Bitcoin Price Prediction: Congress Report, Indonesia; More Positive Signals for BTC

Posted on by

Daily Bitcoin News Update
While the world leaders are busy deciding the future fate of cryptocurrencies at the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, it may be reassuring to know that the U.S. government may have already picked a side favorable to Bitcoiners.

The latest report from Congress this month hints that the U.S. government may be more friendly toward Bitcoin and its underlying technology, blockchain, than we previously thought.

The gist of the report is that cryptos deserve a second look from regulators. The report urges U.S. regulators to create regulations that protect investors but don’t stifle the development and growth of the crypto industry.

The report.

The post Bitcoin Price Prediction: Congress Report, Indonesia; More Positive Signals for BTC appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Continue reading here:
Bitcoin Price Prediction: Congress Report, Indonesia; More Positive Signals for BTC

Ethereum Price Forecast: Cryptos Starting to Resemble Other Assets

Posted on by

Ethereum News Update
If there’s one fear that haunts crypto enthusiasts, it’s that governments will attach burdensome regulations to slow innovation across the industry.

So when U.S. regulators—like the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—started cracking down on the initial coin offering (ICO) market, investors assumed their worst nightmares were coming true. They turned bearish almost instantly.

From the moment it became public that the SEC was handing out subpoenas, we saw cryptocurrency prices fall dramatically. The market feared regulators would refashion cryptocurrencies into something like stocks and bonds, an asset class that plays by the.

The post Ethereum Price Forecast: Cryptos Starting to Resemble Other Assets appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Read the original:
Ethereum Price Forecast: Cryptos Starting to Resemble Other Assets

Litecoin Price Prediction: U.S. Congress Turns Friendly to Cryptos?

Posted on by

Daily Litecoin News Update
A surprising report from Congress has just cemented our faith in cryptocurrencies and Litecoin. I say “surprising” because, believe it or not, one whole chapter in the report was dedicated to cryptocurrencies. Yes, you read that right.

The report, published by the Joint Economic Committee Congress of the United States, discussed matters of macroeconomic growth, tax reforms, and U.S. trade, among others. A good 27 pages toward the end were devoted to blockchain, cryptocurrencies, and their potential.

Here are a few key takeaways from the report we found interesting.

The report illustrated the merits of blockchain at great length, saying the.

The post Litecoin Price Prediction: U.S. Congress Turns Friendly to Cryptos? appeared first on Profit Confidential.

More here:
Litecoin Price Prediction: U.S. Congress Turns Friendly to Cryptos?

Ripple Price Prediction: David Schwartz & G20 Comments Are Moving XRP

Posted on by

Ripple News Update
Ripple prices were upbeat on Monday morning, having jumped more than 20% in the previous 24 hours, but optimism still remains well below normal.

Cryptocurrency markets have been locked in a downward spiral for weeks on end. Heightened regulatory pressure from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is the main culprit, given that the agency is investigating dozens of blockchain startups and their affiliated tokens.

Some reports even say that the SEC is going to designate digital assets as “securities.” This action would be pretty bad for cryptos, but it’s probably not as bad as investors think, as I wrote in yesterday’s.

The post Ripple Price Prediction: David Schwartz & G20 Comments Are Moving XRP appeared first on Profit Confidential.

See more here:
Ripple Price Prediction: David Schwartz & G20 Comments Are Moving XRP

Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra’s Choice of Litecoin is a Bigger Deal Than You Think

Posted on by

Daily Litecoin News Update
While the G20 leaders put their heads together to plan their next move on cryptocurrency regulations, the crypto market is turning hopeful that something positive is in store for cryptos. Bolstering this hope is Mark Carney's letter sent to the G20 leaders on Sunday, which hinted that plans to impose strict regulations may be thrown out of the window.

Mark Carney is the head of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), which takes care of regulatory issues for the G20 economies. Basically, this man holds the strings on crypto regulations and it’s evident that he has no plans to pull them against our favor. Just yet.

