Earle Sanborn

[Earle Sanborn]

No Simon and Pope Beanie, I’m not saying people are purposefully evil, or even evil at all.

I have said several times that the words I write in response to things is pretty much never going to change your minds or others. Questions are asked and I try to give a clear, unambiguous answer for discussion. We can all agree that when two guys lie in wait and ambush another and beat him up and steal his wallet- that’s pretty evil right. As far as the cake people. There are so many cake shops why force your ways/views on others. I don’t flaunt my lifestyle- that’s the bullying piece Pope Beanie. Why not go to other cake places and be done with it. It’s clear to me that this is all a show- their 15 seconds of fame. If I believe adultery is always wrong and say so – is that hateful? There are several good reasons for why adultery is wrong- 1. It’s lying to your mate about being faithful. 2. It’s stealing his/her trust. 3. You subject yourself to unknown diseases and perhaps pass them to your mate later – sores, open wounds, etc. 4. When it’s found out and usually always is then the kids are hurt by the impending divorce. 5. It does affect society in a negative way. I think that is quite clear as well.

If there is no absolutes regarding morals (lying, cheating, stealing) then who gets to decide?

The magazine OMNI from the 1970-1980 had a continuum. Now we have 50 shades of grey. At the end of the day- an action taken is not grey: person steals company cash, person damages his ex-lovers car; guy lies to his wife where he was. Just before the guy swings the ax to kill his nemesis he can stop. We are not without minds. King Solomon who most certainly existed and documented in many sources wowed the Queen of Sheba and his fame spread for his wisdom when he heard the case of one woman taking the another woman’s live baby and placed her dead baby with that woman. He looked them in the eyes and said bring the baby and cut it in half. Well, the woman who’s baby it wasn’t said good or approved, while the true mother of the baby cried no- give it to the other woman. King Solomon knew then who the true mother was. This passage says a lot about wisdom, understanding, discretion and can be useful tool in deciding your words and actions today.

Many times it’s said the truth hurts- especially if we are on the receiving end. Ever have to give a performance report to a co-worker? Usually praise them for what they do well; give them some tips on how to do better at other things; then praise them at the end and wish them luck on doing better this year. Constructive criticism is very tough as the person usually focuses on the things he/she needs to change/do better and forgets the boss praised them for other things they do well. We are here 70-80 years if we are lucky and it’s better to live peacefully with all as you can.

Regards Guys, may I say Happy Sabbath – or is that imposing or hateful?

 

 

[Earle Sanborn]

And now the LGBT bullies are at it again. See below.

Since science is not on the side of “being born LGBT” and most certainly not born “transgender” it is all in their mind. I feel so sorry for the poor 3-6 year olds who tell mommy and daddy that they feel like a girl or boy today; and they hop on that. Then the medical community which eschewed real science long ago; placates the little darling and they start the gender transfer stuff. You have got to be kidding me! How self-absorbed has our society become when we allow such nonsense. Not one scintilla of evidence. Later, when the kid grows up – what are they going to do then? We as kids thought all kinds of things- I played with Ken and Barbie dolls but that was just a phase.

The bullies are back in town.

Liberals and gay activists remain obsessed with forcing Christians to bake their cakes. And the answer, in the name of individual, religious and even gay civil rights, must still be no.

If you doubt the intensity of the left’s fixation on punishing people of faith, I submit to you the Colorado’s so-called Civil Rights Commission. Despite Masterpiece Cakeshop winning a 7-2 U.S. Supreme Court victory condemning the state for punishing Jack Phillips for his religious beliefs, they’re going after him again. This time, the set-up involves a request for a variety of cakes that would violate his religious belief, including a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Phillips, a baker who is Christian, found himself in the public eye six years ago when he refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. He has always served all customers, including gays and lesbians, but as an artist his faith requires him to not participate directly — like the specific creation of a cake — in efforts that violate his faith.
Ultimately, Phillips was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination law, and his fight ended up at the Supreme Court. which found the actual violator of civil rights to be the state’s commission. Reuters reported in June when the decision was issued:
“The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. The court concluded that the commission violated Phillips‘ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.”

