

Based on all these four points, science then, at its center, is empiricism, "it observes things and attempts to state the facts about the essence of those things and about the observable activity that those things produce when they are related to other things in certain quantities and environments" (39). That is the core of empirical science. It is at this point then that science moves into the practical realm giving us all kinds of ingenuity in our world, such as the rocket, the space shuttle, the microwave, the satellite, and many other things that we depend on, on a daily basis. Enough can not be said of the wonderful discoveries of science that have made our lives so much better. But unfortunately, like all things, there is a danger of making anything to powerful that goes beyond the scope of man and his obvious limitations. Any sound thinking person would know it to be unwise to assume that there are no impossibilities in science. Science has its limitations as does man; there are boundaries in which science and no man can pass. With that being said, let us consider the limitations of science:

• Science cannot know the ultimate nature of things. In quantum mechanics, one could easily call it the "twilight zone" filled with vast dimensions beyond our scope of comprehension. Even with the wildest imagination and the most curious adventurer, one could not even fathom or grasp the vast dimensions of the unknown and technology can only take you so far into the "twilight zone." Observation and analysis are useful for present realities but despite the advances in science, science does not have all the answers and cannot venture completely into the vast unknown. For example, no one knows what light is and no one knows how the mind influences the body, "we know something about phenomena, but we do not know anything about the ontology of things" (40). In other words, we know what things do because we can observe and analyze what they do, but we don't know what things are. 
• Science cannot know the origin of things. "The assertion that something was created or brought to pass ex nihilo is an assertion about which science is unable to comment" (40). No observer can tell us the origin of a thing simply from observation alone, for that would not be scientific but rather conjecture or speculation and that's not science. 
• Science cannot fathom pass processes. Science functions as an observer of the present not the past. Anyone who observes the present processes and then interprets the data to lay factual claim to past processes when no-one was there to observe it is not speaking in true scientific terms. Certainly we can assume logically but still,, an assumption is not science. And a word about observation: even observations are superficial, meaning processes vary based on influences of many different factors and unknown conditions. In terms of evolution, saying that "the theory of evolution is scientific is to deprive the word scientific of any meaning, for scientific knowledge has to do with observation and experiment. So called knowledge of a thing like evolution comes neither by observation or experiment and therefore cannot be called scientific. Anyone who is not a fool (a fool being one who willy-nilly changes the meaning of words) should know this" (41). Here Breese points out a very solid point that is incredibly useful to ponder: A scientist can say that evolution is a probable account of the past. But this is where the logic breaks down because "nothing can be called probable unless it is tested against that which is provable. Without provabilities, there are no probabilities" (41). 
• Science cannot predict the future with certainty. With the limitations of observation and analysis of the present only, the humble scientist knows only to deal with the future very, very carefully, "after he has made all of the calculations and has constructed all of the models of probability with reference to the future, the scientist dares not trust his conclusions apart from experiments"(41). The nuclear bomb must first be tested at Los Alamos to ensure the critical mass estimates necessary for nuclear fission before being carried on the Enola Gay and dropped on Hiroshima (sorry, but I hate to use that example). Keep in mind we now have hydrogen bombs capable of a 1000 times greater nuclear fission and decimation and yes, diabolic plutonium, a man made isotope from breeder reactors which was used in the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Many scientists can testify that their experiments did not work as they had predicted, for there were many unforeseen elements resulting in failure (at Los Alamos, the Manhattan Project). Scientists can only cross their fingers that their predictions will indeed work and because many times they do not, they must leave room for many unforeseen elements, "the future will confirm or deny his experiments"(42).
• Science cannot control all possible forces. The wise scientist (like Einstein) knows that he is dealing with unknown powers that he cannot control. He is not the creator but rather a spectator with a very myopic vision. He knows he is not omniscient for he did not create such a thing as gravity and then claim to know exactly what it is. In the grand scheme of things, his experiments are minuscule as he hopes for the best, "even these situations tend to teach him that he is not an originator or an actuator but is instead a cooperator with the vast realities that are beyond his comprehension"(42). In fact, the more a scientist delves into the unknown, the more he realizes that there is so much more he does not know and will never know. His understanding is so feeble compared to the vast expansion of the unknown and so it is with a wise scientist who is motivated by curiosity rather than a foolish over-confidence, "the presence of casualty in the universe is irrefutable, settle-it-forever evidence that man is not the master, but only the observer"(42).
• Science cannot know the reason "Why?" When your son or daughter asks you why the sun comes up in the morning, you think you have the answer and you think its profound because you then go into detail about the tilt of the earth on it's axis and it's rotation around the sun and this is what makes it appear that the sun moves north and south of the equator. With these quickly spoken words, we assume we have the profound answers but alas, your son or daughter will then ask,"why does the earth tilt on it's axis?" and "why does the sun shine at specific intensities?" And so it is for any person to maintain his sanity that ultimate answers will escape us and this is true no matter how brilliant, how inquisitive, how genius, and how persistent one is. One such example is Albert Einstein who never found the unified field theory which was the quest of his lifetime. What a scientist can observe on the outside reveals only a fraction of that observable activity.
• Science cannot say what ought to be. Science simply observes and then humbly makes suggestions or probabilities that may or may not confirm the activity of physical entities in the near future. It has nothing to say about "ought-ness," that one thing is right and another thing is wrong. 
• Science can only tell us "nuts and bolts"of things. Science can tell us what specifically an object is (an axe), but science cannot tell us why the object was used to kill someone. Science can not tell us how to live our lives in the most meaningful ways. Science can not tell us how to find happiness, joy, purpose, and fulfillment. For questions on the intangibles like love, hate, virtue, and honor, and the ultimate meaning of life, science has no answer. Therefore it only makes sense to not make a god out of science, for "it is far more limited, inarticulate, and mute as to the realities of life than most people realize. Science is, in a real sense, a mechanical, undramatic thing. Yes, it occasionally ignites a fire, but men must not mistake that fire for the true and worthy object of their worship"(44).

Is Biology really destiny as Darwin would have us believe?

                    
 Once I was a monkey swinging tree to tree, now I am a professor with a PhD


Today some of the most reasonable, sensible people believe this. This theory [the theory of evolution] has captured and hijack the minds of so many, "because biology is destiny for many, this "principle" has become for them a way of life" (Breese 31). One consideration, of course, is our public education system as previously pointed out in my last post that essentially crams evolution down our throats. Practically the whole world is spoon fed Darwin's theory, which is only a theory, not a fact. All theories have holes, but some would argue that a theory is a "well-tested hypothesis" so it is now a proven fact. But great claims such as evolution require great evidence and unfortunately, science can only prove what is observable in the present moment and no human was alive to observe monkeys changing into humans and walking upright. Natural selection can not prove "survival of the fittest", the fossil record does not show any empirical evidence of transitions in a linear fashion and for a theory to be true, we need to see consistent empirical evidence and we do not, but most importantly, Darwin's theory still does not explain or answer the origin of life and the origin of the universe, which is the foundation by which all your beliefs stand or fall.

