“AN ANOMALY I N THE PARADIGM” C. Goldstein, Liberty Mag. 5-6/2017.

My grateful thanks to all persons involved in this article, and the costs they bear for it. (John B)

An unfunny thing about political revolutions [at least the ones that succeed, anyway]: Those who “RAGE” against the ‘machine’, the revolutionaries, upon taking power, eventually becomes the ‘Establishment’, the powers that be,, the ‘machine’ [even if another model] that they once raged against. And with rare exceptions, the new machine, becomes as dogmatic and intolerant of dissent. ( JB: as what they fought and replaced in the first place) . [Sometimes even more so!]

This motif doesn’t happen only i n political revolutions, i.e., the French, The Cuban, the Bolshevik, et,. Arguably, the most consequential revolution ever, the scientific revolution, is a powerful case i n point.

Because of science’s overwhelming epistemological ( to believe in the study of origin) and intellectual dominance of today..[ but it’s SCIENCE], few realize that science and scientists were once iconoclasts, outcasts, troublemakers, even revolutionaries. After all, it wasn’t called the “Scientific Revolution”, for nothing.

In many way the “scientific Revolution’ was the final expression of the Renaissance, and another manifestation of the Enlightenment. From the sixteenth century (1700′ s) onward, in Europe what occurred wasn’t just in what people knew, but in what it meant TO KNOW SOMETHING. “Natural Philosophers,” (The word ‘scientist’, was a 19th century invention)  were rejecting the old authorities, seeking to study the world on its own terms. Breaking free from the stranglehold that ARISTOTELIANISM, held on the intellectual thoughts for all those centuries, they began to see the world quantitatively, with its Aristotelian “perfections”, and the like. Such men as Francis Bacon, Nicolaus   Copernicus, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, and Rene’ Descartes slowly but surely broke the nooshphere free from the old intellectual regime. Francis Bacon (1561-1626), in trouble for rejecting Aristotelianism, declared in one most revolutionary lines ever: “I cannot be called on to abide by the sentence of a tribunal which itself is on trail.”

By the 19th ans 20th centuries science’s intellectual dominance had become all but absolute {JB remember all the noise from the Scope’s trail, and man decent from monkeys, as Mr. Scopes taught Creation in his class?]  And, as all absolutist, the scientific-industrial complex brooks little {JB NO dissent] dissent or tolerance for those who challenge its canon and creeds.   [JB remember, to these people its their RELIGION!]

And just how little {tolerance] can be see in the story of Mark Armitage.

THE MICROCOPIST:   

Mark Armitage, now in his 60’s is a microscopist, a microscope scientist, having served as the President of the Southern California Society for Microscopy, which describes itself as “Dedicated to increasing interest and information in all areas of microscopy and microananlysis, including, but not limited to: Transmission electron, scanning electron and electron microscope, ion probe, microbeam analysis, optical and confocal microscopes, and microspectroscopes.

In 2009 Amaritage had been hired, part-time but permanent, by California State University Northridge,  (SCUN) to install and run the electron microscope and confocal microscope suite of laboratories in the Biological Department at SCUN. He was to set up a $million electron microscope laboratory for the Biology Department and to make sure that the microscopes were running to specifications. He was also to acquire and install a $350,000 confocal microscope and was to be the point man in the Biology department, for the training of the confocal microscope. He was also to train the professors and undergraduates and graduate students in the art of microscopy. Over the next two years he trained six professors and 44 students on the use of the system, and in 2012 Armitage was asked to teach a graduate course for the Department in Biological Imaging.

In 2012 he was characterized by top department personal, as a person who is “Tops” and was called a” superb microscopist with many decades of experience.” In May of 2012 the department had him produce a 12 hour training vidio complete with examinations to prepare students for further training on the confocal Microscope– a video that is STILL in use this today!

At the very same time, all this was happening, a subtext existed: Mark Armitage was a creationist, whose views were know when he was hired. “During the interview,” he testified in a deposition, “We discussed my being a creationist. In fact, I told the panel that Lorence Collins, in the CSUN  Geology Department, published a critique of my research on SCUN web site. ( It remains there to this day.) My creationism was also apparent from the list of my publications (30 or more), which I provided the interviewers on my resume’. My resume’ also identifies my having obtained a Masters’s degree from the Institute for Creation Research.

Nevertheless, probably given the mechanical-technical nature of his work, he got the job, and, from all indications, Mark Armitage was very good at it.

THEN CAME THE ANOMALY:

I the summer of 2012 Armitage participated in a dif at Hell Creek Formation, in Montana, a world-famous dinosaur graveyard. On the dig he and others uncovered the largest Triceratops horn, ever found at that location. It weighed 18 pounds. He coauthored a peer-review paper in a scholarly journal about the find. The abstract to the paper read:

“Soft fibrillar bone tissue were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana U.S.A. Soft materiel was present in the pre- and post decalicified bone, Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue has multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching, Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like micro-structures, SEM analysis yielded sions of 18-20 UM (? JB) in length Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization {fossilization- JB}  or crystallization artifact and therefore interpreted to be soft tissue.. This  Triceratops horn  bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non fossilized material in bone matrix.