Litecoin prices, like all other.

The post Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra’s Choice of Litecoin is a Bigger Deal Than You Think appeared first on Profit Confidential.

Originally posted here:
Litecoin Price Prediction: Abra’s Choice of Litecoin is a Bigger Deal Than You Think

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering in Humans – Bright Hub

Posted on by

The human body is not perfect. Some are created with inherent faults and others break down before their time. Science has the potential to make good these problems by altering how humans are made. This is genetic engineering, and this article looks at the pros and cons of the technology in humans

This is part one of a two-part series. Here I will look at a definition of genetic engineering and the pros of human genetic engineering. In part two the cons and the ethics of human genetic engineering are discussed.

Before weighing up the pros and cons of genetic engineering in humans, it's worth taking the time to understand just what is meant by the idea. Simply put, it's a way of manipulating our genes in such a way as to make our bodies better. This alteration of a genome could take place in the sperm and egg cells. This is known as germline gene therapy and would alter the traits that a child is born with. The changes would be inheritable and passed down through the generations. It is currently illegal in many countries.

The other way to change our genome is to swap our bad genes for good ones - in cells other than the sex cells. This is known as somatic cell gene therapy. This is where a functioning gene could be fired into our bodies on a viral vector to carry out the functions that a faulty gene is unable to. This technology is permitted, though it has enjoyed a very limited success rate so far (largely because it is technically very difficult). Nonetheless, it still holds out a great deal of promise.

To make disease a thing of the past

Most people on the planet die of disease or have family members that do. Very few of us will just pop up to bed one night and gently close our eyes for the last time. Our genomes are not as robust as we would like them to be and genetic mutations either directly cause a disease such as Cystic fibrosis, or they contribute to it greatly i.e. Alzheimer's. Or in the case of some conditions such as the heart disease Cardiomyopathy, genetic mutations can make our bodies more susceptible to attack from viruses or our own immune system. If the full benefits of gene therapy are ever realised we can replace the dud genes with correctly functioning copies.

To extend life spans

Having enjoyed life, most of us want to cling on to it for as long as possible. The genetic engineering of humans has the potential to greatly increase our life spans. Some estimates reckon that 100-150 years could be the norm. Of course gene therapy for a fatal condition will increase the lifespan of the patient but we're also talking about genetic modifications of healthy people to give them a longer life. Once we fully understand the genetics of ageing it may be possible to slow down or reverse some of the cellular mechanisms that lead to our decline - for example by preventing telomeres at the ends of chromosomes from shortening. Telomere shortening is known to contribute to cell senescence.

Better pharmaceuticals

The knowledge gained by working out genetic solutions for the above could help with the design of better pharmaceutical products that are able to target specifically genetic mutations in each individual.

So What's the Downside?

As deliriously exciting as some people believe genetic engineering to be - there are several downsides and ethical dilemmas. Click the link to read the cons.

This two part series explores some of the pros and cons of human genetic engineering.

More here:

Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering in Humans - Bright Hub

Nihilism Embodiment – Superpower Wiki

Posted on by

Nihilism EmbodimentPower/Ability to:

Become the embodiment of nihilism.

The ability to become the embodiment of nihilism. Variation of Philosophy Embodimentand Oblivion Embodiment. Opposite to Meaningfulness Embodiment.

Users become the living embodiment of nihilism and gain the ability to feed off of the unimportance of everything in existence. What the user sees is deemed nothing worth while, or of absolute insignificance: the opponent is deemed weak or worthless and can be destroyed by the user.

Xemnas (Kingdom Hearts) represents Nihilism, wielding the power of nothingness.

Yuchi Hirose (Alive: The Final Evolution) took in the Heart of Akuro to completely become the Void, and became completely emotionless as a result.

Kefka Palazzo (Final Fantasy) is a powerful being who enjoys nothing but chaos and destruction.

Utsuro (Gintama) considers his 500 years of immortality being an empty and meaningless existence; even the mind-reading Batou considers him to be "empty".