It is important to understand that evolution did not actually start with Darwin or any scientific theory. It had always been an established religious belief at the heart of occultism and mysticism long before the Greeks. Just as the serpent beguiled Eve and caused her to believe a lie through the use of sophistry, man has believed the lie that he is evolving upward into godlike status. W. L. Wilmhurst, a mason who wrote the book, The Meaning of Masonry, integrates this thinking in his very words, "This-the evolution of man into superman-was always the purpose of the ancient mysteries...occultisms....Man, who has sprung from the earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature, to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution by becoming a god-like being and unifying his conscience with the Omniscient" (Hunt 19). This thinking that man had evolved from amoebas and is now ascending into godhood is also at the "esoteric" core of many ancient perennial philosophies such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism (Hunt 20). In Darwin's book The Descent of Man he wrote, "Man may be excused of feeling some pride at having risen.....to the very summit of the organic scale; and the fact of his having risen, instead of having been aboriginally placed there, may give him hopes for a still higher destiny in the distant future" (254). It was this philosophy that perpetuated his belief in evolution that helped build the inadequate framework of his whole theory. The worst part of Darwin's theory is that it was used to justified the means of evil. The Nazis worshipped the occult and Himmler led the systematic slaughter of over 6 million Jews under the auspices of natural selection and survival of the fittest using Darwin's concepts in the theory of evolution, which gave way to eugenics. So we can see that evolution has been around long before Darwin. But how can something so evil be immortalized in our classrooms and all over the world? How is it that we see evolution, a soulless ideology, everywhere?

The answer is simple really: the field of science and academia today has been run amok by atheists and science has been given uncritical respect. Darwinism is given unquestioned acceptance and usually goes unchallenged by the masses. The reason for this, of course, is that if you are a scientist or a professor in academia and you believe in God, you will at best be considered incredulous or laughable and at worst, you will be fired, demoted, or not given tenure; you are not allowed to question the Darwin paradigm if you want grants and if you want to be given credibility in peer-review academic journals and publications. The result of this is that the other side of the argument (creation) is not even considered when in fact it is much more logical and rational due in large part to the many holes in Darwin's theory of evolution that isn't even credible science. British astronomer and mathematician, Sir Fred Hoyle said, "the scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth" (Hunt 26) and Michael Denton, an Australian biologist who wrote a book titled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, basically agreed that Darwin's theory should be discarded (27). Even Richard Dawkins, the well-known God-hating atheist, states in his book The Blind Watchmaker that, "biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose" (Hunt 28). So we can see that man is not capable of ignoring the evidence in front of him, but unfortunately, he still chooses to be willingly ignorant of the facts that prove evolution is a fraud.

When Darwin boarded the ship called Beagle that sailed to the Galapagos, his objective was to collect as much data as possible on a myriad of "species." Out of this expedition came his diary called The Voyage of the Beagle by which he then drew his own myopic assumptions which led to his theory of evolution based in his 1959 publication of On the Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin's numerous data collecting and observations in the Galapagos were just that...observations.....or at that time, present data. Just the sheer volume of his works and data collected from so many "species" impressed the scientific community that they believed his theory was correct. We have another classic case of Proof by Verbosity. What's even more remarkable though is that Darwin, who was candidly humble, professed his lack of certainty in his own conclusions, "I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume in which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived" (Origin of the Species 28). Despite his lack of certainty in his conclusions, the scientific community ran with it and out of that came their version of the origin of life which Darwin really never intended. His intent was only to study the variations in different "species." Nevertheless, Darwin drew his conclusions on outward appearances which has only proven to be embarrassingly superficial. His myopic approach was/is based on faulty logic, "each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes" (Behe 22-25) [more on Behe down below]. It is a fact in science that no two birds are alike and no two mammals are alike. Yes, they have similarities, but once again this does not prove a whole new species as Darwin strongly argued as evidence for what he called "variation under domestication" out of which came his concept of natural selection (it was Herbert Spencer who later coined the phrase survival of the fittest, not Darwin). As Darwin observed all the slight variations of "species" on the Galapagos, he drew an assumption that only the strong survived and this gave way to not only the origin of each species but to the origin of life itself. These assumptions in no way prove the origin of a species or of life itself, "the scientists so impressed with Darwin's theory seemed to forget or ignore the fact that no way presently exists whereby data from the present can prove, of itself, anything about ultimate origins. Proof, to live up to its name, must mean demonstrating that something we do not know conforms exactly to something we do know. Consequently, there is simply nothing we know either by observation or through logical proof concerning the origin of individual species or the origin of life itself" (Breese 30). From this statement of Breese's, you can conclude that since man has been observing and recording history, no man has ever observed modern-day monkeys turning into humans. If evolution were true, you would literally be observing monkeys turning into humans and there would be no need for humans to give birth! Darwin's observations at that time were just that-present data-but present data could not tell Darwin about past data. As a result, Darwin's conclusions about the past from his present data were subjective considerations, not proof and so can not be considered real science. Another consideration is that no one even knows what a "species" is, not even the scientific community and it has not been answered to this day. Assuming the same identity based only on similarities is a common mistake many a man makes, "one can easily argue that a species exists only by human definition and not in exactly provable objective fact" (Breese 30). This statement is perfectly logical, one of which I wholeheartedly agree. We are all guilty of making assumptions just like Darwin did, but for something to be a fact, we need hard evidence and proof and clear definitions not troubled logic and inexact science.

Another problem with Darwin's theory is in natural selection, which he called a Law. It does not prove survival of the fittest, which is a ridiculous notion. As Breese points out, if natural selection were true, then there would only be one strong person left on the planet for men are stronger (therefore more fit) than women and so they would have to kill all the women. In the case with animals, the male lion would kill all the female lionesses and the offspring too because they are less fit than the male lion. But the Darwinist would argue that the law of natural selection is conditional upon filial forbearance so we don't kill our relatives. But what about the strong lion killing the relatives of another lion's family? The Darwinist would then answer, "oh but the lion does not always eat the other lions because he is not always hungry so now we have another condition of the law of natural selection. The problem with this so-called law is there is an infinity of conditions that could go on and on with no end in sight because you would also have to factor in natural causes of death such as sickness, lightning strikes, falling trees, earthquakes, hurricanes, and on and on. Therefore it is only a logical deduction to conclude that there is no one person who can say with certainty that "he will survive because he is the strongest. The only way to determine a survivor is to observe those who in fact did survive, "the survival of the fittest only means survival of the survivors. A survivor can only be defined ex post facto. Therefore, to make natural selection the determining factor in history is to make a false assumption. And even if the assumption were true, it could not be proved to be true" (Breese 33). So here we see again that assumptions rule out in science, not provable, objective facts. And we see this occurring not just in natural selection but the fossil record as well.

Concerning the fossil record, here is what Darwin himself said in Origin of the Species, "why if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms" (321)? Here Darwin freely admits that evidence is necessary for a theory to be correct. Real empirical science, not conjecture, is necessary to prove evolution is true and once again, we do not see real science in the fossil record. From pre-Cambrian to Cambrian layers, we see the sudden appearance of complex creatures (pre-Cambrian explosion) created after their own kind (morphology) but that is all the data we see. This fact alone refutes natural selection and genetic mutation. If genetic mutations occurred in the form of evolution as Darwin believed, we should see the empirical evidence in the form of billions of intermittent stages filling the fossil record; a gradual linear change over the course of time. Instead, all we see is the sudden appearance of fossils (pre-Cambrian explosion). So where are all the copious amounts of transitions in a linear fashion necessary for empirical science to prove evolution is true? "Science" has yet to produce the evidence, "given the "fact" of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change form ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series" (Mayr 14). At least Dr. Mayr, a former Professor Emeritus at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, was intellectually honest. The "missing links" have not been found to this day and so the fossil record only gives us outward similar appearances (morphology) and we haven't even accounted for the biochemical structure of all the trillions of cells that came together to create that shape or form, "anatomy is irrelevant to the question of whether evolution could take place on the molecular level,......so is the fossil record that tells us nothing about whether the interaction of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step by step" (Behe 22-25). Darwin's approach was seriously flawed because he only looked on the outside. Fortunately, there are some who see this lack of evidence. Once, such man was Colin Patterson that although deceased, made a profound statement to the many biologists at the American Museum of Natural History in New York as he asked them to tell him one thing they knew about evolution, "I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said that they do know one thing and that is that evolution should not be taught in high school" (Hunt 27). Darwin's theory has this substantial problem, the origin of life, to overcome and neither Darwin or all his worshippers can answer it. Not only do we not see any empirical evidence of evolution in the fossil record, but as we pry deeper, the fossil record also does not account for the molecular structure of life, of every living cell. But before we go into that we need to look at another question that evolutionists can not answer and that relates to the origins of the universe. This honest question is essentially the foundation (starting point) or framework on which you can build everything else, otherwise, you are building a foundation on permafrost!