In laymen’s terms, what that meant was soft tissue existed in the Triceratops horn. The problem? IF THE TRICERATOPS, is 60 million years old, as IT IS SUPPOSED to be,then it would be very highly unlikely, if not impossible, for soft tissue remains, to have been found there. But is WAS! Which meant that this discovery was another Classical Example of a “Kuhnian Anomaly” in the paradigm”   A Kuhnian Anomaly in the Paradigm? What is that, and why did it get him fired?

THOMAS KUHN’S CHALLENGE:

The words “anomaly” and “paradigm” though long existing in the English language, took on a whole new significance with a book by scientist Thomas Kuhn. Published in 1962, Kuhn’s 
“The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”  
became a Phenomenon that has impacted the way people have thought about science, and the claims of science, ever since.

NOTE(JB): Who among us would enjoy, the destruction, of pet ideas we have held or formulated for a longest of time? All of hate to be moved from the ideas held dear, right? Change is not comfortable.

Loved and hated, emulated, and reviled, Kuhn’s book still reverberates today!

NOTE(JB) Silly me, and here all these years I was under the impression, that human science, is the human search for truth! But truth , like beauty, must be  in the eyes of the beholders?

According to Kuhn, science doesn’t work in anywhere near as rational or objectively as the hoi polloi are led to believe. Instead, science and scientific research are, really, just another subjective way that we humans can view the world they are apart of and can interact with. It’s often a fruitless interaction, for sure, but fruitless isn’t synonymous with correctness or truth.The conclusions of the scientists are, Kuhn wrote, “possible determined by his prior experience in other fields, by the accident of his investigations, and by his own individual makeup?

….An apparently arbitrary element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given time.”

Kuhn made the word “Paradigm” a household term (at least in households interested in the philosophy of science). For Kuhn, a paradigm is the background, the ASSUMPTIONS, the framework or model, in which scientific research takes place. The paradigm determines the question asked, the places to look for answers, and the methods considered legitimate in looking for those answers. Paradigms are kind of superheros or meta-theories that sustain an entire tradition of scientific research and theorizing.

NOTE(JB) Research like this has already the answers precluded, before research? The victim is truth!

I n the N.F.L when a play is challenged by an opposing team, the referees examine the play itself, but only within the context of pre-established rules, It’s not that rules are challenged, or questioned,, instead the rules are what determines if the challenge or question, is valid. For Kuhn, the paradigm is, simply, the rules of the game.

When a scientist works within a pradigm, they ar3e doing what Khun famously referred to as “Normal Scince”. When engaged in “nor,al Science”, the scientist is NOT questioning the paradigm; on the contrary, the paradigm is what is questioning everything else. The framework is not judged by what unfolds with it; no, the framework judges what unfolds instead! The truth or the falsity of a hypothesis is determined by how it jives or matches, with the paradigm.

Enter the “ANOMALY”. As normal science progresses, Khun argued, over time, “anomalies”- phenomena that don’t do what they are supposed to do ( at least don’t according to the paradigm)– might arise. Anomalies are data that don’t seem to be reading the scientific literature: they are experiments producing results that shouldn’t be there, according to the paradigms. X should occur when you do Y, but Z does does instead, and z does so over and over, persists,, and can’t be explained away within the paradigm, science reaches a “CRISIS”, and the paradigm that dominated that branch of science is called into question. When it’s overturned, that’s what Kuhn called a “Revolution”

And if anything ever qualified as a Kuhnian anomaly in the paradigm, soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil SUPPOSEDLY, 68 millions years old, would indeed be one!

THE TERMINATION OF MARK ARMITAGE.

The implications of Armitage’s findings were not lost on his employers. Not long after Armatige returned from the dig, and word got around about the soft tissue, one of the biology professors confronted him in the lab and shouted, “We are not going to tolerate your religion or your pet creationists projects in this department!”

As per Mark, he never, in the context of the find, talked about his religion. He didn’t need to: soft tissue in a fossil dated 68 millions of years old, said it all for him!  No he was not the first one to find soft tissues on Dion fossils and science has been wrestling with this ever since.  First, it’s  not really soft tissue, but even hard-core evolutionist agree that’s not what it it is. Second, there must be some unknown mechanism that can preserve the tissue, the remains of red blood-cells for millions of years. That’s what some scientists are trying to do. The third is to question the paradigm itself– an unthinkable option, for the scientific-industrial complex, which so readily explains what followed for Mark Armitage.

After the outburst Armitage was told by his supervisor to keep doing his job in the Lab (Armitage studies the horn in his own personal lab, on his own time). Then on February 13, 2103, “Soft Sheets of Fibrillar Bone From a Fossil of the Supraorbital Horn of the Dinosaur Triceratops horridus” was published online then in Acta-Histochemiice vol 115, issue 6 July 2013. PP. 630-608 , a paper he wrote with biologist Kevin Lee Anderson, of Arkansas State University-Beebe. Nothing in the paper mentioned god, the Bible, the Genesis creations account, Noah’s flood, nor anything religious. It din’t make an attempt to explain how the {soft} tissue got there.

It didn’t need to. The implications of the soft tissue itself, the anomaly and the threat it posed to the paradigm, were so clear that within days of the publication, Armatige had been warned by a fellow employee that a “Witch-hunt” was one, and in progress, and that Mark was deemed to be the witch! Later he was asked to resign, and refusing, was fired. The given reason was that the Lab was being closed due to “lack of financial resources”.  (It never was closed)

In short, two weeks after he published an article in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal– never mentioning god, faith, divinity, or creation in the article– Mark Armatige became another victim of the scientific-industrial complex’s intellectual intolerance.

