Tuesday, August 20, 2019

Democrats Despise Black People - Part 2

Democrat President, Lyndon Baines Johnson devised the plan to disenfranchise Black people in 1964.  He was quoted as saying: "Give them (Uppity Blacks) a little something (someting that appears a benefit), enough to quiet them down (to silence their Uppityness) - But NOT enough to make a difference (genuinely improve their lives, or provide them real freedom - not dependent on Democrat Free Stuff/Welfare etc).

This historical review must include the Democrat Party's actions and stated policy objectives since the Party was founded. Southern Democrats owned Slaves - they fought to implement segregation, then opposed ending it. They stood on school steps to prevent integration. The Democrats ordered police, firemen and National Guards to confront Black protestors. They turned firehoses on them, and forcibly removed them from White Only locations. Many blacks were beaten. To a man - Democrats fought against Civil Rights tooth and nail. Murder was included in their opposition. The Democrat Party is the Party of Slavery. They proposed and voted for every law that enabled, expanded, and  perpetrated slavery - going back to the founding of the USA.

Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan/KKK - the first act to silence black Uppitiness. Importantly, from centuries of experiences Democrats know the impact of slavery upon a persons consciousness - the humiliation, sense of inferiority, and fear it inspires. These emotional tolls have NOT CHANGED! Democrat wont allow it. They continue using slavery to manipulate and control Blacks. How Democrat currently use slavery is the only aspect changed. Riling up anger about slavery, and misdirecting those heated emotions toward Democrat political foes, enables Democrats to escape fulfilling their promises made to Blacks. Read how:

The past 60 years Democrat use visions of slavery to sharpen emotional anger and heighten hate when attacking their political opponents, and whites generically. Democrats accuse their political foes of supporting slavery and actively working to deny Blacks government assistance. Democrats accuse the GOP of harboring DEMOCRAT motivations and behaviors - the ones they used to enslave and humiliate Blacks. It's unbelievable Black people do not see past the Democrat lies. How and WHY Blacks were convinced Democrats miraculously dropped their hatred, and disgust towards Blacks ostensibly appears an impossibility. As a white male I can attest - Democrats never did change. The venom and sense of superciliousness White Democrats possessed in 1964 is alive and well today. Only the means available to control and harm Blacks has changed. Why Blacks Bought in to the Democrat lie  seems a ludicrous decision until a closer look at what Democrats did to Blacks and when they did it. Democrats promised to help Blacks - the War on Poverty was the first act implemented to addict Black voters to the Democrat Party and the path of irresponsibility they paved using Welfare and other Government freebies.

The policies and programs Democrats devised to addict Blacks to their benevolence have evolved into an economic and budgetary MENACE! Any competent evaluation of the Democrats Gifts to Blacks, reveals policy failures on a monumental scale. These "little somethings" are not little at all. They've grown to consume over 60% of the Federal Expenditures; they created an addiction, and generational reliance, upon welfare and other Free Stuff. The Democrats wanted to assure comprehensive reliance on Democrat Gift Giving - AND - their Votes! Lost production, lost efficiencies and most importantly the Loss of Black Independence are ancillary but meaningful costs.

The Democrat Party's rubric for governance was thus set. Bribing Votes with "Free Stuff" is the exclusive objective and means employed by Democrats legislators. Every policy and high profile political rhetoric are keenly focused upon Bribing Votes. This practice has so offended the majority of American citizens, Democrats MUST rely upon fraudulent voting from foreign national illegally present in the USA. Democrats MUST actively work against the interests of America and American citizens while simultaneously defying Constitutional law to secure control of government. Democrats created sanctuary cities, gave quasi-proof of citizenship (Drivers Licenses etc) to foreigners who crossed the US border illegally, They are willing to commit crimes to protect criminals from ICE or deprtation. That how desperate for votes Democrat have become. They've gone to numerous courts to argue in defense of their crimes and assert hundres of thousands are owed entry using political oppression in the homelands as the rationale.  Moreover, millions of illegal votes are cast each election because the Democrat Party works tireless to enable illegal voting. Democrats can No Longer win elections legitimately, fairly, legally. Democrats pay more attention to, give more gifts to, and actively court the support of a racial group who deliver around 60% of their vote. Blacks provide over 90% each election.

The Democrat hyper focus upon illegals is only one action that reveals how little they value Blacks people or their votes. Blacks casting over 90% of their votes consistently, a loyalty that spans decades ALLOWED Democrats to take Blacks for granted.  No other group has shown a more loyal voting behavior. Consequently, Democrats ignore them when forming policies too.

What have Democrats done for Blacks?

Black living conditions, Ghettos, have not improved since Blacks began casting votes for Democrats. Many have gotten much worse.

The absence of meaningful change motivated some blacks to take up crime to improve their lives. Drugs are criminal enterpise that requires violence to expand and protect market share.

Law abiding Blacks in these "communities" are surrounded by violence, filth, and vermin. Innocents die regularly. Rats and cockroaches are endemic - long-term neighbors. Disease and premature deaths are a common consequence.

Criminal violence assures people only venture outside when absolutely necessary. Compassionate Democrats politicians control Black communities - they purposely do NOTHING to curb the violence and crime. WHY would Democrat politicians, even Black Democrat politicians refuse to curb crime? Violence and crime produce FEAR. Fearful people are willing to surrender freeedoms and cast votes for Democrats promising Protection, promises to make improvements to neighborhoods and school. Neither materialize. The same promises began in the late 1960s. The GOP and white people have zero influence in Black communities. The horrific conditions there are NOT THEIR FAULT! Democrats are Responsible!!!

Black lives are filled with "just a little something" Democrats purposely designed for them.

Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Sentience These

The Sentience Thesis asserts the physical consciousness accrues information, and mass, (electron/photons) through the physical senses: touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, etc. This sensory accumulated information is additionally augmented with cognitive activity. Ideas, deliberations, and choices made while on earth create more consciousness content. The process of accruing matter to the soul, gathering new information, goes on twenty-four hours a day; unabated. Each action and thought in life adds to the souls' content. It's a remarkable process. Primarily, electrons/photons are also responsible for anatomical life. Electrical energy – electrons - is recognized by medicine and science as evidence of life. The presence of life is determined using an electroencephalogram, EEG. The EEG detects and measures electricity in the brain. Electricity is the flow of electrons. An absence of this energy indicates no life - death 

      To better understand the dynamics of the soul and uncertainty's role - how scientific evidence led to this thesis, examining fundamentals of quantum physics is required. The examination is critical for other reasons. The majority of people presume integrity exclusively drives science and academe. The modern culture believes science is the only repository for truth and fact - "legitimate" information. Nothing is considered valid unless science approves it. The philosopher Bertrand Russell claimed, "what science could not explain, man could not know!" Some people and interests accept that absurd claim. Science continues to enjoy a reputation earned at a time when religion embraced many antiquated ideas. Many former religious tenets are now proven patently false. When science provided the accurate answers, they were rightfully esteemed. However, science was unsatisfied with their new station. They had other objectives that religion and God precluded. Eliminating God was required for science to ascend to replace God as the holder and giver of truth and information. Darwin's Theory of Evolution was the means used. Since then, science has expanded their domain and authority. However, they are not imperious, nor without fault. It is unfortunate that science has succumbed to the appetites and dependencies of its membership – as had every other organization since the creation of mankind. Science has cleverly aligned itself with very influential powers. Their relationship mandates a reciprocity of deceit, to assure they care for each other's needs. Unfortunately, deceit is accurate and ubiquitous. Deception, lying, prevarication, is a reference standard for particular branches of science. Some are based on deception – Climate Change, and lead paint exposure makes you stupid, are two. Truth, integrity, and credibility are the casualties of this incestuous relationship. Those relationships are worthy of examination and the details of their collusion, avarice, and sloth exposed. 