To fully understand the beginning of life, one must ask the question, "where did the matter come from that makes up our cells?" (apologetics requires you to not only ask logical questions but sensible ones too). Without an answer to this question, you are starting with an inadequate framework on which to build your belief system. All living cells are made up of matter-hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, etc.,-and this had to come from somewhere. For an evolutionist to believe it just banged into existence is to believe in a miracle and that requires faith, faith which is anathema in science, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." (Guth 35). This is remarkable when something simply can not create itself out of nothing for that would violate the Law of Cause and Effect which states, for every effect there must be an equal cause and the effect can not be greater than the cause as Mike Riddle points out in his you-tube tutorial Four questions for evolutionists. There are professors with phd's that openly admit with intellectual honesty that, "it is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning" (Silk 15) and "astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness" (Odenwald 120). In just about every science textbook we see The Big Bang and since this Big Bang, based on the Law of Thermodynamics, the useable energy is continually wearing down. But if the universe has been continually wearing down for over 14 billion years, there would be virtually no molecular energy left. Simply put, based on both of these laws, The Law of Cause and Effect and the Law of Thermodynamics, you can logically deduce that the universe did not create itself (can something create itself? can nothing create something?) and the universe did not always exist but rather it was created. Mike Riddle states this succinctly in his tutorial, "If evolution is unable to explain the origin of matter and energy through naturalistic means, then it is without a foundation." Since evolution can not answer logically where matter came from, it can not answer the origin of life. You can't just start with a single cell and move up the tree of diverse life that inundates every science textbook without explaining where the cell came from and/or how did the cell come into being. By doing so, you have just passed over a quantum reality: the incredible complexity of a single living cell.

This quantum leap that evolutionists make and expect you to believe is in the matters of the origin of the cell. There are only 2 possibilities: life evolved through natural processes as Darwin wants us to believe or life was created. For Darwin and the evolutionists however, the origin of life has not been answered, "the origin of life is also a stubborn problem, with no solution in sight" (Harold 235). These men who have admitted this still refuse to acknowledge that evolution is not based in real science. Without logical answers, you would think that people would start questioning this whole evolution theory. Instead, we have in science textbooks what is called the Stanley Miller experiment. Stanley Miller is proclaimed as creating life is his laboratory with chemicals such as methane, ammonia, hydrogen, etc., He left out oxygen because based on repeated, observable science, he knew that life can not begin in the presence of oxygen for it destroys molecular bonds. But at the same time, oxygen is necessary to sustain life. Miller did succeed but the textbook does not tell the whole story. Miller created amino acids, the building blocks to life, but he created a combination of both right and left-handed amino acids, which are toxic and poisonous to life. Although both right and left-handed amino acids are mirror images of each other (this is called chirality in chemistry), only left-handed amino acids create life and sustain life and you have trillions of them in your body. When we die, all those trillions of left-handed amino acids revert back to a combination of right and left-handed amino acids. Even though the textbooks claim Miller created life, he did not succeed at creating life but rather he succeeded at creating death. This evidence simply can not be ignored and yet it is repeatedly ignored by the masses. Adding to this evidence is the fact that the early atmosphere contained far more amounts of oxygen than previously thought, "the only trend in the recent literature is the suggestion of far more oxygen in the early atmosphere than anyone imagined" (Thaxton, etc., al 80). Based on this evidence produced, there is no way possible for life to have evolved through natural processes or by chance. The complexities of the oxygen atom, and the specific left-handed amino acids necessary for life to begin, give the overwhelming evidence of an intelligent designer. And these complexities arrive at the biochemistry level of a single cell which further shows evidence for a creator.

"The mathematical odds against life beginning and developing by chance are so astronomical as to render it logically impossible" (Hunt 29). When you consider the complexities of a single cell, not to mention each strand of protein in perfect sequence that if not in perfect sequence the cell will not function, it is impossible for it to have evolved. And we are not even mentioning the enzymes which act as catalysts for cellular function; without enzymes, your cells do not function. A single protein coming together by random chance is 10 to the 191st power and a single cell comprised of proteins coming together by random chance is 10 to the 40,000th power. Out of 2000 proteins, only 20 are essential for life and the odds of this perfect sequence defy the Law of Probabilities, "the simplest living cell could not have arisen by chance" (McFadden 85). This mathematical impossibility is well known to many geneticists but they still cling to evolution. As Dave Hunt points out quite clearly that not only do we have 3000 proteins coming together in perfect sequence but they are folded into precise structures (primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary) and if everything isn't in perfect order, it does not function (29). This truth is obvious to most rational thinking people. The cell and it's methods of communicating with specific receptors (molecules present of the surface of each cell) is beyond comprehension: if a cell is DNA damaged, diseased, infected, superfluous, or has not passed "boot camp" in the bone marrow it is destroyed through a process called apoptosis. Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, wrote a book called Darwin's Black Box and in his book he described the complexity of a cell in a concept called Irreducibly complex. The inner complexities of a cell completely unknown to Darwin when he was alive have only recently been discovered with the advent of the electron microscope, "the typical cell contains about 2000 mitochondrion compartments......each of the little compartments contains machinery necessary to capture the energy of foodstuffs and store it in a chemical stable, yet readily available, form......the system uses a flow of acid to power its machines, which shuttles electrons among a half-dozen carriers, requiring an exquisitely delicate interaction between many components" (Behe 188-193). The entire cellular system, it's engineering processes, it's methods of communication, and it's overall design, especially the immune system, is so complex and profound it shames even the most sophisticated computer system in the world and yet a single cell cannot even be observed with the naked eye. How is it then that these tiny little organisms contain the blueprints (RNA and DNA inside the nucleus of each microscopic cell tantamount to one gigabyte of information) that communicate design and life in such an organized fashion? No one in the evolution camp can answer these questions and the prestigious Journal of Molecular Evolution still has not given an answer or proposed a detailed model for the evolution of a complex biochemical system, "no one has a clue how the AMP pathway developed....no one has written about the obstacle posed by the need to regulate a cell's metabolic pathway immediately at its inception....AMP is not the only metabolic dilemma for Darwin. The biosynthesis of the larger amino acids, lipids, vitamins, heme, and more run into the same problems and there are difficulties beyond metabolism" (Behe 142-151). After realizing all the difficulties that arise when considering Darwin's theory of evolution, to believe in evolution is to show that you do not need a preexisting intelligence to do all the work in creation.

And so it is with the many people who still believe in evolution even though there is no evidence to support it. They have built their belief system on an inadequate framework. In academia and science, the old proverb that says publish or perish is required to establish credibility and dare I say, popularity. How much garbage comes out of science claiming to be scientific? So much so that you have to weed through the garbage to find the truths that are backed by real science and evidence, "if a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation, then it should be banished" (Behe 185-186). Such is the case with Darwin's theory of evolution. But because of this apotheosis of evolution, it is readily and widely accepted even as the lack of evidence to support it is unequivocally ignored. No one would even consider that the internal combustion engine just banged into existence and anyone looking at a beautiful piece of artwork on a canvas would assume is just magically appeared, even so, the incredible complexities of a living cell and the beauty of the majestic mountains didn't just bang into existence. Dave Hunt quotes C.S. Lewis in his book Occult Invasion, "If minds are wholly dependent of brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind." We can conclude as Hunt concludes, "this simple logic destroys Darwinism. If man is the chance product of impersonal evolutionary forces, than so are his thoughts-including the theory of evolution" (21).