NOTE(JB): This is the very reason many scientists keep their private thoughts private, at the sacrifice of truth, upon the alter of a income!

THE SUIT:

Despite the anomoly of Armitage’s find, nothing was  anomalous about his firing. On the contrary, it’s the scientific-industrial complex doing another version of it’s own kind of “Normal Science”– which is shutting down opposition when ever and where ever possible, to protect the prevailing paradigm, especially one with the metaphysical implications of soft tissue in a fossil that’s supposedly is 68 millions of years old.

The commonly promoted idea of cold rationalistic scientists objectively following the evidence wherever it leads has long been known to be a myth!

NOTE(JB) Ditto in Justice-Judicial system, how oft do we hear about a long-time prisoner finally released due to innocence? Or one charged, but not ever on trail, yet where do they go to get their good name back?

It was a direct challenge to their paradigm, and nothing short of the Nuclear Option is off the table!

Knowing the injustice of what happened to him, Armatige sued.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

CHRISTIAN–ATHEIST DIALOGUE.

MY MANY THANKS TO BOTH ED DIRKERSON AND SIGNS of the Times  June 2017. [ John B]

It was billed as “A Discussion Between Science and Religion,” but it was nothing of this sort. The Scientist refrained from attacking the Bible’s account, but he kept stating that science demonstrated thew earth to be billions of years old, and THAT SETTLED THAT!

The Pastor, defending the religious side of thew discussion, would not have any of it. He claimed that the Bible declared the earth to be about 6,000 years old, and THAT SETTLED THAT!

Who can not fail to see, these two were not talking to each other, but both were talking PAST, each other, and this is not a dialogue, and honest and open discussion, of facts.

This, sadly, is characteristic of many— and probably most— such discussions between, the two, can we call them both, FAITHS? Due to the simple fact, that both sides of this discussion, draw their fact from the same single source, the Universe! Same evidence, two opposing views. yet one set of facts.  Yes it is all too easy for each side to blame the other for the disconnect, but as we have already seen in the preceding example, the blame lies at the feet of both! The University of British Columbia’s study found that religious people distrust atheists to about the same degree as they distrust rapists. Lead researcher Will Gervais said that “Where there are religious majorities… that is, in most of the world,… atheists are among the least trusted people.”

NOTE[JB] Sorry Mr. Gervais, but I’ve know a few Atheists, and their moral character, is one that many “Christians” cannot match!\

On the other hand, speaking about July 2011, the Japanese tsunami, best-selling author and atheist, Sam Harris said: “Either God can do nothing, or He doesn’t care to, or e doesn’t exist. God is either impotent, evil, or imaginary.”

NOTE(JB) Sam, either is Biblically ignorant, or has not understood it, in its entirety, or is not willing to learn a thing about it! If one is going to dismiss anything, would it not be prudent to learn a few fundamental facts about God, in the first place? Talk about cutting of nose to spite one’s face.

The n there’s Richard Dawkins, in his book, ““The God Disillusion” , calls the God of the Old Testament, “vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser”.  and a “capriciously malevolent bully”. The late Christopher Hitchens devoted a whole book to the proposition that God is not great and that religion poisons everything.

So the question arises, is it possible for Christians and Atheists to have a meaningful conversations? I will begin  by pointing out that this article is not about how public debaters can have a meaningful conversations. Debates are adversarial contests, far from discussions. More as a “Contest” to see who can win over the audience. The purpose of this article is to discuss, how individual, Atheists and Christians can have a meaningful conversations!

Realistically, in a polarized climate, engaging in these conversations can be risky, {JB we all love our beliefs don’t we?]  We have already learned that a debate format, is already defeated before it began, agree?

DIALOGUE VERSUS DEBATE:

The word DIALOGUE, IS CRITICAL,  as it suggests a respectful conversation, the purpose of which is to exchange ideas, inform each other, and to clarify issues. A debate on the other hand, from the listener’s view-point, is nothing but a competition, as each is trying to defeat the other!

Thus, the first requirement, for any honest discussion, is for each side to REALLY listen , to what the other person is saying! This fully attuned as a listener will tell anyone quickly, if the speaker wants to engage in a conversation, or to engage in a debate, or just there to argue and ridicule.  These three things are quite different,and the latter two, sadly, are the most commonly used, by both sides. {JB, are there two sides, or only one human side, with different ideas?] The last two , methods,makes conversations impossible, and in danger of being reduced to a shouting match, in the which, only Satan can be declared the winner!]

Yes, debates have their place,but they are far from being a conversations, in which individuals build up a relationship, based on understanding; whereas a debate is all about persuading an audience. Conversations, are all about building respect and trust, by fully listening and exploring the ideas we share and also those on which we respectfully differ.

Only by first, listening can we discover what the other person is thinking. Everyone wants to be heard. #When we feel that we haven’t been heard, we become frustrated, and that can quickly turn to resentment and to anger and the total breakdown of a relationship.

