Murphy's law in toto. The economy of the world is built on gold and U.S. dollars. Since 2000, the value loss is dramatic. All the experts were wrong. The debt of countries is increasing rapidly. Experts warn of global inflation 2010th
Topics: global crisis - Evolution or Creation - Science - Naturopathy
1. The global crisis
The estimated population of the United States is 308,001,758 so each citizen's share of this debt is $ 39,053 The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $ 3.97 billion per day since September 28, 2007! Video: Gold vs dollar 5:19
If the development does not reside and how it came about, why all the experts have failed, why we have been misinformed and what's behind it?
Loss Gold Value
Mark Achbar - Jennifer Abbott - Professor Dr. Joel Bakanin
The film has been prepared by legal scholar Prof. Dr. Joel Bakan wrote and by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott produziert. In the film, the capital companies are regarded as real people. The companies are investigated according to the DSM - IV - Guidelines for the mental state of a person. The result:All the criteria for severe mental disorders apply to capitalcompanies.Dr. Robert Hare, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia and FBI consultant, concludes that a clinically equivalent profitgeleiteter Group is a psychopath. The film also includes interviews with prominent critics of capitalism such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and opinions of well-known CEOs such as RayAnderson, the views of Peter Drucker and Milton Friedman and other advocates of free market economy such as the Fraser Institute. Furthermore, is Dr Samuel Epstein, the company Monsanto. Interviewed
". ... The citizens of democratic societies need to take courses for intellectual self-defense, to defend themselves against manipulation and control to be able to ..." Noam Chomsky- 2005 Elections to the world's leading intellectuals
"In today's world by equipping the institutions with legislation, economic rights of real people. But when a company is a person - what is it for a person? The Corporation is a troubling response: the company is "a person who is pathological by nature and according to the law, and systematically destroyed the democracy, freedom, human rights and the natural instincts, of which a life of dignity and even the survival of depend on humanity. "" To date there have been no legal proceedings against the authors of the film. There are three reasons: 1st The film tells the truth; 2nd, the focus of the film is the institution, not individuals, and 3rdthe screenwriter and Co creator of the film, Joel Bakan, is a very smart law professor. "
Internationally recognized experts are convinced that the cause of the global crisis psychopaths are
Ph. D. Volker Faust.
"If I could not study psychopaths in prison, would be my next choice probably the stockmarket." Dr. Robert Hare,
Dr. Hare describes in his books, as demonstrated in studies in detail the antisocial personality, image and lifestyle of the psychopath: hypocritical and superficial, egocentric and grandiose, without remorse and guilt, deceitful and manipulative. His social behavior is impulsive, uncontrolled, on a constant quest for excitement (the "kick"), irresponsibility, combined with indifference to pain and suffering of fellow human beings.
Such behavior is shown at an early age. In a sensational trial, the renowned psychologist and expert on psychopaths, research shows that the psychopaths among us. "It is not too difficult to draw parallels between a psychopathic individual, and the behavior of many top managers." Failure to repent, an exaggerated self-esteem and the indifference to the suffering of others are classical characteristics of psychopaths, sociopaths, serial killers and other mental ill violent offenders.
Curiously, encountered Dr. Hare on these distinctive symptoms even at a very special place: On Wall Street. The Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and Hannibal Lecter were among us. "" And not as a solitary bizarre beings, as we know from the literature or the cinema, but as a seemingly ordinary people, whom we meet occasionally. "
According to Dr. Hare at least one percent of people are psychopaths. Dr. Hare, the chapter devoted to them "psychopaths in the business world" and describes psychopathic investment advisors, businessmen and crooked lawyers, education and relationships used to bring people and institutions without the use of violence for their money - with devastating consequences for society.
Dr. Hare recognizes these symptoms even in corporations. Many companies acted recklessly, and beziehungsunfähig behaved fraudulently. "If we consider a company as a legal person, it is not too difficult to draw parallels between a psychopath and a psychopathic individual, group," said Hare. Since psychopaths in terms of what they can do or will do to get to the point, no restrictions to know all hierarchies inevitably be predominantly held at their head with psychopaths. Behind the apparent insanity of contemporary history, the actual insanity of psychopaths fighting to preserve the matter is, their disproportionate power, while we behave like sheep. "
Together with Dr. Hare, Prof. Dr.Babiak, industrial and organizational psychologist, studied the behavior of extreme personalities: people act to act, the brilliant from the outside, in their environment, but destructive. Among felons fall, but surprisingly often, companies bosses. About one percent of managers are clinical psychopaths, Dr. Babiak estimates, far more have psychopathic traits.
Prof. Dr. Volker Faust, from the Center for Psychiatry at the University of Ulm, expects to ten percent of humanity. According to Dr. Faust, they are because of their clout and ruthlessness in association leaders, top managers and politicians well above represent.