"For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, invisible and visible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him"........Colossians 1:16 (KJV).



Citations:

Behe, Michael. Darwin's Black Box. Free Press (Simon & Schuster), New York, NY. 1996.

Breese, Dave. Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave. Moody's Publishing, Chicago, Ill.     1992

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of the Species. Castle Books. 1859

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton & Norton; Norton Co., Inc., New York, NY. 1996

Denton, Michael. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Adler & Adler; Adler Publishers, Inc. Chevy Chase, MD. 1985

Guth, Alan. Guth's Grand Guess. Discover, vol. 23, Apr. 2002, p. 35

Harold, Franklin. The Way of the Cell. Oxford University Press, NY. 2001

Hunt, Dave. Occult Invasion. Harvest House Publishers. Eugene, Or. 1998

Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. Basic Books, New York, NY. 2001

McFadden, John J. Quantum Evolution: The New Science of Life. W.W. Norton & Norton; Norton, Co., Inc., NY. 2000

Oldenwald, Sten. The Astronomy Cafe. 1998

Riddle, Michael. Four Power Questions for Evolutionists. Answers in Genesis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJwwCItBFEM

Silk, Joseph. The Big Bang. Henry Holt & Co.,  LLC. New York, NY. 2001

Thaxton, etc. al. The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories. Lewis & Stanley,   Dallas TX. 1984

Humanism: The Dangerous Perils of a Liberal Philosophy

    Think about your own internal belief system: you are either anchored in a constant that has clarity or you are anchored in a chaos that produces confusion. Most would anchor their beliefs in order and clarity so as to not be carried away by every new fad and trend that comes their way, but surprisingly, most, either by ignorance or a flat out denial of the ridiculous concepts and ideas emerging in philosophies that are so far removed from common sense and reason, adopt beliefs that guide their lives, many of which lead them down a path of destruction.

    When we speak of humanism, we are referring to the philosophies that have inundated just about every sphere of influence including the Christian church. To understand what the full picture of humanism is and it's profound impact on the culture, we must first take a look at what humanism is, what caused the advent of humanism, and the men who carried its torch.

    Humanism is defined as a philosophy that places the emphasis on man rather than the Divine or God. It stresses the goodness of man, his or her potential and value, common needs, and it seeks man's ingenuity/innovation to solve man's problems rather than God and His Word which has always been the standard practice for millennia. Consider what is stated from the American Humanist website,
"Humanism is a progressive life stance that without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity." Wikipedia defines Humanism as it "emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition." There are many branches of humanism from Christian humanism to modern humanism to secular humanism to religious humanism. All at their core, however, is a worldview devoid of God and soul that shapes not only your thinking but your behavior as well.

    Humanism started in the mid-18th century when men like Rousseau came onto the European scene and challenged the way men think. No longer was God or the supernatural considered; man now had to rethink his old archaic ideas and concepts, his old orthodoxy. Even the meaning of "meaning" had to be questioned. Man now had to question everything because he had evolved and he must be out with the old and in with the new. This new age was called "The Age of Enlightenment." Anyone who has taken a philosophy class knows this. This new age however was contending for the battle of our minds and it did a great job destroying orthodox concepts. Dave Breese in his book, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, states it so eloquently, "until perhaps the middle of the last century, if a person in the West called himself "religious" it meant something. He would normally have been an orthodox Protestant, an orthodox Catholic, or an orthodox Jew. There was a well-accepted general understanding as to what those words meant. The Bible was the authoritative book, the government was to be respected, order in society was to be kept-that's the way it was" (p. 90). As America was generally a free country founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, this unfortunately all changed with the advent of humanism and the age of enlightenment. It was only a matter of time before this philosophy found its way onto the eastern shores and universities. Today its tentacles reach far and wide and just about every university and college teach this core curriculum. But not only do you see this teaching in universities and colleges but we now can see this teaching in our very churches; out with the old, in with the new. Three men specifically had such a profound impact on the culture and our ways of thinking that their ideas and philosophies still rule in men's minds even though their corpses lie dead in the ground. The first man started a new concept of rationalism that swept through like a tsunami and carried with it the essential tenants of the faith. This new wave of rationalism founded by Julius Wellhausen created what is called Religious Liberalism, and out of his school of thought came a 'higher criticism"which invaded both religious and secular circles.

    Before Wellhausen came onto the scene, the Bible was generally accepted as inerrant, infallible, and Divinely inspired. The Bible was completely dependable and applicable for all matters of life. Man's reason was incorrect and could not be trusted therefore he must rely on scripture as a guide for his life and conduct. After Wellhausen, man's reason was to be trusted, not the Bible. Man was to question everything with his "higher criticism." The saying "God is dead," coined by Friedrich Nietzsche, has infiltrated the minds of so many because of this rationalism and higher criticism of Julius Wellhausen (Wellhausen just piggybacked off Nietzsche). He insisted that the Bible was not Divinely inspired, but rather a collection of human documents from which we get the liberal teaching of the Documentary Hypothesis that litters just about every college textbook and public education program. I know because I took a college class on ancient medieval history and the textbook used was called Cultures of the West. In that textbook, the documentary hypothesis was illustrated with the use of four men labeled with a single letter who wrote the first five books of the Bible. This liberal teaching that denies the divine inspiration of the Bible and denies Moses wrote the Pentateuch, centers around man and how he has evolved from a polytheistic worship to monotheistic worship, the emphasis being man rather than God. These radical ideas infused with darwinian evolution would go undetected to an untrained eye. Ironically, Wellhausen was an Old Testament scholar and a theologian which exposes the fact that you can't even trust a theologian at times! Wellhausen's ideas "produced a colossal change within the church by presenting to the christian community a new, and he would say better, way of understanding the Bible" (Breese 91). Wellhausen, of course, flattered men's egos with his philosophy of rationalism and human reason. With the advent of his anti-revelational liberalism came a cold wind of the other humanistic philosophies such as Darwinism and Marxism. Each at the core of these humanistic beliefs lies human reason (rationalism), not Divine revelation. Human reasoning, which is subject to constant chaos, confusion, and change, is now the anchor of many unsuspecting people. Many leaders in churches, colleges, and universities, cooperated with the rationalist theologians and became liberal humanists themselves, and these very men are now teaching young children and adults how to live. Among Wellhausen's thinking that so impacted not only the christian church but the culture as well, came another seminal thinker to fill the vacuum and his name was Soren Kierkegaard. As one philosophy died, along came another and promised utopia through another form of humanism.