Fat too often, we instead of listening, are already formulating our response, in our minds, while the other is speaking, and in so doing, we are already sliding into a debate mode! This is getting ready to counter their statement rather than really understanding their statement. This often leads to miscommunication because we are responding to what WE THINK, the other person is saying.

One of Stephen Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is: “Seek first to understand, then be understood.”\

One of the most effective ways to understand, what the other is speaking about, is to repeat back to them, what they said to us. For example “What I hear you saying is such and such, is this correct?  However, if we simply ‘Parrot’ back, there’s a chance that we may use a different word or meaning. By putting it into our own words, we demonstrate that we truly listened and understood the other’s meaning”  And until that happens, no progress has nor can, be made.

AVOID HARSH LANGUAGE:

Any DIALOGUE, involves give and take. It isn’t about one person, setting the other straight!. Saying, “You’re wrong” or “You are mistaken”, you have already lost the discussion. Remember the ‘Golden Rule’?  “Do onto others, what you want them to do to you.” If what you hear, goes against the grain, you saying “I understand it this way, what do you think”?  Or, “This way makes more sense to me.”  Even, “I don’t agree, because of this or that.” Remember all humans are working with the very same facts, differing only upon our interpretations of the facts!

NOTE(JB) To expand upon the last sentence, can we say that the Bible, Evolution, and, Climate change, are all “RELIGIONS, and each one requires faith? They differ only in their AUTHORSHIP, as evolution and Climate Change are from MAN, the Bible is God’s Word! So do men lie, do men have ulterior motives, are some men evil? God is love   1 John 4:8 “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”                                                                     Yes God destroyed the sinners, in the Old Book, because…Genesis 6:5-6 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.”        Yes, He could have fully wiped our humanity, but He chose to spare 8, and some animals is the ark. Or would Y O U rather have Him not do this, and reduce life to living by the Laws of the Jungle, instead? Are we not close to that very point these days of 2017?

FACTS VERSES ASSUMPTIONS:

Many exchanges are about Creation verses Evolution, while the Signs of the times, supports the Creation view, we recognize that there are situations when conversations between the two sides need to take place, and the utter importance to remain respectful on both sides . One way to do this is to keep in mind both sides come to the table with some assumptions, facts of faith, if you will.

NOTE(JB) Speaking for myself, and looking back over my life hindsight being 20/20, I can fully admit, there were events, that happened, that just cannot be explained with the powers of God. Yes I am NOT the man  God wants me to be, but I thank God, I am not longer the man I used to be!

Scientists, base their conclusions on evidence derived from observations, witnessed by our five senses, sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, and they assume that these observations will lead us to the correct understanding of life and world we all live in. This assumption is called Naturalism.  And it works! If you don’t believe or except this, try taking a ride on an airplane, or take ride in a boat!

Christians accept many of the conclusions that naturalism. leads to, but the basic worldview is called —- Super naturalism…. the assumption that there is a God, that He has revealed Himself in the Bible, and within nature in the Universe, for all too see. We have proven the Bible’s truths by Archaeology, in but a few cases,.

NOTE(JB): Prophecy regarding the human kingdoms was foretold by a few years for some and by over 500 years before the fact in others, all in the correct order given to Daniel. However, at this date over ninety percent of all prophecy has come to pass, as written, so who thinks  the last less than 10 percent will not also occur? [Daniel 1-7 chapters]

Even with both sides agreeing that a historical event happened, Christians must rely on faith, for the reason and purpose, for the theological insights, that can be read from the Bible. Even Atheists can agree that 2000 years ago a man named Jesus Christ was crucified by Romans, as per some historical evidence,… but we differ greatly upon the conclusion that He died in payment for human sins. Neither sides, can show proof, of their convictions, thus each must take it on faith, as no amount of observable evidence could prove either point!

Neither Science, nor by human faith, can Creation, as per the Bible’s Genesis 1,can give proof positive, that it is factually so! However, since we are living, and the earth is real, and the Universe is visible to all with sight, at night, it must be reality that we exist

Science at least those who want to keep their jobs, or to continue receiving grant money for research, accept in public the evolutionist views, right? But not all do! It take a huge leap in faith, to accept the human assumption of the ORIGIN of LIFE, albeit-spontaneous generation from some primordial soup, or transportation from outer space, and for the very same reasons,NO HUMANS WERE PRESENT< TO SEE< AND RECORD THE EVENT!

Thus faith and supposition are in truth-speaking past one an other, and not to each other

NOTE(JB) Let’s look at the facts both can see, almost anywhere we have either ants or bees, shall we? Evolution would have you believe, that both came by either of the previous written of means. However, both the ant and the bee, can’t remain living as a single life form, the bee is in need of a hive, with a queen and many thousands of fellow bees, the same goes for an ant, it needs a colony, to survive. Both had this same need from day one, so how does evolution explain the instantaneous evolution of both the many ants and bees, all with their queens, drones and workers and warriors, each different is purpose and body styles? The Bee and the ant, are both two of many such examples that begs an answer science thus far refuses to tackle. As science cannot weigh, nor measure, nor quantify God, they ignore Him, and leave Him out of all their ideas.                                                                        One other Question: IF…if evolution’s main driving force is “Survival of the fittest, and how did human love enter into the picture, or how did the human conscience  begin, and lastly where did the human concern for others come from? IF. . .if there is no GOD?