With her lively imagination psychopaths who come are caught in a lie, not upset. They seldom perplexed or embarrassed to respond - they simply change their stories or try to reinvent the circumstances, so that they fit to the lie. Contradictory statements that confuse the listener, they do not interfere. Often they are even proud of their ability to lie. For failures not ashamed of the psychopath. He remains moralizing, even when he was caught in the wrongdoing. Is a sign of "repentance" helpful, it is easily carried out - with a request for a "second chance". More: Little by little is being labeled a misdemeanor into a special experience that makes its owners are not humble, but proud. The sinner caught more so to become an expert in moral issues. .
Psychopaths feel noremorse, they have an inborn genetic defect that they each emotional action difficult. This deficit can be detected by a brain scan! Psychopathic individuals show this in the right hemisphere as well as no response. It is precisely this region, but is regarded as the origin of our feelings.
Does this mean that psychopaths for their actions are not to blame? Then are also bankers and top managers with similar symptoms do not take accountability for their actions? Psychologists and judges are unanimous on this point: Psychopaths know exactly what they do. You are not crazy. Even though they know it, they have no concern for laws or social rules around! They often appear confident and eloquent. Even their body language is usually effective. Intense eye contact, one of them. Their show can be so effective, that they manage to seem unimportant to the spoken word. "I have mitgekriegt not everything, but he said it so beautifully," recalls a sore from a psychopathic woman. "He has such a wonderful smile."
It thus gives a plausible answer to the questions: Why are there no matter how much more intelligent and good will exists in the world, so much war, suffering and injustice? How did it come to today's crisis? It seems not to matter what creative plan, what ideology, religion, or philosophy great minds come up again and again. The answer is: This is the work of psychopaths.
Who controls the world? - What is truth and what is dream and lie to the conspiracy theories? -This one must have seen the following videos. Only then should form his opinion. I myself am not at all points of view of producers.
Peter Joseph - pseudonymous
"Zeitgeist" is a documentary produced by Peter Joseph, who has 3 main parts. 1st Christianity, 2nd the attacks of 11 September2001 , and 3rd the link between finance and the war economy
The argument of Pruduzenten of the film: Our society is structured and controlled by organizations. Political organizations, business organizations, religious organizations, social organizations, international ... ... National, Regional .. . In this structure, we are born into and conditioned. That is our reality and that reality is not questioned. Hardly a man is able to imagine a different world, really, that could be built without these organizational structures.
The biggest problem in fact is the money system, the financial organizations, questioned the least, and through them. Our economic system is apparently fundamentally necessary for our daily well-being, and it seems inconceivable that this system is exactly the reason for the ever-increasing global impoverishment and enslavement. And even today, where everyone lived like the system itself fully determined by greed corrupt our entire society, but such knowledge and ideas are suppressed quickly restored. Because this system is so powerful and so monumental for our society, this is a change of almost inconceivable.
In a world where collected 1% of world population 40% of all income in a world where 34,000 children die every day due to poverty and preventable diseases, and 50% of the population live on an income below $ 2 per day needs, is one clear: Something is going very wrong in this system!
And whether we are now aware or not, the blood of all our organizations and institutions, the blood of our lives is money! Therefore, it is very important to understand how the money system really works, because only then we realize why our life on earth is what it is.
" Zeitgeist Addendum " is, as the first film, divided into 4 main parts, which to testify that: is "The core of all problems in our world's monetary system, which generates an infinite debt and forcing us to pull all the decisions and actions in our lives finance profit target. Thus, we waste (consciously or unconsciously) a lot of our energy with selfish, corrupt conduct, instead of enjoying freedom in the common development of mankind in harmony with nature can. Politics, religion and other laws are never a way to solve societal problems or to bring about a change. They are only a symptom of the corrupt profit structure of capitalism. "" The technology is the real key to solving the key global issues such as food and energy. The technological development would not profit-oriented special resources designed to disappear if all the environmentally destructive technologies and the abundant resources can be optimally used on our planet.
The reasoning based on the concepts of Jacque Fresco and his Venus Project which has been integrated as an overall concept in Zeitgeist Addendum and the more than half of the film are constructed. treat The main parts:
Zeitgeist Addendum Part1: Modern Money Mechanics: A few years ago, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States a document entitled has "MODERN MONEY MECHANICS published", which the emergence of money and the principle of "fractional reserve banking" (Low Reserve ) explained. The first part of Zeitgeist Addendum is based on this paper and shows the great illusion of the (nonexistent) money at levels that are traded in our system.
Zeitgeist Addendum Part 2: The trap of debt and fear: John Perkins, former "Economic Hit Man" of the United States and known for his book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: On the road to serve the economic mafia" has visited the U.S. for twelve years in developing countries with the aim of making them dependent on lending. Then he woke up and got out. Today, it provides deep insight into the network of modern economic mafia. The second part of Zeitgeist Addendum explains the debt trap, is enslaved by the society and our world is reduced to a plaything of the rich elite. He is the founder of Dream Change, a worldwide movement to promote a shift in consciousness wants and is committed to sustainable lifestyles of individual and global communities.
