RUFF TRADE are an explosion of Roots, Rock, Reggae born in 2016 on the streets of Manchester, UK.

 

Fronted by Mancunian brothers Ryan & Chris RUFF TRADE quickly gained local popularity and they soon hit the studio recording their debut E.P Urban Jungle in 2017, which was mastered at Abbey Road Studios, London.

 

Since 2017 RUFF TRADE have gigged extensively across the UK performing at many live music venues & festivals hitting the main stages at renown reggae venues including Hootananny Brixton, One Love Festival, Beat-Herder, Party In The Pines & Positive Vibration to name a few.

 

RUFF TRADE have also backed legendary reggae artists such as Prince Hammer, Dennis Bovell & Keith Poppin among others on festivals and mini tours across the UK all of whom have praised the band highly and recognise RUFF TRADE as an exciting fresh emerging British Reggae talent.

 

On May 1st 2022 RUFF TRADE were scouted by Terence F Clark, drummer for international country artist Keith Urban, explaining to Urban that RUFF TRADE are quote "The Real Deal". Keith Urban came to MCR city centre to watch the band busk and invited RUFF TRADE to perform during his set on the Manchester leg of his sell out tour "The Speed Of Now Tour 2022".

 

Two days later saw RUFF TRADE perform to a sell out Manchester O2 Apollo audience playing 2 tracks, finishing off with a cover of UB40 classic "Red Red Wine" which Keith Urban joined the band on backing vocals.

 

October 2022 welcomed the highly anticipated release of RUFF TRADE's debut album “Mancunian Way”. Tracks from the album have been picked up by BBC Radio 1, BBCRadio Manchester and other stations across the world. [www.rufftrade.co.uk/bio]

Henry (Henry M Diaz), I used two very profound sayings and I mentioned all the countries and cities and towns where you all live......the ENTIRE GLOBE got a mention and we all sent out our love to you ALL and we knew you were doing the same to us Bless you, every single one of you...for its true....our love was sent to you as I got everyone to hold hands and close their eyes in order to send out that love.

My home from home during the week, the BBC's HQ in central London.

 

I've taken pics of this view before, but this is a slightly more definitive night shot, taken with the 6D and wide angle tilt shift lens. It's always tricky trying to get shots without people in, as, due to the nature of broadcasting, staff are constantly coming and going depending on what shift they happen to be working.

 

This was captured on a Sunday evening around 6.30pm after I'd been taking sunset shots from Waterloo Bridge.

 

A rare instance where, upon being queried by one of the security guards about my big camera and tripod, I could happily show him my BBC staff pass and be left to carry on untrammelled by the usual restrictions ...

Salford Quays

Village of Holbrook, Suffolk, 50s - 60s

 

Part of Ken Sykora's archive.

www.themanwiththejazzguitar.com

At the time the famous broadcasting centre was marking 21 years in operation.

Gone, but not forgotten.

Taken in a cafe I've been in for coffee a couple of times. The owner worked in radio. This is a genuine BBC radio studio light

(I want one)

 

Frame 21 - Roll 2

Camera Canonet 28 Fixed 40 mm f/2.8

flic.kr/s/aHsmuYwnP2

Film ADOX Scala 50 (with sepia tint)

Scanner: Epson Perfection V100

Taken july/2024

This is a slow reversal black & white film but I had it developed as negative.

The architectural melting pot to be found with the BBC's Broadcasting House and All Souls Langham Place, and with the glass curves of New Broadcasting House just peeking through the gap.

 

This is another one of those perspectives made possible using the Canon 17mm tilt shift lens, as the upward tilt with a regular wide-angle lens would cause fairly extreme distortions.

 

I've always liked the Portland stone that they used in the construction of BH as it helps it fit in with the older vintage buildings which populate much of central London, and are indeed common throughout the UK in general ...

Mutations = genetic, copying mistakes.

 

The progressive, evolution story

is one huge MISTAKE

which, ironically,

depends on MISTAKES

as its mechanism ...

Mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

- upon mistake

So that the entire, human genome

is created from billions of mistakes.

 

If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story - you will believe anything.

  

EVOLUTION .....

What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact .....

the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.

 

So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?

 

Put simply ...

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all living things, which would enable the transformation of the first, self-replicating, living cell, through many years of natural selection, into every living thing, including humans.

 

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

 

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts ... anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.

 

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale. Natural selection can only select from what is available, i.e. what is already in the gene pool.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.

But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

 

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

 

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.

 

Darwin's idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great 'scientific' theory, beggars belief.

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

 

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

 

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

 

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the incredible idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected and preserved by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, accumulated over millions of years.

 

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

 

Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not at all surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.

If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you would be daft to expect it to improve the operation of the machine. However, evolutionists ignore such common sense and propose that something (which, similarly, would be expected to cause damage) caused billions of constructive improvements in complexity, design and function, ultimately transforming microbes into men, and every other, living thing.

 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating ....

Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations just as much as everyone else. You can bet your bottom dollar that you won't get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents in order to 'improve' humanity. You certainly won't get evolutionists deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants - in order to give their idea of progressive evolution by mutations a helping hand. No way!

 

Evolutionists know perfectly well that mutations are very risky and are most likely to be harmful, certainly not something anyone should desire.

Yet, perversely, they still present them as the (magical) agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. They present and teach that extraordinary belief as though it is an irrefutable fact.

If we don't believe the progressive evolution fantasy, or dare to question it, we are branded as unscientific, ignorant, uneducated, backward thinking cranks or fanatics.

Incredible!

I suppose, one way to try to stifle opposition to a crazy idea, is to insult or ridicule those who oppose it. The story of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' comes to mind.

 

It is understandable that people are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

 

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new, anatomical structures, organs etc. and that really is a fact.

It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool (existing, genetic information). Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

 

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

 

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.

 

To clarify further ...

Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ludicrous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of an accumulation of billions of random, genetic copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and on - and on.

 

In other words ...

Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing, or that has ever lived, was created by an incredibly, long series of random mistakes added to previous, random mistakes.

 

If we look at the whole picture ...

we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, complementary sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated and randomly, occurring mistakes ... i.e. a random mistake accruing upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - upon a previous, random mistake - over and over again, billions of times.

 

This notion is so incredible, we must emphasise once again what it actually means -

It means that all the body parts, systems and biological processes of all living things are the result of literally billions of random, genetic MISTAKES, accumulated over many (alleged) millions of years. This amazing thing occurred from one, original, living cell, which, it is claimed (without any evidence), spontaneously arose, entirely of its own volition, from sterile matter, in some imagined, primordial, soup scenario (contrary to the well established and unfalsified Law of Biogenesis).

Consider this ...

If, for example, there is no genetic information (constructional instructions) for bones (or any other body part) in the alleged, original, living cell, how could copying mistakes of the limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely, new constructive information? That's right, it simply couldn't, it is sheer fantasy.

 

Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Utterly incredible!

 

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations.

 

Conclusion:

 

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

 

The progressive, evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question the new 'improved', neo-Darwinian version of progressive evolution are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils...

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

 

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

 

So, it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

 

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

 

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

 

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/

 

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - some recent, field evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

What about the idea that radiometric dating confirms vast ages for the fossil record:

Carbon dating cannot be used for the claimed, long timescale assigned to fossils by evolutionists as the maximum age it can be used for is less than 50.000 years. Sedimentary rocks also cannot be dated radiometrically. Evolutionists have to rely on the odd occasion where there is an igneous rock intrusion into a sedimentary deposit to which they apply radiometric dating. However, the dates obtained this way are not reliable, for the reason outlined below:

"As regards radiometric dating, I refer to Prof. Aubouin, who says in his Précis de Géologie: "Each radioactive element disintegrates in a characteristic and constant manner, which depends neither on the physical state (no variation with pressure or temperature or any other external constraint) nor on the chemical state (identical for an oxide or a phosphate)."

Rocks form when magma crystallizes. Crystallisation depends on pressure and temperature, from which radioactivity is independent. So, there is no relationship between radioactivity and crystallisation.

Consequently, radioactivity doesn't date the formation of rocks. Moreover, daughter elements contained in rocks result mainly from radioactivity in magma where gravity separates the heavier parent element, from the lighter daughter element. Thus radiometric dating has no chronological signification." Dr. Guy Berthault www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

When no evidence is cited as evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

 

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

 

Nebraska Man (a pig),

 

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

 

Orce man (a donkey),

 

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

 

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

 

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

 

Peking Man (a monkey),

 

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

 

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

 

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

 

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

 

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

 

Ida - the newly discovered (2009), hominid, 'missing link' (an extinct lemur),

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

 

Want to publish a science paper?

