Just days before he died on Christmas Day, 2011, Ben Breedlove made this video.

Melba Harris made the following comment after viewing Ben’s video:

Melba Harris · Carbondale, Colorado
To Ben’s parents…….I also have cheated death 3 times in my life. I had that same feeling as Ben, I was surrounded by a very bright light, and I did not want to leave. I also lost my oldest son many years ago. The day he died I was holding him and I saw Christ standing in front of us. Do I believe in God? How could I not? Do I miss my son? You bet I do. Would I take him back today if God would give him back perfectly healthy? No way! He is with God, in that wonderful place I got a glimpse of. A place that words can’t describe. I could never be that selfish to take him away from there and bring him back to a world that offers so much pain and suffering. I know your grief so well, but I know a day will come when it will be no more. A day when Christ will wipe our tears away and fill our hearts with joy forevermore. God tells us to comfort each other. I hope you can find comfort in these words. Your son did not die on Christmas day, he was born that day. I can’t imagine a better place to be on Christmas day than with Jesus Christ. How fortunate our boys are. May God’s grace surround us here on this earth until that day when we get to all be together.

No more comments necessary.

Later. At the funeral, Ben’s sister shares her talks with Ben before he died.

Darwin’s theory that we humans gradually evolved from some accidental form of life appearing long, long ago in some prehistoric “soup” is well known and accepted as gospel truth by many. He expected that subequent archeological discoveries would confirm his theory but the gaps and the missing links remain. Darwin himself knew what would cause the downfall of his theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

— Charles Darwin from Origin of Species

Darwin also wrote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

Instead of trying to imagine how the human eye could have evolved step by step from some blind water-creature let us consider the “eye” on the tail of a peacock which is also quite wonderful and inexplicable, even to Darwin.  Technically known as an ocellus, it is a thing of awesome beauty, an intensely blue center surrounded by iridescent concentric colored circles, to be enjoyed many times over as the peacock raises and displays his plumage. It seems to have no purpose but to please the observer. Darwin called the peacock the most splendid of living birds.

He writes about the eye on the tail of the peacock:

That these ornaments should have been formed through the selection of many successive variations, not one of which was originally intended to produce the ball-and-socket effect, seems as incredible as that one of Raphael’s Madonnas should have been formed by the selection of chance daubs of paint made by a long succession of artists, not one of whom intended at first to draw the human figure.

Obviously, even Darwin had trouble in believing in his theory of natural selection!

Nevertheless, natural selection and sexual selection as described by Darwin MUST operate by chance. A brighter color or more beautiful design appears by happenstance, (or, as we would say today, by some quirk of a gene) and appeals to the peahen so that the more elegant peacock pleases her most and wins the opportunity to pass along his genes to the next generation. Darwin attributes to the peahen an apparent delight in beauty, which he also considers strange. Unlike the cock, the peahen remains drab, her coloring protecting her as she nests and cares for her young.

Consider again the eye on the tail of the peacock and the feather on which it is found. A feather consists of a central shaft with barbs on each side equipped with barbules which turn bear barbicels which interlock, velcro-fashion, with similar structures on the adjacent barb, producing a continuous vane. No person comes along and paints the ocellus on this plume after it has formed. No, each individual barb must “know how” to produce the right colors in the right place to achieve the overall ball-in-socket effect. It boggles the mind that there are those who would believe this marvelous arrangement of minutiae to produce an ocellus came about as the result of the random activity of atoms.

There is a PDF devoted to the evolution of feathers.   Obviously a feather must evolve before the beautiful  colorful eye can make its appearance on the feather.  In this little clip from the  PDF we read that the feather is said to have evolved but in the whole PDF there is not a clue as to HOW the feather evolved.  It is taken as fact that it just evolved.

Stage IV
The evolution of differentiated distal and proximal
barbules created the closed, pennaceous vane.
Terminally hooked pennulae on the distal barbules
evolved to attach to the simpler proximal barbules
of the adjacent barb to form the closed vane.  (Emphasis added)

Dropping the discussion of the evolution of eyes of any sort, consider the “evolution” of sexual reproduction which Darwin does not even attempt to explain.

This is what Wikipedia says:

“How sexual reproduction evolved and survived is an unsolved puzzle.”