There is much to digest on a host of inter-related topics to learn and validate the Sentience Thesis. Some portions require a thinking cap. Be prepared. I had to dumb some details and concepts down to the lowest common denominator. Frankly, I was initially able to understand some postulates and hypothesis. Reading… and re-reading… and re-re-reading… (Occasionally more times) was a process to which I grew accustomed. Once the concepts and basics of quantum are understood, the principles and many details unravel. Quantum physics is a marvelous study. It tasks the brain and delves into the essence of matter and life on the smallest (known) scale. Nothing exists without atoms and quarks - no matter, no energy, nothing. Like most every discipline or human endeavor, there are differences of opinion and divergent interpretations in quantum physics. Some of the unresolved conflicts on quantum are strident and remarkable. The disputed areas are vital and unavoidable for physics and the thesis. They define "accepted" evidence and values associated with variables used in equations that form the central premises of quantum physics – the assumptions used. They are indispensable to the discipline. Unbelievably, these differences remain unresolved nearly over one hundred years later. 

      "God does not roll dice." was Einstein's remark when one of the first "equation only" quantum assumptions arose - The Copenhagen Effect - The Uncertainty Principle (RE: dilemma). Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg postulated the uncertainty interpretation in 1927. The Copenhagen Effect, or Uncertainty Principle, is an implicit quantum assumption. It is crucial to comprehending quantum from a conditional, "ideological" view and it's a doozey. This assumption allows science to interpret reality both ways. Incorporating uncertainty as a reference standard, assured absolutes were optional. Absolutes required for other branches of science are conditional in quantum physics (more recently in several disciplines) - by design. 

One component of the atom, the electron, is the focus of the Uncertainty Principle and the Sentience Thesis. The electron is a curious and confounding sub-atomic component. Words become very important here. Component is apt because science lacks the ability to determine if the electron is a wave or a particle. 

      If we examine the image of smallest atom, hydrogen, (above), we learn it contains one electron and one proton. The standard model used to convey the orientation of an atom is helpful. The static image used above resembles a solar system. The proton sits in the center – the "sun" object. It is fixed. The electron is the "planet" object orbiting the sun/proton. The electron moves at the speed of light (maybe faster). The image is almost correct. But as you read above, the precise location of the electron has Never been determined – not once. Electrons remain an uncertain area of study, and that is troublesome for several reasons. When science began examining the generic atom, the electron's location could not be determined – absolutely, precisely. The size and relative position of each sub-atomic component are essential to comprehending the operations within the atom, and all matter that contains atoms. 

      Let's enlarge our atom to the size of Yankee stadium. From this new perspective, the proton is speculated to be the size of a baseball on the pitcher's mound/middle of the stadium. The electron is estimated to be the size of an ant. It is located at the bleacher farthest from the pitcher's mound in centerfield. This enlarged example reveals the "approximated" dimensions of the components and the distance between them. 

      When you touch a solid object, your finger actually makes contact with the very small electron orbiting around the proton - at light speed. What the human senses detect as solid matter is mostly space. Our fingers do not sense movement because of the small size and speed of the electron. The diameter of the hydrogen atom is calculated as approximately one million times smaller than the human hair. The diameter ranges from about 0.1 to 0.5 nanometers (1 × 10-10 m to 5 × 10-10 m). The electron's small orbit, moving at light speed, makes locating the electron, using the technology currently available - impossible. Science may eventually develop technology to stop, preserve and properly examine the electron. But science and physics refused to wait.

      When science realized they lacked the technology to determine the precise location and behavior of the electron definitively – they faced a choice. Admit they couldn't do it, or, develop math expressions to approximate a guess on the electron's properties and location. Science formed the equation - hence the Uncertainty Principle. This principle uses calculated guesswork and offers several "potential" electron locations. This choice infuriated some scientists and physicists. They objected. They demanded quantum adhere to the same restrictions imposed on every other discipline. Apparently, their objections were noted, but not applied. The Uncertainty Principle was incorporated, codified, and in conjunction with other math expressions, pressed the study of quantum physics forward. Each subsequent guess on the electron further clouds reality and the actual information sought, and needed, to explore accurately; responsibly, within the boundaries of the Scientific Method, and, fundamental philosophical truths. 

      What approximations miss (the errors present and created) stand to be extremely significant. Necessary information is lost. Concordant errors compound each time the calculation is used, and when another equation is layered upon the last one utilized. Tangible, precise information, like the exact properties of an electron, cannot be determined by approximation. Truth is masked. A generic, utilitarian, approximated value (guesswork) makes due. 

      The known and accepted properties and behaviors of the electron – as might be expected – are bizarre, maddening, and occasionally impossible – compared to classic physics and other tangible and accepted laws of science. The uncertain electron tortures "conventional" logic and rationality. The electron, per the Uncertainty Principle – is BOTH particle and wave. More problematic, it is both electron and photon. Its state is contingent upon several factors. Most disturbingly, the act of examining, measuring the components particle or wave (and potentially the needs and wants of the scientist person conducting the investigation) determines the electron's state! What this phenomenon reveals is the electron can exist in either wave or particle state. The actions of a person examining the electron – trying to measure or detect it – appears to predicate the state the electron/photon adopts, and when it adopts it. The evidence can also suggest the electron/photon chooses its state - contingent upon what the observer does. The latter interpretation is an accurate interpretation – as accurate as the one science accepted. I suspect science refused to convey potential sentience to a sub-atomic particle as that might indicate a divine presence. The Dual-Slit Experiment is where science confronted sentient matter.

      Science wanted to discover legitimate evidence regarding the electron/photon and devised an experiment to collect the evidence – the Dual Slit. This experiment exposed the disturbing and confounding properties of the electron and the "Uncertain" reality that partially defines it. The Dual Slit experiment was one of the earliest quantum investigations designed to locate and quantify a sub-atomic particle. The outcome of the Dual Slit experiment presented evidence and circumstances that surely frustrated science, and instilled doubt about their observations, calculations, methods, and conclusions. The experiment's outcome has not changed since the first attempt. When analyzed – the results continue to challenge objective evaluations and expectations. It also redefines our perceived physical and metaphysical realities – depending upon your perspective. The results display God's remarkable ability to confound man and science in plain sight. The answers are present. At least one is glaring. It is science's prejudiced standards of evaluation that compromise and confound their efforts. 

