Search This Blog

Friday, June 12, 2009

Let them eat...Lard? Paradigms that give no quarter

Note-all picture URLs will be credited at the end of this blog post.

You know, you can say pretty much anything you want to say. Advertisers have been inundating the consumer with ads via every media outlet imaginable and often do so without the awareness of the consumer. For instance, have you noticed that, while most people in the USA use PC laptops and notebooks, movie characters consistently have Apples and will often position the notebook so that the tell-tale little Apple logo is showing prominently? Have you ever seen a movie or television program where all the new cars are made by one company? Or even a situation in which every car is a new car (this happened more often in the past).



The advertisers are all around us - television, internet, magazines, radio, billboards, on packages and signs in stores - ubiquitous!



Maybe some don't mind the baseless and completely untrue nature of many ads. Once it was much worse - cocaine cough drops were being advertised for children and in fact quite a few drugs to quiet children once were advertised as a for instance. Remarkable and incredible claims could be made without verification and sometimes the ads were unintentionally hilarious.



About the same time this fine product was being advertised, we had the one below:



I don't suppose that using babies to sell cigarettes is in any way at all deceptive or blatantly crass, do you?



The advertisers of the orthodox paradigm are not necessarily overloaded with scruples, either. A recent example is the amazing and marvelous wejustfoundthemissinglinkthatohyeahwehaditinthecornerfortwentysixyears
butwantedsomethingsplashyfordarwin'sbirthdaysohereitis!



Uhm, er, ah, it's just a Lemur, folks. A lemur.



As the owner of the photo above says:

Darwinists have never mentioned the following facts, out of a fear of the truth about this fossil they have speculated so much over eventually coming to light:

1. The fossil is 95% complete. It has therefore been possible to examine its every detail, including the animal’s internal organs. And apart from a few details pointing to variations unique to individual species, IT IS A PERFECT SPECIES OF LEMUR.


2. Darwinist publications have claimed that Ida has an opposable thumb, and that this feature is different to that in other mammals but the same as that in humans. The fact is that all living lemurs have thumbs of this kind.


3. In the same way, Darwinists have tried to point to Ida’s nails as evidence for their claims. But other primates also do have nails.


4. Darwinists maintain that Ida’s ankle bone “is the same as that in human beings.” But the other foot structure in this life form is entirely different to that in humans. Comparing one single bone in the feet while ignoring all the other differences is a familiar element of Darwinist propaganda.


5. Darwinists say that the fossil, different from present-day lemurs, does not have fused teeth in the middle of its bottom jaw or a grooming claw, and seek to use these as evidence for their claims. The fact is that the animal’s teeth resemble those of monkeys. The lack of a grooming claw, on the other hand, is a feature unique to the species. The absence of these characteristics from an extinct lemur exhibiting variations peculiar to the species is not evidence that the creature evolved. It is in no way evidence that this animal is “the imaginary ancestor of man.” Its teeth and toes are perfect. It exhibits no features that are in the process of evolving, semi-developed, deficient or abnormal.


6. The fossil was actually discovered in 1983. It has taken 26 years for this huge sensation to break. The reason for the long delay is probably that the fossil is being used as a vehicle for conjecture just when Darwinists need it the most, when they have been totally routed. From having been kept as an ordinary fossil lemur, it suddenly became the greatest discovery Darwinists had ever made.


All the Darwinist speculation around this fossil is based on the totally unscientific idea that “this characteristic resembles man.” Of course life forms resemble one another. But this is no proof of the lie of evolution. Instead of depicting similarities as evidence for the fiction that is evolution, Darwinists need to bring a real transitional fossil, and point to deficient but developing, semi-developed or abnormal structures in it. But it is impossible for them to do that. Because, like all other life forms, this lemur was created from nothing and in a perfect state by our Almighty Lord. And the fossils prove that.


Not only do the orthodox hate hearing from the other side as they blithely go about continuing the world wide indoctrination of the common man, they apparently are not too fond of hearing from my wife, Debbie, based on the outpouring of comments attached to her recent post!