That’s pretty serious stuff, and would make anyone take notice that a mistake had been made. But the haters and bullies in Colorado apparently don’t care. On the day the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Masterpiece case, Phillips received a call from attorney Autumn Scardina making a specific request for a cake celebrating a gender transition. Phillips declined, citing his faith.

[Earle Sanborn]

Okay you asked for it now. I don’t have to believe in something I see (my computer, phone, tv, etc.).

The inventions we’ve seen the past 200-300 years are based on honest to goodness science- things that are known and working. For example, no rationale person would suggest he/she could jump off the empire state building and fly or live after the fall (gravity). The world is rational and all the mathematicians from the 1400-1500s onward based their studies and experiments on the stability of the world. There are almost countless equations that can only exist if there is stability and rationality.

It’s not my view of creation- it’s quite clear to most thinking, rationale individuals in the 21st century that life did not evolve from some sort of primordial ooze. Everywhere you look things that came about in the Cambrian Explosion shows many, many life forms exploded on the seen fully intact many the same today as they were 450 Million years ago- such as the spider, fish, frogs, and now extinct trilobites. Trilobites were very complicated creatures with hard shells, bodies fully formed, and complex organs. The fossil record shows this. The trilobite eye science shows is made up of hundreds of tiny facets, containing two lens layers. It is a wonder of design. One gent, David Raup, professor of geology at Harvard, Rochester and Chicago says, “The trilobites 450 million years ago used the optimal design which would require a well trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today.”

This alone disproves Darwinism all by itself because no other complex creature with similar structures lived in previous geological periods. I don’t fault Charles Darwin for his theories, but I do fault people in 2018. Seeing that every step of the way, Darwinism fails scientifically. Darwin even said, “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection.”

We already know natural selection has nothing to do with evolution as no new genes are added to the static gene pool. One can mate bears for two hundred years and you’d still get a bear. Variation in species is not micro-evolution.

To boot, the Swiss evolutionary paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengtson, acknowledging the complete lack of transitional links while describing the Cambrian Age made this comment, “Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us.”

At the end of the day, one can be an atheist or agnostic or whatever. But one can’t rationally point to evolution as the “science” behind their belief. The science is clearly and critically lacking due to advances in science since 1840 and every day brings more. If one does try to point to Darwinian evolution as to why they are an atheist or agnostic, I don’t think much of their scholarship, truthfulness or zest for knowledge.

[Earle Sanborn]

Hey congrats on the book. Writing and publishing a book takes great time, effort and energy.

It’s always fascinating to me how people try their utmost to prove The Son of God either never existed or was just another prophet, etc.

If you, me and a couple other guys followed around someone of note for several years and we each wrote a summary and maybe some details about specific events, peoples and happenings we though were noteworthy, it would be logical that our summaries would be somewhat similar, though different because we are different beings, with free will, free moral agency, and freedom of thought (though that is under attack in the US as I write this).

The Gospel of Mark isn’t the only “book” establishing the existence of Jesus Christ. I find it stunning that in the 21st century this childishness still goes on– the unrealized hatred of God — is exhibited again. I know the reason people hate the thought of Jesus and his existence.

The Jews of that era barely even kept the commandments given to Moses. They burdened people with their own petty teachings and nuances– just like a board of directors at an HOA- they make up what is sighttly and unsightly.

I don’t know of anyone who has tackled the following: Jesus said he’d come again and reestablish the Kingdom of God on Earth. Why would He need to come again? Isn’t the world just perfect?- Everyone honors their father and mother, no one lies in wait and kills anyone else, no one commits adultery; no one lies; no one cheats; no one tells falsehoods/gossips about their neighbors; no one covets anything. Just ask Matt Lauer.

I’ll tackle re-establish the Kingdom of God next time

[Earle Sanborn]

Never said Darwin said that. Many have stated that in the past, but modern science clearly shows there was a beginning to the physical world– radio isotopes and decaying matter.