John Perkins describes in the film, like the U.S. poor countries into the debt trap drives to remove them from then mercilessly. Along historical data it brings international political relationships in a new light, and explains the corrupt network of industry, banks and governments. It shows why globalization benefits only a small elite and enslaving poor countries and also destroyed their local markets and poisoned their environment. The system drives the poor countries deeper into poverty.
Zeitgeist Addendum Part 3: The solution is: "Resource-profit-oriented rather than" Im the third part comes now to speak Jacque Fresco. Jacque Fresco is an engineer, architect, designer and social life of developed concepts. A futurist with a positive vision and the desire to complete created that brings everyone in society to maximize benefits. His publications and concepts dealing with holistic planning sustainable cities, energy efficiency, use of natural resources through advanced automation technology, everything is always with a focus on the benefit of society.
Zeitgeist Addendum Part4: The evolution calls into new realities unfolding! Everything in nature is ever-changing and unfolds in nature and everything living in symbiosis with each other and can not exist separately. The "intellectual materialism" However, let us stick to our belief systems and forms a barrier to change. And we've created this system to keep us himself in this dream of stability. We have become blind to the real reality, and run like sheep about, which is not even a guardian as we need ourselves caught hold in this state by people and we reject dissenting ausgrenzen.Da in an unfolding universe, but there is no resistance, our system collapse and transform themselves. At the end there Zeitgeist Addendum concrete proposals on how to support a change from the current system
Dr. G. Edward Griffin
During the first three hours, writer and documentary film producer G. Edward Griffin explained how the Federal Reserve system is primarily responsible for our economic crisis. He shared facts about the secret meeting where the Fed was created, and the surprising reality of the Fed's structure and purpose. In 1910, plans for the Federal Reserve were drawn up on Jekyll Island, a resort island off Georgia, that was privately owned by a group of billionaires. At the time, the United States faced severe problems with banking in individual states, and voters were demanding reform. But what was created with the Federal Reserve amounted to a "banking cartel," said Griffin.
The Fed doled out regulations under the guise of a governmental agency, but was actually serving to benefit the members of its own group, he alleged. The members of the "cartel" are technically Americans, said Griffin-- the owners of the Federal Reserve System are the member banks in the US, but in many cases we don't know who the controlling interests are of some of the largest banks in America. The Rockefellers remain a banking dynasty, but " I'm sure if we were able to peel back all the layers we would find there's an interlock with European financial interests as well, " he commented. The move today is to coalesce all the world's banking into a global system, and it's quite out in the open, he added. Government/politicians spend more money than they take in in taxes, so they continue borrowing, building up the national debt, Griffin explained. The Fed's loan money to the government in a convenient partnership between the two, yet the Fed is often creating funds out of thin air, he revealed. The Fed's allow private banks to have only 10% in reserves, and lend up to 90%, creating more money out of nothing, which amounts to a license to steal, as they collect on the interest, he continued. The fallacy of the system is that "the money supply must continually expand in order to create the appearance of prosperity," he noted.
The total money scam. The government can only tax it's people so much. So whatever extra money they want, they get the FED to print or create out of thin air. This devalues the dollars you hold in your hand, thus is the inflation tax. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY person in Washington that would guarantee an end to this. This is THE ISSUE OF OUR DAY and our nation hangs in the balance of a MAJOR financial meltdown. The money changers of our day are running short on tricks and we need a return to sound money. Ron Paul. www.mises.org Murray Rothbard - What Has Government Done to Our Money more Videos
From the beginning of known history, man has own the earth and its inhabitants exploited, suppressed and destroyed. Power - money - nationalism - ideologies are the reasons. The self-healing forces of our planet until 200 years ago more or less compensated. From the beginning of the industrial age, they are overwhelmed and capitulate. Until a few months ago was, even by reputable scientists, disputed. Always new hypotheses were put forward in order to deceive and to calm. That no longer works now.
Ozone hole - Van Allen Belt - CO2 - Desert - Arctic / Antarctica - Gulf Stream Collapse - Climate catastrophe - Rainforest dying words are, the facts of this unprecedented time supply. Extinktionsrate The (species) of flora and fauna, with 17,000 to 100,000 per year, which are 47 to 278 species per day. The World Conservation Union IUCN cites figures of animals and plants from 3 to 130 per day. The extermination of native peoples, especially in forested areas continues and the world makes the eyes .