    "Soren Kierkegaard gave the world existentialism and he gave the church what theologians call neoorthodoxy" (Breese 210). Yet Kierkegaard wrote many things that are very hard to understand, but his influence had a profound impact and changed the way in which reality is understood. He redefined concepts such as rationality and faith, "his beguiling speculations about philosophy and religion immediately produced a new intellectual percolation and a new set of fascinating table-talk subjects for the thinkers and the pseudo-intellectuals of the world" (p. 210). Neoorthodoxy, which few understood, became the assumptions behind many a preacher. Existentialism, which no one understood either, became a path to the meaning of life, yet few found that meaning. Kierkegaard's internal self was filled with chaos as he was, "frequently at odds with himself, stormy, frustrated, unfulfilled, and melancholy" (211). He wrote a dissertation, The concept of Irony, with generous acknowledgments to Socrates, and he wrote another treatise titled, Truth is Subjectivity. He argued for passion over objective truth, and we all know passion is relative. Kierkegaard hated the crowd as he stated, "the crowd is the untruth," and so, he believed in the individual. His lack of lucidity and clarity left many of his followers in total chaos and confusion. The frustration they felt was confirmed by the very fact that not only did Kierkegaard believe certain things but he denied them as well. Kierkegaard also "attacked the traditions of theology, ethics, and metaphysics, saying that they were all self-deceptions" (215). This diffusion of thinking went from rational to irrational, and reason gave way to feeling, and thus emerged a philosophical and theological self-contradiction as truth was repudiated. This is existentialism or simply put, nihilism; nothing in the world has any real meaning therefore truth is not important, neither is morality. This kind of belief is tailored for the atheist, of course, who does as he wills, "the only right is what is right for you, and the only wrong is that which produces pain or inconvenience for you. There is no law, no principle, no proper course of action of any kind" (Breese 217). Can we not see this attitude playing out in so many people's lives. As we think, so as we behave: you only have one life so go with the flow man! Certainly this philosophy had its roots in the rebellious youth of the 1960s which destroyed the culture and the values so important to many. Still, this very existential thought is promulgated widely in most universities and colleges and "while composed minds would agree that it is a form of insanity, it has become the most pervasive philosophy of our time.....and there are few college students among the millions on university campuses who have not been infected by the permissiveness and the poison of existentialism" (217). You would think that most common-sense thinking individuals would call this nonsense, but yet, once again, we see so-called enlightenment or humanism leading many down a slippery slope of experiential bliss. We can thank another man, who moved from truth and reality to circumstantial experience and feelings, for eradicating objective facts and truth from the classroom of just about every school and college. His name was John Dewey. His humanist concepts revolutionized the entire education system from simple facts to experience and has left in its wake a culture conditioned to seek experience rather than Truth leaving the culture open to all kinds of delusions.

    John Dewey, the man by which we get the decimal system, ironically hated facts or dogma. The irony being how can a man who hates facts design a decimal system of precise measurements? As in classical education where a student learns the facts or objective truth, he/she is now taught self-actualization. Everything is fluid and everything changes, therefore the student is taught to think about how he feels about everything, including simple basic facts that are not subject to emotional interpretation. Modern education is really Deweyism, and Dewey advanced the godlessness of society by using Darwin/Freud/Kirkengaurd postulates as the core curriculum that is used in just about every college and university. This kind of teaching obviously molds the minds of young people, and why not start in school to shape their minds as public education is a tool to influence the world. John Dewey wrote plenty of books so you would think that he knew a lot, but in reading his books, you can never quite pin the guy down as to what he believes. According to Dewey, since everything changes and is fluid, why not teach a form of pragmatism and experimentalism? Students are taught experience and interaction so they can be asked "how do you feel about that?" The agenda behind this was/is to groom them to go out into the world and create social change. This kind of thinking feeds into an idealistic mindset that is not grounded in Truth. After all, according to Dewey, Truth is out there, but it can't be found, and so, a person is left to a circumstantial belief. Dave Breese once again states this succinctly, "Dewey came to see reality as change, emergence, and development, rather than as a static and fixed thing that is foundational and unalterable" (156). Dewey's disdain for facts propelled the education of human experience (subjectivism) and his/her impact on the world for that is the only thing that matters, "truth was not to be found in static propositions but rather in the confirming reality of social fulfillment" (Breese 157). A perfect example of Dewey's ridiculous concepts is in the gender of humans. A male is born with one X and one Y chromosome. A female is born with two X chromosomes. These facts can not be refuted, but according to Dewey, the facts don't matter, what matters is how you feel about it and has resulted in gender reassignment. Today, it's what ever you want to be and anything goes. How have so many believed such nonsense and foolishness? Dewey's philosophy that we should not concern ourselves with Truth but rather with meaning has given way to meaning is now how we interact with Truth, "when one considers Dewey, he must face the fact that the absence of a concept of final truth left behind Dewey a trail of ambiguity. In fact, Dewey himself said, "although I have raised large questions, it is not my ambition to answer them" (Breese 161). How can anyone follow such nonsense, such arbitrary nonsense? And yet this very idealism and pragmatism has found its way into the church with a social gospel that sacrifices Truth for social change. Dewey was against the Church if it was all about orthodoxy but was all for it if it was about social responsibility and social action. He was all for "improving society," another form of utopia, and his influence has entered the church as a form of religious humanism; religion needs to be transformed to serve mankind, and we need to be social agents of that change. For the liberal religious humanist, the hope was to improve humanity. But has humanity improved through the centuries?

    Since Humanists believe that man is no longer a sinner, for they have nullified old orthodoxies and "dogma," all he needs is education to change his behavior so he can evolve into a more enlightened state of supremacy (godlike state of his own making). Based on all these philosophical ideas and concepts that have arisen since the Age of Enlightenment so as to answer the great questions of life, have we really observed man's behavior changing into more enlightened beings? Juxtapose these humanistic philosophies with what the Bible says in Jeremiah 17:9-10, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and wicked: who can know it? I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give to every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings" (KJV). Since the Age of Enlightenment, the mid-19th century, we have witnessed more bloody wars and even a nuclear holocaust which surely is a warning for the future, not the promised utopia that humanist philosophies peddle. Breese so poignantly states this comparison as well; technological advancement without the moral component is a "sure harbinger to come" as these humanistic philosophies have produced "the greatest degree of moral, intellectual, and social ruin an incredulous mankind has ever seen" (218). Epistemological niceties do nothing to address the real problem of man-his innate depraved, degenerate, reprobate, self-his inherent sinful condition, that yes, is a fact or dogma and can not be altered by man's enlightened mind and is never going away no matter how many man-made philosophies come and go that promise hope for the future, a utopia that is not grounded in Truth and reality. How many of these philosophers have prolonged their endeavor to find the solutions to man's problems only to end in a futile quest of the same problems over and over again? Religious liberalism gives the appearance of orthodox christianity but upon further scrutiny, inspection, and analysis, it proves quite the contrary and clearly shows the evidence of a pseudo-Christianity which denies the power of God and the essential core tenants of the Faith. These pluralistic views that are ever so changing have led so many down a meandering road to nowhere filled with illusionary promises only for many to face chagrin and a "funeral march to the grave." Truth, God's Truth, is a constant. It does not change. It is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. It provides all the answers to man's problems and it provides a solution in the blood of Jesus Christ who offers forgiveness of sin through His sacrifice on Calvary. A simple message brimming with hope and a bright future for all eternity that has not changed since the beginning. A simple message that is not convoluted with pluralistic "truths" and pagan relativism.



"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death"........Proverbs 14:12 (KJV).

"The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the Word of our God shall stand forever".......Isaiah 40:8 (KJV).


Quotes and paraphrases taken from the book, Seven Men Who Rule the World From the Grave, by Dave Breese. Moody Publishers. Chicago, Ill. 1990

Have you been stalked?

I want to talk about men who stalk women and what causes them to do so.

It is assumed by most clinical, mental health experts that men who stalk women have borderline personality disorders and are unable to relate to or connect with a woman. In other words they are unable to have healthy relationships with women. As a result, these men in particular are addicted to porn that objectifies women resulting in unrealistic standards of women's appearances. They will use women to masturbate, they will fantasize about them, and they will struggle with mental delusions, imagining an intimate relationship with a woman when there is not one. These men have a hard time separating in their mind reality from fantasy. As the frustration builds due to an inability to connect to the woman or have her reciprocate intimate or sexual fantasies, he will then make her the object of hate desiring to ruin her reputation and threaten her safety. The romantic fantasies, delusions and unrequited love result in a very agitated man who will stop at nothing to enact revenge on the object of his love/hate mental illness and addiction.