So a bad theory – evolution- which many even evolutionary scientist admit now days has real problems due to the advancement in scientific knowledge in the past 200 years– can be used “because it has great explanatory power, for one reason”. I’m sorry Simon, but evolutionary logic has no real relevance to the natural world because Evolution is not based on science any more. It’s akin to saying “spontaneous generation theory” has so great explanatory power. Really, a long documented, and debunked theory can explain the natural world.

That doesn’t ring a good bell Simon. In accounting parlance, that transaction doesn’t pass the “smell” test.

[Earle Sanborn]

Obviously, I was unclear to some. It has been a goal of many a man to not be ruled by any “god” real or imagined.

And that is the key- man hates to be ruled- you see it every day: your children rebel, we skirt laws, we offer explanations or excuses for not following laws and rules. Pink Floyd’s Mother is an example- shall I run for president- YES; mother shall I trust the government-NO; okay so when that guy becomes President and in the government; others will say the same thing about him that he did about those before him.

So when Darwin and others penned the theory of evolution (essentially saying life has always existed and remains without a first cause of creation–which would demand a creator) which would free man from other men’s ridiculous theories, philosophies and religions. We all know now that life had a beginning as astrophysics and astronomy tell us.

Unfortunately we also know in 2018 that: survival of the fittest, variations within species, mutations, fossil record have no path to evolution and quite the contrary the evidence shows that species arise suddenly, fully-intact. There are no billions of “transitional fossils” or they would be on display.

It’s more of a question than a statement.

So why do so many (supposedly smart, enlightened folks) still believe in Evolution as a basis for their world view? Why do people believe in Santa Claus/Christmas (the Saturnalia) and Easter (Astarte) they have nothing to do with God. One goal in life I have and had is find truth about who and what we are, and why?

One would think that with our ever growing knowledge of the world we live in- that there would be more gratefulness about life; gratefulness for our being and hearts and minds.

Regards

 

[Earle Sanborn]

May I ask this: If many of you have read much of the Darwin Refuted website, then how is it logical and scientific to continue to support and believe it any kind of evolution?? It simply isn’t possible given the nature of the cell, mutations, etc. etc.

Most, not all, over the past 180 plus years wanted to believe in evolution otherwise they had no logical reason to not believe in the Eternal God who created all things visible and invisible. Again, this natural inclination to not want to be told what to do (even if it is for your own benefit!); just as a good parent tells his children- don’t play in the street, don’t touch the iron or stove, etc. etc. A good parent disciplines their children primarily because we love them and want them to succeed in the world in which we find ourselves.

One of you adroitly stated that okay Earle- let’s leave out evolution. Prove there is a god. That’s a start. Most of what I read here is questions and cogent answers. Who among us knows everything we want to know? I sure don’t but I’m willing to be led by double-blind science studies, and the Spirit of God, and the mind he gave me.

One question then: do you think/believe there is an unseen world/spirit world? If not, why not? You can’t see gamma rays without help, can’t see sonar without help, we only see a segment of the colors and hues out there.

And if you do think/believe there is an unseen/spirit world? What are the spirits like? Do you know, do you care?

 

[Earle Sanborn]

Davis, Pope Beanie, et all. It’s not helpful and pretty discourteous to compare a “Creationist with a bowling ball” for discussion purpose. I’m pretty certain we each have our own histories, challenges, wishes, wants, needs, and desires, in our never ending quest for the truth. And unlike Pontius Pilate- there is knowable truth out there.