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653...

 

www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib...

 

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

The Piltdown Man fake... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was claimed as irrefutable, scientific evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

 

A pig, a horse and a donkey saga...

The pig ...

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary (a type of pig). It was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and highly imaginative, artist's impressions of an complete, ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. All based on a single tooth. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, scientist weep.

 

The horse ....

South West Colorado Man, was based on another single tooth ... of a horse this time! ... also proclaimed as 'scientific' evidence for human evolution.

 

The donkey ...

The Orce Man saga - a tiny fragment of skullcap was presented to the media as a human ancestor, accompanied by the familiar hype and hullaballoo. Embarrassingly, a symposium planned to discuss this supposed, ape-man had to be cancelled at short notice when it was 'discovered' that it was most likely from a donkey!

But, even if it was human, such a tiny fragment of skull is certainly not any evidence of human evolution, as had been claimed.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation - The 19th century, evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who inspired Hitler's, Darwinian, master race policies) published fraudulent drawings of embryos, and his theory was enthusiastically accepted by evolutionists as proof of progressive evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor - A so-called, feathered dinosaur from the Chinese, fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man - Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... eventually admitted that it was actually a giant gibbon. However, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it. So, evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it and still maintained it was a human ancestor. It later turned out that Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention he had found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient, limestone burning, industrial site, where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So, that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series - fossils of unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth - moths were glued to trees in order to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing, gene pool, is NOT progressive evolution. It is just an example of normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material, and even plant seeds, were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis), which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there. And hence, abiogenesis could be declared by evolutionists as a scientific fact.

 

'Missing link' Ida - Hyped up by evolutionists (including the renowned, wildlife documentary, presenter Sir David Attenborough) in 2009 as a newly discovered, “missing link” of human evolution. This allegedly, 47-million-year-old fossil was discovered in Germany. However, it is now obvious that Ida is not evidence of primate (or human) evolution at all, it is simply an extinct type of lemur.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The honest answer to that question has to be an emphatic - NO!

 

The accepted definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Progressive evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief, based primarily on preconceptions.

 

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes-to-man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter (so-called abiogenesis). They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Progressive evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

 

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

 

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

 

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

 

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ......

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

 

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

www.trueorigin.org/

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

DNA.

The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

 

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

 

Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.

However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

 

Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

 

Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

 

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

 

It is true to say - the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.

 

For example:

1. The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life), and has never been falsified, is not universally valid.

 

2. They have no explanation of where the first, genetic information came from. Information Theory rules out an orign of such, constructive information by natural processes.

 

3. They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.

 

4. They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somehow endowed with a 'blueprint' for the creation of life.

 

5. They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.

 

6. They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.

 

7. They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example ... Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).

 

8. They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.

 

9. They discard any evidence - radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn't fit the preconceptions.

 

10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.

 

11. They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.

 

There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.

It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.

 

Evolutionism is not science.

Science is the method through which theories are tested and re-tested. However, today evolution is guarded against such scrutiny and taught uncritically in our public schools. This pervasive defense of naturalism has led students to view Darwinism as the only accepted explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This presentation will encourage critical thinking of scientific interpretations, and examine the bedrock evidence for the theory of evolution. www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE6hm2kpYiY&list=TLGGI4E1iBi7...

 

We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) ... but most scientists, don't actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.

That is another great MISTAKE!

 

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

Abortion is Murder - Here is 100% PROOF:

The video that so-called 'Pro-choice' and the multi-milion dollar, abortion industry don't want you to see.

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be

 

Could any sane person, after watching this video, not agree that abortion is pure evil?

______________________________________________

The argument that abortion is about choice for women is just a scam.

Genuine and sensible feminists realise that they have been conned. They understand that the real reason abortion was legalised was to give a 'choice' to unscrupulous men, not for the benefit of women.

They realise that abortion was legalised as a charter for irresponsible men, so they could sexually exploit women for their own selfish satisfaction, and then walk away whenever they wanted, leaving the woman to deal with any consequential pregnancy. And, now that abortion is legalised, if anyone objects to such men failing to face up to the responsibility of supporting their offspring, they have the excuse that the woman has the choice to get rid of the baby. So, it becomes entirely her problem if she decides to keep it, not theirs.

_____________________________________________

“Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice.”

Former satanic High Wizard, Zachary King. Zachary was an average boy from an American neighborhood who worked his way up to High Wizard in the coven and actively pushed satan’s agenda, including ritualistic abortions. Zachary is currently writing about his experiences in a new book titled, “Abortion is a Satanic Sacrifice.”

Zachary King is currently living in Florida with his wife. He is an international speaker spreading the story of his miraculous rescue from satanism anywhere he can.

www.lepantoinstitute.org/abortion/former-satanist-i-perfo...

 

Zachary’s website is www.allsaintsministry.org

 

Satanists are becoming a leading public voice for abortion rights. In their mockery of Christianity they reveal the dark heart of abortion-on-demand: the radical worship of self.

Read more at: www.nationalreview.com/article/422999/meet-new-public-fac...

www.nationalreview.com/article/422999/meet-new-public-fac...

 

Why satanism is now on the center stage in the culture war.

www.crisismagazine.com/2019/why-satanism-is-now-on-the-ce...

 

Why liberals care about climate change but not abortion?

www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/why-liberals-care-about-climat...

 

The globalist agenda. The EU, fledgling, world government. World dictatorship. A return to Babel.

The irrefutable evidence in plain sight: youtu.be/2l1RhAI-rRQ

 

EUbabel. The shocking occult symbolism of the European Union.

peuplesobservateursblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/23/togo-all...

  

The dangerous, climate change scam:

A high level of Co2 is essential for our survival. The exact opposite of what we a led to believe by the popular, eco- fanatic narrative which is designed to convince people of the necessity for globalist control.

See the truth here:

youtu.be/TjlmFr4FMvI

youtu.be/U-9UlF8hkhs

From its early years the BBC realised the educational value of their radio services and, in conjunction with The Central Council for Schools Broadcasting, a wide range of programmes allied to the schools curriculum were produced. To back these series of broadcast talks a massive series of booklets, helping to further describe and develop the subject topics, were produced - the 'reasonable' cost was intended to be affordable for whole classes of pupils as well as the general public.

 

The covers of this series of booklets seem to have followed set generic styles, with designs being commissioned for a 'season' of various talks or used over various years for different subject titles. They are often very striking and bold and, no doubt to keep printing costs down, usually use black & white illustration, often using the medium of scraperboard or windsor board. Although some are attributed to often well known designers such as C W Bacon or Eric Fraser, many sadly aren't. This, for Travel Talks broadcast in the Spring Term of 1938 is anonymous - in someways it's typical of C W Bacon's work but in other ways it isn't. However, it is an amazingly detailed and well reproduced item of printed ephemera.

The BBC were, from early days, enthusiastic publishers, and this is typical of their output in the 1930s when numerous such booklets that supported radio broadcasts were issued - mostly on 'educational' subjects that were for 'regular' listeners and not just the separate schools educational broadcasts, and they included illustrative materials that supported the talks and discussions.

 

This was a series of 12 weekly broadcasts from October to December 1937 that covered what was a keen topic of the day - industrial design and its application to 'things around' you. The talks covered topics such as the home, its fittings and fixtures, architecture, town and country planning. The talks were by Anthony Bertram and the cover is by Raymond McGrath. B.Arch, ARIBA. McGrath was Australian born and went on, from 1940, to a long and distinguished career in architecture and design in Éire.

 

By the late 1930s the BBC commissioned some excellent designers including typography to make these booklets themselves 'fit for purpose' to use the phrase of Frank Pick, deputy chairman of London Transport at the time and who had been a long term proponent of such design issues along with the Design & Industries Association.

Something or nothing?

There are only two alternatives, something or nothing. Existence or non-existence?

Existence is a fact!

We know something exists (the physical universe),

but why?

Two questions arise …why is there something rather than nothing?

And where did that something come from?