      The Dual Slit experiment involves shooting a stream of electrons/photons through two barriers placed a few inches away from the device emitting the electrons. The barriers and capture plate are staggered – each a few inches apart moving away from the electron "gun". The first barrier has one vertical slit. A second barrier sits behind the first and contains two vertical slits. The electron/photons passing thru the slits in both barriers impacts a capture plate placed behind both barriers.  The capture plate is where the electron locations are verified, recorded, and analyzed. 

        Any stream of electrons/photons used in the Dual Slit experiment is (assumed) waves of matter as they leave the gun. This description of electrons is what science initially thought. The results of the Dual Slit experiment recalibrated and re-defined what science thought. The pattern the electrons/photons produced on the capture plate (in a rational world) should resemble the light waves shot through the double slits. That did not happen.

      Unexpectedly, DOTS, particles of matter (not waves) accumulated into groups on the capture plate. The far right image above shows how the particles arranged. The electrons were presumed in waveform when released from the gun. Based on previous behaviors observed, electrons and photons were waves. Defying expectations and rationality, when the capture plate was examined, the anticipated collection of waves changed. The waves became a collection of particles.

      The image above shows the accumulation of electrons as the experiment progressed - top to bottom. Recall, there are only two slits on the second barrier plate. How these particles arranged themselves into numerous groups of particles remains unknown to this day. It appears the waves/particles organize themselves into ordered groups. The electrons also form a "graduated" image like shading. The electrons assemble themselves into vertical columns; in a repeating gradation of intensity. Columns of compacted particles gradually fade to very few particles, then back to densely populated columns of particles - repeatedly.

      The capture screen is flat – essentially two-dimensional. Nothing in the composition of the capture plate contributes to the pattern produced – that science can determine. The limited size of the capture sheet prevents the entire height and breadth of the electrons collected, and the images created, from being seen. Any variation or change in the shape and number of columns are unseen and unknown. 

      The causality explaining how and why the photons changed states (based upon being examined, captured, or measured) is unknown. They can only be termed un-real - bizarre. On some level, the electron/photon appears able to recognize or interpret variations in its environment, or experiment conditions, and respond - change their property or state - accordingly. Another interpretation of the evidence and causality suggests the potential for sentience - in a piece of matter defined as inert.  Asserting the electron/photon is capable of interpreting, and then responding to their environment or conditions is valid. The validity of this interpretation increases as the number of other inexplicable properties and behaviors of the electron/photon mount. (The Christian religion needs to embrace the results of this experiment and demand the potential sentience interpretation be considered.)  

The electron/photon is both a wave and a particle. 
Electrons can occupy the different states and locations – simultaneously! 
The electron/photon move at light speed – or faster.
Electron/photon can share "information" faster than light speed across vast distances. 

      The photon/electron's known, and potential behaviors, are why the Thesis is termed Sentient. There is more confounding and contradictory behavior. The photon/electron can be present in different places, at the same time. The electron/photon behaviors/experiment results indicate it senses being analyzed or its environment and respond to those conditions perceived. If so, the phenomena infer a rudimentary intellect - sentience. When science conducted the double slit experiment and encountered this inexplicable reality that defies classic physics (and common sense) they faced a quandary. All the baffling behaviors needed explaining. At that time of the first experiment, science only had classic physics and analog tools to enhance their investigations. Science couldn't adequately interpret the phenomena with the tools and information possessed. New interpretations and conclusions and postulates were created trying to explain what the double slit experiment revealed – poorly. Science never documented opinion that considered the potential of electron/photon sentience, or, the possibility of a dimensional transition inside the atom, or BOTH!

      The explanation chosen by science served one concern well. Denying the potential for sentience resident within inert matter was explicitly crafted to negate a divine influence, or design was potentially causal. Science needed to retain their ability to explore the quantum realm using a new Uncertainty, and preserve their authority as the holder and giver of truth and information. Science needed to avoid admitting not enough information was known to form a legitimate conclusion that explained the behaviors, and, that intellect was potentially present in inert matter. Quantum Physics was a brand new field of research. Professional opportunities awaited those who could provide explanations for sub-atomic pieces of matter. With no comparative benchmarks available, and few experts able to comprehend the mathematical expressions used to validate or disprove the assertions made; conjecture and complex equations sufficed. Science is disconcertingly deluded and dissident. Science has morphed into a supercilious sycophant for its research enablers – government and corporations needing Facts to argue against the public’s wishes, and best interests

      Not every physicist or scientist was content with the conclusions drawn. Einstein was one of several who rebuked the findings. Uncertainty, the Copenhagen Effect, moved physicist Erwin Schrodinger to posit the Cat Paradox:  A cat is placed inside a box containing a deadly compound.  If the compound is released, the cat dies. When a person opens the box to examine the cat, the act MAY trigger the deadly compound. The cat will be alive, or dead – depending upon WHEN, or HOW, or (as learned from the Dual Slit) "WHY" a person opens the box to investigate the cat. The Copenhagen Effect postulate permits mischief and introduces chance for causality. Mathematical calculations require special operators to incorporate chance. Schrodinger, a young physicist seeking fame and fortune, delivered the operator - Ψ. Other physicists created their own operators when conventional math failed to produce the results desired.

      Schrodinger eventually grew unhappy with the direction of quantum physics; the absence of verifiable, tangible evidence, and controls were among some of his concerns. Erwin Schrodinger was an immense intellect who provided the discipline a formula and math operator to quantify chance, or change, over time. Schrodinger's peerless work is evidence of his considerable mind. He made a profound statement that infers his dissatisfaction with the indeterminate structure of quantum physics that "evolved" within the discipline.
"I don't like it (quantum mechanics), and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it."
"The verbal interpretation, on the other hand, i.e., the metaphysics of quantum physics, is on far less solid ground. In fact, in more than forty years physicists have not been able to provide a clear metaphysical model."

      Science continued trying to clarify the indeterminate, uncertain, state of the electron. Niels Bohr calculated matrices of potential locations for electrons orbiting a nucleus in his work with Heisenberg – noted above. Another physicist, Max Born, clarified Bohr's analysis and suggested the electron/photon reside in a perpetual state of uncertainty. Born's Probability Density postulate suggests electrons/photons follow a predictable path, even if their location cannot be accurately determined. These behaviors form a "cloud" of probability density. 

      The cloud metaphor is accurate and helps one visualize how the electron path creates the appearance and sensation of solid matter - when touched by a human hand. Remember, though, the atom is mostly empty space. All matter on earth is comprised of atoms. Concordantly, it is mostly empty space. The human body is no different. Electrons whirling about at light speed in your fingertip make contact with moving electrons in any object and your brain comprehends a solid surface. Some matter is rigid and durable - rock. Other matter assumes a fluid or gaseous state. All matter contains electrons spinning in an uncertain orbit around various protons at light speed. The number of protons, neutrons, and electrons determine the type of matter.