Yes, it is true I copy/pasted from Darwinism Refuted- just found that site about a week ago. At the end of the day, no one can explain, articulate, or argue someone else to believe in “God” or not in “God”. Lastly, if you understand the following you will begin to understand a bit where I’m coming from:

John 6:44 “No man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him.” and later in John 6:65 “And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”
After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

The spirit of God is the only thing that can move a man from whatever position he currently is in. I’ll say again, not one person in Bible “ran” toward God- most tried to run away and some were chosen (Apostles). We, man, have a seeming natural aversion and even hatred for “God”. It is not surprising in the least that now days- man will chose to go after any and all things except the God of the Bible. Mankind is an unrealized antithesis for the one true God- they’ll make gods of wood, metal, paper, plastic, even put themselves as God and judge of things. Today more than ever everyone is doing what is right in their own eyes. No surprise at all the UN nations as a whole hates the current nation Israel (really the descendants of Judah) because they keep the Sabbath. The world will pick any other day or no day as the Sabbath is a sign between the Everlasting one and his creation. You don’t need to go to “church” to keep the Sabbath. Got to go- no more copying and pasting

 

[Earle Sanborn]

Gents, got the message about putting whole articles on the site. I just thought it was best to leave my opinion out of it and let the science of 2018 speak for itself. No more long articles- but I do reserve the right to copy/paste salient quotes or sentences. Regards and have a great weekend

[Earle Sanborn]

Ladies and Gents, real science has come a long way from Darwin’s time. Used to think a cell was just a blob, but we know better today: each cell is like a mini-city with ingress/egress, bushings, motors, elimination system and on and on. Here’s something for your amusement today: The Complex Structure and Systems of the Cell, followed by Mutations.

______________

The complex structure of the living cell was unknown in Darwin’s day and at the time, ascribing life to “coincidences and natural conditions” was thought by evolutionists to be convincing enough. Darwin had proposed that the first cell could easily have formed “in some warm little pond.”238 One of Darwin’s supporters, the German biologist Ernst Haeckel, examined under the microscope a mixture of mud removed from the sea bed by a research ship and claimed that this was a nonliving substance that turned into a living one. This so-called “mud that comes to life,” known as Bathybius haeckelii (“Haeckel’s mud from the depths”), is an indication of just how simple a thing life was thought to be by the founders of the theory of evolution.The technology of the twentieth century has delved into the tiniest particles of life, and has revealed that the cell is the most complex system mankind has ever confronted. Today we know that the cell contains power stations producing the energy to be used by the cell, factories manufacturing the enzymes and hormones essential for life, a databank where all the necessary information about all products to be produced is recorded, complex transportation systems and pipelines for carrying raw materials and products from one place to another, advanced laboratories and refineries for breaking down external raw materials into their useable parts, and specialized cell membrane proteins to control the incoming and outgoing materials. And these constitute only a small part of this incredibly complex system.
In Darwin’s time, it was thought that the cell had a very simple structure. Darwin’s ardent supporter Ernst Haeckel suggested that the left mud pulled up from the bottom of the sea could produce life by itself.
W. H. Thorpe, an evolutionist scientist, acknowledges that “The most elementary type of cell constitutes a ‘mechanism’ unimaginably more complex than any machine yet thought up, let alone constructed, by man.”239
A cell is so complex that even the high level of technology attained today cannot produce one. No effort to create an artificial cell has ever met with success. Indeed, all attempts to do so have been abandoned.

The theory of evolution claims that this system-which mankind, with all the intelligence, knowledge and technology at its disposal, cannot succeed in reproducing-came into existence “by chance” under the conditions of the primordial earth. Actually, the probability of forming a cell by chance is about the same as that of producing a perfect copy of a book following an explosion in a printing house.
Sir Fred Hoyle
The English mathematician and astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle made a similar comparison in an interview published in Nature magazine on November 12, 1981. Although an evolutionist himself, Hoyle stated that the chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.240 This means that it is not possible for the cell to have come into being by chance, and therefore it must definitely have been “created.”

One of the basic reasons why the theory of evolution cannot explain how the cell came into existence is the “irreducible complexity” in it. A living cell maintains itself with the harmonious co-operation of many organelles. If only one of these organelles fails to function, the cell cannot remain alive. The cell does not have the chance to wait for unconscious mechanisms like natural selection or mutation to permit it to develop. Thus, the first cell on earth was necessarily a complete cell possessing all the required organelles and functions, and this definitely means that this cell had to have been created.