The characteristics present with a BPD (borderline personality disorder) are extreme jealousy, anxiety and OCD. These men tend to have rebound relationships and are incapable of desiring a woman unless she doesn't want them or the man can't have her. These men typically have co-dependency issues stemming from abandonment in childhood. These men also have severe control issues needing to dominate and usurp the woman's life in every way possible, even using surreptitious methods. They will utilize emotional blackmail to manipulate and are perfectionists with extreme rigidity. These men are more than likely to be attracted to inaccessible women such as long distance relationships because of their commitment phobias. Sometimes their seduction is emotional,   opening up to the woman with excessive vulnerability. This seduction feeds their narcissistic fantasies. To the BPD man, the chase is intoxicating for him for outside of that he gets bored. Borderline females are the only ones who are better at this game than he is so they can hold his attention indefinitely.

Delusional disorder or paranoid disorder is a type of serious mental illness called "psychosis" in which a person can not tell what is real or what is imagined.

The Erotomaniac is a stalker who believes he is in love with a woman and REGARDLESS of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the feeling is reciprocal (he believes the woman is in love with him). He will interpret everything she does or does not do as coded messages confessing her internal devotion to the "relationship."

The Narcissist feels entitled to their victims' time, attention, admiration, and resources. Interprets every rejection as an act of aggression which leads to narcissist injury. They will react with vindictiveness but are completely immune to the consequences of their actions.

Abstract

Stalking is relatively common yet little is known of the longer-term health effects of stalking. Using the National Violence Against Women survey, we estimated lifetime stalking victimization among women and men, ages 18 to 65, identified correlates of being stalked, and explored the association between being stalked and mental and physical health status. With a criterion of being stalked on more than one occasion and being at least "somewhat afraid," 14.2% of women and 4.3% of men were victims. Among those stalked, 41% of women and 28% of men were stalked by an intimate partner. Women were more than 13 times as likely to be "very afraid" of their stalker than men. Negative health consequences of being stalked were similar for men and women; those stalked were significantly more likely to report poor current health, depression, injury, and substance use. Implications for victims, service providers, and the criminal justice system were reviewed.

The crime of stalking, raping, and harassing is not subjected to women only. Men have been victims as well; such as statistical reports of men being raped by other men in the military. This is not a "feminist" or "chauvinistic" problem but rather a MORAL problem with our world and the constant DEPRAVITY that assaults those who dwell in it. When will the blind finally begin to see that we have a very large problem with wickedness and depravity that is so disturbing it makes you want to vomit. Those that are deceitful, those that prevaricate, those that deny the truth are the ones who use diversionary tactics to deny the truth. Calling a woman a feminist because she voices her concern about the violence of rape, stalking and harassment is a diversionary tactic used to steer people away from seeing the wickedness in their own hearts and the wickedness of the culture they live in.

This is a moral issue. The difference between right and wrong. It has nothing to do with the label "feminist" or "chauvinist". The problem is, people are so messed up in their belief system that they don't even know the  difference between right and wrong anymore. And you know why? Because no one cares about the wickedness and depravity and evil that goes on around us everyday. Perhaps we may care more when this evil comes knocking on our door and we will be permanently effected by it.

People have no moral compass. They are like rudderless ships that can not be steered but rather are completely at the mercy of the current or tide. These people, who have no moral compass, are those that are very easily manipulated into believing untruths and lies. They are easily psychologically manipulated and as a result wind up with a faulty mindset unable to determine the simple difference between right and wrong!

The STINKY arrogance of police brutality

Why are we seeing a rise in police brutality? And why does it seem that police are bent on incriminating innocent people before they have legitimate evidence to prove contrariwise? Why are police so aggressive, dominant, and displaying disproportionate behavior to a mild offense such as overdue inspection, not using turn signals, or simply ignoring them........God forbid as though you had done some EGREGIOUS act like drunk driving or 20 miles over the limit speeding? Some act as though you have some illegal contraband inside your vehicle and have you already targeted and profiled. Are they now acting as judges passing judgment on us like Nazi SS gestapo agents in Nazi Germany?

My question is this. Who the heck is training these jokers? Who's training their interrogation techniques? What's their MO? Seems to me the only thing these jokers are loyal to is a paycheck. Because they are answerable to no one, they do whatever the hell they want. So is local law enforcement and the department of homeland security being privatized like in the movie "State of Play?" I mean who do you think called in the pretorian guard for crowd control when hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans? It was men working for private security contracts deputized to shoot at American citizens. Anytime there is lots of money in terms of lucrative security contracts you can be assured that values and individuals rights are repudiated. They will just shoot you for getting out of order. There is probably more money to made in domestic operations (30-40 billion dollars annually) than in overseas contracts. So is it being outsourced? Is a private contract(s) being made with the NSA taking over interrogation and wire tapping that is fundamentally restructuring domestic intelligence policy? And what about our politicians? Are they benefitting from these contracts even though clearly this would be considered a conflict of interest? Is the United Nations cramming their world agenda down our throats training militant storm troopers to deal with enemy combatants (like you and me) who are patriots? I can assure you that the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are not guiding their judgments, much less their training. Frankly, I think some, not all, have very little regard to our constitutional rights or our Bill of Rights. They have very little regard to the civilian population and some treat us with such contempt and disdain. Remember the movie Rambo when that small town hick cop provoked Rambo? All Rambo wanted was a meal......he was hungry. And yet this arrogant, contemptuous cop had no idea that Rambo served in Vietnam and had a congressional medal of honor. Did this cop show any respect for Rambo? Absolutely not because he was on a power trip and expected everyone to kiss his ass.

My biggest concern with all this police brutality is this: where is the humble attitude that should be displayed from an officer who is supposed to protect and serve. If our tax dollars from our paychecks pay their salaries and pensions, do they not have an obligation then to treat the civilian population with respect? And yet some seem to LOVE dominating and lording it over the civilian population because they have a pathetic badge. Their arrogance sticks like crap and it's fowling up everything to spreading fear, dread, and intimidation, to the civilian population loosing all respect for any law enforcement personnel. We need accountability to bring back that the integrity that lacks so much in law enforcement. Corruption only fuels this kind of barbaric behavior and it is very disturbing to say the least. The worst part being that law enforcement is usually given impunity even as their arrogance increases!

No country on earth is policed as we are. We have too many law enforcement agencies and individuals, even with budget cuts in municipalities. They are also too heavily armed and militarized. As a result, they are too quick to violence and sadly, they are rarely held accountable for that violence as mentioned above. The false narrative that exists regarding the dangers of police work creates an inordinate sense of fear and paranoia. Mix that with guns and too much authority and you have a receipe for disaster. Concerning the Sandra Bland case, no one should have to die because police officers are more interested in absolute dominance than professional and moral discretion which is all to similar to many domestic violence cases because the man must have absolute control and dominance over the woman.

What went horribly wrong on the USS Indianapolis?

On July 30, 1945, the USS Indianapolis was torpedoed by the Imperial Japanese Navy submarine I-58. The ship was returning from a top secret mission in the delivery of critical parts (the enriched uranium) for the first atomic bomb, Little Boy,  to be used on Hiroshima from a United States air base on a small pacific island called Tinian. The ship was sunk in just 12 minutes. Of the 1,196 crewmen on board, about 300 went down with the ship. The remaining crew of 880 men faced exposure, dehydration, starvation and shark attacks from oceanic white tips. Because their mission was top secret and because their failure to arrive back at their destination went unnoticed, their rescue was long delayed resulting in the loss of about 600 more men. It wasn't until survivors were finally spotted by the crew of a PV-1 Ventura that was on routine patrol that the remaining men were rescued. A PBY Catalina under the command of Lieutenant R. Adrian Marks was also dispatched to lend assistance and report. He was able to rescue 56 of the 316 men in the water. All in all, only 316 sailors survived. The USS Indianapolis was the last major U.S. Navy ship sunk by enemy action in WW II.