For thousands of years in many cultures, from a prophetic "time of the end" of humanity's speech, each of which clearly would be recognized. In this end time would create the conditions for life are disappearing, such as healthy food, healthy water, healthy air. Detailed statements of the Indian tribes in America testify das Holy books of various religions - the Bible and Tanach - you can find such prophecies. See: Prophet Daniel - Matthew 24 - Luke 21 - Mark 13 - Revelation of Jesus Christ. The times that the head in the sand are gone. The sand is away. The reality has given us up
Medicine is now commercialized and part of the global economy - and political system. The goal: control & money. The ruler of this system are few individuals and families. Long time there were many more secrets. Now, much of the Internet revealed. Something to talk about it or write is still not safe. Who dares, it should think of the following:
USA 60% - Germany 30%
The Founding Fathers on Creation and Evolution - David Barton 2008
While uninformed laymen erroneously believe the theory of evolution to be a product of Charles Darwin in his first major work of 1859 (The Origin of Species), the historical records are exceedingly clear that the evolution-creation-intelligent design debate was largely formulated well before the birth of Christ. Numerous famous writings have appeared on the topic for almost two thousand years; in fact, our Founding Fathers were well-acquainted with these writings and therefore the principle theories and teachings of evolution – as well as the science and philosophy both for and against that thesis – well before Darwin synthesized those centuries-old teachings in his writings.
Nobel-Prize winner Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) explains: “The general idea of evolution is very old; it is already to be found in Anaximander (sixth century B.C.). . . . [and] Descartes [1596-1650], Kant [1724-1804], and Laplace [1749-1827] had advocated a gradual origin for the solar system in place of sudden creation.” 1 Professor Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935), a zoologist and paleontologist, agrees, declaring that there are “ancient pedigrees for all that we are apt to consider modern. Evolution has reached its present fullness by slow additions in twenty-four centuries.” 2 He continues, “Evolution as a natural explanation of the origin of the higher forms of life . . . developed from the teaching of Thales [624-546 B.C.] and Anaximander [610-546 B.C.] into those of Aristotle [384-322 B.C.]. . . . and it is startling to find him, over two thousand years ago, clearly stating, and then rejecting, the theory of the survival of the fittest as an explanation of the evolution of adaptive structures.” 3 And British anthropologist Edward Clodd (1840-1930) similarly affirms that, “The pioneers of evolution – the first on record to doubt the truth of the theory of special creation, whether as the work of departmental gods or of one Supreme Deity, matters not – lived in Greece about the time already mentioned: six centuries before Christ.”
Aristotle - Diogenes - Empedoles - Anaxagora - Anaximander - Suarez - Osborn - Russel
For example, Anaximander (610-546 B.C.) introduced the theory of spontaneous generation; Diogenes (412-323 B.C.) introduced the concept of the primordial slime; Empedocles (495-455 B.C.) introduced the theory of the survival of the fittest and of natural selection; Deomocritus (460-370 B.C.) advocated the mutability and adaptation of species; the writings of Lucretius (99-55 B.C.) announced that all life sprang from “mother earth” rather than from any specific deity; Bruno (1548-1600) published works arguing against creation and for evolution in 1584-85; Leibnitz (1646-1716) taught the theory of intermedial species; Buffon (1707-1788) taught that man was a quadruped ascended from the apes, about which Helvetius also wrote in 1758; Swedenborg (1688-1772) advocated and wrote on the nebular hypothesis (the early “big bang”) in 1734, as did Kant in 1755; etc. It is a simple fact that countless works for (and against) evolution had been written for over two millennia prior to the drafting of our governing documents and that much of today’s current phraseology surrounding the evolution debate was familiar rhetoric at the time our documents were framed.
Dr. Henry Osborn (1857-1935), curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, identifies four periods of evolution
I. Greek Evolution – 640 B.C. to 1600 A.D.; II. Modern Evolution – 1600-1800 A.D.; III. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1730-1850 A.D.; and IV. Modern Inductive Evolution – 1858 to the present.
5 He describes the third period in the history of evolution – the period in which our Framers lived – as a period which produced the pro-evolution writings of Linnaeus, Buffon, E[rasmus] Darwin, Lamarck, Goethe, Treviranus, Geof. St. Hilaire, St. Vincent, Is. St. Hilaire. Miscellaneous writers: Grant, Rafinesque, Virey, Dujardin, d’Halloy, Chevreul, Godron, Leidy, Unger, Carus, Lecoq, Schaafhausen, Wolff, Meckel, Von Baer, Serres, Herbert, Buch, Wells, Matthew, Naudin, Haldeman, Spencer, Chambers, Owen.”6
In the non-theistic camp, Empedocles (495-435 B.C.) was the father and original proponent of the evolution theory, followed by advocates such as Democritus (460-370 B.C. ), Epicurus (342-270 B.C.), Lucretius (98-55 B.C.), Abubacer (1107-1185 A.D.), Bruno (1548-1600), Buffon (1707-1788), Helvetius (1715-1771), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), Lamarck (1744-1829), Goethe (1749-1832), Lyell (1797-1875), etc.