238 Charles Darwin, Life and Letter of Charles Darwin, vol. II, From Charles Darwin to J. Do Hooker, March 29, 1863
239 W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, pp. 298-99.
240 “Hoyle on Evolution,” Nature, vol. 294, November 12, 1981, p. 105

______________

Mutations- never a good thing

Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an “accident,” and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.19
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?20
Every effort put into “generating a useful mutation” has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures. The left picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.
It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.21

Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists’ monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be “an evolutionary mechanism”-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.
A mutant fly with deformed wings.
The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan’s syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations… With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23
The only instance evolutionary biologists give of “useful mutation” is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule’s ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a “useful mutation.”
The shape and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a “gift” of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a “useful genetic feature.” This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to “making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text.” And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”25

19 B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988. (emphasis added)
20 Warren Weaver et al., “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation”, Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159. (emphasis added)
21 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48.
22 Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70. (emphasis added)
23 David A. Demick, “The Blind Gunman”, Impact, no. 308, February 1999. (emphasis added)
24 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25 Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88. (emphasis added

[Earle Sanborn]

here’s more on the waning, twilight theory of natural selection.

—

When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, and even academic sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at all.

Let us first recall what is actually said: According to this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later, in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing, showing how light-colored moths “evolved” into dark-colored ones.
The top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker, birds were able catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased. However, this is not an example of “evolution,” because no new species emerged; all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed.
However, although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired a new trait or organ, which would cause “speciation.”13 In order for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example, new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about the physical traits of the bird.

This is the answer to be given to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed. As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution, the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology book and has therefore, become an “icon” in this sense, does not reflect the truth. Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell’s experiment, which is known as the “experimental proof” of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some basic elements of this scandal are:

– Many experiments conducted after Kettlewell’s revealed that only one type of these moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small, horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield concluded that in Kettlewell’s experiment, moths were forced to act atypically, therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14

– Scientists who tested Kettlewell’s conclusions came up with an even more interesting result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost all evolutionist sources.

– As the research deepened, the scandal changed dimension: “The moths on tree trunks” photographed by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath the leaves.15

These facts were uncovered by the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in “Introduction to Evolution” courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists. One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:

My own reaction resembles the dismay attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.16
Thus, “the most famous example of natural selection” was relegated to the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal-which was inevitable, because natural selection is not an “evolutionary mechanism,” contrary to what evolutionists claim.

In short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into that of another. The “greatest” evidence put forward since Darwin has been able to go no further than the “industrial melanism” of moths in England.

13 For more detailed information about Industrial Melanism, please see Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26.
14 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150.
15 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151.
16 Jerry Coyne, “Not Black and White”, a review of Michael Majerus’s Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp. 35-36.

[Earle Sanborn]

Very quick answer – it’s not a medical, science word/definition–it’s a media term. And it’s bacteria which remains bacteria. Regards

It’s a term coined by the media to describe bacteria that cannot be killed using multiple antibiotics. “It resonates because it’s scary,” says Stephen Calderwood, MD, president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “But in fairness, there is no real definition.”

Instead, doctors often use phrases like “multidrug-resistant bacteria.” That’s because a superbug isn’t necessarily resistant to all antibiotics. It refers to bacteria that can’t be treated using two or more, says Brian K. Coombes, PhD, of McMaster University in Ontario.

[Earle Sanborn]

Not to intrude too much. A little something regarding the decline of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinists.

Most people of significant intelligence and interest know that Darwin had a primitive idea regarding the nature and structure of cells; as he and others along the way (intentionally or unintentionally) called natural variation among species (microevolution). As much study as there has been on this salient Darwinian point; there is no microevolution– it’s simply differentiation among the species just as humans have various skin color, eye color, height, weight, etc.– we are all humans. There has been never been a transition from one specie to any other. Bears have always been bears, goat are goats, etc. Science continues to reveal more and more than Darwinism isn’t even a good theory anymore; let alone a scientific fact: here’s some facts regarding variations for you review.