Between these two ideas we must all remember this verse:

Matthew 22:36-40″ Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Thanking Y O U for your time’  Questions? Comments? John at servant@frontier.com

Other sites: AFTV.org BLBN.org AMAZINGDISCOVERIES.org itiswritten,om

Need more? Visit your Seventh-day Adventist Church, any Saturday/Sabbath, 9-10 AM. Learn the why Christ’s death and resurrection, was for Y O U and me!

jb

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“THE SMART PHONE DILEMMA” Scott Wegener- Sings of the times .5/2017.

My many thanks to and for the works of these named entities. (John B)

Some of my Readers may ask, “What’s this got to do with religion?”

In view of the fact that our Creator-God, who mused Jesus Christ, as His Creation Agent, gave us a Free-Will, to chose, or to reject Him, He also had to give us all a brain, with which to think and reason, agree? Now we humans, do not all use our God-given common sense, and this article explains, and gives examples for this “Malady”! [John B}

Even the casual observer has to admit that the samrtphone has transformed life in the 21st Century. Never before have people enjoyed so much of the world at their fingertips. All day, every day, at home, at work, and on vacation, people are but a text, a pic, or a call away, from anyone. That’s the GOOD NEWS and that’s the BAD NEWS.

It’s good for a person saved by a timely 911 cal, or a stranded motorist calling for a tow truck, or a lonely college kid cheered by a familiar voice from home. Yet the same device that has saved lives, has also cost many lives.  Therein lies the problem, in spite of the amazing usefulness, it has proven to be a stealthy manager that has dominated the senses of the average American, and that’s the bad news.

NOTE(JB) How many of us have witnessed teens, sharing a table at a diner, and they are TEXTING EACH OTHER, while facing each other? What ever happened to proper spelling, proper language skills, and proper conversations? LOL???

According to Alan S. Hilibrand of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, “Some data suggests that at any moment on the streets of America, 60 percent of Pedestrians are distracted while walking, meaning they are on the phone or doing something on their phones…. It’s a bit of a startling number!”

“Hilibrand, Vice chairman of Orthopedic surgery at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, has seen evidence of which he calls “Digital dead-walkers” on city streets.”

“We’ve had people come in here to our emergency room, due to being hit by a cars” he said “They were looking at their phones and not paying attention to the fact that a car was making a turn.”

Yet, even much more dangerous than texting while walking is doing so while driving. The National Safety Council estimates that this texting while driving causes 1,600,000 per year! Plus the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reports that distracted driving makes you 23 times more likely to crash. So, please resist the urge to test the odds! They are NOT in your favor!

Even beyond “deadwalkers”, and distracted drivers, a more sinister toll is exacting it toll on our minds. With what has become knows by the following:

“LBA”—  LOW-BATTERY SYNDROME.

“FOMO” ……. THE FEAR OD MISSING OUT.

“FOLO” ……. THE FEAR OF LIVING OF-LINE.

LBA: 

A decade ago  ( 2007) stressing out over battery life was rare because because most phones could last a whole week. However the rise of picture-snapping, sending them and texting, are power hungry ‘smart=phones’  has snapped and sapped batteries and tinkered with psyches. Smartphone manufacturer LG, found that 90 percent of 2,000 people surveyed experienced low battery anxiety when their battery drops below 20 percent.
They also learned that great lengths people go through in order to put power back into their phones. This ranged from asking a total stranger to borrow their charger, to skipping appointments to return home and recharge. In recent years many locations, malls airports, hospitals have installed recharge lounges, to counter the problem. Yet it’s more likely that that LBA is but a by-product of the two other phobias FOMO and FOLO.

FOMO:

The fear of missing out is neither new not solely social-media linked, though that where its’ mostly happening today. From people who thrive on supermarket tabloids, and entertainment biz-news, shows to those who gossip with friends face to face, or on the phone or those who simply just HAVE TO HAVE to see or hear, to news each hour in order to be “informed”! With the rise of social media like Twitter, Facebook ET AL, they think they have a “real-time” breaking news on celebrity shenanigans, and their best friend’s vacations.

NOTE(JB) I’d rather life my own live, than living it vicariously through others, how about you?

While it’s nice to keep in touch with family and friends, FOMO becomes problematic for those who spend hours each day scrolling through their social media, hoping to see something new, something they like, or just a bit of juicy gossip. As this can, with many, lead them into thinking their friends are doing much better than themselves, thus creating ency or at best a false impression, that can readily lead to depression in many! Since when would anyone allow the snowballing effect of all this “NEWS” and this smartphone to control your life, making you a prime target for this FOMO?

FOLO:

The fear of living of-line, is about the fear with no internet access! To many, this means “Out-of touch”!  It means these have been submersed  with the idea, of suffering from the instant affirmations they’ve grown to crave. This is particularly true when we see our “LIKES” dropping a lead balloon.

Dr. Yuliya Richard says, “If someone experiences FOLO they are more likely to be vulnerable and experience anxiety when they are not connected”.

If this has you rethinking your phone habits, don’t be dismayed, as every technological revolution has birthed spiritual pitfalls and opportunities. A smartphone isn’t intrinsically evil, its neither good nor bad, it simply a tool to be used, as are T.V’s and computer, both have a tremendous power for good, or for evil.