I must give credit to the authors of Wikepedia for being up-front about the fact that there has not been any plausible explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction.  Apparently Darwin did not wonder about it.  Either it has not occurred to his followers  that they have no explanation for the beginning of sexual differentiation into male and female, or they are deliberately ignoring it.  They do, indeed, treat at length the advantages of sexual differentiation.

Evolutionists have many theories about the “‘why” of sexual differentiation.  They think reproducing sexually is costly in that time and energy have to be devoted to finding an suitable partner, there is a risk of remaining unmated, there is a risk of producing offspring less fit than themselves because of recombination. Other things being equal, asexual reproduction is quicker and easier.     On the other hand, sexual reproduction increases diversity and the likelihood of  survival in changing circumstances, it purges the species of damaging mutations, they are able to evolve new defenses against infections.  Some animals actually breed sexually and asexually at different times!

But as to  “how” sexual reproduction first came about there is nothing said.  In Why Have Sex?  The Population Genetics of Sex  and Recombination, (2006) Otto and Gerstein mention some of the reasons for sex listed in the previous paragraph.  But they offer no answer as to how it all got started.

Confronted with the fact that sexual differentiation actually does exist in most multicellular animals, we have to surmise that at some point throughout the millenia one of these creatures in the process of cell division just happened to  develop a cell with only half the usual complement of genetic material. We might call this a rudimentary egg (oocyte or ovum). Whatever could be the advantage of producing an egg? An egg would be of absolutely no use unless there was a sperm to fertilize it. If this animal found no mate, it would, of course, have been the first and last of its kind!

If we accept evolutionary theory we are required to imagine that each animal that today reproduces sexually,  was, in the distant past,  going about its business of reproducing asexually, dividing and budding away, then ALL OF A SUDDEN it accidentally produced an egg and at the same time, in the same locale, another animal of the same species just happened to make a sperm cell. Also, simultaneously and independently they each accidentally acquired the apparatus to get the egg and sperm together so they could produce offspring with a full set of genes.

Are you buying this?

If ever there was a case of “irreducible complexity” we have one in the transition from asexuality to sexuality.  (Irreducible complexity means simply that the process cannot be reduced to a series of simple steps one after another.  If a number of things do not happen and come together all at once, nothing works.)

Asexual reproduction is going to produce progeny identical to the parent, unless genetic accident occurs.    For an organism to initiate sexual reproduction there is required additional genetic information, not only added to one organism but simultaneously to two organisms of the same type, at the same time, but differing so that the changes will be complementary.  There is no point in having a genetically female animal if there is no matching male anywhere around.

Accidental genetic mutations are almost always deleterious and have never been shown to involve an increase in genetic information. Consider that the informational content of the DNA in a single human cell equals that of 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Brittanica or 10,000 floppy discs. Where did all the new additional information required for sexual differentiation come from?

Like sexual coupling, the supposed evolution of mammary glands is another case in which two individuals have to come together at the same time:  the needy offspring and the parent able to supply that need.  In a rather humorous criticism of Darwin a Mr. Mivart asks: “Is it conceivable that the young of any animal was ever saved from destruction by accidentally sucking a drop of scarcely nutritious fluid from an accidentally hypertrophied cutaneous gland of its mother? And even if one was so, what chance was there of a perpetuation of such a variation?”  Darwin goes back to the baby kangaroo suckling in its pouch but does not deal with the beginning of this process.

s?

What about DNA?    What about those things we call instincts?  What would Darwin have said if the chemistry of heredity, now known as DNA, had been discovered in his lifetime?  If we did not know it was true, the fact that a package as small as the period at the end of this sentence could contain all the programming necessary for the life cycle of the butterfly we would find it unbelievable.  Consider the butterfly egg  (.)  That egg will become a caterpillar — which will eat and grow — which will make itself into a chrysalis.  Inside the chrysalis the caterpillar will dissolve and rearrange itself into a butterfly — which will emerge and fly and find another of  its species of the opposite sex and mate and, behold, more eggs!!!!   Awesome!

Consider the human sperm.  How does it know to swim upstream to find a human egg?  How does it “recognize” an egg?  How do the egg and sperm merge to create a new human entity which will traverse the fallopian tube until it nests in the lining of a uterus and goes about the business of making a baby?