Kyurem (Pokmon) represents the absence of yin and yang.

Emo Dandy (Space Dandy) is a parallel version of Dandy whose life is so depressing and meaningless that nothing matters to him anymore, leaving him a personification of emptiness and nihilism.

Read more:

Nihilism Embodiment - Superpower Wiki

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose – The Institute for …

Posted on by

Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose than to perpetuate the survival of DNA...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.1 --Richard Dawkins

Evolution is "deceptively simple yet utterly profound in its implications,"2 the first of which is that living creatures "differ from one another, and those variations arise at random, without a plan or purpose."3 Evolution must be without plan or purpose because its core tenet is the natural selection of the fittest, produced by random copying errors called mutations. Darwin "was keenly aware that admitting any purposefulness whatsoever to the question of the origin of species would put his theory of natural selection on a very slippery slope."4 Pulitzer Prize author Edward Humes wrote that the fact of evolution was obvious but "few could see it, so trapped were they by the humandesire to find design and purpose in the world." He concluded:

Darwin's brilliance was in seeing beyond the appearance of design, and understanding the purposeless, merciless process of natural selection, of life and death in the wild, and how it culled all but the most successful organisms from the tree of life, thereby creating the illusion that a master intellect had designed the world. But close inspection of the watchlike "perfection" of honeybees' combs or ant trailsreveals that they are a product of random, repetitive, unconscious behaviors, not conscious design.5

The fact that evolution teaches that life has no purpose beyond perpetuating its own survival is not lost on teachers. One testified that teaching evolution "impacted their consciences" because it moved teachers away from the "idea that they were born for a purpose something completely counter to their mindset and beliefs."6

In a study on why children resist accepting evolution, Yale psychologists Bloom and Weisberg concluded that the evolutionary way of viewing the world, which the authors call "promiscuous teleology," makes it difficult for them to accept evolution. Children "naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose."7 The ultimate purposelessness of evolution, and thus of the life that it produces, was eloquently expressed by Professor Lawrence Krauss as follows: "We're just a bit of pollution. If you got rid of usthe universe would be largely the same. We're completely irrelevant."8

The Textbooks

To determine what schools are teaching about religious questions such as the purpose of life, I surveyed current science textbooks and found that they tend to teach the view that evolution is both nihilistic and atheistic. One of today's most widely-used textbooks stated that "evolution works without either plan or purpose. Evolution is random and undirected."9 Another text by the same authors added that Darwin knew his theory "required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its byproducts." The authors continued:

Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless--a process in which...nature ruthlessly eliminates the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.10

Another text taught that humans are just "a tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life" and the belief that a "progressive, guiding force, consistently pushing evolution to move in a single direction" is now known to be "misguided."11 Many texts teach that evolution is purposeless and has no goal except to achieve brute survival: the "idea that evolution is not directed towards a final goal or state has been more difficult for many people to accept than the process of evolution itself."12 One major text openly teaches that humans were created by a blind, deaf, and dumb watchmaker--namely natural selection, which is "totally blind to the future."

Humans...came from the same evolutionary source as every other species. It is natural selection of selfish genes that has given us our bodies and our brains. Natural selectionexplainsthe whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, |and| the apparent design in life."13

The Implications

Many texts are very open about the implications of Darwinism for theism. One teaches that Darwin's immeasurably important contribution to science was to show that, despite life's apparent evidence of design and purpose, mechanistic causes explain all biological phenomena. The text adds that by coupling "undirected, purposeless variation to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous."14 The author concludes by noting that "it was Darwin's theory of Evolution that provided a crucial plank to the platform of mechanisms and materialismthat has been the stage of most western thought."15 Another text even stated directly that humans were created by a random process, not a loving, purposeful God, and:

The real difficulty in accepting Darwin's theory has always been that it seems to diminish our significance. |Evolution| asked us to accept the proposition that, like all other organisms, we too are the products of a random process that, as far as science can show, we are not created for any special purpose or as part of any universal design.16

These texts are all clearly teaching religious ideas, not science. An excellent example is a text that openly ruled out not only theistic evolution, but any role for God in nature, and demonstrated that Darwinism threatened theism by showing that humans and all life "could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god." Evolutionary "randomness and uncertainty had replaced a deity having conscious, purposeful, human characteristics."