NOTE(JB) Dear reader, have you ever wondered from where we got this saying: History repeats itself”?      Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”

  Psalms 5:1-5 <<To the chief Musician upon Nehiloth, A Psalm of David.>>” Give ear to my words, O LORD, consider my meditation. Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray. My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O LORD; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up. For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.”  {iniquity = lawlessness}

 Daniel 1:17 “As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams.”

All wisdom comes from God, but not all people put this wisdom to the best use. The atom can destroy cancer, produce electrical power, and make atom bombs as well.

And get yourselves “DIGITALLY DETOXIFIED. ”

Thanking Y O U for your time.

Need More? Visit you Seventh-day Adventist Church any Saturday/Sabbath at 9-10 AM. learn why Jesus needed to die for us!

Other sites: AFTV.ORG BLBN.ORG AMAZINGDISCOVERIES.ORG ITISWRITTEN.COM

jb

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Marvel of GOD’s CREATION “THE WOODPECKER”

Again my many thanks to Jobe Martin and Biblical Discipleship Pub.  pp. 265-269  [ 2212 Chisholm Trail, Rockwall Texas. 75032. (972)  771- 0568.  (john B)

IF, there is ANY animal that breaks all the rules of Evolution in such a direct way, that IT could NOT possibly have “Evolved”, then it needed God as its Creator, its the species, Woodpeckers!

The Woodpecker is an example of such an animal. And IF there is any animal, like the woodpecker, that MUST have needed God to create it, why is it such a huge step to believe that God Created every thing else as well?

  1. The Woodpecker’s beak is unlike that of any other birds, period.  It is designed to hammer its way into the hardest of trees. If the Woodpecker evolved, how would it have developed its thick, tough beak?
  2. Let’s suppose [NOTE(JB) all scientists look at the same informational evidence, yet one shouts evolution, the other side shouts Creation,why?  Depending upon their views] Thus suppose this silly scenario…. Some birds decided to peck away bark, supposing there’s a bug hidden, somewhere under the bark OK? So this bird pecked at this hard bark, and promptly found out it was not designed to this, the way it was put together. After all pigs can fly, by themselves, can they? That first bird that slammed it beak against the tree, it shattered, it’s tail feathers broke and it received a migraine-strength headache! Still with an empty stomach, it died of hunger, end of evolution!
  3. While it was dying of hunger, THINK YOU, that this bird, thought, “Well I need to evolve a much thicker, stronger beak, and some thing to cushion it between it and my skull and brain, and oh Aah, I need some stronger tail feathers as well”?  O)f course not!
  4. Yet they, in all their various species, are still here, right? Each with Industrial Strength beaks, and special cartilage between the beaks and head, to absorb some of the shook from that continuous drumming. Yet no woodpeckers go home at night with a pounding headache.
  5. To help with the absorption of the constant pounding, this bird has a uniqueness, in it’s resilient tail feathers.
  6. Even its feet are specifically designed to enable it to move, in any direction on a tree, They are the the only ones found, to have two toes in front, and tow toes in the back of each foot, Most other birds have three to the front and one to the back.
  7.  Between its feet and strong tail feathers, it actually forms a tripod, as it climbs the trees.

Lane P. Lester, and, Raymond G. Bohlin, “The Natural Limits to Biological Change” ( Grand Rapids: Zondervan , 1984, p.24.

“This two-plus – two toe pattern, along with stiff yet elastic tail feathers, allows a woodpecker to grasp firmly to a tree, and balance itself on any vertical surface. (NOTE(JB) I have observed them walking on the under-side of branches and hammering away, no other genus is able}  When they brace themselves to chisel a hole, the tail feathers bend and spread, buttressing the bord against the rough tree surface. In this way feet and tail form an effective tripod to stabilize the blows of hammering into the wood.”

8) Again, with supposition, suppose that somehow a bird, knowing there was lunch in those trees, managed to develop the strong beak, the shock-absorbing cartilage, strong,flexible tail feathers, and even the two-plus two- toe arrangements,  This bird still has one other big hurdle to overcome, how to get the bug from its tunnel, and again death by starvation, right?

9) Well, God the Creator, took care of that problem as well! He made their tongues several time longer that the average bird’s tongue……

IBID P. 161. “…the tongue of a woodpecker in in a class by itself. When chiseling into a tree, the woodpecker will come across insect tunnels. Its tongue is long and slender and is used to probe these tunnels for insects.The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting to the beak. A sticky glue-like substance coats the tongue to aid in this process, as well.”

NOTE(JB): Look at how well God thought all this out, He feeds this bird, and protect the trees at the same time!

10 A glue that sticks to bugs but not to the beak if this bird, just how would this “Evolve”?

11). The #European Green woodpecker’s tongue goes down its throat, out the back of skull, under the skin, and, over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eye socket   IBID P. 162.

12) In some woodpeckers the tongue exists the skull between the eyes and enters the beak through one of its nostrils! Evolutionists please , explain this evolution trick

13) THE WOODPECKERS, OPENS AND CLOSES ITS EYES BETWEEN EACH PECK! In between each rapid-fire hammer-blows, this bird opens its eyes, focuses, and aims its beak, closes its eyes and hits the tree, again, and again. WHY?