 

Obviously, something cannot arise from nothing, no sane person would entertain such an impossible concept. However, an incredible fantasy that the universe created itself from nothing, is being proposed by some, high profile atheists, and presented to the public as though it is science. A sort of ‘theory of everything’ that purports to eliminate a creator.

For example, the campaigning, militant atheist Lawrence Krauss has written a book which claims the universe can come from nothing, ‘A Universe from Nothing’.

Anyone who is silly enough to spend money on a book which makes such a wild, impossible claim, soon realises that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is not nothing at all, but an exercise in ‘smoke and mirrors’. His ‘nothing’ involves the pre-existence of certain, natural laws, space/time and quantum effects. That is certainly not 'nothing'. And his book, with the deceptive title, simply kicks the problem of - why there is something rather than nothing? into the long grass.

 

Video clip:

Famous, militant atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something', and is surprised and shocked when the audience sensibly reacts with laughter.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9XirkhZY

 

Another, well, publicised example, of the universe allegedly being able to arise from nothing of its own volition, was the one presented by the late Professor Stephen Hawking, and summed up by him in a single sentence:

“Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

 

It is not intelligent, sensible or scientific to believe that everything created itself from nothing.

In a state of infinite and eternal nothingness, nothing exists and nothing happens - EVER.

Nothing means absolutely ‘nothing’. Nothing tangible and no physical laws, no information, not even abstract things, like mathematics. If nothing exists there can be no numbers or anything based on numbers. Nothing is just a plain ‘zero’, with no positive integer 0+0=0, it can never be anything else.

 

Furthermore, you don’t need to be a genius, or a scientist, to understand that something CANNOT create itself.

Put simply, it is self-evident that - to create itself, a thing would have to pre-exist its own creation to carry out the act of creating itself. In which case, it already exists.

And, if anything at all exists, i.e. in Hawking's example ‘gravity’, it cannot be called 'nothing'.

Furthermore, ‘gravity’ cannot be a creative agent, it is merely an inherent property of matter – it is obvious that a property of something cannot create that which it is a property of. Also, how can something pre-exist that which it is a property of?

Thus, we are obliged to conclude that nonsense remains nonsense, even when presented by highly regarded scientists.

“Fallacies remain fallacies, even when they become fashionable.” GK Chesterton.

 

Such nonsensical propositions are vain attempts to undermine the well, established and logically based, law of cause and effect, which is fatal to atheist ideology.

Incredibly, Professor Stephen Hawking's so-called replacement for God completely ignores this crucially important, law of cause and effect, which applies to ALL temporal (natural) entities, without exception.

Therefore, his natural, 'theory of everything' which he rashly summed up in a single sentence can, similarly, be debunked in a single sentence ...

Because there is a law of cause and effect, the universe can't and won't create itself from nothing.

 

THE QUANTUM EFFECTS SMOKE AND MIRRORS TRICK ...

What about the idea, proposed by some atheists, that quantum mechanics, or a so-called god-particle, is the answer to the origin of the universe and of everything from nothing without the need for any cause?

 

We can state quite categorically that quantum effects could not have anything to do with an origin of the universe from nothing.

Why?

It is common sense that something CANNOT come from nothing, and that EVERY natural occurrence needs an adequate cause. Micro or sub-atomic particles are not an exception.

There are NO exceptions.

However, atheists refuse to accept the reality that a natural origin of the universe from nothing must be deemed impossible. Apparently, they think if they propose it could happen - little by little - it will become plausible and be readily accepted by a credulous public.

Their reasoning appears to be if you are able to make it as small, make it sound as simple, as less complex as you can, in that way, you could get people to believe virtually anything is possible.

This is exactly the same little-by-little approach that atheists apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution.

We are obliged to ask ...

What makes atheists think that it is easier for something to come from nothing if it is smaller or simpler?

Is it any easier or more credible for a grain of sand to come from nothing than it would be for a boulder?

Of course it isn’t - it makes no difference whatsoever.

Something cannot come from nothing, period! - And that is an irrefutable fact.

Size or lack of complexity can’t alter that.

 

Nevertheless, atheists still think that…. although people might realise that you couldn’t get a grain of sand from nothing, any more than you could a boulder, what if we propose the something which came from nothing is the smallest thing imaginable?

What about the quantum world – how about a sub-atomic particle?

That must make the proposition of something from nothing appear much more plausible.

What if we could find such a particle - a sort of ‘god’ particle (a substitute for God)? A supernatural, first cause (a creator God) would then be made redundant.

Problem would be solved - apparently!

If we could get people to believe that, even if the problem of the origin of everything, without an adequate cause, hasn’t been solved completely, at least science' is well on the way to solving it.

Of course, if anyone still insists that even a simple, sub-atomic particle cannot possibly come from nothing, we can always propose that nothing isn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.

It shouldn’t be too difficult to get gullible people, those in awe of anything (claimed to be) scientific, to accept that. Unfortunately, many people do.

 

However, the idea of a so-called ‘God’ particle has always been an OBVIOUS misnomer to anyone with any common sense, but militant atheists loved the notion and, predictably, the popular, secularist, media hacks also loved it.

What they either failed to realise (or deliberately failed to admit) is that not only is it just as impossible for a particle (however small) to arise of its own volition from nothing, as anything else, but also the smaller, simpler and less complex a proposed, first cause becomes, the more IMPOSSIBLE it is for it to be a first cause of the universe.

A simple, sub-atomic particle CANNOT possibly be the first cause, it CANNOT replace God ... because, not only is it impossible for it to be uncaused, it is also clearly not adequate for the effect/result.

So, atheists, while trying to fool people into thinking that it is easier for something to come from nothing, if it is simple and microscopic, actually shoot themselves in the foot....

The little by little approach which they apply to the origin of life and progressive evolution doesn’t work for the origin of the universe.

An effect CANNOT be greater than its cause.

The first cause of the universe, as well as not being a contingent, temporal entity, cannot be something simpler or less complex than everything that follows it, which is the sum total of the universe itself.

The first cause of the universe MUST be adequate to produce the universe in its entirely and complexity - and that means every property and quality it contains.

Sub-atomic particles or quantum effects are OBVIOUSLY not up to the job, any more than any of the other natural, first causes proposed by atheists.

 

So atheists are flogging a dead horse by thinking they can replace God with quantum mechanics, which may be interesting phenomenon, but the one thing it is absolutely certain they are not, is a first cause of the universe.

 

THE QUESTION OF PURPOSE ....

A further nail in the coffin of bogus, atheist science is the existence of order.

Atheists assume that the universe is purposeless, but they cannot explain the existence of order.

The development of order requires an organizational element.

To do useful work, or to counter the effects of entropy, energy needs to be directed or guided.

Raw energy alone actually tends to increase the effects of entropy, it doesn't increase order.

The organizational principle in living systems is provided by the informational element encoded in DNA.

Atheists have yet to explain how that first, genetic information arose of its own volition in the so-called Primordial Soup?

 

Natural laws pertinent to all natural entities, they guide the behaviour of energy and matter, but also serve to limit it, because natural laws are based only on the inherent properties of matter and energy.

 

So ... natural laws describe inherent properties of matter/energy, and natural processes operate only within the confines of natural laws which are based on their own properties. They can never exceed the parameters of those laws.

RANDOMNESS?

The much acclaimed, Dawkinsian principle that randomness can develop into order by means of a sieving process, such as shaken pebbles being sorted by falling through a hole of a particular size is erroneous, because it completely ignores the regulatory influence of natural laws on the outcome, which are not at all random.

 

If we can predict the outcome in advance, as we can with Dawkins' example, it cannot be called random. We CAN predict the outcome because we know that the pebbles will behave according to the regulatory influence of natural laws, such as the law of gravity. If there was no law of gravity, then Dawkins' pebbles, when shaken, would not fall through the hole, they would not be sorted, they would act completely unpredictably, possibly floating about in the air in all directions. In that case, the randomness would not result in any order. That is true randomness.

 

Dawkins' randomness, allegedly developing into order, is not random at all, the outcome is predictable and controlled by natural laws and the inherent properties of matter. He is starting with 2 organizational principles, natural laws and the inherent, ordered structure and properties of matter, and he calls that randomness!

Bogus science indeed!

This tells us that order is already there at the beginning of the universe, in the form of natural laws and the ordered composition and structure of matter .... it doesn't just develop from random events.

 

Natural laws?

A major problem for atheists is to explain where natural laws came from?

In a purposeless universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure, and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.