In the theistic camp, Anaxigoras (500-428 B.C.) was the father of intelligent design; that same belief was also expounded by such distinguished scientists and philosophers Descartes (1596-1650), Harvey (1578-1657), Newton (1642-1727), Kant (1729-1804), Mendel (1822-1884), Cuvier (1769-1827), Agassiz (1807-1873), etc. Significantly, even Charles Darwin (1809-1882), strongly influenced by the writings of Paley (1743- 1805), 7 embraced the intelligent design position at the time that he wrote his celebrated word, explaining:
Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty, or rather impossibility, of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species.
The second camp within the theistic approach is theistic evolution, which was first propounded by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Other prominent expositors of this view included Gregory of Nyssa (331-396 A.D.), Augustine of Hippo (354-430 A.D.), St. Gregory the First (540-604 A.D.), St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Leibnitz (1646-1716), Swedenborg (1688-1772), Bonnet (1720-1793), and numerous contemporary scientists. In fact, many of Darwin’s contemporaries embraced this view, believing that “natural selection could be the means by which God has chosen to make man.”
Ph. D. Michael Behe
What do mouse traps, molecular biology, blood clotting, Rube Goldberg machines, and irreducible complexity have to do with each other? At first glance they seem to have little if anything to do with each other. However, they are all part of a recent book by Free Press titled, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution by Michael Behe. Michael Behe is a biophysics professor at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and his book, released last summer, has been causing a firestorm of activity in academic circles ever since.
The stranglehold that Darwinism has had in the biological sciences for decades has already been weakened over the last 30 years due to the new creationist movement and more recently by the push from intelligent design theorists. But Behe's new book may end up being the straw that broke the camel's back. Usually books like these are released by Christian publishers or at least a secular press that is small and willing to take a chance. Also, creationist books are rarely sold in secular bookstores or reviewed in secular publications. Darwin's Black Box has gained the attention of evolutionists not normally accustomed to responding to anti- evolutionary ideas in the academic arena. People like Niles Eldredge from the American Museum of Natural History, Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, Richard Dawkins of Oxford University and author of The Blind Watchmaker, Jerry Robison of Harvard University, and David Hull from the University of Chicago have all been forced to respond to Behe either in print or in person.
In summary, the reason for all this attention is that they readily admit that Behe is clearly a reputable scientist from a reputable institution and his argument is therefore more sophisticated than they are accustomed to hearing from creationists. Mild, backhanded compliments aside, they unreservedly say he is flat wrong, but they have gone to much greater lengths in the literature, from the podium, and in the electronic media to explain precisely why they think he is wrong. Creationists and intelligent design theorists are usually dismissed out of hand, but not Behe's Darwin's Black Box.
The famous philosopher Karl Popper proposed falsifiability of a theory as a criterion to distinguish scientific from non-scientific theories. 'Falsifiability' means that a theory must be able to be refuted by at least some real-life observations. A falsifiable theory is a scientific theory and an unfalsifiable theory is not a scientific theory at all. Potential falsifiers of neo-Darwinism are seldom published by neo-Darwinists. When asked what finding would make him question his belief in evolution, J.B.S. Haldane answered: 'a Precambrian rabbit' (39). There should be more interesting and more risky falsifiers than that! Why don't we read more of them? Too risky? Too difficult? Not interesting enough? Or is neo-Darwinism unfalsifiable? Even when falsifiability is not the only or the best criterion for judging a scientific theory, it is still a powerful criterion. It forces us to specify what things should and should not happen. A good theory should forbid things. The more, the better. If there aren't things that are forbidden, then everything is permitted to happen or to exist. And then we have no scientific theory at all.
Biochemist Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box. The biochemical challenge to evolution (1996) specifies a few things that exist and should not exist according to neo-Darwinism. Behe assumes neo-Darwinism claims :
1. every organism and every structure in an organism is the result of natural selection. How could there be exceptions? There is no alternative. By consequence whatever structure or organism you specify: neo-Darwinism should be able to explain it (42).
2. every complex structure must be accessible by small mutational steps. This is basic to the genetical theory of natural selection.
3. every step must be beneficial for the organism, in order to have a reasonable chance to be selected (32).
Stepwise These are hard constraints on all possible neo-Darwinistic explanations. Stepwise creation and the beneficial nature of intermediate steps are the most important building blocks of the neo-Darwinist explanation of the adaptations of living organisms. Through Behe's account one starts to realise that these rules are strong constraints indeed. Contrary to what the textbooks seem to tell us, evolution is not easy and surely evolutionary improvement and innovation are not inevitable. The picture that Behe paints is not a distortion of neo-Darwinism. It is neo-Darwinism in a nutshell: "If there is no stepwise path up the mountain, natural selection won't climb it" as evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith pointed out (9).
Evolutionary intermediates represented a central preoccupation for Charles Darwin in his case for the theory of evolution. He remarked, for example: '...why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?' (On the Origin of Species). Although Darwin developed a convincing rationale for their absence, he did realize that the lack of intermediates as proof leaves room for criticism. He noted, for instance: 'If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.' (On the Origin of Species) (45). So, Behe just followed up Darwin's suggestion.