The first big stumbling block in the theory of evolution, much discussed, is the source of the first living cell.  The likelihood that it put itself together (spontaneous generation) has been judged by Yale physicist Harold Morowitz, in the Origin of Cellular Life (1993) to be one chance in 10^{100,000,000,000}.  Francis Crick, Nobel prize winning co-discoverer of DNA, thought the possibility of life arising spontaneously in some super-soup so unlikely that he posited “interstellar spores” coming from outer space as the source of life on planet earth!

There are too many stumbling blocks before one can believe that the theory of evolution actually explains present day creatures!  No explanation for the first cell with its cell membrane,  its DNA, ability to assimilate and reproduce!   No explanation for the mammalian eye or the eye on the peacock’s tail!     No explanation for the shift from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction.  Who has even attempted to explain why Darwin does not deal with this?

What did Darwin say?

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

— Charles Darwin from Origin of Species

I think Darwin’s theory just broke down.   All of the above are examples of programming — programming beyond understanding and almost beyond belief.   Programming requires intelligence.  It doesn’t just happen accidentally, by chance!

In the end, Darwin found the whole subject “too profound for the human intellect.”

I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.

(emphasis added) — Charles Darwin

Letter to Asa Gray (22 May 1860). In Charles Darwin and Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin: His Life Told

~~~

The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic.  —  Charles Darwin

This arrived by email today and said important things.  I don’t know the author.

You know, time has a way of moving quickly and catching you unaware of the passing years. It seems just yesterday that I was young, just married and embarking on my new life with my mate. And yet in a way, it seems like eons ago, and I wonder where all the years went. I know that I lived them all…

And I have glimpses of how it was back then and of all my hopes and dreams… But, here it is..the winter of my life and it catches me by surprise… How did I get here so fast? Where did the years go and where did my babies go? And where did my youth go?

I remember well.. seeing older people through the years and thinking that those older people were years away from me and that winter was so far off that I could not fathom it or imagine fully what it would be like… But, here it is…my friends are retired and really getting gray…they move slower and I see an older person now. Lots are in better shape than me… but, I see the great change… Not like the ones that I remember who were young and vibrant… but, like me, their age is beginning to show and we are now those older folks that we used to see and never thought we’d be.

Each day now, I find that just getting a shower is a real target for the day! And taking a nap is not a treat anymore…it’s mandatory! Cause if I don’t on my own free will..I just fall asleep where I sit!

And so, now I enter into this new season of my life unprepared for all the aches and pains and the loss of strength and ability to go and do things that I wish I had done but never did!!  But, at least I know, that though the winter has come, and I’m not sure how long it will last…this I know, that when it’s over…its over….Yes , I have regrets. There are things I wish I hadn’t done ….. things I should have done, but indeed, there are many things I’m happy to have done. It’s all in a lifetime….

So, if you’re not in your winter yet…let me remind you, that it will be here faster than you think.   Whatever you would like to accomplish in your life please do it quickly! Don’t put things off too long!! Life goes by quickly. So, do what you can today, as you can never be sure whether this is your winter or not! You have no promise that you will see all the seasons of your life…so, live for good today and say all the things that you want your loved ones to remember… and hope that they appreciate and love you for all the things that you have done for them in all the years past!!

‘Life is a gift to you. The way you live your life is your gift to those who come after.

Make it a fantastic one.’

LIVE IT WELL!!—- ENJOY TODAY!!!!—–DO SOMETHING FUN!!!—-BE HAPPY!!!—-BE THANKFUL!!!!!

Over two years ago Susan Boyle burst upon the scene in Britain’s Got Talent. I wrote then on my blog that we should all pray for her. She was such a surprise – so talented – so unpolished. I still tear up when I watch that first performance. I think those prayers worked. Despite her tremendous success she does not seem all that changed. She has been ‘spruced up’ but is still pretty much the same Susan. And she can still sing!

Let us pray.

DING DONG MERRILY

This little one has her own song. She’s not one to go along to get along.

I have taken a particular interest in the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) phenomenon since my grandson, Sage, became involved in Occupy Boston. So far I have only published Sage’s explanation of why he is doing what he is doing.  I know the spirit behind the Tea Party, but I was worried about where OWS was coming from, especially since it sprang up full-blown in the major cities of the world on September 17.