Atheists say the exact opposite.

Furthermore, if we consider the accepted, atheist belief; that matter is inherently predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), where does that predisposition for life come from? How does matter/energy possess such a property as the potential/blueprint for life?

Abiogenesis is undeniably indicative of the existence of purpose.

This means, once again, atheists are hoisted on their own petard, and the atheist idea of a random, purposeless, universe is left completely in tatters.

 

GOD OF THE GAPS?

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural, first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.

The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.

Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

 

A TRIGGER?

Atheists also seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.

This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.

That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.

But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.

 

A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.

Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

 

THE EXISTENCE OF SPACE.

What about the idea proposed by some atheists that space must have always existed, and therefore the first cause was not the only eternally, uncaused self-existent power?

This implies that the first cause was limited by a self-existent rival (space,) which was also uncaused, and therefore the first cause could not be infinite and could not even be a proper first cause, because there was something it didn’t cause i.e. ‘space’.

There seems to be some confusion here about what ‘space’ actually is.

Space is part of the created universe, it is what lies between and around material objects in the cosmos, if there were no material objects, and their associated physical effects, in the cosmos, there would be no space. The confusion lies in the failure to distinguish between empty space and nothing. Nothing is the absence of everything, whereas space is a medium in which cosmic bodies and other physical effects exist. ‘Empty’ space is just the space between objects. So space is not an uncaused, eternally self-existent entity, it is dependent, for its own existence, on the material objects existing within it.

 

What about nothing?

Is that an uncaused eternally self-existent thing?

Firstly, it is not a thing, it is the absence of all things (no thing). So has nothing always existed? Well, yes it essentially would have always existed, but only if a first cause didn’t exist. If there is a first cause that is eternally self-existent, then there is no such thing as absolute nothing, because nothing is the absence of everything. If a first cause exists (which it had to, or the universe wouldn't exist), then any proposed eternal ‘nothing’ has always contained something, and therefore there has never been ‘nothing’.

 

What about the idea that the first cause created everything from nothing? Obviously, the ‘nothing’ that is meant here is … nothing material, i.e. the absence of any material or natural entities.

The uncaused, first cause cannot have a material nature, because all material things are contingent, so the first cause brought material things into being, when nothing material had previously existed. That is what is meant by creation from nothing.

 

So. what existed outside of the eternally existent, first cause? Obviously no other thing existed outside of the first cause, the first cause was the only thing that existed.

So. did the first cause exist in a sea of eternally existent nothingness?

No! the first cause was not nothing, it was ‘something’. Thus, to ask what surrounded the something that is the first cause is not a valid question, because if something exists - that is not ‘nothing’.

This means that such a notion of ‘nothing’ couldn't exist, only something – i.e. the eternally existent first cause. If you have a box with something in it, you wouldn’t say there is both something and nothing in the box. You would say there is something in the box, regardless of whether there was some empty space around the thing in the box.

 

WHY WE NEED RELIGION.

Once we admit the obvious fact that the universe cannot arise of its own accord from nothing (nothing will remain nothing forever), the only alternative is that ‘something’ has always existed – an infinite ‘something’. For anything to happen, such as the origin of the universe, the infinite something, cannot just exist in a state of eternal, passive inactivity, it must be capable of positive activity.

If we examine the characteristics, powers, qualities and attributes which exist now, we must conclude that the ‘something’, that has always existed, must have amazing (godlike) powers to be able to produce all the wonderful qualities we see in the universe, including: information, natural laws, life, intelligence, consciousness, etc.

This means we are compelled to believe in some sort of ‘godlike entity’. The only question is - which god?

Is the godlike entity a creator, or simply nature or natural forces as atheists claim?

Seeking an answer to that question is the essential role of religion, which properly seeks the answer by applying logic and reason, supported by natural laws and scientific principles, rather than relying entirely on blind faith.

 

Why God MUST exist ...

Is the inescapable verdict of logic and natural laws ...

There are only two states of being (existence) – temporal and infinite. That. which has a beginning, is ‘temporal’. That which has no beginning is ‘infinite’.

Everything that exists must be one or the other.

The temporal (unlike the infinite) is not autonomous or non-contingent, it essentially relies on something else for its beginning (its cause) and its continued existence.

The universe and all natural things are temporal. Hence, they ALL require a cause or causes.

They could NOT exist without a cause to bring them into being. This is a FACT accepted by science, and enshrined in the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Law of Cause and Effect tells us that every effect requires a cause. And that - an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

This is a fundamental principle, essential to the scientific method.

“All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events” Dr Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

No temporal effect can be greater than (superior to) the sum-total of its cause or causes

It is obvious that - something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

A temporal entity can be a subsidiary cause of another temporal entity, but cannot be the initial (first) cause of the entire, temporal realm - which includes ALL natural effects and entities.

 

Consider this simple chain of causes and effects:

A causes B

B causes C

C causes D

D causes E

‘A, B, C & D’ are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them. Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.

Why?

Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C & D would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.

Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.

So, we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it.

We also must say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent, they all depend entirely on other causes to exist. We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning.

Why?

Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E. We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.

Why?

Well, in the case of E, we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence. E can in no way be superior to D, because D had to contain within itself everything necessary to produce E.

The same applies to D, it cannot be superior to C. Furthermore, neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.

Likewise, with B, which is wholly responsible for the existence of C, D & E.

As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A, whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.

Thus, we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.

Conclusion …

A first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists). No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.

 

Entropy

The initial (first) cause of the temporal realm had to be something non-temporal (uncaused), without a beginning, i.e. something infinite.

The word ‘temporal’ is derived from tempus, Latin for time. - All temporal things are subject to time - and, as well as having a beginning in time, natural things can also expect to naturally degenerate, with the passage of time, towards a decline in function, order and existence. The material universe is slowly in decline and dying.

The natural realm is not just temporal, but also temporary (finite). Science acknowledges this with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (law of entropy).

As all natural things are temporal, we know that the initial (first), infinite cause of everything temporal cannot be a natural agent or entity. All natural things are finite, they all have a beginning and an end.

The first cause of everything simply could not be a natural entity. Because, as well as requiring a beginning and a cause, any natural entity, due to entropy, could not survive throughout eternity, without deterioration and ultimate extinction.

The infinite, first cause of everything natural can also be regarded as ‘supernatural’, in the sense that it is not subject to natural laws that are intrinsic only to natural things, which it caused.

This fact is verified by science, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that there is no ‘natural’ means by which matter/energy can be created.

However, as the first cause existed before the natural realm (which is subject to natural laws, without exception), the issue of the first cause being exempt from natural laws (supernatural) is not something extraordinary or magical. It is the original and normal default state of the infinite.

If the material universe was infinite, entropy wouldn’t exist. Entropy is a characteristic only of natural entities.

The infinite cannot be subject to entropy, it does not deteriorate, it remains the same forever.

Entropy can apply only to temporal, natural entities.

Therefore, we know that the material universe, as a temporal entity, had to have a beginning and, being subject to entropy, will have an end.

That which existed before the universe, as an original cause of everything material, had to be infinite, because you cannot have an infinite chain of temporal (material) events. The temporal can only exist if it is sustained by the infinite.

As all natural entities are temporal, the (infinite) first cause could not possibly be a natural entity.

So, the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports and confirms the only logical conclusion we can reach from the Law of Cause and Effect, that a natural, first cause is impossible, according to science.

This is fatal to the atheist ideology of naturalism because it means there is no alternative to an infinite, supernatural, first cause (a Creator God).

The Bible explains that the universe was created perfect, without the effects of entropy such as decay, corruption and degeneration. It was the sin of humankind that corrupted the physical creation, resulting in physical death and universal entropy ...

Scripture: Romans 8:18–25

"I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God; for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope; because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience."

 

Can there be multiple infinite, first causes? It is evident that there can be only one ‘infinite’ entity. If, for example, there are two infinite entities, neither could have its own, unique properties.

Why?

Because, unless they possessed identical properties, neither would be infinite. However, if they both possessed the very same properties, there would be no distinction between them, they would be identical and thus a single entity.

To put it another way …

God, as an infinite being, can only be a single entity, if He was not, and there was another infinite being, the properties which were pertinent to the other infinite being would be a limitation on His infinite character, and vice versa. So, neither entity would be infinite.

 

Creation - an act of will?

For an infinite cause to produce a temporal effect, such as the universe, an active character and an act of will must be involved. If the first cause was just a blind, mechanistic, natural thing, the universe would just be a continuation of the infinite nature of the first cause, not temporal (subject to time). For example, if the nature of water in infinite time was to be frozen, it would continue its frozen nature infinitely. There must be an active agent involved.

Time applies to the temporal, not the infinite. The infinite is omnipresent, it always was, it always is, and it always will be. It is the “Alpha and the Omega” as the Bible explains.

Jesus claimed to be omnipresent, when referred to Himself as “I am”. He was revealing that His spirit was the infinite, Divine spirit (the infinite, first cause of everything temporal).

 

Therefore, what we know about the characteristics of this supernatural entity, are as follows:

The single, supernatural entity:

1. Has always existed, has no cause, and is not subject to time. (is infinite, eternally self-existent, autonomous and non-contingent).

2. Is the first, original and deliberate cause of everything temporal (including the universe and every natural entity and effect).

3. Cannot be, in any way, inferior to any temporal or natural thing that exists.

In simple terms, this means that the single, infinite, supernatural, first cause of everything that exists in the temporal realm, has the capability of creating everything that exists, and cannot be inferior in any powers and attributes to anything that exists. This is the entity we recognise as the creator God.

The Bible tells us that we were made in the image of this God. This is logical because it is obvious, we cannot be superior to this God (an effect cannot be greater than its cause).

So, all our qualities and attributes must be possessed by the God in whose image we were made.

All our attributes come from the creator, or supernatural, first cause.

Remember, the logic that something cannot give what it doesn’t possess.

We have life. Thus, our creator must have life.

We are intelligent. Thus, our creator must be intelligent.

We are conscious. Thus, our creator must be conscious.

We can love. Thus, our creator must love, and is the original source of ALL love.

We understand justice. Thus, our creator must be just, etc. etc.

Therefore, we can logically discern the character and attributes of the creator from what is seen in His creation.

This FACT - that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s, is recognised as a basic principle of science, and is it crucial to understanding the nature and attributes of the first cause.

It means nothing in the universe that exists, resulting from the action of the first cause, can be in anyway superior to the first cause. We must conclude that, at least, some attributes of the first cause can be seen in the universe.

 

Atheists frequently ask how can we possibly know what God is like?

The Bible (which is inspired by God) tells us many things about the character of God, but regardless of scripture, the universe itself gives us evidence of God’s nature.

For example: can the properties of human beings, in any way, be superior to the first cause?

To suggest they are, would be to violate the scientific principle that an effect cannot be greater than its cause.

All the powers, properties, qualities and attributes we observe in the universe, including all human qualities, must be also evident in the first cause.

If there is life in the universe, the first cause must have life.

If there is intelligence in the universe the first cause must have intelligence.

The same applies to consciousness, skill, design, purpose, justice, love, beauty, forgiveness, mercy etc.

Therefore, we must conclude that the eternally, self-existent, non-natural (supernatural), first cause, has life, is conscious, has intelligence and created the temporal as an act of will.

We know, from the law of cause and effect, that the first cause cannot possibly be any of the natural processes frequently proposed by atheists, such as: the so-called, big bang explosion, singularity or quantum mechanics.

They are all temporal, moreover, it is obvious that none of them are adequate to produce the effect. They are all grossly inferior to the result.

 

To sum up:

Using impeccable logic and reason, supported by our understanding of established, natural, physical laws (which apply to everything of a natural, temporal nature) acknowledged by science, humans have been able to discover the existence of a single, infinite, supernatural, living, intelligent, loving and just creator God.

God discovered, not invented!

Contrary to the narrative perpetuated by atheists, a personal, creator God is not a “human invention”, and He is certainly not a backward substitute for reason or science, but rather, He is an enlightened, human discovery, based on unimpeachable logic, reason, rationality, natural laws and scientific understanding.

 

The real character of atheism unmasked.

Is belief in God just superstitious, backward thinking, suitable only for the uneducated or scientific illiterates, as atheists would have us believe?

Stephen Hawking is widely acknowledged as the best brain in modern atheism, his natural explanation for the origin of the universe "Because there is a law, such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing" was claimed by some, to have made belief in a creator God redundant. This is an atheistic, natural, creation story, summed up in a single sentence.

When we realise what atheists actually believe, it doesn’t take a genius to understand that it is atheism, not monotheism, which is a throwback to an unenlightened period in human history. It is a throwback to a time when Mother Nature or other natural or material, temporal entities were regarded by some as having autonomous, godlike, creative powers –

“the universe can and will create itself from nothing”

The discredited concept of worshipping nature itself (naturalism) or various material things (Sun, Moon, idols etc.) as some sort of autonomous, non-contingent, creative, or self-creative agents, used to be called paganism. Now it has been re-invented as 21st century atheism ...

The truth about modern atheism is it is just pagan naturalist beliefs repackaged.

“It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.” - G.K. Chesterton.

 

God’s power.

Everything that exists is dependent on the original and ultimate cause (God) for its origin, continued existence and operation.

This means God affords everything all the power it needs to function. Everything operates only with God’s power. We couldn’t even lift a little finger, if the power to do so was not permitted by God.

 

What caused God?

Ever since the 18th century, atheist philosophers such as David Hume, Bertrand Russell etc. have attempted to debunk the logical evidence for a creator God, as the infinite, first cause and creator of the universe.

The basic premise of their argument is that a long chain of causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (no first cause, but rather an infinite regress). And that, if every effect requires an adequate cause (as the Law of Cause and Effect states), then God (a first cause) could no more exist without a cause, than anything else.

This latter point is summed up in the what many atheists regard as the killer question:

“What caused God then?”

This question wasn’t sensible in the 18th century, and is not sensible today, but incredibly, many atheists still think it is a good argument against the Law of Cause and Effect and continue to use it.

As explained previously, the Law of Cause and Effect applies to all temporal entities.

Temporal entities have a beginning, and therefore need a cause. They are all contingent and dependent on a cause or causes for their beginning and existence, without exception.

It is obvious to any sensible person that the very first cause, because it is FIRST, had nothing preceding it.

First means 'first', it doesn’t mean second or third. If we could go back far enough with a chain of causes and effects, however long the chain, at some stage we must reach an ultimate beginning, i.e. the cause which is first, having no previous cause. This first cause must have always existed with no beginning. It is essentially self-existent from an infinite past and for an infinite future. It must be completely autonomous and non-contingent, not relying on any cause or anything else for its existence. Not temporal, but infinite.

So, the answer to the question is that - God was not caused, only temporal entities (such as ALL natural things) essentially require a cause.

God is the eternally, self-existent, ultimate, non-contingent, supernatural, first. infinite cause of everything temporal.

As explained earlier, the first cause could not be a natural entity, it had to be supernatural, as ALL natural entities are temporal and contingent (they all require causes).

 

Is the atheist, infinite regress argument sensible?

This is the argument against the need for a first cause of the universe. The proposition is that; a long chain of natural causes and effects, going back in time, did not necessarily require a beginning (an infinite regress). This proposition is nonsensical.

Why?

It is self-evident that you cannot have a chain of temporal effects going backwards in time, forever. It is the inherent nature of all temporal things to have a beginning. Likewise, for a long chain of temporal causes and effects, there must be a beginning at some point in time. Contingent things do not become non-contingent, simply by being in a long chain.

Temporal + temporal can never equal infinite.

Moreover, the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that everything physical is subject to entropy.

Therefore, it is an absurd notion that there could be a long chain of temporal elements in which, although every individual link in the chain requires a beginning, the complete chain does not. And, although every individual link in the chain is subject to the law of entropy, the chain as a whole is not, and is miraculously unaffected by the effects of entropy, throughout an infinite past, which would have caused its demise.

 

What about the idea that infinite regress is acceptable in maths?

Maths is a type of information - and information, like truth, is not purely physical.

It can require physical media to make it tangible, but while the physical media is always subject to entropy, information is not. 1+1 = 2 will always be true, it is unaffected by time, or even whether there are any humans left to do mathematical calculations.

Jesus said; Heaven and Earth may pass away, but my words will go on forever. Jesus is pointing out that truth and information are unaffected by entropy.

For example: historical truths, such as the fact that Henry VIII had six wives, will always be true. Time cannot erode or change that truth. Even if all human records of this truth were destroyed, it would never cease to be true.

As the Christian, apologist Peter Keeft has made clear, maths is entirely dependent on a positive integer, i.e. the number one. Without this positive integer, no maths is possible. Two is 2 ones, three is 3 ones, etc.

The concept of the number one also exists as a characteristic of the one, infinite, first cause. - God is one. - God embodies that positive integer (number one/first cause), essential for the operation of maths. Without the number one, there could be no number two or three, etc. etc. There could be no positive numbers, no negative numbers and no fractions.

The fact that an infinite ‘first’ cause exists, means that number one is bound to exist. In a state of eternal and infinite nothingness, there would be no information and no numbers and nothing would be ‘first’. So, like everything else, maths is made possible only by the existence of the one, infinite, first cause (God).

 

Why is there entropy, decay, death and corruption if the natural world was created perfect?

The universe was created by God, especially for humans, but how could it be perfect - if the humans He created out of love, and for love, were given no freedom of choice?

Free choice is essential for perfect love in a perfect creation. Love must be voluntary it cannot be forced. With free choice, love can be accepted or rejected, if love is rejected (which is the essence of sin) the universe cannot remain in a perfect state. Freedom of choice is also a potential for sin which undermines the original perfection of the creation. It is love which is the key to perfection in God's Creation.

 

Anti-love ....

Sin, is an offence against perfect, unselfish love. All love originates from God (the first cause of everything) and we are invited to be part of an eternal circle of love - receiving love and giving love. Love proceeds from God to us, we accept His love, spread it around to all humankind, and return it to God. God’s laws are to help us recognise behaviour that is anti-love.

SIN, IN ESSENCE – IS ANTI-LOVE.

 

God (the supernatural, first cause) is infinite, the natural world is NOT. The natural world is contingent, temporal and temporary. The natural realm has a beginning, it requires an adequate cause, and is subject to time and gradual deterioration which will eventually result in its demise.

God as the perfect, infinite being - has no beginning, no cause, is eternally self-existent, and is not subject to time. He made the creation perfect, but it could only remain perfect, and unaffected by entropy, while it was maintained and sustained by the infinite. Sin, an offence against perfect love, sullied the perfection of the creation.

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

I was trying out my iPhone 11's ultrawide camera recently, seeing if I could get any half decent shots with it in anything other than bright sunlight. It is sort of possible, but not with Apple's in-built Camera app; this tends to apply a huge amount of denoising and other sorts of processing which results in extremely mushy images.

 

This was taken from within Lightroom Mobile which does a lot less processing of the files.

 

This was with the studio lights turned right up, and balancing the phone on the top of a chair for some vague stability.

 

It's still nowhere near the quality of what I can get with my other proper cameras, but it's a passable alternative, and great to have that 13mm equivalent focal length for wide shots like this.

 

For anyone that doesn't know, I'm a sound engineer at the BBC in London, and since the pandemic I've still been going in to the studio every day to record, edit and mix programmes made by Radio Current Affairs. These days I've been making our weekly programmes like More Or Less, The Briefing Room and How To Vaccinate The World, all on Radio 4.

BBC Radio Theatre, one of two interiors within the BBC, commissioned by the late Justin Phillips,the curator, in 2000; and painted in January 2001, on location inside the theatre, which is housed in the lower part of Broadcasting House, Portland Place , London - the Headquarters of the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation); opened in 1932. This is one of 5 paintings by Stephen B Whatley that The BBC owns.

 

The BBC Radio Theatre broadcasts, primarily for BBC Radio 4, plays , quiz shows and musical comedies; all recorded in front of a public audience.

 

" I was so humbly honoured to know Justin Phillips, who first contacted me regarding acquistion of my painting of BBC Television Centre for The BBC Heritage collection. Justin Phillips was a radio journalist for 20 years, worked at the BBC World Service, was Editor of the World Tonight programme and a writer - as a committed Christian, exploring the role of Christianity in the media. He was a deeply sensitive man with a visionary perception and was excited about my work; arranging for me to receive further commissions at the BBC.

 

In October 2000, he gave me a full tour of Broadcasting House - through the 'rabbit warren' of archival collections , studios & offices which was fascinating. His early passing at just 50 years of age, just after Christmas 2000, was a tragic loss to the BBC; but no more so than for his wife Gill & daughters, who commissioned a painting of his childhood home and beautiful bluebell-filled garden in Ealing, West London, in his memory - which was deeply moving to paint. " ~Stephen B Whatley

 

The BBC Radio Theatre. 2001 by Stephen B Whatley

Oil on canvas, 30 x 40in/76 x 102cm

Collection of BBC Heritage

www.stephenbwhatley.com

 

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

 

On behalf of Britain, I ask the whole world to accept the sincere apologies of the British people, for the damage done to science by Charles Darwin.

Britain has a great scientific heritage, having produced some of the world's finest, and greatest scientists. However, Britain's enormous contribution to science has been seriously sullied by the false ideas popularised by Charles Darwin, which have led to a serious decline in scientific integrity, and spawned a whole catalogue of fakes, frauds and very dubious science.

 

Although it has been evident for some time that Darwinian, progressive evolution is not scientifically credible, and that there is a great deal of evidence against it, the idea has now developed a life of its own, and has become an essential lynch pin in an ideological agenda. As a consequence, there is no longer any normal, scientific objectivity permitted and Darwinism has become uniquely sacrosanct. This is very damaging to genuine scientific endeavour, and has the effect of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.

 

So, what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

 

The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

 

What exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?

Darwin believed that there is unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants. And that this unlimited variabilty has, over vast time, transformed an original, living cell into humans (and every other living thing) through natural selection of beneficial and advantageous traits.

 

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.

This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution), or to create the massive amount of new information required to transform an original, single living cell into all the complex, life forms (including humans) that exist.

 

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.

Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

 

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

 

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.

Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.

This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

 

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.

A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.

That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

 

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.

The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

 

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.

A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

 

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

 

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

 

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.

However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

 

People can be confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by frequently citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.

Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating entirely new structures, body parts, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

 

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.

Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.

Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story. The dogs remain dogs and will always remain dogs, hundreds of years of experiment and observation through selective breeding confirms that.

 

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the incredible notion that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of the accumulation of millions of genetic, copying mistakes..... mutations accruing upon previous mutations .... on and, and on, and on.

 

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series ... of mistakes upon mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

 

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, body parts, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in all living things, such as:

skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

 

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

 

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

 

Conclusion:

Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.

The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

 

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.

Want to join the club?

 

What about the fossil record?

 

The formation of fossils.

 

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.

Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.

So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

 

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.

You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.

Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.

The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.

Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.

In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?

You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

 

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

 

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

 

Living Fossils - when NO evidence IS evidence.

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

 

The Cambrian Explosion.

Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.

Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

 

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:

www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

 

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

 

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

 

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

 

Piltdown Man (a fake),

Nebraska Man (a pig),

South West Colorado Man (a horse),

Orce man (a donkey),

Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),

Archaeoraptor (a fake),

Java Man (a giant gibbon),

Peking Man (a monkey),

Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)

Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)

The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),

Peppered Moth (faked photographs)

The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)

Etc. etc.

 

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.

All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.

Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

 

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?

www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full

www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

 

Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.

Is that 'science'?

 

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

 

Piltdown Man... survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and used as supposed, irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial (subject of the film 'Inherit the Wind').

 

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as scientific evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep. Having been found 3 years earlier, it was 'resurrected' by evolutionists just before the Scopes Trial in order to influence public opinion in advance of the trial.

 

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

 

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

 

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

 

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

 

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

 

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

 

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

 

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

 

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

 

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!

The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

 

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.

However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

 

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering

"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"

  

And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:

"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

 

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to

the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.

This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”

Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

 

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

 

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

 

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

 

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

 

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

 

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”

 

Video clip:

Famous, militant atheist, Richard Dawkins tries to define 'nothing' as 'something', and is surprised and shocked when the audience sensibly reacts with laughter.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6H9XirkhZY

 

Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.

youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk

 

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE

The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins

www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

 

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."

kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Since coronavirus and lockdown I decided I wanted to stay in the same studio every day at work and not have anyone else using it. It helps me feel a little bit safer and happier about coming into the building everyday.

 

I went with the end studio, S48, and I’ve been pretty happy there for the past three months. I get to have it nice and chilly, plus I have the lights set to an ‘art gallery’ level of dimness which suits my light-sensitive eyes nicely. I've shot this view before, and this is merely an update of a very similar snap of the studio which I took 5 years ago. This time I have the small benefit of shooting on a tripod at the camera's base ISO ...

BBC NI journalist Mark Simpson interviews the newly-re-elected Sammy Wilson MP on the phone during the BBC Radio Ulster programme "Evening Extra", on Friday 20th December 2019. Shot handheld in Studio 4, BBC Broadcasting House, Ormeau Avenue, Belfast. I was duty reporter, and I grabbed a minute to get the shot!

   

Feel free to follow me also on G+, Twitter and Facebook!

Old Harry's Game is a BBC Radio comedy set in Hell. Andy Hamilton (above left) plays Satan, Prince of Darkness, and Robert Duncan (introduced in series 2) plays his intensely loyal, but very dim, assistant Scumspawn. It was written by Andy Hamilton and, If you haven't listened to it, do so – it is very funny.

 

The hereios of the We're Here! group have paid a visit to the Sympathy for the Devil

group today.

 

Stuck for an idea for your daily 365 shot? Join the hereios of the We're Here! group for inspiration.

 

Chair Sue Lawley preparing for the second Reith Lecture at the National Museum Cardiff on Thursday 13 May.

The BBC Radio Blackburn studio. Here the control room in 1974. Seen here two Thorens TD124 turntables with Lenco tonearms ! ( modification from mono to stereo? ) a AKG microfoon, a pair of Spotmasters? cardmachines. Two BTR or Otari BTR-5 taperecorders ?. Mixer of a unknown mark and brand, who knows? . This was all so the Dymo letterstickertape era because I spot a nummer of lettertape's on the mixer and the cards. Original posted on the net by Chopsaw ... in a forum off Lenco and other idler tuntables. The plateaus driven by a rubber capstan. Who is the lady at the controls? Feel free to react an correct.

The original Broadcasting House, which first came into service back in 1932, a mere 89 years ago! I've been working there since 2012, having spent my first six months at the Beeb doing the foreign language news programmes over at the much missed Bush House building.

 

It's a privilege to come in to such an iconic location to work every day, and I'm very glad that I've been able to continue recording and mixing programmes from what's become my home from home, studio S48 in New Broadcasting House throughout the pandemic ...

back at it's base - New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road

Weston-Super-Mare Railway Station

As the BBC Radio 2 Railshow headed south-west in the Summer of 1985, it stopped off at Weston-Super-Mare

 

First breakdown in 'transmission'. ..... The SIS Live truck!

 

More Carlisle photos here:

www.flickr.com/photos/davidambridge/sets/72157623465709620/

Some things go together so well: a John Shuttleworth tape and a Nakamichi deck...

Iconic, prestigious, demolished - not forgotten

Former home of BBC Radio

Caption is a catchphrase that I remember for my childhood by the late Jimmy Young on BBCRadio 2.

The answer is a batch of something hot seeing as the weather has turned bitterly cold and windy.

This is the room where I do my day job, mixing radio documentaries mainly for Radio 4 and the World Service.

New Broadcasting House, Oxford Road - opened in 1976 by the Prime Minister.

Sadly now gone - as have those who dwelt within (to Salford).

New, New Broadcasting House is in central London - the development of the BBC's HQ at Portland Place.

A classic BBC programme box. Sigh.

BBC Radio 1 Teen Choice Awards Wembley Arena London

 

Featuring: Perrie Edwards, Jade Thirlwall, Leigh-Anne Pinnock

Where: London, United Kingdom

When: 08 Nov 2015

Credit: Dan Sheils/WENN.com

Andy was being interviewed live for the BBC jazz programme 'Jazz Line-Up' on Radio 3. He was wearing headphones and his face was obscured by a huge microphone. As he was slowly answering the questions I watched how expressive his hands were in response. He sat with his horn across his lap - I couldn't resist this shot.

 

During the interview Andy's answers were a little slow in coming - he's so laid back. I guess you can afford to be laid back at 90 years of age...

An article Design by John Blake and Ken Garland on the revamp of the BBC magazine Radio Times. Images showing the various 'before and after' layouts - interesting to see the old programmes as well as the design and typography! The 'Home Service" I know (along with the 'Light' and the 'Third") but Network Three is a new one on me.

RAJAR Summary Document for UK radio ratings.

We've now got both gas and electricity, there are still homes in the 'wet' area of the village with neither though

 

More photos here

www.flickr.com/photos/davidambridge/sets/72157610028759072/

Olympics 2012

 

The Olympic Torch Relay arrives at Carlisle Cumbria. More photos from this set here: www.flickr.com/photos/davidambridge/sets/72157630232651060/

Photographs and words Copyright Teresa Reynolds 22/7/07

 

I left Home at 8 am in Faringdon in Oxfordshire on the 20th July 2007 for an important business meeting, on what I thought was just another average day, but a bit better because it was Friday! I got to Manchester at 12.30 - it was a bit of a slow journey going north due to Police rolling roadblocks on the M40 to keep the speed down in the torrential rain - believe me it was needed because 80% of the drivers thought they were cats with 9 lives still left and were driving like idiots! But it NEVER occurred to me that the journey home after the meeting just an hour later at just before 2pm would be even MORE eventful ... well TRUTHFULLY it was actually "less" eventful - well in fact NO events happened at all eventually!!!

 

I crawled down the M6 to find the signs telling me the M40 was shut - no problem I thought, I'll use the M5 instead and cut across at J 11a to Cirencester and go the "pretty way" home - I passed the point of no return J4A where the M5 joins the M42 ........At that stage I still thought I would make it home to see Stella get her "Come Uppance" on East Enders at 7.30 - but as time went on I though it might realistically be the 10pm repeat instead, but then as I crawled and then sat stationery on the M5 for over 16 hrs since leaving Manchester - along wth 10,000 other stranded motorists - I realised I would be lucky to get home in time for the Sunday omnibus!

 

The only link with the outside world was the noise of the occasional Sea King Helicopter overhead on it's way to rescue even more distressed and vulnerable people, & seeing fire engines towing inflatable boats down the hard shoulder, and BBC Radio for Herefordshire and Worcestershire trying to keep us informed - BLESS THEM they were absolutely fabulous!

 

The list of names of towns & villages affected, and road closures increased every hour. What started as a radio bulletin every 20 minutes with chatty bits and other reports in-between, ended up a bit like a recent Company "Go Kart" night ,that I attended on Wednesday evening, where the tail enders get overtaken & lapped by the race leaders and then you can't tell who is winning anymore!

 

The "every 20 minutes" bulletin turned into just one never-ending long list. Keeping up to date with the latest tragedies in nearby areas and trying to work out where these areas were, was like trying to play a normal game of Bingo but with 1000 different game cards (but to make life interesting these cards were all written in Russian & Cantonese!!!)

 

I was looking on the map for names of towns & villages I had never even heard of before - just the same as the other millions of people who use the M5 who have never heard of them either. The road closure details relating to A and B roads were a bit like birthday requests on the radio - only relevant to you if you know the Birthday Boy or Girl - and if not who cares!!!! BUT then suddenly you realised that the obscure elusive A & B roads DO mean something - yet another lifeline or a route of escape has been closed - then you suddenly realise that things are getting really very serious. When you first hit the gridlock you stay optimistic and keep the egine running and lights and radio on... you then turn off the lights but keep the engine running..... then finally you turn evewrything off conscious of the falling needle on the petrol gauge and an eerie quiet falls across the motorway.

 

But even the reassuring sight of the emergency services trying to get down the hard shoulder becomes a distant memory because of all those selfish ******S who's lives are obviously SOOOO FAR more important than mine or yours! Even a Tesco Lorry Driver decided he was ultra important and derserved preferential treatment! These morons thought they had a "God Given" Superior right to put on their hazard warning lights (most didn't even bother!) and try and run people over on the hard shoulder who were either stretching their cramped legs, walking their dog or even personally answering nature's call!

 

These nasty selfish people either thought that they could get home or somewhere else before us, or for some it was just a case of getting within walking distance of Strensham Services to get their Costarbucksneropretrepublic Coffee or a fast food carbs Burger Fix ..... Hope it choked them!!!

 

Didn't they know there were people stranded by the floods in Tewkesbury and other nearby areas that needed those boats, those fire engines, those ambulances. Didn't they care that their cars, vans, lorries & caravans were seriously putting real lives in jeopardy.

 

Their defence against their selfish acts of stupidity would probable be .... I needed the loo, I needed caffeine to stay awake, I hadn't eaten all day, I was running out of petrol, I had run out of cigarettes, i I was over the hours allowed on my Tachograph, I had a flight to catch, I had children in the car, I am diabetic, my mobile phone battery had died and I needed to call my family, . ,Did they know there was a lady in labour on the Motorway to whom the emergency services could not get to due to their selfish actions? I heard her husband on the Radio pleading for help - I believe there was a midwife nearby in another car and someone else gave up their towed caravan as a makeshift maternity unit! So what does one call a child born in the middle of flooding in a caravan on the M5 - Noah? I do hope it was a boy - Namaah does not have quite the same ring!!!! (By the way, if you're wondering what was realy the name of Noah's wife....even though it is not in the Bible, according to Jewish tradition, her name was Namaah.)

 

I know the Radio Station did their best - I know the Highways Agency and the emergency services were at breaking point - BUT the main source of info to the radio station was from us poor so & so's out on the Motorway - not them - I saw the Gloucestershire Chief Constable on the News on the TV last night - he defended the lack of communication from the Police by telling everyone it was the Highways Agency's problem as it was the Motorway and nothing to do with the Police!

 

IF ONLY someone had told us on the Radio - look you are not moving for at least 5-6 hrs - you are safe get your head down and have a nap - that would have been ok - but all we heard was that the closures and flooding were getting closer and closer to us - and that things were getting worse....

 

All I could think of was "when are they going to tell us to climb up the embankment - when are they going to tell us to leave our cars and start walking back up the motorway to avoid the floodwater?"

 

Instead we got nothing - and the more we heard about what was happening in communities either side of where we were trapped the more we worried about what was going to happen to us.....

A small children’s fan club badge issued by the Romany Society. The badge shows an image of Romany’s dog called Raq and the club’s initials R.S. Raq was a blue roan (silver and grey) English cocker spaniel ( www.romanysociety.org.uk/romanyhtml/romanyindex.html ). The Romany Society was set up in memory of Romany after his death in 1943 and continued until 1965. A Romany appreciation society was re-established in 1996 by Terry Waite as patron and Mrs Romany Watt (Romany’s daughter) and is still active.

 

Romany was Rev. George Bramwell Evans (1884-1943) who was a well known author of wildlife books that included the ‘Out with Romany’ series and wrote many newspaper articles about the countryside and its wildlife too. His works were aimed at educating children and had a considerable following. From 1932 to 1943 he had his own radio show called ‘Out with Romany’ on the BBC Children’s Hour and always accompanied by his travel companion, Raq. Sadly, only one recording of ‘Out with Romany’ survived but is available on CD entitled the ‘Lost Half Hour’. John Noakes followed a similar format with the BBC children's educational TV series of the 1970's called ‘Go with Noakes’ in which Shep the dog accompanied John on all his travels.

 

.

References:

 

www.romanysociety.org.uk/romanyhtml/romanyindex.html (Romany Appreciation Society website).

 

www.romanysociety.org.uk/romanyhtml/romanyindex.html (biographical article on George Bramwell Evans).

 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bramwell_Evens (Wikipedia article on George Bramwell Evans).

 

www.valleystream.co.uk/romany-bbc.htm (Romany’s involvement with the BBC and Terry Waite)

 

.

Enamels: 2 (green & white).

Finish: n/a.

Material: White metal.

Fixer: Buttonhole (horseshoe shaped clasp).

Size: 5/8” across x 5/8” down (about 16mm x 16mm).

Process: Die-stamped.

Maker: No maker’s name or mark.

 

Thank you for reading.

Stuart.

 

BBC Radio Merseyside's Roger Phillips speaks from the steps of St George's Hall during the 2014 Armistice Day Service of Remembrance

news.bbc.co.uk/local/liverpool/hi/tv_and_radio/newsid_823...

PAUL McCARTNEY: CHAOS AND CREATIONS IN THE STUDIO 2005 3 CD

All of Paul's appearances, outtakes and performances from the Chaos & Creation release! Radio, Televison, bonus tracks

and some interview material! This has it all!!! Jam packed! Includes Sold on Song, Virgin Breakfast Show, Front Row BBC4,

Zane Lowe, react Concert, French Radio, B-sides, Instrumentals, Radio Promo Mixes, Early Mixes, Adopt-a-Mindfield rehearsal,

London XFM Studios, BBCRadio, Sessions at AOL, BBCRadio Live8, Chaos & Creation at Abbey Road, Ellen and much more!

Approx 225 minutes 81 trackis! All in excellent stereo qulaity!!!

 

DISC ONE:

SOLD ON SONG BBC RADIO 2

01. Introduction

02. About Recording At Abbey Road

03. Friends To Go

04. In Spite Of All The Danger

05. Twenty Flight Rock

06. Things We Said Today

07. Too Much Rain

08. How Kind Of You

09. Band On The Run

10. Fine Line

11. Lady Madonna

12. English Tea

13. Heartbreak Hotel

14. Jenny Wren

15. Follow Me

16. Blackbird

17. Using The Mellotron

18. Strawberry Fields Forever

19. Anyway

20. Finale

  

DISC TWO:

ALBUM OUTTAKES

01. Comfort Of Love

02. Growing Up Falling Down

03. She Is So Beautiful

04. Summer Of ’59

05. I Want You To Fly

06. This Loving Game

 

VIRGIN BREAKFAST SHOW

07. Friends To Go

08. Follow Me

09. Too Much Rain

10. Paul Helps Annabel Part Finish A Song

11. Yellow Submarine

 

FRONT ROW, BBC RADIO 4

12. How Kind Of You

13. Jenny Wren #1

14. Jenny Wren #2

15. Lady Madonna

16. Anyway

 

ZANE LOWE, BBC RADIO1

17. Friends To Go

18. Anyway

19. I’ve Got A Feeling

 

LIVE AT THE REACT CONCERT

20. Fine Line

 

PROMOTIONAL RADIO EDIT

21. Jenny Wren (promo radio edit)

 

INSTRUMENTAL VERSIONS

22. Riding To Vanity Fair

23. At The Mercy

24. Anyway

 

ADOPT-A-MINEFIELD BENEFIT, L.A

25. Comfort Of Love (rehearsal)

 

EARLY MIX

26. Too Much Rain

 

LONDON XFM STUDIOS

27. Jenny Wren

28. How Kind Of You

29. Riding To Vanity Fair

 

L’INSTANT BLEU, FRENCH RADIO

30. How Kind Of You

  

DISC THREE:

UNKNOWN RADIO SOURCE

01. Jenny Wren vs. Blackbird

 

BBC RADIO, LONDON

02. How Kind Of You

03. Jenny Wren

04. Friends To Go

05. Riding To Vanity Fair

06. Follow Me

 

PIANO INSTRUMENTAL

07. I’ve Only Got Two Hands

 

VIDEO SOUNDTRACK

08. Jenny Wren

 

SESSIONS AT AOL

09. Fine Line

10. English Tea

11. Let It Be

12. Friends To Go

13. Follow Me

14. The Long And Winding Road

 

BBC RADIO “LIVE 8”

15. Lady Madonna & interview

 

ALBUM BONUS DVD

16. Fine Line (‘oopsed’ version)

17. Fine Line (‘mixdown’ version)

18. Chaos Session Snippets

19. Jenny Wren (instrumental)

20. Fine Line (piano intro)

 

TOUR REHEARSALS, MIAMI

21. Fine Line

22. English Tea

23. Follow Me

 

‘ELLEN’ TV SHOW

24. How Kind Of You (‘duet’ with Ellen)

25. Fine Line

26. English Tea

27. Get Back

 

XM SATELLITE RADIO

28. How Kind Of You

29. Fine line

30. Follow me

31. Bouree – Blackbird

BBC Radio Northampton, Abington Street, Northampton (not listed).

 

GOC East Midlands' walk on 18 February 2018. This was a 4.8-mile circular walk entirely within the town of Northampton in Northamptonshire. Fred F led the walk, which was attended by 12 people. You can view my other photos of this event, find out more about the Gay Outdoor Club or see my collections.

Newmarket Road, Cambridge

 

This photograph was taken in March 1983. The Rose and Crown pub on Newmarket Road is partly obscured by a billboard for the brand new local radio station, and some very retro-looking cars!