14) Well to keep debris out of its eyes but more importantly, science has measured the force of the impact of this birds head against hardwood. The force is so powerful that if the bird did not close its eyes, they would pop out from their sockets!   QUESTION: HAS  anyone ever seen a blind woodpecker?

15 In  common with many tree-roosting birds, their feet and muscles, and ligaments, all tighten their grips the more the bird relaxes. and why they don’t fall of, while resting/sleeping.

16) IF EVOLUTION is true, and not founded upon human assumptions, such as, dino’s became birds then let the facts give us clues:

A) Bird bones are hollow and many are air-filled, in center. and very light in weight, Dino’s bones are heavy.

B) Birds do NOT have a bladder, Dino’s do.

C) Evolutionists claim, both micro and macro steps in evolution over millions of years, but each and every fossil found is a complete life form, able to exist within its niche. There have not ever been found a Fosse that “IN TRANSITION” half one,  and half the other, or any fraction thereof!  The Missing Link is and will for ever be MISSING!

D)  No evolutionist has ever been a “Witness,” to any evolution event, thus all of it us nothing but supposition of humans. Plus they have a poor explanation about the beginning of the fossil, bearing life forms,  the layer they call the Cambrian explosion (of Life).

17) The species Woodpecker, displays the glory of HIS Creation, God the Creator. Why would or better yet, could an evolutionist study all these biological facts, that are staring then in their collective faces, and still refuse to believe in a Creator God? How about PRIDE? Pride i n self? As one of the Huxley’s  quote, , “I’ll back Charles Darwin, because I want nobody to dictate my sex-life!”   PRIDE! PRIDE!  Why can this be said?

Note(JB) : We think of self as a rational but humanistic beings who think that self is the “Master of his own fate, and the captain of his own soul”  This blinding self-pride does not allow the intrusion of a personal sovereign Creator, and God, but rather they see man as the pinnacle of all this is.

1 Peter 5:5-8″ Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time:”Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: “

  Proverbs 16:25 “There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”

  1 John 4:3 “And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,   [antichristos in Greek meaning instead of, in place of Christ] {whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”}

a good prayer for all Psalms 51:1-4 and 7-10.

This ends this series, and life forms that posses questions no evolutionist can answer!

Questions?  Comments”   John at servant@frontier.com

Thanking you for your time. Next
“Bible’s Prophecy ‘Christ’s Second Coming’ ”

Other sites: aftv.org :   blbn.oreg :  amazingdiscoveries.org : itiswritten.com

jb.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

MARVEL OF GOD’S CREATION #3 The Black and Yellow Garden Spider.

The black and yellow spider, a common garden insect, and is a special creation of the God of the Bible. As does each spider, it has it’s own unique web, which may be more than two feet in diameter.. At its center, the spider makes a dense area of silk that often given the appearance of a zipper or a zigzag bulk of silk.

The female weaves an egg sack that is pear-shaped and about one inch in diameter. She then hangs the eggs sack somewhere close to her main web.

Will Barker, “Winter-Sleeping Wildlife” Harper/Row. Pubs. 1958 pp.94-96.   “This spider lays her eggs all at once. There are usually 40 or 50 eggs. As each is expelled, the female dusts it with a powdery substance. This dusting gives the egg a coating that looks like the bloom on a plum or a grape.  The eggs are enclosed in a silken cup at the center of the sac. The cup, in turn, is covered by a layer of flossy silk. And for additional protection the female weaves another layer of silk around both the cup and the floss. This outer covering is tightly woven and brown in color.

  Shortly after the eggs are laid they hatch. The young spider-lings break out of their shell by means of a m”Egg-Tooth”, that latter disappears.”

The Black and Yellow garden spider is like a miniature manufacturing plant. It produces different kinds of webbing, in more than one color each for a different purpose, as well as making the powdery substance with which it coats its eggs. It produces, both the sticky and the non-sticky webs, so they can race across the web without getting stuck.

Note(JB) QUESTION: How could evolution [ the impersonal time plus chance ] explain the complicated ability of this one spider type to produce different colors, varying from white to brown, and several different types for different purposes? Plus how does evolution explain the presence of the “Egg-Tooth”?

IBID Barker p. 96. “To reach new locations the spider travels by means of “Ballooning”. A spider-ling or spider will cast out a stream of silk, that will catch the rises of warm air, that ascends it aloft. Sometimes they go as high as 14,00 to 15,000 feet and travel hundreds even thousands of miles on the wind currents.  HOW does this ‘Evolve’, without intellect and by random chance?

Spiders undergo several moults before they reach mature size. If they did not shed their ski n, they die. DEAD SPIDERS can’t evolve, right?  They do not evolve new ideas nor abilities, First the spider injects a liquid called “Moulting Fluid” between the outer and inner newly developing skin.

1) Where does/did this special fluid come from, and how does the spider know when and how to use it. Using this too soon or too late is fatal!  The way that the old skin splits is crucial. If it cracks open in the wrong places, or even at wrong angles, the spider perishes.

IBID p. 97. Once the old skin is sufficiently loose, splits appear along the sides of the body and in front of the eyes. But no horizontal split occurs across the body. The vertical split along each side of the body and the one cross- wise in front of the eyes, form a flap of skin. The spider pushes up the flap like a man thrusting up a hinged trap door. It pushes and pushes until the flap drops back over the abdomen. Out of the opening wriggles the spider.