Meanwhile S17 is surging ahead internationally. Simultaneous occupations of financial districts are now being planned in New York City, Madrid, Milan, London, Paris and San Francisco. With a bit of luck, this list of participating cities will expand.

If we can pull together just the right mix of nonviolence, tenacity and strategic smarts, S17 could be the beginning of the global revolution we’ve all been dreaming about for so long … wouldn’t that be lovely.

August 10:

A movement is suddenly springing up from nowhere (ah-huh) to take on the free enterprise, “capitalist” system. In America, they are especially targeting Wall Street, a place still somewhat constitutionally sovereign to the U.S.A. and not thoroughly controlled yet by authoritarian global collectivism.‘U.S. Day of Rage’ Being Orchestrated for ‘Worldwide Democracy’ (think pseudoanarchist, neo-Marxist, globalist) (read more)

This was posted on August 17:

A group of American radicals are planning a “day of rage” targeting Wall Street and U.S. capitalism.

The upcoming protests, replete with a planned tent city slated for downtown Manhattan, is closely tied to the founders of ACORN and leaders of major U.S.unions, including the SEIU.

There are indications the protesters are training to incite violence, resist arrest and disrupt the legal system. (read more)

See also Adbusters and The Brains Behind Occupy Wall Street.

By way of background on Days of Rage see this excellent documentary on the Weather Underground.

Sage has written on Facebook about his experience with non-violent protest:

Sage Radachowsky
In 2001 I was arrested for protesting the bombing of Afghanistan with wholesale civilian-killer bombs. A Vietnam veteran in his 50s was pepper-sprayed in the face and he couldn’t breathe. He had asthma and his throat tightened up .. he was gasping for breath. They also kicked him in the chest against a fire hydrant, repeatedly, and broke two of his ribs. That was Hartford, Connecticut, October 25th, 2001. We marched from Bushnell Park to Senator Lieberman’s office. I held a sign that said “Don’t bomb innocent people” and got two felonies for that “crime”.

They said I was throwing bottles and inciting to riot. I was just standing quietly with my sign. The cops lied, and I think it is important to note that this does happen sometimes. They apparently colluded to make their police reports match, and wrote the story about how the protestors were throwing things and being violent. They also took all of our cameras and destroyed the film and videotapes, so we didn’t have the visual evidence to dispute there story. I repeat the story just so people know that this kind of things happen, and not to always believe the police side of a story.

Sage.Rad
Thanks for the article. In regard to my arrest in 2001, I was simply holding a sign in front of Senator Lieberman’s office in Hartford, that read “Support Human Rights (don’t bomb innocent people)”. I was arrested by police who put me in a headlock, threw me to the ground and cuffed me and put me in a paddy wagon. I was given $35,000 bail so my friends ended up paying $3,000 to a bail bondsman that we never get back. I was on trial for 8 months for two felonies that were complete fabrications.

The following quotes are taken from Sage’s Facebook page. They are certainly not all-inclusive but are chronological.

Sage's Tiny House

Among those in Occupy Boston’s Winterization Working Group is Sage Radachowsky, a biochemist who conducts research at Harvard’s Girguis Laboratory. He’s been sleeping in what he calls his “Tiny Tiny Home on Wheels,” a coffin-like structure that he says has been keeping him “so warm that I often sweat at night and need to remove layers.”

November 8, Sage’s birthday:

The Occupy Boston Winterization and Fire Safety Working Group has brought together some of the best minds of the OB movement, and possibly in all of New England, to work as a single, well-oiled machine. Read the rest of this entry »

Just finished reading How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America by David Kupelian. Kupelian is not a philosopher or a theologian but an in-the-trenches journalist with a first hand understanding of the power of the media. In my humble opinion, everyone who takes an interest in what is going on in our world should read this book, and especially the last chapter titled Turning the Tables on Evil in America. Oh, you didn’t know that evil is alive and abroad in America? You’ll certainly believe it after reading Kupelian!

Kupelian’s book is so full of wise and pithy sentences that I hesitate to try to summarize it.  Rather, I think I might take it chapter by chapter, choose a representative quote,  and let it go at that.

I.  In Government We Trust: Why We Elect Liars as Leaders.

Power-hungry demagogues have always used basically the same methods:  they demonize “the rich,” claiming they obtained their wealth by exploiting and stealing from the downtrodden; they stir up racial or tribal hatreds at every opportunity; they blame convenient scapegoats for problems they themselves have caused; and they promise universal peace and happiness if we’ll just give them unlimited power over us.

II. Sexual Anarchy:  What’s Behind Today’s Epidemic of Teacher-Student Sex?

…a ghoulish smorgasbord of sexually transmitted diseases — many incurable such as AIDS, herpes, and human papilloma virus (thought to be one of the main causes of cervical cancer), as well as hepatitis, syphilis, chlamydia, gonorrhea, and a host of others — is a pretty powerful indicator that we weren’t meant to have wanton, rampant sex.

III. How Terrorism Really Works: The Ultimate Stockholm Syndrome.

Remember, moral weakness–appeasement–whether in individuals or nation-states, always encourages violence.  Just as with communists and Nazis, today’s Islamofascists regard goodwill gestures and concessions as contemptible weakness and an irresistible invitation to take advantage.  Hitler, shortly after the appeasing Neville Chamberlain arrived home proudly displaying his worthless “peace agreement, ” turned around
and attacked Britain.

IV: The Secret Curse of Celebrity: Understanding Today’s Rampant Narcissism.

As a young person I was known primarily as an accomplished classical violinist….Here’s the problem. As happens with many performers, I became accustomed to the admiration of others. But when you live for appreciation and applause, that motivation doesn’t cease when you leave the stage. All of life becomes a stage and you’re constantly performing to elicit a positive response from everyone else.

V. Doctors, Drugs and Demons: Why So Many Americans Are Labeled “Mentally Ill.”

Before going further, let’s state the obvious: sometimes psychiatric drugs, including antidepressants, are helpful, even necessary. But in the overwhelming majority of cases, of which there are tens of millions in the United States alone, these dangerous substances are recklessly being relied upon to solve Americans’ mental-emotional-spiritual problems.

VI: False Gods: What’s Behind the Popularity of Paganism, Witchcraft, and New Age Religions?

Enough, already. There are ten chapters in all, each one making sense and carefully annotated. The last ties it all together and, to my mind, is the best of all. Recommended.

One week ago I had Mohs skin surgery for a small skin thickening below my left eye which had been diagnosed as squamous cell carcinoma. The first night after the surgery I had swelling and throbbing and pain (treated with one acetominophen tablet) and 24 hours after the surgery I removed the pressure bandage. Each day thereafter for a week the wound was gently washed twice a day, covered with Vaseline, and bandage re-applied. Though tender to touch there was no pain but it was annoying to look down my nose and see that bandage sitting there and it was close enough to my eye to make using my eyeglasses awkward.

I returned to the office seven days later for removal of the stitches. Stitch removal was done by a nurse and hardly hurt at all. The doctor checked the wound which she described as a little puffy, which should go away, but good overall. I can now do away with the bandage but am supposed to apply Vaseline for another week. An appointment was made for the end of January, 2012, for Mohs skin micrographic surgery on my second lesion on the left side of my nose.

I will try to post a picture, with a little help from my friend.  Behold – this is 10 days after surgery, in natural daylight, no make-up.    The wound is under my left eye (which is the right side of the photo).

The suspected melanoma under one of my toenails (which was what brought me to the dermatologist in the first place) seems to be growing out, which means it is just a hematoma and quite benign. We will keep it under surveillance.

I plan to post the bill for this minor surgical adventure. Won’t that be interesting?

January, 2012 – The Medicare assessment has arrived.  I had only Medicare, no supplemental insurance.

ENEA, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, has recently published a report on five years of experiments conducted in the ENEA center of Frascati on the “shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation”

I have written before about the Shroud of Turin which I believe to be the actual cloth that covered the body of Jesus in the grave. The face of Jesus as shown on the shroud is the only representation of Jesus that I like. I am pleased with the conclusions reached by this latest study.

One of the assumptions related to the formation of the image was that regarding some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength), which could fit the requirements for reproducing the main features of the Shroud image, such as superficiality of color, color gradient, the image also in areas of the body not in contact with the cloth and the absence of pigment on the sheet. The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”.

“However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”.

However the Shroud image “has some features that we are not yet able to reproduce – they admit – for example, the gradient of the image caused by a different concentration of yellow colored fibrils that alternate with unstained fibrils”. And they warn: “We are not at the conclusion, we are composing pieces of a fascinating and complex scientific puzzle”. The enigma of the image of the Shroud of Turin is still “a challenge for intelligence”, as John Paul II said. (Read more).