See my upload on the topic Joan references.
Author: Papa Giorgio
The Darwinian Ape/Man Split Just Got Older (Subjective Science)
So you can see JUST how arbitrary historical science is (Darwinian evolution in this case), scientists have just doubled the age of man, via Creation Research Society’s, Creation Matters newsletter (July/Aug 2014, Volume 19, Number 4) ~ “Your Inner Ape Just Got Older”:
Evolutionists have doubled their date of the chimp-human split from 7 million to 13 million years ago. How, and why? National Geographic announces gleefully, with a picture of a chimp playing with a child, “Ancient Human-Chimp Link Pushed Back Millions of Years.”1 Based on a study of chimp genes in Science,2 …
[….]
The new estimate is based on current mutation rates in the sample, but a lead author confessed, “We also don’t know if mutation rates varied widely in the ancient past; maybe they were different than now.”
1. Vergano, D. (2014, June 12) Ancient human-chimp link pushed back millionsof years: Older male chimps sped evolution and reset era of our last commonancestor with apes. National Geographic Daily News. Retrieved June20, 2014 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140612-chimp-father-evolution-human-science/
2. Venn, O., I. Turner, I. Mathieson, N. de Groot, R. Bontrop, and G. McVean.2014. Nonhuman genetics. Strong male bias drives germline mutation inchimpanzees. Science 344(6189):1272–1275.
Two observations… the first one being in a form of a question:
- “Does this cause an increase in confidence towards neo-Darwinian ‘science’ showing evidence of early evolutionary man and ‘his’ origins? Or does the above cause less confidence in the origin of mankind’s history, according to an evolutionary past?”
I argue it cause less confidence. Why? — you so astutely ask. This is why: ALL the evidences and previous timelines based on a wide variety of work from archaeology, paleontology, and dating methods used to date man’s time-table… are thrown out. Why does science, so called, make such giant leaps (remember that the age of the Virgo Cluster being essentially chopped in half?)? Because the previous evidence is shoddy, and very, very subjective.
The second commentary is at least an honest admission from the researchers. I wish such honesty existed in the dating community… not the dating community as in male/female. But the dating community in the radioactive measurements. Even Forbes Magazine is catching up to the idea:
One of the first things that Physics students learn when they study radioactivity is the idea of the half-life. A half-life is the period of time in which it takes one-half of a given amount of a radioactive substance to decay. Radioactive decay happens when a radioactive substance emits a particle. It’s impossible to predict exactly when a given atom of a substance will emit a particular particle, but the decay rate itself over a long period of time is constant.
Or, at least, that’s what we thought. But if physicists at Stanford and Purdue are correct in their findings, the whole theory of constant radioactive decay rates could be thrown out the door.
The story begins, as scientific discoveries often do, randomly. Literally, in this case. The team of physicists was investigating the possibility of using radioactive decay rates to generate random numbers, since the rate is constant but the emission of individual atoms is unpredictable, it seemed like a perfect fit.
Then came the problem:
As the researchers pored through published data on specific isotopes, they found disagreement in the measured decay rates – odd for supposed physical constants.
Checking data collected at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island and the Federal Physical and Technical Institute in Germany, they came across something even more surprising: long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer.
Was this fluctuation real, or was it merely a glitch in the equipment used to measure the decay, induced by the change of seasons, with the accompanying changes in temperature and humidity?
As it turns out, they probably aren’t….
As you can see in my more lengthy dealing with the matter as a supplement to a men’s group at church, the assumption of continuous decay rates at the present — observable — rates applied to the past is a HUGE assumption that is not scientific at all. Here are other “icons of evolution” decunstructed:
A great magazine for all ages: click to enlarge
http://creation.com/creation-magazine
“Leaning Forward” Past Facts and Common Sense
The left and Israel, h/t: HotAir:
And this story from Belgium via Libertarian Republican:
The French community in Belgium follows the lead of France in anti-Semitism: In Turkish, the sign reads, “Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Jews are not under any circumstances.”
The Case for Israel ~ Bill Whittle’s Firewall
Greg Gory’s HATE Mail! This Weeks Topic: Gay Pride
Michael Cannon (CATO Inst.) Explains the Recent D.C. Court Ruling
Video Description:
The Washington D.C. Upper Court ruled…
➣ Michael F. Cannon ~ Statement on D.C. Circuit’s Ruling In Halbig v. Burwell
➣ Ilya Shapiro ~ Government Can’t Rewrite Obamacare Text Without Legislation
➣ Paul Mirengoff ~ Drafting error vs. poor draftsmanship
….NOT in favor of not nixing part of Obama-Care, or overturning it… but rather, to uphold the clear portions of the law that deal with the IRS and subsidies. THIS is why this ruling is important, and has a great chance of winning.
For more clear thinking like this from Larry Elder… I invite you to visit: http://www.larryelder.com/
The Requested Sandbags/Machine-Gun Wasn’t Aesthetically Appealing
Fox News reporting that a year before the Benghazi Massacre, consulate staff requested sandbags and a belt-fed machine gun to bolster security at the State Department facility. Those requests were denied, the Obama administration citing they would not be “aesthetically pleasing” and might “upset the neighbors.”
