With one-party rule in any institution, everything supports the party line. Open debate would be healthy for paleontology.In the heyday of communist Russia, the “mainstream media” of the day (Pravda, Izvestia), towed the party line as it presented the “news” to the people. It wasn’t news, of course; it was party propaganda, sanitized of any serious investigative reporting. Lenin had destroyed the free press and replaced it with instruments of his own messaging. Consequently, every news development could be framed in terms of Marxist-Leninist doctrine: dialectical materialism, the class struggle, the revolution of the oppressed proletarians against the bourgeoisie, and the triumphal progress of world communism [for more on Marx, see Prager U]. This was absolutely necessary to the dictators, because a free press would undermine their regimes. If starving North Koreans could see how prosperous Americans are, they might begin to doubt what Kim’s state-controlled press tells them, that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the most successful and free society in history.Darwin and Marx: partners in totalitarianism.A similar situation exists within Big Science (BS), which has not only embraced the Darwinian Revolution unquestioningly, but has rejected anything that does not promote scientific materialism and Darwinian evolution. Obviously, creation and intelligent design never get a hearing, as one could imagine under Darwin Party control, but neither do criticisms of Darwin—the Dear Leader of BS. He must be presented to the public continually like the huge posters of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim have been used in totalitarian dictatorships of the past and present, staring down in every public venue to keep the populace aware of who is in charge. BS uses BM (Big Media) as its propaganda arm: it is the Pravda of BS, and even more powerful than its communist predecessor, because it has truly achieved global revolution. The Darwin Party Comintern punishes reporters in Turkey [17 Sept 2018 commentary], Louisiana or Uganda—wherever dissidents might emerge. BS uses BM to achieve BB (Big Brother).Ideology Before Interpretation, and EnforcementReaders of secular science media need to realize that every fossil bone, every tooth, and every footprint is being interpreted in terms of millions of years of death and struggle in the upward march of progress from bacteria to man. Free-thinking reporters never stray, because they would quickly be shamed out of their jobs. Readers of BM, whether at Science Daily or at national park signs, never hear that there are other ways to interpret fossils. Even when Dr Mary Schweitzer found soft, stretchy tissues in dinosaur bones, eliciting gasps from hosts on 60 Minutes, nobody was permitted to question the 80-million-year age of the fossils or the reality of dinosaur evolution. Only creationists pointed to the obvious contradiction with the party line, but they have to operate in the gulags of BS, or outside the institutions of power, as did members of unregistered churches or dissident groups in communist countries. The situation is so bad that even anti-creationist scientists who have doubts about Darwin’s mechanism have to meet in semi-secret groups and publish with caution (example: The Third Way of Evolution). They feel obligated to make it clear up front that they are not one of “them” (the creationist counter-revolutionaries).Plagiarism for the Good of the PartyLenin and Mao tolerated limited capitalism in times of crisis, when communism was failing, as it inevitably did. In a similar way, BS tolerates some forms of intelligent design: e.g., SETI. But as Richard Dawkins asserted in the movie Expelled, if space aliens were to send an intelligent message to us (the I in SETI), the aliens would have had to initially evolve by Darwinian evolution. As with communism, Party doctrine serves as a covering model that handles all apparent exceptions. Undoubtedly Pravda reported many actual facts that were uncontroversial. The point is that its raison d’être was to advance world communism. Facts, half truths and big lies were all acceptable as long as they served that over-arching goal.Note: As we read BS paleontology news, keep your eye on the ball: the Darwin Party Line is naturalistic origin of species by means of natural selection resulting in molecules-to-man common ancestry over millions of years. Don’t be distracted by ancillary details or jargon; they don’t matter. Creationists might agree on many facts in BM articles, such as classification and scientific names. They might find the writing polished and engaging. The only non-negotiable aspect of secular BS and BM is to advance the Party line in some way, even if to just appear scholarly and nice.Using scenarios to manage objections.The Party Play and the Fossil PropsWhat can you tell from a bone? You dig up a fossil. There’s no date on it. All you really know is that a creature once alive has died some time in the past. You can tell some things from experiments on living animals. If a dinosaur has its neck arched back (the common “dinosaur death pose”, 23 Nov 2011), it must have suffocated in water, because drowning chickens look like that. If it is intact (i.e., articulated), it might have been buried quickly without being transported. Such details are OK to state, as long as you