Ph. D. W. Brown
This greatly expanded new edition—comprehensive, understandable, and meticulously documented—will give insights to readers of all backgrounds. In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood takes a different look at a currently hot topic. Evidence that could revolutionize our understanding of origins is carefully explained. You will be challenged to consider fresh ideas in this age-old debate.
Part I of In the Beginning discusses, in quick overview, 131 categories of evidence from biology, astronomy, and the physical and earth sciences. More technical discussions and documentation are found in the author’s extensive endnotes. * Does the scientific evidence support evolution or creation? * What insights do genetics and the fossil record provide? * How old is the earth? What dating techniques indicate a young earth? * What discoveries in outer space relate to our beginnings? * Does Noah’s Ark exist? What is the CIA’s “Ararat Anomaly”?
Part II describes the hydroplate theory, developed during more than 35 years of study by Dr. Walt Brown, a former evolutionist. This theory explains a catastrophic event in earth’s history and solves a host of recognized problems. For decades, evolutionists complained that creationists only criticized evolution and did not offer sound scientific theories of their own. The hydroplate theory ends that complaint and explains, with overwhelming evidence, earth’s defining geological event—a worldwide flood. * If there was a global flood, where did the water come from? Where did it go? * What were the powerful fountains of the great deep? * How was the Grand Canyon carved in weeks after a post-flood lake (Grand Lake) breached? * What evidence shows that the material in comets, asteroids, and meteoroids came from Earth? * What suddenly froze and buried the mammoths? How could they have survived the 6-month winter nights inside the Arctic Circle? * How did mountains ranges, volcanoes, submarine canyons, coal and oil deposits, and deep ocean trenches form? * What processes sorted fossils and produced layered strata?
Thirty-seven other frequently asked questions fill a fascinating Part III, including: * Is global warming occurring? If so, what causes it? * Have scientific tools detected traces of Adam and Eve within us? * Is evolution compatible with the Bible? * How accurate is radiocarbon dating? * What about the dinosaurs? * How can the study of creation be scientific? * Is there life in outer space? * Galaxies are billions of light-years away, so isn’t the universe billions of years old? * What hydroplate predictions have been confirmed?
Materialism calls three different positions from what here in the connection the first form of importance is: the EPISTEMOLOGICAL or materialism ONTOLOGISCHE. He sees the whole reality monistisch, on one single basic principle, built up: the matter. The materialism assumes from the fact that all processes and phenomena of the world, e.g., also thoughts and ideas, manifestations of the matter are or can be led back on those . He explains the person who allow to verify him surrounding world and in her running off processes without spiritual or immaterial elements - as for example God - whose existence to itself with the methodology of the natural sciences in particular to the experiment, do not check - or falsify.
ATHEISM as a world view became popular and herewith had found his scientific grounds. There was him though already much earlier in all societies, but only now he could gain in the modern civilisation properly a foothold. The theoretical bases for the birth of the MATERIALISM of the COMMUNISM of the NATIONAL SOCIALISM of the ANARCHY were born and a corollary of the theory of evolution.
Evolution says, that living beings originated according DNA from mutations changes him, develop constantly, and have arrived in a certain stage of development. They would be in the constant fight against other life forms such as bacteria, bacilli, microbes, mushrooms, worms, viruses. Scientists, here particularly the doctors found with it her authorisation to research to improve life forms and with non-function = illness, to intervene accordingly. Programmes heavy to milliard are put on to develop newer and newer methods and drugs.
By the refusal of a creator one felt in addition entitled and obliged, with all living beings which are chance products to experiment. One does not use, e.g., any more fully functioning life forms - person or animal - as a spare parts store = organ grafts. To the test of new drugs one uses people - volunteers against payment - prisoners - soldiers or patients without their knowledge - and defenceless animals.
Where from came first "a little bit"? Old horse 30 cm - to C14 - 50,000,000 years old - how a horse today!???
Explanation of the concepts
The impression is conveyed by the media that the theory of evolution is indisputable worldwide among scientists. This is not the case. In increasing measure and not only in the USA, announce themselves critical voices. A concept appears to the topic over and over again: Intelligently design. He stands for:However, CREATION, does not mean unambiguously: by a PERSONAL CREATOR. Many leading scientists and also the author do not divide this understanding. For them a PERSONAL CREATOR has created after plan, in a production process, perfect and completely ready KINDS of plant animals - people by a unique CREATION ACT generated.
Scientists against evolution
Planck as well as Einstein represent the intelligent origin of the universe, namely after Einstein by an 'infinite spiritual being of higher nature', by 'to the human endlessly the best mind' etc. or with Plancks to words by a 'deliberate intelligent mind', and by 'one in wisdom to us sky-high much better being', as well as by the 'ideal mind', I. E. to Planck by “ God “.