Well guys, Debbie will be posting again anyway. In fact, a good healthy discussion with the opposition seems to get her going. My wife is a crusader, a true believer, and an expert in the field of sex education (and worked in that field before marrying me and becoming a household engineer) as well as a Bible brain and a political science enthusiast.



One day Darwinism will have gone the way of the Edsel and we will all sit around and wonder at how easily the world could and can be fooled.

"There's a sucker born every minute" Said PT Barnum or Mark Twain or Michael Cassius MacDonald or...well, whoever said it, they said it. Barnum may have also been the first to speak the line below, although we usually give credit to President Abraham Lincoln, who did know his way around a memorable phrase.

“You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.”

Like Copernicus waiting for the world to understand that the Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, I am sure one day people will see that God created and that Darwin was just an amateur scientist with an aversion to God and a tenuous and frail hypothesis that does not stand up in the light of evidence. But, hey, Henry thought the Edsel was going to be the flagship of the industry and destined to be produced for decades to come.

There is no shame in being wrong, but it is indeed a shame if you refuse to even consider that you could be...those who do not investigate and test their own worldviews are puzzling to me. How can you so happily just drink the Kool Aid without checking out the ingredients first?

The below are links to the photos posted on this blog today -

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd_blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/theyre-happy-because-they-eat-lard.jpg


http://blog.modernmechanix.com/mags/qf/c/PopularMechanics/6-1958/med_better_informed_america.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/2652579846_6ecc09c258.jpg?v=0


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2229/2236403210_56bef4c030.jpg?v=0


http://data.tumblr.com/0P2wXH14EierzvplHjIi0g7no1_500.jpg


http://media.photobucket.com/image/vintage%20ad/stripperpatrick/vintage-marlboro-ad-01.jpg?o=52


http://www.shanethompson.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/missing-link-monkey.jpg



http://us1.harunyahya.com/Image/makaleler/lemur.jpg


http://www.vintagetinsigns.co.nz/images/AHSMS30.jpg


http://weblogs.newsday.com/sports/watchdog/blog/Retro1958_Edsel_Citation.jpg

2 comments:

Chaos Engineer said...

This is actually an issue where Creationists and scientists can find some common ground.

I think the best source of up-to-the-minute information on evolution and atheism is P.Z. Myers over at the Pharyngula blog. His stories on the new "missing link" fossil are: Darwinius Masillae, followed a few days later by The Darwinius hype is begining to burn.

He also has links to a bunch of other stories, I think the best is: Poor, poor Ida, or, Overselling an Adapid.

Quick summary: This is a fossil which provides some evidence for the theory that anthropoids are more closely related to adapids than they are to omomyids or tarsiers. If you're interested in that question, then this fossil is an exciting discovery. If you don't even know what those words mean, then the fossil provides a nice picture to glance at while reading the newspaper.

Like you're saying, the problem is advertising. The scientists that made the discovery put together a big package of hype in hopes of getting time on the History Channel and National Geographic. This is a problem with modern science reporting in general; most scientific research involves very small discoveries in specialized fields and it's hard to make it interesting for the mass media.

This isn't causing science to break down completely...other researchers are going to ignore the hype and focus on the actual source material.

But it does have a distorting effect. We want to see funding going to the best researchers, not to the best hype artists. (Apparently the paper was rushed into publication; there are accusations of sloppy research.)

This is something that needs to be fixed. I'm thinking that we could give the FTC more power to stop the media from making false or misleading claims. This could also help fix the partisan cesspool that talk radio has turned into.

In the meantime, if people want to learn about the latest in scientific research, a good first step is to ignore the History Channel and start browsing around at scienceblogs.com.

radar said...

chaos,

I need to address the underlying problem, but one thing to note is that the common man gets his science from the news media and not scientists, the History Channel and not a series of scientific studies, and etc.

Whether these animals are related by evolutionary link or common creator is something that scienceblogs.com cannot prove nor disprove and yet the idea that they are related by evolution is accepted as a given. This is the problem with such a paradigm. Much of the brain is automatically turned off!