reassure the Party that it happened over 65 million years ago, and probably happened in a localized flood, not a global flood like creationists teach. A secular scientist or reporter can even express shock and surprise at an anomalous fossil, like a “living fossil” or out-of-place fossil. The Party supplies BM with ready-made explanatory strategies, such as “this species must have evolved 60 million years earlier than thought” (thought by whom, you ask? by the Party loyalists, the only ones holding the imprimatur). The important thing is never to violate the party line: millions of years and Darwinian evolution. Let’s watch how BS and BM treat fossils as props for their propaganda.Newly discovered dinosaurs fill in evolutionary gap spanning 70 million years (Phys.org). The top illustration looks like drawings of ducks and chickens covered in gaudy feathers, but the writer insists these are dinosaurs. Writer Katie Willis (U of Alberta) tells her comrades that these are missing links that had been reported in Current Biology. Were any feathers found on them, as the picture implies? No; just imaginary feathers. Looks like a Big Lie just came to Darwin’s rescue. (For more problems with these fossils, see the 28 Aug 2018 entry.)Mammal forerunner that reproduced like a reptile sheds light on brain evolution (University of Texas at Austin). We are told by these Darwin loyalists that a Jurassic fossil represents a “mammal ancestor” even though there were mammals before the Jurassic, and this animal “probably had hair.” The only observational evidence presented is an adult with the bones of 38 babies, assumed to be its clutch or litter. From that, an evolutionary tale is woven: “The discovery that Kayentatherium had a tiny brain and many babies, despite otherwise having much in common with mammals, suggests that a critical step in the evolution of mammals was trading big litters for big brains, and that this step happened later in mammalian evolution.”Note: The paper in Nature on which this press release is based says very little about evolution. Authors Hoffman and Rowe only mention it twice, and never explain why a mammal with a smaller litter should be considered more fit than this animal with a large litter (if that is what the fossil cache represents). Mammals exhibit a lot of variation in litter sizes and brain sizes. So what? The authors speculate that the animal “may reflect a transitional phase” in limb sizes, but they don’t say what about brain sizes require smaller litters. They say the fossil is “consistent with a scenario” (a just-so story) where larger brains “drove later changes to mammalian reproduction,” but the connection is foggy, and association does not prove causation anyway. Did this animal somehow “want” to evolve a bigger brain? Did Darwin tell it, “The only way I can give you a larger brain is for you to give up large litters”? If this were a law of nature, large families would have no geniuses, and pandas would be the brainiest, fittest animals on the planet, instead of being on the verge of extinction. None of this makes any Darwinian sense. It reinforces the observation that the Darwin Party can use any fossil as a prop, just like the editors of Pravda could twist any news item into support for communism. In dictatorships without free and open debate about evidence, ideology drives the interpretation, and nobody gets to hear hard questions asked by dissidents.Tiny fossils reveal how shrinking was essential for successful evolution (University of Birmingham). The previous story argued that evolution makes things bigger. Here comes a story that evolution makes things smaller. “A new study published today in Nature shows that getting smaller was a key factor contributing to the exceptional evolution of mammals over the last 200 million years.” What a convenient theory! It simultaneously explains why “exceptional evolution” in dinosaurs made them gigantic, but the same force made mammals smaller. They even say this openly:The origin of modern mammals can be traced back more than 200 million years to the age of dinosaurs. But while dinosaurs evolved to become some of the largest land animals, for the following 150 million years, the ancestors of all modern mammals pursued an entirely different strategy: getting very small.Did the mammals “pursue” this “strategy” by design, or did the Stuff Happens Law direct it? Such a theory could explain anything, even opposites (as here), depending on what “scenario” a BM reporter wants to tell about that day. In this scenario, the authors use a jawbone as their divination tool. As expected, whatever happens always requires “millions of years” that are never open to observation.Fossil teeth show how reptiles adapted to change (University of Ediburgh). This story, emerging from Darwin’s alma mater, quotes Darwin Party fossil commissar Steve Brusatte using teeth as divination tools to glorify Darwin:Teeth are humble fossils, but they reveal a grand story of how sea reptiles evolved over millions of years as their environments changed. Changes in these Jurassic reptiles parallel changes in dolphins and other marine species that are occurring today as sea-levels rise, which speaks to how important fossils are for understanding our modern world.Notice that all they had in their hands were a few teeth. Can a yarn about climate, ecology and evolution