“We warned D.C. about the guys who moved in next door, but nobody knew what to do, and nothing was done.”
Federal Appeals Court Deals Major Blow Against Obama-Care!
The above is older video explaining the case (from 2013). Below is the most recent info on the case:
(Libertarian Republican) …That power rests with the Congress. Specifically, ACA requires people to spend up to 8 percent of their income to buy health insurance meeting the standards set by the federal government. But, the cost of such insurance is higher than 8 percent for tens of millions of people. So, the subsidies bring the cost down to 8 percent. The subsidies make Obamacare affordable and also mandate its purchase. But, says the DC Court, the federal government cannot overlook the plain wording of the ACA in providing these subsidies because that would expose people of modest income to a penalty….
Fed Appeals Court Panel Says Most Obamacare Subsidies Illegal
In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a top federal appeals court Tuesday said that billions of dollars worth of government subsidies that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are not legal under the Affordable Care Act.
In its decision, a three-judge panel said that such subsidies can be granted only to people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov. Plaintiffs in the case known as Halbig v. Burwell argued that the ACA, as written, only allows that often-significant financial aid to be issued to people who bought insurance on a marketplace set up by a state.
The decision is certain to be challenged by the Obama Administration, and does not immediately have the effect of law. But if it is ultimately upheld, it would cause insurance rates for those people who lost the subsidies to dramatically rise.
HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 86 percent of its 5.45 million customers received a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.
See Also Reason.org
Also, National Review’s Corner has this breaking headline that quotes Obama’s law professor:
Obama’s Law Professor: “I Wouldn’t Bet on Obamacare Surviving Next Legal Challenge”
President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he “wouldn’t bet the family farm” on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts.
“I don’t have a crystal ball,” Tribe told the Fiscal Times. “But I wouldn’t bet the family farm on this coming out in a way that preserves Obamacare.”
The law’s latest legal problem is that, as written, people who enroll in Obamacare through the federal exchange aren’t eligible for subsidies. The text of the law only provides subsidies for people enrolled through “an Exchange established by the State,” according to the text of the Affordable Care Act. Only 16 states decided to establish the exchanges.
The IRS issued a regulation expanding the pool of enrollees who qualify for the subsidies. Opponents of the law, such as the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler, argue that the IRS does not have the authority to make that change. (Halbig v. Burwell, one of the lawsuits making this argument, is currently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court; the loser will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.)
“There are specific rules about when and how the IRS can deviate from the plain language of a statute,” Cannon explained to National Review Online, arguing that the subsidies regulation fails to comply with those rules.
Marines On Funeral Detail Ran Into “Sergeant Major” Douchebag
Via The Blaze!
A new video posted on Facebook Sunday appears to show two U.S. Marines confronting a man who they believe to be impersonating a military veteran. In the video, the Marines are friendly at first as they ask the man where he served as well as other details about his military service. The man identifies himself as a “sergeant major,” a military policeman, and a special forces operator. However, the Marines grew very suspicious with his answers and eventually called the guy out.
“You know that’s called false valor? It is a federal crime for you to be wearing that uniform,” one of the Marines tells the alleged impersonator.
“No it’s not,” the man shoots back. “You can get out my face right now… because I’m a military officer as well.”
When the Marines asked him where his “MP” card is, he claimed it was in his car. He never concedes that he is not who he says he is.
Source: U.S Army W.T.F! moments
Harvard Business School Professor Asks: How You Measure Your Life?
“It’s actually really important that you succeed at what you’re succeeding at, but that isn’t going to be the measure of your life.”
Too often, we measure success in life against the progress we make in our careers. But how can we ensure we’re not straying from our values as humans along the way? Clayton Christensen, Harvard Business School professor and world-renowned innovation guru, examines the daily decisions that define our lives and encourages all of us to think about what is truly important.
Just How Much Have Democrats Changed in 20-Years? (Mark Steyn)
Mark Steyn (http://www.steynonline.com/) responds to the question of how far the Democrat Party has moved in 20[+] years in regards to its extremism. Senator Ted Cruz notes how far, for example, the Democrats have moved leftward from Ted Kennedy on the First Amendment (below).
For more clear thinking like this from Hugh Hewitt… I invite you to visit: http://www.hughniverse.com/
If you asked a student to listen to Kennedy’s inaugural speech — without letting them know who was giving it, do you think they would say it was a Republican or Democrat?
Where Do You Live, Mark Zuckerberg? ~ FIREWALL & More
This first video is another wonderful Trey Gowdy anthem. Click his name in the “TAGS” to see other “music to your ears” speeches:
Video description: Rep. Gowdy’s floor speech in favor of H.R. 4138 the ENFORCE the Law Act.
And this is a recent Jonathan Turley statement before Congress (do the same, check out Turley in the “TAGS”):
Video description:
Via The Blaze ~ I did turn the volume up from the original file… so prep your volume control.
A constitutional law expert warned Congress during a hearing Wednesday that America has reached a “constitutional tipping point” under the watch of President Barack Obama.
Jonathan Turley, professor of public interest law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C., said the legislative branch of the U.S. government is in danger of becoming irrelevant in the face of continued executive overreach.
“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” Turley said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”
“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” he added….