The non-arrival of the Indianapolis was known at once to Lieutenant Stuart Gibson who failed to investigate the matter and made no immediate report of the fact to his superiors. Worse yet is that the Indianapolis did send distress calls before they sank. Three stations received the signals but none acted upon the call. One commander was drunk, another had ordered his men not to disturb him and a third thought it was a Japanese prank......eerily similar to Pearl Harbor! To cover their tracks, the Navy denied that a distress call had been sent. The receipt of the call came to light only after the release of declassified records. When the ship did not reach Leyte on the 31st, as scheduled, no report was made that she was overdue.

The Captain of the Indianapolis, Charles Butler McVay, had asked for an escort for his delivery of the uranium to Tinian knowing the pacific waters were infested with Japanese u-boats, but was denied that request by the Navy. He was instructed to zig-zag instead. Captain Charles Mcvay, who had commanded the Indianapolis since November 1944, survived the sinking and was with those who were eventually rescued. In November of 1945, he was then given a court martial and convicted of "hazarding his ship by failing to zigzag". The controversy surrounding the court martial was that there was evidence that the Navy itself had placed the ship in harm's way in that McVay's orders were to 'zigzag at his discretion, weather permitting". The most egregious of all is that our country betrayed their own (McVay) by summonsing Mochitsura Hashimoto, the commander of Japanese sub that sunk Indianapolis, with a court martial to testify against McVay. Hashimoto was stunned by our country's treatment of their own. He stated that his own country would not do that to him, further more Hashimoto testified in court that zig-zagging would have made no difference.

Fleet admiral Chester Nimitz remitted McVay's sentence and restore him to active duty but McVay retired in 1949. While many of Indianapolis's survivors said McVay was not to blame for the sinking, the families of some of the men treated him with unmeasured terms of vituperation. The guilt that was placed unnecessarily on McVay's shoulders, (scapegoating by our government), resulted in his suicide in1968. Using his Navy-issued revolver, he was discovered with a toy sailor in one hand on his front lawn. How sad for this man to endure such persecution. There is nothing worse than to be  lambasted by the court of public opinion. That is by far the worse sentencing to be handed down.........especially if you are innocent.

In October of 2000, the United States Congress passed a resolution that Captain McVay's record should state that "he is exonerated for the loss of Indianapolis".  In July 2001, the Secretary of the Navy ordered McCoy's record cleared of all wrongdoing.

The Coming Municipal Bond Collapse.

When Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitley predicted that there would be a severe municipal bond crash, most just laughed at her especially now since it has yet to happen. However as of recent evidence, we are beginning to see several cities, particularly in California, going bankrupt. You can read about here and here and here.

There were three kinds of people on the Titanic. The "deer in the headlights" ones were those who were so shocked they did not know how to respond or what to do. Then there were those rich and arrogant ones who believed the Titanic was unsinkable......stating even God Himself could not sink the Titanic so they did not want to hear the truth that the ship was indeed going to sink. Then there were those who accepted the truth and reality and began to build extra life boats.

Which one of those people are you?

Bilderberg Members label protesters as "cockroaches"......

The arrogance of the rich elite who meet in secret to "plan" the future. Like the Tower of Babel, they will all be confounded.

You can read about it here and
here.

Every time a Bilderberg Meeting takes place, important things happen. The last time they met in the US was an election year, 2008 – and the world got Obama. This year they’re back in the US: will they decide who the next president will be?

 When in 2008 they gathered from June 5 to 8 in Chantilly, Virginia – just a stone’s throw from the Washington DC – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were neck-in-neck in the battle for the Democratic Party’s presidential candidacy.


 On June 5 of that year, Barack and Hillary mysteriously “disappeared” for some hours “somewhere in the DC area.” Their agendas blocked out, they clearly sneaked off to “Meet the Bilderbergers.”

 The media kept mum about that, save for an Associated Press report on the campaign trail saying that, "reporters traveling with Obama sensed something might be happening between the pair (i.e. Obama and Hillary) when they arrived at Dulles International Airport after an event in Northern Virginia and Obama was not aboard the airplane.

 Asked at the time about the Illinois Senator's whereabouts, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs smiled and declined to comment." (The AP dispatch “Obama and Clinton meet, discuss uniting Democrats” is, strangely, “no longer available” on their website).

 Be that as it may, two days later, Hillary withdrew from the race and Obama became the presidential candidate. Did Bilderberg make Hillary “an offer she couldn’t refuse” to clear the way for Obama to the White House? Did they promise her that she would become his Secretary of State?

 Although most Bilderberg annual meetings are held in Europe – France, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Denmark, England, Scotland, Norway – this US election year they’re again gathering at the Westfield Marriott Hotel in Virginia from May 30 to June 3. Either they’re very fond of that place… or of US elections… or both…!

 So the question is: will “key presidential candidacy decisions” be made again this year? Will a Republican wildcard appear? A “God-inspired Burning Bush” of some sort, perhaps?

 Exerting Global Leverage

 A favorite Bilderberg method consists of inviting wannabe future heads of state to their meetings to determine whether they will go along with their agenda. We thus saw George H. W. Bush attend their 1985 meeting, Bill Clinton attend their 1991 meeting, Tony Blair in 1993, and Romano Prodi, former head of the EU Commission, in 1999.

 So what exactly is Bilderberg? It’s neither an organization nor a lobby. The “Bilderberg Meetings,” as they dub themselves in their (apparently) official website www.bilderbergmeetings.com, is a “by-invitation-only” club of around 140 very high-power people from business, finance, oil, politics, media, industry, academia and nobility who come together in a very private no-media / no cameras / extremely-tight-security surroundings to discuss… Well… there’s the rub: what exactly do they discuss?

 They describe themselves as “a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced. Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued.”

 True enough. Actually, they don’t need to because each individual member’s power is so very vast that whatever they agree will forcefully span the globe through their far-reaching leverage and clout.

 A Global Web of Private Power

 Though very high up on the Pyramid, Bilderberg is not the Global Elite’s power center. Rather, Bilderberg is a key group within a much more vast, more complex, less centralized, and highly effective Global Power Network, where they interact and overlap with other organizations, clubs, lobbies and groups, all having common economic, financial, social and (geo)political objectives in the Globalist Agenda.

 This includes such key entities as the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (long-term geopolitical planners), its London-based sister entity Royal Institute of International Affairs (aka “Chatham House”), RAND Corp., CSIS, the American Enterprise Institute (strategic affairs specialists), Tavistock Institute in London (mass psychology research), the Carnegie Endowment, and the Trilateral Commission “umbrella” entity (founded 1973 by Rockefeller / Morgan / Rothschild interests, geared to coordinating the Americas, Europe and the East). These so-called “Think Tanks” in turn interact with consultancies like Kissinger Associates, The Carlyle Group (specializing in oil strategies and having the Bush, Bin Laden and Baker families as key shareholders), or Trilateralist Claus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.