really support the bite put on it? Such language parallels what a Pravda editor might say to affirm Party loyalty when reporting that an election in America demonstrates the class struggle against the bourgeousie.Are the Paleozoic era’s giant dragonflies still among us? (The Conversation). A fun mystery story can sometimes entertain the peasants so they don’t revolt. In this tale, Romain Garrouste and André Nel tease that the large dragonflies found in Permian rocks might still live today! Actually, they don’t – but it’s fun to imagine. Remember to ask what this has to do with Darwinism. Shouldn’t today’s smaller relatives of dragonflies indicate de-evolution has occurred? But lest we spoil the play, we sit and listen quietly to the actors:Don’t worry. This isn’t an announcement of a new invasion from elsewhere, but a leap into the past in the Paleozoic: the time of giant insects, 100 million years before the dinosaurs, during which insects also had their T-Rex: Carboniferous and Permian giant dragonflies that terrorised the skies of those times, sometimes call “griffenflies”). A short trip back in time to a kind of another Earth in search of insects that were already major actors of the ecosystems.Holding their props, they sing praise to Darwin: “This observation complements our vision of the ecosystems of this period during which the conquest of airspace allowed important evolutionary lineages to be established.” Dissidents in the audience might be wondering how the Party could explain the origin of powered flight in the first place, using only the Stuff Happens Law.These Tiny Burrows Might Be Some of the Oldest Fossils on Earth (Live Science). Might doesn’t make right, but Darwinist reporters love to speculate whenever a fossil “might” make a good offering to lay at the Dear Leader’s feet. Faithful BM reporter Catie Keck looks at some tiny openings in Australian rocks, and says they “might” be fossils. They are “suggesting that these 3.4-billion-year-old rock samples once housed some of Earth’s earliest life.” To add tension to the story (and thus not appear too doctrinaire), she mentions some Party scientists who are not convinced they are fossils at all. But they might be! Mission accomplished. Dear Leader BBBB* has been honored. (*Big Brother Bearded Buddha.)End-Permian extinction, which wiped out most of Earth’s species, was instantaneous in geological time (Phys.org). Danger ahead! Here’s a story that creationists might use to support a global Flood in the recent past. This must not happen! In totalitarian regimes, Party strategists sometimes allow risky stories to be published, because it can pre-empt the enemy’s line. This story supports de-evolution (extinction), not Darwinian evolution, and it risks sudden, catastrophic scenarios. Not to worry; BM can handle this. By “instantaneous” they still mean a lot of time. “From their analysis, they were able to determine that the end-Permian extinction occurred suddenly, around 252 million years ago, give or take 31,000 years.” Why, it could have taken a few centuries! But it was so long ago—252 million Darwin years, BBBB will not object. Besides, think of how so many new “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful” would be able to evolve in the cleared habitats after the slate was cleaned!Note: Did anyone point them to another recent news item that asked, “Does the fossil record tell the true story about mass extinctions?” (Astrobiology Magazine). Actually, the answer to that question was “Not necessarily” (see “Fossils Can Mislead Big Time,” 15 Sept 2018).Finally, don’t forget one of the biggest whoppers of all. We just reported it a few days ago: scientists found soft tissue (original fat molecules) in an Ediacaran fossil (22 Sept 2018). Did BS and BM repent of their big lies and fake ages? Never! Without blinking, they immediately twisted it into support for Darwinism, claiming it is an ancestor of all the animals. And they cheered the Big Lie that this organism’s original fat molecules survived for 558 million years, something they could never test or prove without first pledging allegiance to Darwin. Not only that, they announced that future soft tissue discoveries—rather than falsifying their belief—actually will help them find more evidence for evolution! That’s not just holding up props for propaganda. That’s parading them like batons before a marching band.Scientists of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but blind chance. You have a designed world to win. Join the Revolution!Soviet communism fell rapidly. Why? It became increasingly obvious to the subjects that it wasn’t working. The people got more access to news from non-Party sources. They could see how prosperous free societies were. They fell in love with American music and western dress. Remember how the Party bosses, with trembling fingers, read a statement that the regime was still in control? Boris Yeltsin was standing on a tank assuring the people that a new day was dawning. Gorbachev could not stop the trend, and said he would no longer support East Germany’s prevention of passage from east to west. The Berlin Wall fell. It was over in a flash! How long can North Korea hold out?This is why Darwin skeptics should not be discouraged at the totalitarian dictatorship of Darwinism. The old guard is trembling. The journals are having to accommodate Open Science initiatives, where scientists with the best ideas and evidence can get a hearing without the stranglehold of traditional peer review, which often serves as a means of suppression of dissidents. Scientists do not have to imbibe Darwin Pravda like they had to decades ago; creation and ID material is out there. Darwin Party comrades sometimes read it, like Gunter Bechly did, and find it convincing. When a critical mass decides it is safe to revolt against King Charles, and when being pro-Darwin is no longer ‘cool,’ the mass exodus to freedom could be swift and beautiful to see. Transparency is the best weapon against totalitarianism. (Of course, subsequent history with Vladimir Putin taking power shows that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.)A revolution against evolution is coming. Sources like CEH need your help to get the word out and keep the pressure on. The Soviets tried to jam frequencies broadcasting Radio Free Europe, but that’s harder now with the internet. Help spread our news and commentary on social media, and don’t let the tech giants engage in censorship. When Open Science comes, with transparency and freedom to debate the evidence, new interpretations of the evidence will get a hearing. If creationists can finally get a hearing without Party censorship, science will flourish; why? Because only Judeo-Christians in science have a moral foundation that science desperately needs: a worldview that values honesty and has a high regard for the truth (here’s evidence). Like Soviets importing American grain to keep their people from starving, Darwinians have plagiarized Biblical values to deal with rampant corruption and fraud, because they cannot grow integrity in their own soil. Darwinists hate Christians but need their goods. It’s an unstable standoff that the Darwin Party, like Gorbachev, cannot maintain forever. When the Darwin idol is toppled, the sufferings of those who were persecuted for doubting Darwin will not have been in vain.(Visited 457 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Return to article. Long DescriptionLiving on Credit Cards by Images MoneyBe incredibly careful with paying bills on timeThose who are on the road to rebuilding credit must be scrupulous about paying every single bill on time, every time. It is probably advisable to put bills on auto-pay whenever possible, but don’t do this if it might result in overdrafts, and don’t forget to change these auto-pay setups if anything changes in your banking situation. Another way to handle it is to set up multiple reminders in electronic calendars and on cell phones (some companies will also send you reminders). If for some reason you know you will not be able to pay a bill, in part or in full, call the company ahead of time and speak to someone.Consider becoming an authorized user on someone else’s credit cardIf a secured credit card is not a possibility, or even if it is, another avenue towards beginning to reestablish credit is to become a secured user on another person’s credit card. It is important to understand that this basically gives you all the rights and privileges of the credit card with none of the financial responsibilities, so the card-holder must have a high degree of trust in the user that the user must not betray, or discord will inevitably follow. Becoming an authorized user also does not build your credit as well as holding your own card would. Build up an emergency fund so you don’t get in trouble all over againThe basic emergency fund is such a key financial tool, but it’s amazing how many Americans don’t have this cushion available. Such a fund is no doubt even more important for people coming back from bankruptcy. Although it may be hard to build up, it’s worth it. Even $250 can make a big difference.Create and stick to a budgetAlthough bankruptcy often does come about as the result of unavoidable circumstances, such as massive medical bills, recovering from this situation may well entail learning or relearning good budgeting habits, so that the consumer does not get caught in the same situation again. Making and sticking to a clear and user-friendly monthly budget with realistic and accurate numbers can help bankruptcy filers stay on track in the long term, especially if they are attempting to repay obligations under Chapter 13. Watch out for predatory lendersPayday loans, rent-to-own, car title loans…all these predatory practices are a bad idea for borrowers, but these businesses tend to know that consumers with poor credit are especially likely to fall into this trap. As a result, they may market to those in this situation. People with poor credit need to be especially careful to avoid these dangerous loans. By Carol ChurchBad credit can and does happen to good people. Whether it’s the result of a huge and unexpected medical bill, or a painful divorce, bad decisions made in someone’s youth, bankruptcy, or a foreclosed home, the results can be a lot of anxiety, self-blame, and fear that credit will never be obtainable again. This problem is common among members of our nation’s armed forces. However, as long as those with poor credit turn over a new leaf, the good news is that “time heals.” As the years go by, if credit-related behavior is responsible, credit scores should gradually improve. However, that can be a long time to wait. What can be done