The Darwinian view that present-type organisms were not created spontaneously but formed in a succession of selective events that occurred in the past, contradicted the common religious view that there could be no design, biological or otherwise, without an intelligent designer. In this scheme a god of design and purpose is not necessary. Religion has been bolstered by the comforting idea that humanity was created in the image of a god to rule over the world and its creatures. Religion provided emotional solace, a set of ethical and moral values. Nevertheless, faith in religious dogma has been eroded by natural explanations of its mysteries. The positions of the creationists and the scientific world appear irreconcilable."17

Darwin himself taught a totally atheistic, naturalistic view of origins. He even once said, "I would give nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."18 John Alcock, an evolutionary biologist, therefore concluded that "we exist solely to propagate the genes within us."19

Leading Darwin scholar Janet Browne makes it very clear that Darwin's goal was the "arduous task of reorienting the way Victorians looked at nature." To do this Darwin had to convince the world that "ideas about a benevolent, nearly perfect natural world" and those that believe "beauty was given to things for a purpose, were wrong--that the idea of a loving God who created all living things and brought men and women into existence wasa fable."

The worldsteeped in moral meaning which helped mankind seek out higher goals in life, was not Darwin's. Darwin's view of nature was dark--black. Where most men and women generally believed in some kind of design in nature--some kind of plan and order--and felt a deep-seated, mostly inexpressible belief that their existence had meaning, Darwin wanted them to see all life as empty of any divine purpose.20

Darwin knew how difficult it was to abandon such a view, but realized that for evolution to work, nature must ultimately be "governed entirely by chance." Browne concludes:

The pleasant outward face of nature was precisely that--only an outward face. Underneath was perpetual struggle, species against species, individual against individual. Life was ruled by death...destruction was the key to reproductive success. All the theological meaning was thus stripped out by Darwin and replaced by the concept of competition. All the telos, the purpose, on which natural theologians based their ideas of perfect adaptation was redirected into Malthusian--Darwinian--struggle. What most people saw as God-given design he saw as mere adaptations to circumstance, adaptations that were meaningless except for the way in which they helped an animal or plant to survive.21

Neo-Darwinist Richard Dawkins recognized the purposelessness of such a system:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.22

How widely is this view held by scientists? One study of 149 leading biologists found that 89.9 percent believed that evolution has no ultimate purpose or goal except survival, and we are just a cosmic accident existing at the whim of time and chance. A mere six percent believed that evolution has a purpose.23 Almost all of those who believed that evolution had no purpose were atheists. This is only one example that Sommers and Rosenberg call the "destructive power of Darwinian theory."24

Purpose and Christianity

Christianity teaches that God made the universe as a home for humans. If the universe evolved purely by natural means, then it just exists and any "purpose" for its existence can only be that which humans themselves attribute to it. But our own experience and intellectual attainments argue against this. The similarity of human-constructed machines and the orderly functioning of the universe is the basis of the design argument. Just as a machine requires a designer and a builder, so too the universe that we see requires a designer and a builder.

Determining the purpose of something depends on the observer's worldview. To a nontheist the question "What is the purpose of a living organism's structure?" means only "How does this structure aid survival?" Eyesight and legs would therefore have nothing to do with enjoyment of life; they are merely an unintended byproduct of evolution. Biologists consistently explain everything from coloration to sexual habits solely on the basis of survival. Orthodox neo-Darwinism views everything as either an unfortunate or a fortuitous event resulting from the outworking of natural law and random, naturally-selected mutations. Conversely, creationists interpret all reality according to beliefs about God's purpose for humans. Evolutionists can usually explain even contradictory behavior, but creationists look beyond this and try to determine what role it plays in God's plan.

Conclusions

Orthodox evolution teaches that the living world has no plan or purpose except survival, is random, undirected, and heartless. Humans live in a world that cares nothing for us, our minds are simply masses of meat, and no divine plan exists to guide us. These teachings are hardly neutral, but rather openly teach religion--the religion of atheism and nihilism. The courts have consistently approved teaching this anti-Christian religion in public schools and have blocked all attempts to neutralize these clearly religious ideas.

As the Word of God states, "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

References

* Dr. Bergman is Professor of Biology at Northwest State College in Ohio.

Cite this article: Bergman, J. 2007. Darwinism: Survival without Purpose. Acts & Facts. 36 (11): 10.

Read the original post:

Darwinism: Survival without Purpose - The Institute for ...

NATO – New World Encyclopedia

Posted on by

North Atlantic Treaty OrganizationOrganisation du Trait de l'Atlantique Nord

NATO countries shown in green

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); French: Organisation du Trait de l'Atlantique Nord (OTAN); (also called the North Atlantic Alliance, the Atlantic Alliance, or the Western Alliance) is a military alliance established by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on 4 April 1949. Headquartered in Brussels, Belgium, the organization constitutes a system of collective defense in which its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.

For its first few years, NATO was not much more than a political association. However the Korean War galvanized the member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two U.S. supreme commanders. The first NATO Secretary General Lord Ismay, famously described the organization's goal was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down".[2] Throughout the Cold War doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasiondoubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of the French from NATO's military structure from 1966.

After the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the organization became drawn into the Balkans while building better links with former potential enemies to the east, which culminated with the former Warsaw Pact states joining the alliance. Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, NATO has attempted to refocus itself to new challenges and has deployed troops to Afghanistan and trainers to Iraq.

The Treaty of Brussels, signed on March 17, 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France and the United Kingdom is considered the precursor to the NATO agreement. The treaty and the Soviet Berlin Blockade led to the creation of the Western European Union's Defense Organization in September 1948.[3] However, participation of the United States was thought necessary in order to counter the military power of the USSR, and therefore talks for a new military alliance began almost immediately.

These talks resulted in the North Atlantic Treaty, which was signed in Washington, D.C. on April 4, 1949. It included the five Treaty of Brussels states, as well as the United States, Canada, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. Support for the Treaty was not unanimous; Iceland suffered an anti-NATO riot in March 1949 which may have been Communist-inspired. Three years later, on 18 February 1952, Greece and Turkey also joined.

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force does not necessarily mean that other member states will respond with military action against the aggressor(s). Rather they are obliged to respond, but maintain the freedom to choose how they will respond. This differs from Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels (which founded the Western European Union) which clearly states that the response must include military action. It is however often assumed that NATO members will aid the attacked member militarily. Further, the article limits the organization's scope to Europe and North America, which explains why the invasion of the British Falkland Islands did not result in NATO involvement.

The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 was crucial for NATO as it raised the apparent threat level greatly (all Communist countries were suspected of working together) and forced the alliance to develop concrete military plans.[4] The 1952 Lisbon conference, seeking to provide the forces necessary for NATO's Long-Term Defense Plan, called for an expansion to 96 divisions. However this requirement was dropped the following year to roughly 35 divisions with heavier use to be made of nuclear weapons. At this time, NATO could call on about 15 ready divisions in Central Europe, and another ten in Italy and Scandinavia.[5] Also at Lisbon, the post of Secretary General of NATO as the organization's chief civilian was also created, and Baron Hastings Ismay eventually appointed to the post.[6] Later, in September 1952, the first major NATO maritime exercises began; Operation Mainbrace brought together 200 ships and over 50,000 personnel to practice the defense of Denmark and Norway. Meanwhile, while this overt military preparation was going on, covert stay-behind arrangements to continue resistance after a successful Soviet invasion ('Operation Gladio'), initially made by the Western European Union, were being transferred to NATO control. Ultimately unofficial bonds began to grow between NATO's armed forces, such as the NATO Tiger Association and competitions such as the Canadian Army Trophy for tank gunnery.

In 1954, the Soviet Union suggested that it should join NATO to preserve peace in Europe.[7] The NATO countries, fearing that the Soviet Union's motive was to weaken the alliance, ultimately rejected this proposal.

The incorporation of West Germany into the organization on May 9, 1955 was described as "a decisive turning point in the history of our continent" by Halvard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway at the time.[8] A major reason for Germany's entry into the alliance was that without German manpower, it would have been impossible to field enough conventional forces to to resist a Soviet invasion.[9] Indeed, one of its immediate results was the creation of the Warsaw Pact, signed on May 14, 1955 by the Soviet Union, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, and East Germany, as a formal response to this event, thereby delineating the two opposing sides of the Cold War.

The unity of NATO was breached early on in its history, with a crisis occurring during Charles de Gaulle's presidency of France from 1958 onward. De Gaulle protested the United States' strong role in the organization and what he perceived as a special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. In a memorandum sent to President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Prime Minister Harold Macmillan on September 17, 1958, he argued for the creation of a tripartite directorate that would put France on an equal footing with the United States and the United Kingdom, and also for the expansion of NATO's coverage to include geographical areas of interest to France, most notably Algeria, where France was waging a counter-insurgency and sought NATO assistance.

Considering the response given to be unsatisfactory, and in order to give France, in the event of a East German incursion into West Germany, the option of coming to a separate peace with the Eastern bloc instead of being drawn into a NATO-Warsaw Pact global war, de Gaulle began to build an independent defence for his country. On 11 March 1959, France withdrew its Mediterranean fleet from NATO command; three months later, in June 1959, de Gaulle banned the stationing of foreign nuclear weapons on French soil. This caused the United States to transfer two hundred military aircraft out of France and return control of the ten major air force bases that had operated in France since 1950 to the French by 1967.

In the meantime, France had initiated an independent nuclear deterrence programme, spearheaded by the "Force de frappe" ("Striking force"). France tested its first nuclear weapon, Gerboise Bleue, on February 13, 1960, in (what was then) French Algeria.

Though France showed solidarity with the rest of NATO during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, de Gaulle continued his pursuit of an independent defence by removing France's Atlantic and Channel fleets from NATO command. In 1966, all French armed forces were removed from NATO's integrated military command, and all non-French NATO troops were asked to leave France. This withdrawal forced the relocation of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) from Paris to Casteau, north of Mons, Belgium, by October 16, 1967. France remained a member of the alliance, and committed to the defense of Europe from possible Communist attack with its own forces stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany throughout this period. France rejoined NATO's Military Committee in 1995, and has since intensified working relations with the military structure. France has not, however, rejoined the integrated military command and no non-French NATO troops are allowed to be based on its soil. The policies of current French President Nicolas Sarkozy appear to be aimed at eventual re-integration.

The creation of NATO brought about some standardization of allied military terminology, procedures, and technology, which in many cases meant European countries adopting U.S. practices. The roughly 1,300 Standardization Agreements (STANAGs) codifies the standardization that NATO has achieved. Hence, the 7.62_51 NATO rifle cartridge was introduced in the 1950s as a standard firearm cartridge among many NATO countries. Fabrique Nationale's FAL became the most popular 7.62 NATO rifle in Europe and served into the early 1990s. Also, aircraft marshalling signals were standardized, so that any NATO aircraft could land at any NATO base. Other standards such as the NATO phonetic alphabet have made their way beyond NATO into civilian use.

During most of the duration of the Cold War, NATO maintained a holding pattern with no actual military engagement as an organization. On July 1, 1968, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty opened for signature: NATO argued that its nuclear weapons sharing arrangements did not breach the treaty as United States forces controlled the weapons until a decision was made to go to war, at which point the treaty would no longer be controlling. Few states knew of the NATO nuclear sharing arrangements at that time, and they were not challenged.