 Thus, Bilderberg is basically part of that very powerful Global Private Power Web; a “node” so to speak… And a very powerful one at that!! It’s therefore no surprise to see that last year’s attendee list looks like a Who’s Who of banking, industrial and media CEO top brass: Deutsche Bank, HSBC, CitiCorp, European Central Bank, US Federal Reserve Bank, Lazard Frères, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Barclays, World Bank, Bank of Canada, AXA, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Fiat, Nestle, Novartis, Coca-Cola, Airbus, Eni, Telecom Italy, ExxonMobil, Alcoa, Marks & Spencer, Die Zeit, The Economist. As their website points out about Meeting participants, “about one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.” European nobility regularly attend too: the Dutch Queen, the Spanish King and Queen, Norway’s Crown Prince… Bilderberg’s high-power participants interact with, and are cross-represented on, the global private power web through membership and directorship in the Trilateral Commission, CFR, AEI, governments, corporations, banks, media and others. Interestingly, also in attendance are founders and top executives of giant Internet management and intelligence gathering companies as Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and Microsoft. Clearly, they run countries around the world, not voting citizens…

from this website.

Banks Build Contingency for Breakup of the Euro

http://www.nytimes.com


For the growing chorus of observers who fear that a breakup of the euro zone might be at hand, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany has a pointed rebuke: It’s never going to happen.

But some banks are no longer so sure, especially as the sovereign debt crisis threatened to ensnare Germany itself this week, when investors began to question the nation’s stature as Europe’s main pillar of stability.

On Friday, Standard & Poor’s downgraded Belgium’s credit standing to AA from AA+, saying it might not be able to cut its towering debt load any time soon. Ratings agencies this week cautioned that France could lose its AAA rating if the crisis grew. On Thursday, agencies lowered the ratings of Portugal and Hungary to junk.

While European leaders still say there is no need to draw up a Plan B, some of the world’s biggest banks, and their supervisors, are doing just that.

“We cannot be, and are not, complacent on this front,” Andrew Bailey, a regulator at Britain’s Financial Services Authority, said this week. “We must not ignore the prospect of a disorderly departure of some countries from the euro zone,” he said.

Banks including Merrill Lynch, Barclays Capital and Nomura issued a cascade of reports this week examining the likelihood of a breakup of the euro zone. “The euro zone financial crisis has entered a far more dangerous phase,” analysts at Nomura wrote on Friday. Unless the European Central Bank steps in to help where politicians have failed, “a euro breakup now appears probable rather than possible,” the bank said.

Major British financial institutions, like the Royal Bank of Scotland, are drawing up contingency plans in case the unthinkable veers toward reality, bank supervisors said Thursday.

United States regulators have been pushing American banks like Citigroup and others to reduce their exposure to the euro zone. In Asia, authorities in Hong Kong have stepped up their monitoring of the international exposure of foreign and local banks in light of the European crisis.

But banks in big euro zone countries that have only recently been infected by the crisis do not seem to be nearly as flustered.

Banks in France and Italy in particular are not creating backup plans, bankers say, for the simple reason that they have concluded it is impossible for the euro to break up. Although banks like BNP Paribas, Société Générale, UniCredit and others recently dumped tens of billions of euros worth of European sovereign debt, the thinking is that there is little reason to do more.

“While in the United States there is clearly a view that Europe can break up, here, we believe Europe must remain as it is,” said one French banker, summing up the thinking at French banks. “So no one is saying, ‘We need a fallback,’ ” said the banker, who was not authorized to speak publicly.

When Intesa Sanpaolo, Italy’s second-largest bank, evaluated different situations in preparation for its 2011-13 strategic plan last March, none were based on the possible breakup of the euro, and “even though the situation has evolved, we haven’t revised our scenario to take that into consideration,” said Andrea Beltratti, chairman of the bank’s management board.

Mr. Beltratti said that banks would be the first bellwether of trouble in the case of growing jitters about the euro, and that Intesa Sanpaolo had been “very careful” from the point of view of liquidity and capital. In late spring, the bank raised its capital by five billion euros, one of the largest increases in Europe.

Mr. Beltratti said that Italy, like the European Union, could adopt a series of policy measures that could keep the breakup of the euro at bay. “I certainly felt more confident a few months ago, but still feel optimistic,” he said.

European leaders this week said they were more determined than ever to keep the single currency alive — especially with major elections looming in France next year and in Germany in 2013. If anything, Mrs. Merkel said she would redouble her efforts to push the union toward greater fiscal and political unity.

That task is seen as slightly easier now that the crisis has evicted weak leaders from troubled euro zone countries like Italy and Spain. But it remained an uphill battle as Mrs. Merkel continued this week to oppose the creation of bonds that would be backed by the euro zone.

Politically, even the idea of a breakaway Greece is increasingly considered anathema. Despite expectations that Greece — and the banks that lent to it — may receive European taxpayer bailouts for up to nine years, officials fear its exit could open a Pandora’s box of horrors, such as a second Lehman-like event, or even the exit of other countries from the euro union.

Europe’s common currency union was formed more than a decade ago and now includes 17 European Union members, creating a powerful economic bloc aimed at cementing stability on the Continent.

It ushered in years of prosperity for its members, especially Germany, as interest rates declined and money flooded into the union — until the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy sent global credit markets into chaos three years ago and the financial crisis took on new life with the near-default of Greece last year. The creation of the euro zone meant countless interlocking contracts and assets among the countries, but no mechanism for a country to leave the union.

But as the crisis leaps to Europe’s wealthier north, banks have been increasing their preparedness for any outcome. For instance, while it would certainly be legally, financially and politically complicated for Greece to quit the euro zone, some banks are nonetheless tallying how euros would be converted to drachmas, how contracts would be executed and whether the event would cause credit markets to seize up worldwide.

The Royal Bank of Scotland is one of many banks testing its capacity to deal with a euro breakup. “We do lots of stress-test analyses of what happens if the euro breaks apart or if certain things happen, countries expelled from the euro,” said Bruce van Saun, RBS’s group finance director. But, he added: “I don’t want to make it more dramatic than it is.”

Certain businesses are taking similar precautions. The giant German tourism operator TUI recently caused a stir in Greece when it sent letters to Greek hoteliers demanding that contracts be renegotiated in drachmas to protect against losses if Greece were to exit the euro.

TUI took the action just days after Mrs. Merkel and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France acknowledged at a meeting earlier this month of G-20 leaders in Cannes, France, that Greece could well leave the monetary union. On Thursday, Greece’s central bank warned that if the country failed to improve its finances quickly, the question would become “whether the country is to remain within the euro area.”

In a survey published Wednesday of nearly 1,000 of its clients, Barclays Capital said nearly half expected at least one country to leave the euro zone; 35 percent expect the breakup to be limited to Greece, and one in 20 expect all countries on Europe’s periphery to exit next year.

Some banks are now looking well beyond just one country. On Friday, Merrill Lynch became the latest to issue a report exploring what would happen if countries were to exit the euro and revert to their old currencies. If Spain, Italy, Portugal and France were to start printing their old money again today, their currencies would most likely weaken against the dollar, reflecting the relative weakness of their economies, Merrill Lynch calculated.

Currencies in the stronger economies of Germany, the Netherlands and Ireland would probably rise against the dollar, according to the analysis.

In Asia, banks and regulators view the situation with growing alarm. Norman Chan, the chief executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, said on Wednesday that regulators had stepped up their surveillance of banks’ exposure to Europe.

Regulators have been working with bank managers on stress tests to determine how the banks’ financial stability might be affected by an increasingly severe financial dislocation in Europe, said a Hong Kong banker who insisted on anonymity.

The main danger of a euro breakup, said Stephen Jen, managing partner at SLJ Macro Partners in London, is “redenomination risk,” the unpredictable effect that a euro breakup would have on financial assets as newly created currencies sought their own levels in the market and the value of contracts drawn up in euros came into question.

Most people hope that will not happen. “Remember when Lehman went bankrupt — nobody could anticipate what happened next,” said the French banker who was not authorized to speak publicly. “That was a company, not a country. If a country leaves the euro — multiply the Lehman effect by 10,” he said.