_____________________

As we have seen, genetic science has discovered that variations, which Darwin thought could account for “the origin of species,” actually do no such thing. For this reason, evolutionary biologists were forced to distinguish between variation within species and the formation of new ones, and to propose two different concepts for these different phenomena. Diversity within a species-that is, variation-they called “microevolution,” and the hypothesis of the development of new species was termed “macroevolution.”

These two concepts have appeared in biology books for quite some time. But there is actually a deception going on here, because the examples of variation that evolutionary biologists have called “microevolution” actually have nothing to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution proposes that living things can develop and take on new genetic data by the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. However, as we have just seen, variations can never create new genetic information, and are thus unable to bring about “evolution.” Giving variations the name of “microevolution” is actually an ideological preference on the part of evolutionary biologists.

The impression that evolutionary biologists have given by using the term “microevolution” is the false logic that over time variations can form brand new classes of living things. And many people who are not already well-informed on the subject come away with the superficial idea that “as it spreads, microevolution can turn into macroevolution.” One can often see examples of that kind of thinking. Some “amateur” evolutionists put forward such examples of logic as the following: since human beings’ average height has risen by two centimeters in just a century, this means that over millions of years any kind of evolution is possible. However, as has been shown above, all variations such as changes in average height happen within specific genetic bounds, and are trends that have nothing to do with evolution.

In fact, nowadays even evolutionist experts accept that the variations they call “microevolution” cannot lead to new classes of living things-in other words, to “macroevolution.” In a 1996 article in the leading journal Developmental Biology, the evolutionary biologists S.F. Gilbert, J.M. Opitz, and R.A. Raff explained the matter this way:
Finch beaks, which Darwin saw in the Galapagos Islands and thought were evidence for his theory, are actually an example of genetic variation, and not evidence for macroevolution.
The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, “the origin of species- Darwin’s problem-remains unsolved.34
The fact that “microevolution” cannot lead to “macroevolution,” in other words that variations offer no explanation of the origin of species, has been accepted by other evolutionary biologists, as well. The noted author and science expert Roger Lewin describes the result of a four-day symposium held in November 1980 at the Chicago Museum of Natural History, in which 150 evolutionists participated:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. …The answer can be given as a clear, No.35
We can sum up the situation like this: Variations, which Darwinism has seen as “evidence of evolution” for some hundred years, actually have nothing to do with “the origin of species.” Cows can be mated together for millions of years, and different breeds of cows may well emerge. But cows can never turn into a different species-giraffes or elephants for instance. In the same way, the different finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of variation that is no evidence for “evolution.” Recent observations have revealed that the finches did not undergo an unlimited variation as Darwin’s theory presupposed. Moreover, most of the different types of finches which Darwin thought represented 14 distinct species actually mated with one another, which means that they were variations that belonged to the same species. Scientific observation shows that the finch beaks, which have been mythicized in almost all evolutionist sources, are in fact an example of “variation”; therefore, they do not constitute evidence for the theory of evolution. For example, Peter and Rosemary Grant, who spent years observing the finch varieties in the Galapagos Islands looking for evidence for Darwinistic evolution, were forced to conclude that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth,” a fact which implied that no “evolution” that leads to the emergence of new traits ever takes place there.36

So for these reasons, evolutionists are still unable to resolve Darwin’s problem of the “origin of species.”

34 Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology, 173, Article no. 0032, 1996, p. 361. (emphasis added)
35 R. Lewin, “Evolutionary Theory Under Fire”, Science, vol. 210, 21 November, 1980, p. 883.
36 H. Lisle Gibbs and Peter R. Grant, “Oscillating selection on Darwin’s finches,” Nature, 327, 1987, pp. 513; For more detailed information, please see Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, 2000, pp. 159-175.

[Earle Sanborn]

Reg, at lunch time so here’s the deal so far.

What has tipped me to strong belief regarding the God of Abraham is the documented evidence of fulfilled prophesy. Which one you may ask? The proof that Great Britain and the USA were and are the prophesied fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, to Isaac, then to Jacob (renamed Israel) “that your descendants will be like the stars of heaven or sand of the sea (very numerous) and the younger (Ephraim) will be before the older (Manasseh). 1. They will be a company of nations (UK); 2. They will have possession of the gates of their enemies (Hormuz, Gibraltar, Panama Canal, Suez Canal, Singapore, etc.) 3. They would be a colonizing people (say no more there) but their brother would be the single greatest nation the world has ever seen (any one with an IQ above room temperature) knows America has been blessed with the two oceans for protection, every good portion of land (the bread basket of the world).

Think of the words of the song by Woody Guthrie “This land is your land” Think of words to “America the Beautiful”. It is without question England and America are brother nations and all these things came about 2,520 years after the 10 tribes of Israel were taken captive by the Assyrians (modern day Germans) in 722-721 BC. The tribes 10 weren’t ‘lost’ they were taken captive and the Assyrians moved them to the Mediterranean and took those people and moved them down to the land they possessed. The Assyrians always moved their captures.  Hopefully you recall that Israel split into two nations- Judah (Judah, Benjamin, Levites) and Israel (the ten tribes- led by Reuben the first born) and constantly at war with each other. You do know that both these tribes did exactly what the nations before them did whom God dispossessed because of their wickedness (burn children to Moloch, made idols of gold, silver, bronze, men had relations with women who weren’t their wives, and their daughter; women had relations with men who were not their husbands as well as their sons. Sons and daughters had relations with each other and on and on, forgot the Sabbath, etc. – just like the Canaanites before them. So God allowed them to be taken captive by various nations, they would repent, God would send a savior of sorts (Samson, Gideon, etc.) then they would have peace for 20-40 years and go right back to sacrificing and whoring around. Finally the Eternal had enough and punished them 7x for their sins and provoking the Eternal after all He did for them. A day for a year is 360 years x 7 is exactly 2,520 years which corresponds to 1800 for Israel and 1917 for Judah. Hopefully you are aware of the Balfour declaration in 1917. You can call it whatever you want but being a man of numbers and statistics (CPA and CFE) it passed the smell test as real. This happened to me about 10 years ago when I was 48– I didn’t expect it but the accounts and numbers and history doesn’t lie. If you don’t here it is “The Balfour Declaration was a public statement issued by the British government during World War I announcing support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then an Ottoman region with a minority Jewish population”.

I’ve tried to put into practice the 10 commandments especially the Saturday Sabbath and tithing a full 10%- and not sleeping around, etc. and all I can say is my bank accounts are heavier, my mind is clearer and most people don’t believe I’m 58- my picture is 7 years old – so that’s a good thing too.

Regards

[Earle Sanborn]

Guys and girls, there is no argument, statement, or idea that I could relate that would have any impact on your modes of thinking. This is a discussion board I gather. It’s to discuss ideas, thoughts, desires, interests etc. right?

Pope Beanie, who’ve set up for yourself an interesting proposal “If you can prove God exists, I’ll resign”.

That is a whale of a pompous statement. Since God is Spirit and most, but not all, atheists don’t believe in the unseen world (which is really illogical -think of the many forces that hold the universe together and its expansion, think of gravity (can’t see it but it’s there) then you’ll never have the proof you desire to resign since you deem what is real and what is not which is why your the Pope!

If you recall not one Apostle came “running to God” they were chosen. Man has an unrealized antagonism toward anything called “God” because man for the most part is arrogant, selfish, pompous, and quite full of himself, until he realizes he’s flesh and bones and subject to decay and death (real death)– like “the dead know nothing” Eccl 9-that one statement alone refutes many human ideas about life, death, reincarnation, etc. Man will do anything to resist God until he can’t further resist like Jonah.

An Unseen- did you say we don’t have “free will”? Who told you that you don’t have free will? You can sleep or get up, eat or not eat, drink or not drink, lay around or work; this notion that we don’t have free will has transformed our society from one of personal responsibility to “my bad”. Everyone actually exhibits free will all day until they have to make some excuse. You can have sex with someone or elect not to- you’re not driven by instinct alone my man.

 

 

[Author]

Posts