On May 30, 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue dtente. This was supposed to mean matching defenses at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms race.

On December 12, 1979, in light of a build-up of Warsaw Pact nuclear capabilities in Europe, ministers approved the deployment of U.S. GLCM cruise missiles and Pershing II theater nuclear weapons in Europe. The new warheads were also meant to strengthen the western negotiating position in regard to nuclear disarmament. This policy was called the Dual Track policy. Similarly, in 19831984, responding to the stationing of Warsaw Pact SS-20 medium-range missiles in Europe, NATO deployed modern Pershing II missiles tasked to hit military targets such as tank formations in the event of war. This action led to peace movement protests throughout Western Europe.

With the background of the build-up of tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, NATO decided, under the impetus of the Reagan presidency, to deploy Pershing II and cruise missiles in Western Europe, primarily West Germany. These missiles were theater nuclear weapons intended to strike targets on the battlefield if the Soviets invaded West Germany. Yet, support for the deployment was wavering and many doubted whether the push for deployment could be sustained. But on Sept. 1, 1983, the Soviet Union shot down a Korean airliner, loaded with passengers, when it crossed into Soviet airspacean act which President Reagan characterized as a "massacre." The barbarity of this act, as the United States and the world understood it, galvanized support for the deploymentwhich stood in place until the later accords between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

The membership of the organization in this time period likewise remained largely static. In 1974, as a consequence of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Greece withdrew its forces from NATO's military command structure, but, with Turkish cooperation, were readmitted in 1980. On May 30, 1982, NATO gained a new member when, following a referendum, the newly democratic Spain joined the alliance.

In November 1983, NATO manoeuvres simulating a nuclear launch caused panic in the Kremlin. The Soviet leadership, led by ailing General Secretary Yuri Andropov, became concerned that the manoeuvres, codenamed Able Archer 83, were the beginnings of a genuine first strike. In response, Soviet nuclear forces were readied and air units in East Germany and Poland were placed on alert. Though at the time written off by U.S. intelligence as a propaganda effort, many historians now believe that the Soviet fear of a NATO first strike was genuine.

The end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 removed the de facto main adversary of NATO. This caused a strategic re-evaluation of NATO's purpose, nature and tasks. In practice this ended up entailing a gradual (and still ongoing) expansion of NATO to Eastern Europe, as well as the extension of its activities to areas that had not formerly been NATO concerns. The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with the reunification of Germany on October 3, 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east.

The scholar Stephen F. Cohen argued in 2005 that a commitment was given that NATO would never expand further east,[10] but according to Robert B. Zoellick, then a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception; no formal commitment of the sort was made.[11] On May 7, 2008, The Daily Telegraph held an interview with Gorbachev in which he repeated his view that such a commitment had been made. Gorbachev said "the Americans promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."[12]

As part of post-Cold War restructuring, NATO's military structure was cut back and reorganized, with new forces such as the Headquarters Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps established. The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe agreed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and signed in Paris in 1990, mandated specific reductions. The changes brought about by the collapse of the Soviet Union on the military balance in Europe were recognized in the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, signed some years later.

The first NATO military operation caused by the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was Operation Sharp Guard, which ran from June 1993October 1996. It provided maritime enforcement of the arms embargo and economic sanctions against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On February 28, 1994, NATO took its first military action, shooting down four Bosnian Serb aircraft violating a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone over central Bosnia and Herzegovina. Operation Deny Flight, the no-fly-zone enforcement mission, had begun a year before, on April 12, 1993, and was to continue until December 20, 1995. NATO air strikes that year helped bring the war in Bosnia to an end, resulting in the Dayton Agreement, which in turn meant that NATO deployed a peacekeeping force, under Operation Joint Endeavor, first named IFOR and then SFOR, which ran from December 1996 to December 2004. Following the lead of its member nations, NATO began to award a service medal, the NATO Medal, for these operations.