      Born's postulate is significant because it implies "whole" electron particles are witnessed WHEN the investigation of the experiment's results is conducted. This postulate contradicted Bohr's conclusion which implied partial states, portions of electrons, are witnessed. Both conclude the electron's state is predicated on an external investigation. When acts of experimentation and examination seek to detect the electron, it changes its state in reaction to the act of investigation. Physicists and science avoid even considering an obvious and compelling conclusion – rudimentary sentience. Science would term the most obvious explanation for the phenomena Super Natural.

The Primary objective of the Sentient Thesis is presenting verifiable evidence, physical properties, and behaviors, of the matter that potentially defines the content of the human soul; or consciousness. The Sentience Thesis concludes the human soul consists of electrons/photons. These objects of matter/energy are additionally necessary for, and detected to confirmed, life - both human and animal. The physical senses capture and accrue this matter. Deliberations organize and utilize the matter/energy captured. Further, the Thesis accepts as evidence, accumulated sensory experiences and conscious efforts over a lifetime increase the soul's content and mass. Combined with the decisions taken and the corresponding behaviors acted out, man overtly or passively prepares his soul for the afterlife. 

      The content of the soul being electrons/photons renders them implicitly subject to the scientific conclusions and theories regarding the matter/energy properties and behaviors. Specifically, per Einstein's theory of relativity, Mass/Matter = Energy. Further, classic physics' adopted Lavoisier's: (Theory)-Law of Conservation. The Law stipulates matter cannot be created nor destroyed. This assumption presumes all the matter in the universe was always present, static, and further concludes matter cannot be removed from the physical universe. This Law poses a dilemma – as science concludes the matter/energy powering the body and mind both vanish at death. To what location the matter/energy in the body and soul depart upon death science does not know. Many investigators tried to measure the mass of this matter – with inconclusive results. If matter was always present – the Big Bang becomes dubious. 

      The second aspect of the Law of Conservation quandary involves human thought. The processes that form the creation of a human thought science cannot explain. It is very complicated physical process despite the ease with which we all do it. Pieces of matter, electrons, are examined by our bodies/brains. The matter is considered, recompiled, arranged, and a new idea materializes. Sensory information is different. That is realized from kinetic energy and transformed into electrons captured by the mind. A "new" idea is unique. It can be recalled individually without the constituents used to form it. The newly created idea must be comprised of energy and matter. It can be recalled and used. Is it new matter? The old electrons/matter – (referenced to create the new idea) remain affix to the previous experience that created them. So what matter constitutes the new idea? The new idea matter behaves like the matter used to create it. These phenomena suggest new matter is generated when the idea is formed – potentially defying Lavoisier's: Law of Conservation - matter cannot be created or destroyed.

      Moreover, evidence suggests the electron/photon is a unique sub-atomic component that contains and displays specific properties that are incomprehensible - due to technological limitations and the scale of the environment studied. The electron/photon is currently an undetermined and unrecognized sub-atomic component(s) with the ability to exhibit a reactionary and predictable response to external stimuli. The evidence further suggests the potential for electrons defying traditional classification is present. The interpretation electrons/photons are not universal, homogenous, components is cogent and method stable. How Einstein's Theory appears to support - bears positively upon the eternal potential of the electron/photon in a vital examination. Einstein's theory proposes matter moving at light speed overcome the Time/Space Continuum. 

      Religion views the soul collectively as an eternal entity. No scripture exists that delves into the physical dynamics of the soul's constitution - known to your author. The Christian religion asserts - at a predetermined future time, God analyses the content of the soul and judges the individual based upon compliance standards – commandments, etc. God then directs the soul to an environment, and perhaps another vessel/body, where the individual soul continues on its eternal journey acquiring more information for intellect development. 

Friday, July 26, 2019

Democrats Despise Black People

Real RACISM is alive and flourishing in the Democrat Party. Little substantive has changed in their perceived racial superiority or the vehemence targeted at Blacks during slavery and segregation. Democrats continue to believe Blacks are unclean, simple-minded, inarticulate, Ebonics prone, unattractive and naturally inferior. Some people are incapable of change. Why Black people continue to vote Democrat; after what that Party has done to them, is a lesson in onerous oppression; and the Stockholm Syndrome.
The recent Democrat Racist mania is pure projection- lying - casting their own worst sins at their foes.  The following substantiates these claims.

Immediately after Civil Rights laws passed, Democrats managed to convince Blacks they genuinely cared and were committed to creating policies that improved their lives. In reality, the Democrat promise is a nefarious Fairy Tale replete with monstrous malfeasance.After securing the Black vote, Democrats turned their backs on Blacks and began creating New Minorities: Women, Hispanics, Gays, WTFs, and recently illegals. Did Blacks miss these changes or are they so insecure, dependent upon the Democrat Party they willingly accept being taken for granted? Black importance is diluted each time a New Minority is hatched. Some aren’t Minorities? Women are the majority numbers of the human race! “Taken for granted” does not begin to describe the despicable Democrat treatment of Blacks. Democrats not rewarding Fifty-five years of Blacks voting for Democrats at a +90% rate venerates the claim Democrats despise Black people.

Why do Blacks remain loyal? It begins with Democrats resurrecting Slavery and discrimination - entirely omitting the fact Democrats were exclusively responsible for both! Relentless reliving the horrors of slavery is an Act of Mental Terrorism. Slavery scares Blacks. It is an emotionally charged, humiliating indoctrination device that riles up explosive anger. It’s used for every Black audience. Volatile Emotions and anger are easily manipulated mixture to direct Black hate at their foes – GOP/Trump. Democrats will never permit sensationalized slavery, lynching, and past discrimination to end. Slavery ignites Black fears, dependence and Votes! 

When Democrats lost the Civil Rights battle, they quickly moved to preserve their control in the US Congress and Presidency in the wake of JFK’s assassination. Democrats devised a global strategy to keep Blacks politically enslaved. This quote from President Lyndon Baines Johnson quote reveals the objectives and means - 
“These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again. [Said to Senator Richard Russell, Jr. (D-GA) regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1957]”

Democrats couldn’t take credit for Civil Rights, so they strategically moved to fill the vacuum JFK’s death created - Democrats pled faux repentance. They offered compassionate concessions, Gifts flowed. Positive words & emotional commiseration began washing away past sins. 

Word Play
The Democrat’s new policies moved Blacks out of the shanty and into the Master’s Mansion. Blacks were elevated to House Negroes. Democrats additionally demanded Blacks be called Colored. The Negroe word was dispatched. Political Correct speech control began. This condescending word change appeared an act of comity. Calling Blacks “Americans” was a distinction the Democrats refused to endorse.  This same trap was re-baited two more times. The second word change was Black, but that was considered harsh. Finally, African American was coined.  Demanding word changes that razor sharpens race distinction was lost in the Black community who believed White Democrats were looking out for them. Black “Leaders” & the NAACP profited from these second-hand word gifts and hailed Democrats as the only Party Blacks should consider. Black Leaders are no different than the blacks in Africa who captured blacks and sold them into slavery! They continue to do this. And, what other racial/political group of people are entirely assessed by what their "Leaders" say or advocate? None! Looking deeper reveals this wordplay was a reflection of the Democrat’s disdain for Blacks. The African American term was sold as respect for Black heritage. Poppycock! African American assured no one mistook their race - Negroes. This distinction was punitive, purposeful. Colored and Minority are nebulous. If Blacks were just Americans, no one knows their race. Democrats wanted it known. Harping on slavery and subtle wordplay baited the trap that ensnared Blacks for the next 55 years.

Many Blacks weren’t well educated back then. These same people were poor, some severely. The excitement and anticipation the repeal of segregation stimulated clouded good judgment. Martin Luther King’s hope was becoming a reality. Second class citizens were “Moving on Up”. Blacks were poised to obtain the whole wide White world. This behavior is emblematic of the Stockholm Syndrome manifested in its obscene glory. Suggesting Blacks were oblivious to LBJ’s (Democrats) pernicious plans is axiomatic

The Process:
LBJ’s War on Poverty was the first shackle applied to re-enslave Blacks, keep the filibuster, preserve Democrat control and coerce votes. The War on Poverty was Welfare on steroids – with caveats. No father could remain in the home of a woman receiving welfare. Working while on welfare was prohibited. Absolute dependence to Democrat policy and the Party was requisite. 

Money improves lives. Blacks believed Democrats promises that meaningful opportunities were soon to come. However, Meaningful Opportunity must intersect all aspects of life. The welfare and wordplay deliberately derailed opportunity – "give them a little something”.  Another tactic arose. The Big Lie was born. Democrats started blaming Republicans for delaying opportunity and stipend increases. Combined with slavery, Democrats used the lie to deceive, and divert Black enmity at their political foes. After a few elections, Democrat saw Black support in monolithic numbers. LBJ's plan was working. When Blacks delivered consistent universal votes did Democrats thanks them, No. With the Black vote in hand, Democrats stopped sacrificing ANY more political capital for Blacks.  

Simultaneously, white support for Democrats faded. Democrats will say it was their support for Blacks and racism that moved white support away. That’s a bigger Lie. Democrat support for the O’Hair Decision, ending school prayer, initiated the White Flight. White Christians immediately became the enemy of the Democrat Party because they refused to swear absolute allegiance to the Democrat Party. Christians reserved that allegiance for God. Losing the White Working Class was devastating. Political purgatory was the punishment Democrats devised for what they perceived as white ingratitude. White Flight created a big problem. Democrats needed another large and loyal voting bloc to win elections.

The 1964 Immigration Reform was the first step acquiring new votes. That act also assured new immigrants would have access and preference for jobs formerly reserved for Blacks. The immigration reform kept Blacks deprived and subordinate to the Party. (Thank Ted Kennedy for delivering Immigration Reform.) 

The War on Whites
From a practical standpoint, the missing white votes, in part, forced Democrats to seek the Black vote. Being compelled to solicit votes, lose political capital, and pander to a community Democrats treated as Sub-Human the previous 200 plus years was humiliating and problematic. Democrat antipathy towards whites seethed White Hot. Punishing disloyalty and decimating the political power of white Christians (in perpetuity if possible) became an obsession. They chose to do to white Americans what they did to Blacks - destroy their families, make them dependent.

Democrats declared Women were a New Minority. Democrats issued an ultimatum: NO Real Woman should be forced to remain at home under the yoke of her husband. Real freedom was only available independent of men. They adopted policies that pulled and pushed Women into the workforce. Divorce was aggressively promoted as a liberating act. Concurrently, Democrats assured women they’d support them better than their husbands, without any demeaning familial demands. This program of destruction also provided Democrat an added benefit. They could legitimately tell Blacks they treated whites no differently. White Single Parent families became another dependent, dysfunctional, loyal voting bloc. 

Hispanics were next secured using the New Minority Rubric. Democrats had refined their New Minority chops; flowing from one group into the next with ease. The Democrat Big Tent was erected magnificently. New Loyal voters appeared “out of thin air”. 

Affirmative Action
To reward and keep these New Minority votes, Democrats devised a final nail to the political coffin of white Christians - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. Democrats hailed Affirmative Action as the cure for GOP resistance to Black opportunity – LIE. Sure a few Blacks prospered with AA - but its true purpose was suppressing white voting. Blue-collar whites, the majority of the white population, were legally disenfranchised from their Constitutional Rights by Affirmative Action. Blue-collar white males and their families joined Blacks in the back of the bus. A calculated PLUS - Black males were most severely disqualified.

An indoctrination campaign to protect and bribe votes ensued. Politically Correct/PC Conventions expanded and inured. PC enabled intimidation and it worked! Many white males lost careers and promotions to the Thought Crime police who carried out their duties with Zero Tolerance. Black males also lost jobs and promotions to New Minority hires under Affirmative Action. 

Democrats knew by increasing the number and variety of minorities eligible for Affirmative Action proportionally diminished Black access to the employment and college admissions set-asides. Democrat even managed to convinced whites Blacks were precluding their professional and academic opportunities. LBJ's Maxim was nearly complete. Democrats managed to damage both groups they despised and drive racial and political wedges between them. Nothing has changed. 

If readers doubt this thesis, consider the words of then-Senator Joe Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (2008) when Obama’s ascension to the Presidency was all but certain.
Joe Biden:  “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”
Reid: the US would be “ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama – a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.’ ”
Reid's comments are so noxious he was forced to apologize. 

What do these comments actually infer? Both men presented their personal sentiments on the Black race. The polar opposite of what each said, was presumed to be true; the norm. They believe blacks are not often Clean, articulate, with no Black dialect (unless wanted/needed) Nice Looking, First Mainstream, & light-skinned - despicable. The term "Mainstream" in Democrat Speak: Not obnoxious + light skin color = acceptable to Democrats. Unbelievable. These are men who served the Democrat Party over 40 years. They are NOT unique. These words are spoken by men trying to restrain their personal prejudices. they can't do it, or won't do it. They're trying to walk a fine line to preserve their aristocratic autonomy. Racial superiority is an ingrained white Democrat sentiment. These supercilious sentiments are not unique to these two men. The Democrat Party's disposition towards Blacks has changed little since Plessy vs Ferguson; the decision that established segregation; 1896. The Real Democrat sentiment about Blacks? They must, unfortunately, be tolerated out of necessity.  

Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Darwin's Theory Revisted

The Age of Enlightenment was a welcome diffraction from the Dark Ages. The Renaissance and technological gains awoke the simmering human potential - plagued by plague, feudalism, and an oppressive all-powerful Church. Reluctantly - scientific discovery eventually upended centuries of religious beliefs and Fact. The orthodox Eucharist was shown outdated and wrong. The Church was compelled to incorporate reams of new discoveries and silently acknowledge problems resident in past scriptural dogmas and adjust their beliefs. Technological innovation propelled the Age of Enlightenment into numerous scientific discoveries.