Ph. D. W. Heisenberg / 1932 Nobel Prize " The first drink from the cup of science makes atheist, but at the bottom of the beaker waits God."
“To avoid possible misunderstandings, would be marked that it concerns with none of the following cited Nobel Prize Laureates"Kreationisten"sensustricto. Of my knowledge none of these researchers thinks that the universe, the earth and the life were created on it in 6 literal hourly days 24 and were maximum 10,000 years old etc. However, most accept the Big anxious model in combination with the teleological Anthropischen principle (divine flat - Eccles,"supernatural" flat - Penzias) with the milliards belonging in addition years. Even if the general theory of evolution is accepted in several cases, the today's models are rejected, nevertheless, often to the origin of the life and the synthetic theory of evolution as insufficient.
From the possibilities and borders of the scientific ID theory, hence, still untouched, several of the Nobel Prize Laureates cited below still go out this, while they identify the designer unmistakably with God and speak of "religiousimpulse" and similar. The title is in view of the modern ID theory quite often an understatement, nevertheless, becomes of the etymology of the concepts Intelligently a design to which we limit ourselves here, in the teleological basic question fair. .By scientific Nobel Prize Laureates it is supposed very often that they are without exception atheists (at best still Pantheisten), basically the view of an intelligent origin of the universe and the life as "absolutely unscientific", "behind" and"kreationistisch" decline würden*. Would the in the following performed scientific Nobel Prize Laureates all"Kreationisten" for the question after the intelligent origin of the universe as well as for the direct or (from the intelligent constitution of the matter following) not be, nevertheless, from this view an indirect creation of the life?
To avoid possible misunderstandings, nevertheless, I should mark already beforehand that it concerns with none of the following cited Nobel Prize Laureates "Kreationisten"sensustricto. Of my knowledge none of these researchers thinks that the universe, the earth and the life were created on it in 6 literal hourly days 24 and were maximum 10,000 years old etc. However, most accept the Big anxious model in combination with the teleological Anthropischen principle (divine flat - Eccles,"supernatural" flat - Penzias) with the milliards belonging in addition years. Even if the general theory of evolution is accepted in several cases, the today's models are rejected, nevertheless, often to the origin of the life and the synthetic theory of evolution as insufficient. My concentration on the scientific Nobel Prize Laureates affects the fact in no manner that there are hundreds of other excellent scientists whom one could also cite in this sense. The reader interested in it finds in the tape of Henry Margenau and Roy Abraham Varghese in addition many examples.” (In 1992/1994): Cosmos, biology, Theos. OpenCourt publishing Company. Chicago and LaSalle, Illinois
The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences
Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS
Maciej Giertych Full Professor, Institute of Dendrology Polish Academy of Sciences
Lev Beloussov Prof. of Embryology, Honorary Prof., Moscow State University Member, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences
Eugene Buff Ph.D. Genetics Institute of Developmental Biology, Russian Academy of Sciences
Emil Palecek Prof. of Molecular Biology, Masaryk University; Leading Scientist Inst. of Biophysics, Academy of Sci., Czech Republic
K. Mosto Onuoha Shell Professor of Geology & Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Univ. of Nigeria Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Science
Ferenc Jeszenszky Former Head of the Center of Research Groups Hungarian Academy of Sciences
M.M. Ninan Former President Hindustan Academy of Science, Bangalore University (India)
Denis Fesenko Junior Research Fellow, Engelhardt Institute of Molecular Biology Russian Academy of Sciences (Russia)
Sergey I. Vdovenko Senior Research Assistant, Department of Fine Organic Synthesis Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry and Petrochemistry Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences (Ukraine)
Henry Schaefer Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry University of Georgia
Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University
Israel Hanukoglu Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Chairman The College of Judea and Samaria (Israel)
Alan Linton Emeritus Professor of Bacteriology University of Bristol (UK)
Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University
David W. Forslund Ph.D. Astrophysics, Princeton University Fellow of American Physical Society
Robert W. Bass Ph.D. Mathematics (also: Rhodes Scholar; Post-Doc at Princeton) Johns Hopkins University
John Hey Associate Clinical Prof. (also: Fellow, American Geriatrics Society) Dept. of Family Medicine, Univ. of Mississippi
Daniel W. Heinze Ph.D. Geophysics (also: Post-Doc Fellow, Carnegie Inst. of Washington) Texas A&M University
Richard Anderson Assistant Professor of Environmental Science and Policy Duke University
David Chapman* Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Giuseppe Sermonti Professor of Genetics, Ret. (Editor, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum) University of Perugia (Italy)
Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York
Marcos N. Eberlin Professor, The State University of Campinas (Brazil) Member, Brazilian Academy of Science
Albert Einstein Nobel prize for physics in 1921
Max Planck Nobelprize for physics in 1918
Werner Heisenberg Nobelprize for physics in 1932
William D. Phillips Nobelprize for physics in 1997
Richard Feynman Nobelprize for physics in 1965
Hermann Staudinger Nobelprize for chemistry in 1953
Richard Smalley Nobelprize for chemistry in 1996
Arno Penzia's Nobel prize for physics in 1978
Joshua Lederberg Nobelprize for physiology / medicine in 1958
Sir John Eccle Nobelprize for physiology / medicine together with A. Hodkin and A. Huxley in 1963
George Wald Nobelprize for physiology or medicine in 1967
Carlo Rubbia Nobelprize for physics in 1984
Ragnar granite Nobel prize for physiology or medicine together with H. K. Hartline and G. Wood in 1967
AbdusSalam Nobel prize for physics together with S. L. Glashow and S. vineyard in 1979
Arthur L. Schawlow Nobelprize for physics together with N. Bloembergen in 1981
Charles H. Townes Nobelprize for physics together with N. Basow and A. Prokhorov in 1964
Eugene Wigner Nobelprize for physics in 1963
Robert A. Millikan Nobelprize for physics in 1923
William Phillip's Nobel prize for physics in 1997
Karl von Frisch Nobel prize for physiology or medicine in 1973
Sir Ernst Boris Chain Nobelprize for physiology or medicine in 1945
Selman A. Waksman Nobel prize for physiology or medicine in 1952
Hans Spemann Nobelprize for physiology or medicine in 1935
Santiago Ramón y Cajal Nobel prize for Physiology or medicine in 1906
Werner Heisenberg Nobelprize for physics in 1932
Werner Arber Nobelprize for physiology or medicine in 1978
Christian B. Anfinsen Nobelprize for chemistry in 1972
Derek Harold Richard Barton Nobelprize for chemistry together with O. Hassel in 1969
Albert Szent-Gyoergyi of Nagyrapolt Nobel prize for physiology or medicine in 1937
AllanSandage 1991 Crafoord Prize oft he royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Cosmology,"
Albert Einstein 1879 - 1955
“ It is more difficult to smash a preconceived opinion, as an atom”
“ Two things are infinite, the universe and the human stupidity, but with the universe is not quite sure I to me yet.”
“ One can never solve problems with the same way of thinking from which they have originated.”
“ That and our calculations fail we call chance.”
"My men, as the physicist who dedicated his whole life of the sober science, the investigation of the matter I am certainly free of the suspicion to be held for a dream mind. And thus I say after my Erforschungen of the atom this: There is no matter in itself.
All matter originates and exists only by a strength which brings the nuclear particles in oscillation and holds together them to the most tiny solar system of the Alls. Because there is, however, neither an intelligent strength nor an everlasting strength in the whole universe - the humanity has not succeeded in inventing the hotly desired Perpetuum mobile ones - we must accept behind this strength a deliberate intelligent mind. This mind is the old reason of all matter.
Not the visible, but transient matter is the real, true, real - then the matter would not exist without mind at all - but the invisible, immortal mind is the true! Because there can also not be, however , mind in itself, but every mind to a being belongs, we must accept compelling mind being. Because, however, also mind being not from himself can be same, but must be created, I am not afraid to name also this mysterious creator as him all cultural people of the earth of former millenniums have called: God!”
Prof. Dr. Planck is no exception among scientists per creation
Planck itself has pointed on top already to " Kepler, Newton and Leibniz"- about each of these mind dimensions a detailed work would order up to this topic. Bernhard Bavink: " Today physics performs what has always performed the astronomy. She gives itself in them to deepening quite immediate in no manner enforced or erkünstelten, but quite plain and simple, just therefore, however, more magnificent impression of the size and magnificence of God in the creation. This impression speaks quite spontaneously from the works of our very first physicists, like Planck, Einstein, Sommerfeld Eddington, Jeans " In the picture on top middle areto see Einstein and Planck, also Max von Laue and Robert A. Millikan beside Nernst, which can be also called in this connection. See also work of Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (e.g., THE HISTORY OF THE NATURE) (the author was in in 1946-1957 a manager Max - Planck - institute of physics in Goettingen) and Hans-Peter Dürr ('in 1971-1995 managing manager or deputy Max - Planck - institute of physics and astrophysics, Munich, since 1991MPI for physics, Werner - mountain Heisen - institute') on the subject PHYSICS AND TRANSCENDENCY, in particular also to Werner Heisenberg, but see also Walter Heitler from the circle of the physicists around Max Born. About the nature and the Devine: "Nature can be treated not at all completely academically without incorporating the question after God." Prof. Pascual Jordan. Physicist “Nevertheless, it would have completely operated, one wanted to judge the correctness of a scientific theory par excellence by the number of her followers; since the cultural history teaches to us to know many examples that whole generations of learnt men have held assertions for true and have defended with the contingent of the highest astuteness at which today a layman laughs as wrong” Prof. A. Fleischmann (zoology)
nasa - face nebula