to start rebuilding a low credit score as soon as possible? Start fresh with a secured credit cardA secured credit card is a credit card that requires applicants to put down a deposit before opening an account. In this way, the issuer has money to fall back on if the cardholder becomes delinquent. Most of the time, the deposit amount will be equivalent to the card’s credit limit.It’s important for cardholders to remember that even though they have paid the full value of the card as a deposit, secured cards work just like “regular” credit cards—they need to pay by the statement due date, and if they don’t pay in full, they will be charged interest. Those who handle secured credit cards well may be offered the opportunity to “transform” the secured card into a regular one, but should be sure to look at the fees and benefits of the card first.Watch credit reports like a hawkMake sure you file for your free credit report every year. Read it, and find and fix any mistakes. There will be accurate, negative items on that report, so don’t let untruthful ones pull the score down any further. Try a credit builder loan from a credit unionTypically issued to its members by a credit union, a credit builder loan is intended to help people with poor credit or no credit build credit, at no risk to the bank. Typically, it works like this: The bank “loans” you a relatively small amount of money ($250-1500), but you don’t actually receive it until the end of the loan. Instead, you pay the bank a set amount every month, on time, including some (relatively low) interest, and then get the amount at the end. Success will mean that your credit score goes up. It sounds a little crazy, but the idea is to prove to the credit bureaus that you can be trusted to pay a bill on time.If you have some money in the bank but can’t get credit, you can also use this same concept to “borrow against” the money you yourself have in the bank. That money is inaccessible to you until you “pay off” the credit builder loan. Flikr image obtained 2/10/2016. Photo by: https://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/
Self-medication is not new to India. A 2015 survey conducted by Lybrate among 20,000 people across 10 cities showed that 52% of people practised self-medication. But the country lacks a well-defined regulation for over the counter (OTC) medicines, important for patient safety. The government is in the process of finalising an OTC drug policy, which may bring more clarity on the drugs that a wider population can access. The Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), a body of multinational drug companies, has worked with the government over the past one year by providing inputs to the draft of the OTC policy.The Hindu spoke to OPPI president Annaswamy Vaidheesh about the need for such guidelines and the changes they will bring about in healthcare.What role did OPPI play in creating the OTC policy draft?We brought experts together to help develop the guidelines. We also invited companies like Cipla, Glenmark, Sun Pharma and others who are not members of OPPI, but their inputs were valuable. Additionally, we got international experts to bring in perspective. The government has hailed the inputs and is seriously considering taking them forward. We have looked at the best practices in various economies and highlighted what we can take from them, the kind of drugs that should be included in the OTC list and the ones that should not.How will an OTC policy help?First of all, when you widen access to OTC drugs, it automatically releases the government’s time and resources, which can be focussed on drugs that need to be stringently prescribed. We are saying that drugs that are known to have negligible side effects and don’t require much explanation can be classified as OTC so that access to them becomes easy and wide. These drugs can be made easily accessible in small towns as well. The idea is to make sure that the right product rests in the right place. Society has learnt that OTC medicines are those that don’t have major side effects but help improve health. Many countries have brought more products under the OTC category to focus on drugs that need to be strictly regulated.We also face the threat of antibiotics resistance. Will bringing more drugs under the OTC category lead to overuse or misuse? An antibiotic is a drug meant to treat a bacterial infection. But people who have viral infections, fever and so on are taking antibiotics, causing the resistance. However, when drugs for common viral infections, sore throat, acidity, indigestion, nausea, vomiting, stomach pain, injury, cuts, wounds, burns, acne etc are made available under OTC, people will get access to the right medication. Many people are using such drugs without prescription anyway. But an OTC policy will improve access to drugs that are okay to be sold as OTC and restrict access to other drugs. Besides antibiotic resistance, steroid use is also a big problem. There are people who use steroid creams for skin whitening. But we are working with the government to spread awareness about the responsible use of antibiotics and steroids.What stage is the policy in?The submission has gone; we have crossed three-fourths of the passage. The government may take six months or a year. It is in the process of finetuning it and converting it into a legislation.