      The aristocracy benefitted most from the new technologies as they could afford to play benefactor and enjoy the fruits of their investments. Acumen and the knowledge base in the aristocracy soared to new heights. So did the bastard stepchildren of expanded investigation and discovery – carnality and lust. The aristocracy’s technological gains brought a behavioral dilemma. The aristocracy was expected to set an example for their subjects that aligned with the church’s views on appropriate behaviors - morality. Increasingly the aristocracy balked. They wanted science and technology to free them from the moral restraints the church imposed upon their behaviors – and pocketbooks.

      This conflict came to a head in 1531 during the reign of Henry the VIII. Henry officially rejected the Catholic Church for personal reasons borne of appetite. The break with the Papacy codified the Church of England, the C of E. The King assumed control over the direction and dogmas of the C of E. Henry’s actions did not permanently quell the debate. It cracked the foundation of religious continuity. Sinful desires remained. The conflict between the aristocracy and the Church expanded and grew in intensity until three-hundred years later, the stage was set for a ship’s scientist aboard HMS Beagle to compile and publish Origin of Species.

      The use of science to destroy Christianity and Murder God began aboard Beagle. The object used to advance the murder, Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, remains more virulent today than ever. I want to believe Darwin was unable to predict how his theory would be misused. His motivations in constructing the theory are an entirely different matter, and one that exposes the weaknesses in all men – even respected scientists. Darwin’s legacy exceeds the gains he calculated. Every discipline of science must pay fealty to, and genuflect before, “The Theory” – Darwin’s theory of evolution. Importantly, the organizations that set professional standards of acceptable methods, materials, and conduct/behavior for science infused The Theory ubiquitously, such that, any research that might weaken or embarrass The Theory is not so subtly ignored. The researcher is considered an intellectual heretic and black-listed into a nether land from which there is no return, and no publications forthcoming. Darwin’s Theory is a effectively a quasi-religious liturgy. Disrespect towards The Theory results in evolution’s purgatory. Science’s ecumenical councils demand adherence to that Theory with a vigilance last seen with the Spanish Inquisition. If a field of study intentionally, or unintentionally, runs afoul of The Theory, it’s deemed incredible, unworkable, overly hopeful, or another insulting, disparaging assessment before it is permanently banished.

      Practitioners of philosophy saw the notoriety and financial gains Darwin achieved. Thirty years after the first publication, philosophy formally declared “God is Dead”. Philosophy thought they would gain science’s respect and expand the footprint of their influence into science, and the aristocracy’s pocketbook. Philosophy was wrong. Philosophy’s central questioning tenets make it too uncontrollable, too open-minded, and not rigid enough to perpetuate The Theory as science, and their benefactors needed. Philosophy was quietly kicked to the curb, once science found sufficient evidence and support to exclude man and his thoughts. First as problematic with, and then antithetical to, the “revised” (Darwinian) Scientific Method. An new scientific lexicon arose based upon Darwin’s theory.

      More restrictions followed. Scientists attempting to infuse their work with philosophy eventually had their efforts questioned. British Physicist Fred Hoyle learned this when his Steady State universe was theorized and argued. Science faced a problem. Darwin’s Theory didn’t extend back to the creation of the universe. That exposed an opening for God. To insulate The Theory at the universe’s origin, the Big Bang was theorized and codified. Science invented The Big Bang to silence Hoyle and others like him who didn’t work to eliminate God. Ironically, a Belgian Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaitre, a man that Einstein respected - argued in favor of the Big Bang theory. (Lucifer is at times very, very good - and effective.)  Fred Hoyle was an agnostic. Hoyle’s career was dominated by controversy, but not the bad kind of controversy. Hoyle argued contrary positions on a wide range of scientific issues. Hoyle took opposing positions no matter the opinions and evidence faced, or asserted, by the collective opinions of the Official scientific community: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle - cite_note-28

      Hoyle was a legitimate, credible scientist. His choices, decisions and behaviors were mandated by science - perpetually question every subject. Nothing is sacrosanct. If ever a scientist proclaims: “the science is settled” – he has resigned his profession and moved to propaganda agent. Circumstances, opportunity, time, technology, and curiosity define science. The integrity of the evidence is perpetually subject to potential change under the influence of  these factors. Scientific evidence is conditional, contingent, and impermanent. Until man goes extinct, all evidence is subjective. Science mandates continual re-examination - and re-interpretation.

      Fred Hoyle explained why the Big Bang stood cosmology, classic physics, and philosophy on its proverbial head. It required scientists and physicists to ignore fundamental facts and tenets (accepted properties like gravity and mass) to enable constructing a new weapon to protect The Theory – Darwin’s theory, and keep God dead. The Big Bang is a weapon provided The Theory’s adherents to intimidate doubters. The practice of considering philosophical elements - like truthfulness, general inquiry, or expanding investigation when evidence supporting The Theory failed to accrue, were quickly dropped from the revised Darwinian Scientific Method.

      Why did science do it? Science claimed God’s mantle with Darwin’s Theory. That science adheres to Darwin’s theory with no evidence of special evolution discovered – nearly two-hundred years later - reveals a gaping hole in the theory’s linear accretion and reinforces the glaring contradiction in science and its Darwinian Method(s). Every other hypothesis or theory that failed to accrue fundamental supporting data, or information, specified by the Theory’s author, was eventually discredited and dropped. Viable scientific studies like intelligent design are not afforded the latitude of Darwin’s theory - despite the copious and credible evidence, that match, and in some instances, exceed Darwin’s. Any objective or idea that so radically drives men to betray their principles and declared mission, so much so they resort to lies, deceit, and torture accepted methods of proof (to preserve the idea) must be seriously flawed and re-examined thoroughly. Darwin’s theory could not survive a thorough examination today if its entirety is questioned.

      The Theory’s genesis arose aboard the HMS Beagle. It included curious and heretofore unseen (subjective evidence) creatures and several variants of the same species in a limited geographic area. The Galapagos Islands delivered Darwin’s his “evidence”. A Galapagos Finch notably impacted Darwin’s work. On three separate Islands, three separate version of Finch were discovered; each had a slightly different beak. One island had hard nuts, and the Finch had a large, strong beak to crack the nuts. On another island, the food sources were diverse and plentiful. The Finch’s beak formed a traditional shape – or – vice versa. These and other anatomical variants within the same species excited and prompted Darwin to consider broad, universal, causality for the variants. Darwin also saw the Galapagos Iguana swim in the ocean – a never before witnessed phenomena with these reptiles. Darwin presumed the variants of species and unique behaviors not seen elsewhere were examples that explained how one species might possibly transform into another species – and give rise to causalities for the transformation. Darwin also suspected ”Niches” provided opportunity and delivered change. He interpreted the Finch food environment variants moved animals to adapt to specific environment variables - niches. That part was correct. Animals do adapt. Special change, however, is an entirely different animal – literally.

      Darwin almost got it right, but he went too far. He had to. Had Darwin’s theory not included special transformations – he remains a significant – if not great, biologist. Importantly, Darwin retains his integrity with God. Darwin was an astute scientist. His sensibilities likely included gauging the winds of social change, or he learned of the aristocracy’s desired outcome. The Origin of Species – Darwin’s book outlining evolution - included evidence and opinion that opened a debate on God. If animals naturally adapted, each species wasn’t individually created. If they evolved by happenstance, God’s role in creating or seeding them was questionable. Darwin’s theory introduced doubt. God’s existence and influence could officially, scientifically, be questioned. The theory’s obvious underpinnings permitted more than one interpretation - God may not “necessarily” exist, or evolution was one of God’s options for effecting change.

      The European aristocracy and many peers within science lauded Darwin’s conclusions. They immediately disregarded the latter option for their own purposes and set about applying the first to free themselves from the restraints the church and its morality imposed. The aristocracy held enough wealth to purchase the work and allegiances of regarded scientists, who, if they published papers supporting Darwin ‘s conclusions, stood to receive the wealth and fame the aristocracy could arrange. The interpretation and postulate God did not exist, rapidly assumed preeminence.
      Conveniently… if God does not exist, God’s morality does not exist either. The aristocracy was freed to indulge their immoral appetites and desires unencumbered; at least in private, or in the company of the theory’s adherents. Curiously, after the aristocracy funded the opinions murdering God, the aristocracy collectively ended across Europe. By 1920, every Royal Family was displaced, or murdered.

      Science has much more information; better tools and technology than were available in 1860. However, the evidence required to validate The Theory has failed to appear. Paleontologists have searched the globe and found numerous examples of fossil evidence of life forms spanning the time since the earth was first capable of supporting life. In all the examples of the variety of life forms discovered not one example of special evolution was discovered. Paleontologists have searched specifically for examples of special evolution in vain. Special evolution is the lynchpin of evolution. The Theory fails without it.

      What is it? Special evolution is an example of an organism changing from a previous form to its new “evolved” form - a different animal. A mutation half fish and half reptile would qualify as an example. A wolf/whale is another. These two examples are both are documented as the path evolution followed – per science’s evolutionary standards. These mutations represent science’s official conjecture on the original organism and the organism that evolved. Special evolution is requisite to validate Darwin’s theory. None is found. Not even a shred of special evolution evidence exists. NONE!  This lack of evidence means each species came into existence separately and evolution played no role in how each new organism/species was created, or transplanted on earth. Some of the postulates advanced in “Darwin’s Theory” are preposterous. Others are impossible.

      Per Darwin, the forces driving evolution are:  Random happenstance, Mutation, Competition, and Adaption to fill a niche. The evolutionary niches are areas an organism can exploit. Exploitation is enabled due to, or when, minimal competition exists in a specific environment or area. Both may drive an organism to seek food, shelter, or another benefit, that individually, or collectively better enables and sustains the organism’s life. The alternative causality is alleged arising from pressures - the host environment became hostile to life, and, only through adaptation (evolution) could the organism survive. Darwin’s conjecture in this area remains unsupported, invalid, conjecture. No one can KNOW the environment a million years ago.

      Let’s play Devil’s Advocate - Consider, if the host environment became hostile to the life forms resident in it, and evolution was the only way to avoid death due to the increasing toxicity of the host environment, wouldn’t all, or a majority, of the life forms in the hostile environment, perish?  Timescales used in evolution span tens, or hundreds of millions of years. An immediately dire change does not permit evolution’s time needs. That renders toxicity or lethal environment highly suspect, or… impossible. If the oceans became inhospitable to life, and some fish evolved into reptiles or amphibians to avoid destruction, the fish that didn’t, or couldn’t, evolve are destined to die; are they not?  None of the host environments where a stark change in life forms is required for the life forms resident to survive outside that host environment show evidence of absolute destruction of the former life forms. Fish remain. Amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds, insects all remain viable life forms.

      If land mammals returned to the sea to escape lethal pressures on land, how did the mammals' science proposes were the forebears of whales and dolphins (wolves or large ruminants) continue to thrive on land?  Additionally, why do certain animals perish while others thrive?  The Woolly Mammoth is an example of a creature that died out. The Musk Ox remains. Caribou remains. Other furry mammals persist in arctic climes. They all are herbivores. Why only the Mammoth and sloth perish?

      Insects and shellfish are exo-skeletal life forms – their support structures are on the exterior of their bodies. No other life form shows any resemblance to exo-skeletal morphology. Bones provide structure in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc.  Where is the animal that moved its bones to the outside of its body, or the reverse scenario?  Nothing close to evidence is discovered.

      Importantly, a rudimentary, essential, unresolved evolution hurdle fort evolution is the inability of science to explain why and how single-celled organisms chose to confederate into more complex organisms. The amoeba swimming in a pond has no need to confederate. He is a contented and operative organism. The amoeba lacks complexity in all its body parts. It is simplicity defined – saved the chemical processes of digestion it shares with higher organisms. The Amoeba is satisfied with, and satisfies, its environment. If not, if the environment is toxic or otherwise unsustainable, the amoeba dies. The amoeba lacks the physical skills or morphology to pursue, or compel another amoeba to confederate. Psssst! The Amoeba has no brain, per se. Moreover, no motivation exists to push the Amoeba into seeking another more complex life form.

      Confederations of single-celled animals – like the Stromatolite - do not qualify as an organism seeking to evolve or change. They are opportunists who find a viable place to exist and multiply or were compelled to share their space when another Stromatolite floated along and affixed themselves to the same outcrop. It is the lack of viable space that compels their shared location.

      More - there is no evidence of single-celled creatures or assemblies of single-celled animals evolving into complex animals. This is conjecture on a process that is highly complex and specifically problematic. For example, what determines the final placement of the single-celled creature’s – brain, lung, muscle, bone, etc.?  How did the single celled creatures decide which of them would perform the various and specific organ functions needed. These single-celled creatures had no experience as a complex organism or organ. None was fit to assume the biological functions in the new complex organism as a component part. No evidence exists of the evolutionary processes alleged either. Organs require highly specific functionality and single-celled creature display no inclination or an physical ability to fulfill those requirements. Haphazardly arranging single-celled critters and expecting them to evolve and “learn” the functions of a brain, eye, lung, heart, etc., and adapt physically to provide the needed function is nonsensical. The origin of the complex organism, within evolution’s criteria, remains a mystery, or… the postulated evolution never happened.

      Mutations are another potential Darwinian causality that ostensibly explains how evolution may occur. NOTE: Mutations are not homogenous. Happenstance and other variants of the mating pair produce mutations. Genetic irregularities arising from natural or environmental causes, or pure chance, can produce mutations. A mule is an example of one form of a genetic mutation. The mule is the product of horse and donkey mating. Organisms similar enough can breed successfully and produce a mutation. However, these mutations are always problematic.

      One significant problem - the happenstance mutations used to advance Darwin’s theory – random chance mutations arising from a mating pair - are typically malformed, weakened, genetically damaged replicas of the parents. That’s why they are labeled MUTATIONS. Those mutations often contain monstrous malformations and die prematurely – long before the mutation can reproduce. More problematic - one mutation is not enough. A mating pair is ALWAYS required for the mutations to reproduce and perpetuate the mutation. Importantly, animals are genetically, and generically, predisposed to not breed with relatives. This mandates a mate - not from the mutants genetic ancestry - breed with the mutant. Adding to the difficulties, the majority of mothers that bear offspring (as opposed to egg layers) typically kill or abandon the mutation to inevitable death. “Normal” animals sense the mutation and eliminate it for the sake of preservation of the species. Moreover, malformed organisms cannot find a mate. Normal, healthy animals avoid mating with mutations. The fittest mates are chosen for breeding. Mutations with malformations are also typically easy prey. Still, more problems exist. In the example of the mule, the mutation does not contain reproductive organs or reproductive abilities. This reproductive problem arises when similar species of animals mate. The above, and other practical realities, imperil, or eviscerate Darwin’s evolutionary conjecture.

      The more complex pathways to evolution ALWAYS require a mating pair that is inexplicably united to ascend to evolution within the environment – against all odds. They must locate one another and agree to mate. The two must survive the above dangers. Hypothetically, the mutant pair must choose to leave their natural, host environment, (like water) - with no experience in the new environment – Example: land. The pair has no knowledge of where to locate food and shelter. The gills that enable their life under water do not function on land. The likelihood of success in this random event, even allowing for tens or hundreds of millions of years for opportunity, go astronomical - and then - disappear. More troubling, consider the second scenario - the natural environment was hostile and destined to become lethal to the life forms resident. Why then, do fish remain in the ocean and rivers today?  Analogously, if the mammal left the land to re-enter the ocean as evolutionists claim; to created the whale, dolphin, etc. why do mammals and other land animals remain?

      There is a profound reason why no special change evidence is found in the fossil record. None exists. The millions of years foisted as a buffer for evolution to work its magic, is not necessarily a panacea. A very old organism, the Horseshoe crab remains today as it did hundreds of millions of years past. It is unchanged from what can be determined from the fossil record that reveals the slightly changed organism. Why is that so?  If organisms are constantly looking to exploit a niche and improving themselves is written into their DNA, why is that animal, and other animals unchanged?  One must accept a primitive organism like the crab would be the first to perish in the overloaded or potentially toxic oceans, or, be one of the first to evolve.

      What is true? Animals must, and do adapt to their environment. Darwin’s Finch is an example. Animals on the periphery or facing a changing environment do adapt. Birds like the Finch develop different beaks. Other birds have no predators and stop flying – BUT they retain wings. Other birds went extinct when environmental pressures killed them off. Notably, the majority of animals within the fossil record, approximated at 95%, are extinct. Rather than support evolution, these extinct animals combine to show extinction, not evolution, is the more prevalent outcome. Importantly, even within the fossil record, birds remain birds. Reptiles remain reptiles. Fish remain fish. There is no evidence special change occurring. At least one example would be discovered, were it a viable concept and factual. In your author’s considered opinion - that evidence does not exists in the fossil record.

      Darwin’s theory, re-examined today, using rigorous scientific standards (sans the systemic changes incorporated to preserve it) the Theory fails to reach the minimum threshold of evidence required to remain a credible theory. When it was first accepted, Darwin’s theory was endorsed with a caveat – evidence of special evolution (required to validate the theory) would (soon) be discovered. Inexplicably, Darwin’s theory remaining vibrant today, unmarred, and unquestioned, reveals ulterior motivations for keeping it. Science, and allies of science work to protect and keep the theory because it axiomatically (and theoretically) belays God and extends control over truth and fact to science and men.

      As the holders and givers of fact and truth, science assumes the authority resident in an omnipotent and benevolent supreme being, God. Science was not then, nor will it ever, be prepared to assume those Divine authorities. Man in his best character, cannot remove the cloak of humanity that weights his physical form, and choices. The appetites that assure man survives in the hostile environs and circumstances of life on earth are branches of the same instincts and impulses that move man to seek pleasure and comforts - and sin. Removing the appetite removes them all. The branches cannot be pruned without killing the organism unless a supreme being provides the therapy and nutrients required to sustain the organism without an essential ingredient. The best science or man can do, when replacing God, is to rely exclusively upon the absolute standards God developed, and pray nothing substantial changes that require new standards.

      God may not, must not, exist. Otherwise, science loses control and authority over mankind it absconded. Some scientists, a minority, have not abandoned God. They are comfortable with God and view apparent contradictions a temporary condition. What they cannot explain, they know will eventually come to pass, when man learns more, or God provides new revelation – as he has done since the dawn of man. Unconscionably, scientists that refuse to disparage God are treated like pariah. The organizations of science marginalize and limit, or refuse to publish their work and findings. Seeking publication, as it leads to continued employment, some walk a fine line in defending their assertions while remaining silent on evolution or other secular twaddle.

      Interestingly, Darwin was a religiously minded man who lived to regret the confusion, and misinterpretations his theory spawned. That confusion provided a sufficient void to insert purposeful propaganda - misinterpretations, and conclusion taking Darwin’s theory and analysis much farther than Darwin anticipated. He tried to amend Origin of Species at its third publication. Copy-write laws then conveyed to the publisher, exclusively. Darwin lived out his life with considerable wealth and the notoriety his theory garnered; while regretting the destruction his efforts wrought upon religion and mankind. Darwin learned the wisdom and security, directly or indirectly, contained in God, his commandments, and the contentment and peace derived from them, must not be challenged. Perhaps his trust was betrayed. Inevitably, Darwin’s hypothesis enabled mankind indulging the vilest behaviors they can tempt or convince their fellow man to tolerate and indulge. Evolutionary conclusions opened science to irrational and unsubstantiated conjecture in other areas of science. Lying and deceit became tolerable and pervasive with God dead - and - a necessity to science that grew out of the moral vacuum.

      The dynamics and self-imposed restrictions science once obeyed in deference to the credibility of their craft, ended with the God-less environment Darwin enabled. The Theory’s importance to science’s global objectives compelled them to absolve and indemnify The Theory. New conclusions desired by science (and others/benefactors) moved the Theory from the subjective periphery to center stage. A world sans God’s restrictions became an “enabling” ingredient for all scientific pursuits. Preservation of Darwin’s theory became indispensable and omnipotent – like God!  Darwin’s work was integrated into the Scientific Method - then inter-woven within the standards and references of disciplines old and new. No amount of convolution, deceit, or the torture of logic, suppressed and ignored the facts (required to maintain the Theory) surpassed The Theory’s importance and relevance. Science’s fealty to Darwin’s theory exceeds the dynamics of most religious orthodoxy. Each new investigation - only possible absent God’s morality, incorporated novel interpretations of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Science became the definitive authority for the conventions mankind revered and used to conduct society. They assumed dominion over fact and truth. Science’s influence became omnipotent and omniscient owed to Darwin’s suspicions. Science rose to the new challenge and adopted “uncertainty” as its central tenet; then issued it to mankind. God and religion became a conditional entity retained to appease and placate those men too weak to accept the new reality. Absolutes ended. Excellence was subjectively secularized.