How can this marvelous insect, even have evolved by random time and change, when at each turn, it should have died, were it not for the intellect, that produced it, complete in the beginning?

 Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

THE BIBLE and EVOLUTION IN CONFLICT 2.

As God’s Creations, we do NOT subject the Bible to science: rather we subject man’s “Sciences” to the Bible!

The Bible in its present form has been around centuries before man’s science, and the apostle John wrote this about 40 m+ years after Christ’s ascension to heaven…

 John 5:24-29 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

NOTE(JB) The above can be held as a the plan of salvation, and its opposite, destruction,  in a nut-shell!

 Romans 5:12 “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”

1 Corinthians 15:20-23 “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.”

 

 

 

Christ’s at his coming.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

LIES,MASQUERADING AS TRUTH- HUMAN EVOLUTION.

My thanks to J. Martin &  Biblical Discipleship-Pub. [john B http://www.servant@frontier.com]

Note(JB): When we remove all the phony baloney, from this this STILL BUT A THEORY, as not one shred of it has been nor can not be proven, what’s left? This statement: “DEAD STUFF CREATED LIFE”!  Excuse me but dead is dead, as in the total absence of life!

#5 ORANGUTANS, MONKEY AND MAN:

When studied at the level of molecular, cells or fossil bones, the evolutionary ancestors of people ( man, or man-like apes ) are NOT to be found. In spite of this, very elaborate attempts are made to “PROVE” that man evolved from early primates (ape-like creatures). As one surveys the literature regarding our supposed human evolutionary ancestors, not much agreement is found. A claim by one evolutionist is negated with the claims by another!

In the late 1960’s and early 70’s , much of the scientific community ruled Ramapithecus (an ape-like creature) ancestral to the orangutan or to an ape, instead of its original position as ancestral to humans. When considering Ramapithecus in 1973, Alan Walker and Peter Andrews wrote their belief that the jaw of Ramapithecus was that of a true ape  {Nature, vol 244, 1973. p. 313}

Yet, in 1982, the son of Louis Leakey stated:    THE PILTDOWN MAN:

If Ramapithecus appears in school of college textbooks as part of the evolution of man, it can be discarded, as should the Piltdown Man, which was shown to be a hoax in 1953 *. The Piltdown’s filed teeth and bone had been stained to make it appear to be ancient.

  • “The Piltdown Man by Ronald Millar, (New York: Viking Press, 1972, front cover slip.

Fourteen years after the Piltdown man was proven by the evolutionary scientific community to be a total fake and bad joke, Harvard University Press published these words”

BY Percy E. Raymond, Prehistoric Life (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969,pp.282,283.

Thus even as late as 1967, the prestigious Harvard University Press was still promoting the Piltdown Hoax as a possible “…Missing link..” between man and ape, even when it was proven to be a sham, a fake nearly 15 years before!!!

THE “NEBRASKA MAN”.

Nebraska Man [Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was formed from a single tooth, found by a farmer plowing his field, in 1922. Evolutionist Henry Fairfield, of the American Museum of natural History, published in the Illustrated London News (June 24, 1922) with a picture of man, a woman and their tools from this ONE TOOTH!  Some time latter, the same farmer, in the same field, plowing the same field, found a jaw bone,  and skull, with one empty tooth socket, in the jaw. the earlier tooth fit in it perfectly! One drawback? It was the skull of a pig!*

*See The Hominid Gang P. 22 and W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (Regency: Nashville) Vol 1, 1991.pp.227-228.

NEANDERTHAL AND CRO-MAGNON MAN.

We might also add that both titled fossils are now believed to be normal European “Homo-sapiens”. Would it be much of surprise to learn that many a picture of a Neanderthal man’s skull was shown with the the jaw bone out of it socket by as much as 1/2 inch? To show the more ape-like protruding Jaw? ()JB) Is not human science the human search for truth? The why try all these shenanigans just to remove God from the the creation picture? Is this not the the job of Satan?  Please THINK!

Today we know that the so-called Neanderthal man is as we are today, as we have men that are 7 foot plus tall and we have men that are less than three feet tall, yet all are very much members of the human race! God never used a “Cookie-cutter” to create anything!

THE PEKING MAN:

Yes, while the “Peking Man” has been categorized as Homo- (man0 erectus {erect man}. He disappeared during W.W. 11. there is not a single bone left  of the “Peking Man”, although books have been written about the international search for these “Bones”! Supposedly consisting of  5 skulls, about 150 jaw fragments, and teeth, 9 thigh bones and fragments, 2 upper arm bones and a wrist bone..*

  • Christopher Janus, The Search for Peking Man [New York: MacMillan Pub p.30

All these bones just vanished!  Yet even in the number of bones there several differing reports! Still we do have some photographs, with skulls broken into from the rear, supposedly to remove the brains as food, as per some “Experts”!

THE JAVA MAN:

Found by Dr. Eugene Dubois, who found a skull cap and a leg-bone ( Trinil Femur} yet he later near the end of his life recanted the whole affair.

HEIDELBERG MAN:

So named by its finder, who is now lost to history, but he insisted that his find was another species, and not a Neanderthal, all of it based upon a jaw bone with teeth. The jaw matched those of all Neanderthal jaws found.

LUCY AND THE AUSTRALOPITHECINES::

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment