View allAll Photos Tagged progressive
Guitar legend Steve Hackett from last October's excellent 'Acolyte to Wolflight' gig at the Glasgow Royal Concert Hall.
Steve and his band have just started a North American tour. If you get the chance, go see them. :-)
My thanks are due to Steve and Jo Hackett for arranging my photo pass.
You can see other pics in my Steve Hackett set.
Progressive Conservatives, former Prime Minister of Canada, Joe Clark and current Senator Elaine McCoy (Alberta).
Ottawa, Parliament Hill, Centre Block, March 7, 2010.
Photo by M. Rehemtulla for QUOI Media Group.
do you like ? become a fan : Facebook Cyber Factory
enjoy our girls collection : sexy party babes
past & future editions : dance valley 2010 2009 2008 2007 ...
our next photoshoots : Cyber Factory party agenda
Go listen to my latest Progressive & Melodic Vibing DJ-Set
Do it now!
www.mixcloud.com/DIRTYANGEL/dirtyangel-elle-club-progress...
Progressive Jazz
Al Klink Quintet
The Bob Alexander Quintet
Grand Award Records/USA (1956)
Illustration by David Stone Martin
Second in a series of Blackwater NWR sunset shots. Some may not want to see different "versions" of the same scene, but I can't resist.
Happy Fourth of July!
The brilliant, wise, creative folks at Progressive Rail chose this classic image from my 2009 visit to the Iowa Traction Railroad in Mason City, IA as the July feature image in their 2016 corporate calendar.
A Happy Fourth to everyone at IATR, Progressive Rail and to all my Flickr friends
SW1500 #36 is working industries on the ex-MN&S High Line in Bloomington, MN on October 11, 2024. (misc 60912e)
As the Summer's End 2017 progressive rock festival draws near I've taken a look back at the 2016 event.
From left to right:
Angela Gordon, Heather Findlay and Martin Ledger of The Heather Findlay Band, Saturday 1st October 2016.
Hayley Griffiths and Enrico Pinna of Karnataka, Sunday 2nd October 2016.
Sean Timms of Damanek, Sunday 2nd October 2016
These photos represent only three of the twelve excellent bands that took part in last year's three-day musical celebration at Chepstow's Drill Hall.
Close to the Edge is the fifth studio album from the English progressive rock band "Yes".
It was released on 13th September 1972 .
Close to the Edge was a commercial and critical success for the band and is certified Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America for selling over one million copies.
-----------------------
abandoned sanatorium
"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.
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
The progressive lie in science and society.
‘Progressive’ politics originates from the ‘progressive’ evolution lie in science and society.
The essence of the ‘progressive’ lie, in science and in society, is a denial of both the intrinsic natural order, and the natural tendency towards physical and cultural/social entropy.
In hypothetical science, progressive cosmic and biological evolution deny the basic principles of causality and universal entropy, effectively undermining truth in science.
Although presented as science, they are both scientifically incongruous.
If your initial paradigm relies on the denial of fundamental scientific principles or natural law, it spectacularly fails. To call it ‘science’, discredits the perception of science as an objective search for truth.
To present an hypothesis wherein an effect is greater than its cause, and which requires a naturally occurring, autonomous increase in order, is preposterous fantasy.
Negating the effects of entropy, both physically and culturally, requires an active, sustained input, or renewal of, directed or guided effort/energy. (i.e. energy/effort + information, instructions or rules).
In the social and political field, indifference to, and denial or encouragement of, cultural entropy, masquerades as progressive.
Progressive politics derives from, and is allied to, this denial of intrinsic natural law and fundamental principles. By opposing or negating those guiding principles and rules, which are based on maintaining the natural order, it encourages and supports an insidious, social entropy, which inevitably undermines and ultimately destroys civilised society.
Just as the atheistic purveyors of physical evolution, cosmic and biological, posit the progressive development of order in the universe by denying the laws of cause and effect and entropy, which are fundamental principles of the natural order and science. So, the social allies of physical evolution, the purveyors of cultural and societal evolution, propose a progressive improvement of society, based on a similar denial of the natural order.
False equality and unjust denial of genuine equality:
Rejection of the natural order has spawned an insidious, egalitarian deception.
Demands are made that things which are clearly not equal should be treated as equal, and things that should be equal are denied their rightful equality.
Proponents of so-called, progressive policies seek to impose socially, and even legally, ideas of equality which ignore the natural order.
Equating things which are not equal, demanding equality for things which can never be equal, is quite bizarre, irrational and unscientific. That which violates the natural order is thereby elevated to parity with that which is in conformity with the natural order, diminishing the perception, approval and societal support of the latter.
It is a gross injustice to undermine and degrade social recognition and acceptance of the benefits of compliance with the natural order. Truth and error are not equitable, regardless of any legislation which decrees they should be treated as though they are..
A couple of examples:
False equality.
Same sex marriage...
Traditional marriage is undeniably compatible with the natural order, socially, scientifically and theologically.
Biologically, the reproductive, and only, purpose of complementary, sexual characteristics is irrefutable. This scientific fact has been traditionally recognised, socially and theologically, in the institution of marriage, throughout history. The only reason marriage exists is because of this biological fact. There cannot be legitimate equality for any so-called marriage/sexual partnership which is not based on this fundamental principle of the natural order.
The unjust denial of genuine equality:
Abortion...
Biology, through the study of genetics and embryonic development, decrees (without doubt) that a unique, human life begins at conception. There are no ifs or buts, this fact of the natural order is supported by science and, traditionally, through theology and the legal system.
Any denial of equality for unborn, human babies is illegitimate, grossly unjust, and contrary to basic human rights.
To ignore or dismiss the right to life of another human being, of any age, by claiming it is a matter of choice, is a diabolical distortion of truth and the natural order. There can be no cogent argument for legitimising abortion, because it is a fundamental issue of natural justice; which is beyond the jurisdiction of any authority. If a government does so, it is guilty of endorsing and encouraging a crime against humanity.
Progressive policies have undermined and devalued life, marriage, the family, national identity, financial independence and Biblical values, in the name of equality, freedom and choice.
Human institutions attempt to counter social entropy and maintain order through social constructs; tradition, convention, etiquette, customs, religion, contracts, charters, treaties, laws etc., but the enduring success of these depends on how closely they conform to the natural order.
The success of Western civilisation was mainly attributable to its clear understanding of physical and cultural entropy. Christianity was rightfully endorsed as the supreme antidote to cultural/social entropy.
This is perfectly logical because, as the Bible makes clear, physical entropy is the result of an originally, perfect creation sullied by sin.
Likewise, in society, sin is the cause of social entropy, it undermines the natural order and ultimately destroys civilisation. If you break rules which serve to maintain the natural order, you inevitably wreak havoc.
Christianity seeks to retain and, where necessary, restore natural order in society, combating the tendency towards social or cultural entropy by instilling principles and rules which respect and actively defend the natural order. Just as physical entropy is only negated by a sustained input of directed energy/effort, so social entropy is only negated by an enduring adherence to binding rules and principles. The adherence to such rules and principles by humans, who have a propensity to rebel against the natural order (behavioural entropy, inherited from our first parents; Adam and Eve), can only be reliably maintained by an input of spiritual energy/divine, sanctifying grace.
It is a perverse society, which applauds as ‘progressive’, those who rebel against, and deny, the natural order and laws, while appropriating science and culture to suit their regressive, ideological agenda (contrary to fairness, justice and basic human rights). Their denial of fundamental principles appears to be scientifically and socially legitimatised through corrupt, propagandised education, media hype, and intense political lobbying.
The arrogant claim of ‘progressives’, to hold the rational, scientific and ethical high ground, is bogus and dangerous.
The opposite is true.
To rail against the natural order is irrational and unethical. It undermines truth and unjustly denigrates everything which is compliant with the natural order. True science, morals and ethics must wholly respect fundamental principles and the natural order. Christian teaching is the supreme antidote to social entropy, being based on loving, maintaining, respecting and honouring the basic truths of the universe, evident in God’s creation.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/32557999087/in/dat...
If and then - the atheist dilemma.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/46553358861
The reason the elite hate Trump so much is because he is opposed to the one world agenda of the globalists.
endoftheamericandream.com/archives/the-reason-the-elite-h...
…civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience. Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. —St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 95, a. 2.
Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”
www.lepantoinstitute.org/abortion/former-satanist-i-perfo...
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...
Abortion is murder 100% proof.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrl9QQHY2vA&feature=youtu.be
Atheist myths debunked - the development of order.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/48113810438
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
A LEXICON OF INSTRUMENTS USED IN PERFORMING ABORTIONS OF HUMAN INFANTS.
abyssum.org/2019/06/22/a-lexicon-of-instruments-used-in-p...
Who trusts the MSM? Their lies are not just fake news, they deliberately set out to slander those who don’t agree with the liberal left, globalist elite. Their lies are positively evil. Everyone should watch this video and they will never trust the media again: banned.video/watch?id=5f00ca7c672706002f4026a9
Used this image without knowing what the flower was...managed to find out what it was after a bit of rooting about.
Thanks for the challenge and looking.
EDIT: Thanks for voting for my page and my placement.
Baseball is "America's favorite pass-time" and it would be mine today.
With so much pushback here at home in Chicago when it comes to drone flight, I decided to visit Cleveland Ohio. No problems with authorities whatsoever. I felt like an American with certain rights. The RIGHT to fly my Quadcopter. lol
I've been wanting to do Wrigley Field here locally. Perhaps in a few days. Stay tuned folks.
A former Iowa Interstate Railroad GP10 locomotive (orginally GN 605 - GP7) is seen with a string of empty coal hoppers in the Powder River Basin near Bill, Wyoming.
Snowman from Anita PomPoms, Whimsical Winter and Christmas is for the Birds Rosie's Designs. I made the wreaths using the pine-cone and poinsettia I made for the challenge.
... at Summer's End Progressive Rock Festival 2019, at the Drill Hall, Chepstow, Wales. District 97 "smashed it"!
Cover from Jethro Tull's Thick as a Brick (1972).
Original: img120.imageshack.us/img120/2830/draggedimage1iy3.jpg
Genesis / Selling England by the Pound
Side one:
- "Dancing with the Moonlit Knight" - 8:04
- "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)" - 4:10
- "Firth of Fifth" - 9:40
- "More Fool Me" - 3:13
Side two:
- "The Battle of Epping Forest" - 11:43
- "After the Ordeal" - 4:15
- "The Cinema Show" - 10:41
- "Aisle of Plenty" - 1:58
[All songs composed and arranged by Tony Banks, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, Steve Hackett, and Mike Rutherford.]
Tony Banks – keyboards, 12-string guitar
Mike Rutherford – 12-string guitar, bass, electric sitar
Peter Gabriel – vocals, flute, oboe, percussion
Steve Hackett – electric guitar, nylon guitar
Phil Collins – drums, assorted percussion, lead vocals on "More Fool Me", backing vocals
Studio: Island Studios, London (August 1973)
sleeve design: cover art by Betty Swanwick
Label: Charisma Records / 1973
ex Vinyl-Collection MTP
Sometimes things get lucky. While having lunch, saw neighbor building being painted. Obviously grabbed camera and took the shot. Cropped to get this view. While playing with picasa, zero tint position gave this feel. I liked the grain and pattern. One of most satisfying shot for me. :-)
Home of the 1st Place Cleveland Indians! Took this photo at last night's game against the Detroit Tigers. Photo taken in the Bottom of the 9th as Chris Perez was securing another Win!
This is a hand stitched Panorama using 3 images taken with my iPhone 4s.
Owned by: Progressive Waste Solutions in Tampa, FL
Chassis: Mack MRU TerraPro
Body manufacturer: E-Z Pack Hercules
Type of truck: Front end load garbage truck
Additional notes: This is the first Progressive Waste Solutions branded truck in the Tampa area.
Location of photo: Hillsborough County, FL
If you want to use this image, ask permission PRIOR to use. Don't be a thief - under most circumstances, I'm quite reasonable.
Copyright 2011 - Alan B.
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅʀɪᴘ ᴘʀᴇsᴇɴᴛs: ᴾᴿᴼᴳᴿᴱᔆᔆᴵⱽᴱ ᴴᴼᵁᔆᴱ – – -ⒻⓇⒾⒹⒶⓎ ⓋⒾⒷⒺⓈ- [thedripsocials.carrd.co ˢᴼᑦᴵᴬᴸˢ] [streamable.com/qisyhh ˢᴾᴼᴺˢᴼᴿˢ] Sponsors:[Move][TheSinner][The Bearded Guy][Valkyr][Canarun][Ckey Poses][no beans!][Habit Z][dby decor][BLOQ.] ════════════════════════ The true vibe @The Drip #TheDrip #SecondLifeEvents #TheDripSanctuary
Check it out: media-sl.com/progressive-house-the-drip/
Published on Media-SL.com
Shot during a cold, rainy weekday afternoon.
*** For the guessewherenyc group members trying to find this location, due to the angle these buildings span a few blocks at least one of the cross streets that these buildings are on would be good I think.
Some places are full of hidden treasure. The Progressive Rock Museum is one such place. When you land explore, take all the teleport destinations, climb and sit on whatever you can. The art exhibits are amazing, especially if you are a fan of rock music.
Wearing JRC Ripped Jeans $100L on the marketplace. Hair is Stealthic Paradox in Red $300L on the marketplace. Top is part of Layla’s Gigi outfit $500L on the marketplace.