Between 1994 and 1997, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its neighbors were set up, like the Partnership for Peace, the Mediterranean Dialogue initiative and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. On 8 July 1997, three former communist countries, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland, were invited to join NATO, which finally happened in 1999. In 1998, the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council was established.

A NATO bombing campaign, Operation Deliberate Force, began in August, 1995, against the Army of Republika Srpska, after the Srebrenica massacre. On March 24, 1999, NATO saw its first broad-scale military engagement in the Kosovo War, where it waged an 11-week bombing campaign, which NATO called Operation Allied Force, against what was then the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in an effort to stop Serbian-led ethnic cleansing. A formal declaration of war never took place (in common with all wars since World War II). The conflict ended on 11 June 1999, when Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic agreed to NATOs demands by accepting UN resolution 1244. NATO then helped establish the KFOR, a NATO-led force under a United Nations mandate that operated the military mission in Kosovo. In AugustSeptember 2001, the alliance also mounted Operation Essential Harvest, a mission disarming ethnic Albanian militias in the Republic of Macedonia.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and most other NATO countries opposed efforts to require the U.N. Security Council to approve NATO military strikes, such as the ongoing action against Yugoslavia, while France and some others claimed that the alliance needed U.N. approval. The U.S./U.K. side claimed that this would undermine the authority of the alliance, and they noted that Russia and China would have exercised their Security Council vetoes to block the strike on Yugoslavia, and could do the same in future conflicts where NATO intervention was required, thus nullifying the entire potency and purpose of the organization.

The September 11 attacks caused NATO to invoke Article 5 of the NATO Charter for the first time in its history. The Article says that an attack on any member shall be considered to be an attack on all. The invocation was confirmed on 4 October 2001 when NATO determined that the attacks were indeed eligible under the terms of the North Atlantic Treaty.[13] The eight official actions taken by NATO in response to the attacks included: Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour. Operation Active Endeavour is a naval operation in the Mediterranean Sea and is designed to prevent the movement of terrorists or weapons of mass destruction as well as to enhance the security of shipping in general. It began on October 4, 2001.

Despite this early show of solidarity, NATO faced a crisis little more than a year later, when on February 10, 2003, France and Belgium vetoed the procedure of silent approval concerning the timing of protective measures for Turkey in case of a possible war with Iraq. Germany did not use its right to break the procedure but said it supported the veto.

On the issue of Afghanistan on the other hand, the alliance showed greater unity: On April 16, 2003 NATO agreed to take command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. The decision came at the request of Germany and the Netherlands, the two nations leading ISAF at the time of the agreement, and all 19 NATO ambassadors approved it unanimously.

On August 11, 2003 NATO commenced its first mission ever outside Europe when it assumed control over International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. This marked the first time in NATOs history that it took charge of a mission outside the north Atlantic area. Canada had originally been slated to take over ISAF by itself on that date. However, some critics feel that national caveats or other restrictions undermine the efficiency of ISAF. For instance, political scientist Joseph Nye stated in a 2006 article that "many NATO countries with troops in Afghanistan have 'national caveats' that restrict how their troops may be used. While the Riga summit relaxed some of these caveats to allow assistance to allies in dire circumstances, Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States are doing most of the fighting in southern Afghanistan, while French, German, and Italian troops are deployed in the quieter north. Due to the intensity of the fighting in the south, France has recently allowed a squadron of Mirage 2000 fighter/attack aircraft to be moved into the area, to Khandahar, in order to reinforce the alliance's efforts.[14] It is difficult to see how NATO can succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan unless it is willing to commit more troops and give commanders more flexibility."[15] If these caveats were to be eliminated, it is argued that this could help NATO to succeed.

In January 2004, NATO appointed Minister Hikmet etin, of Turkey, as the Senior Civilian Representative (SCR) in Afghanistan. Minister Cetin is primarily responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance in Afghanistan. In August 2004, following United States pressure, NATO formed the NATO Training Mission - Iraq, a training mission to assist the Iraqi security forces in conjunction with the U.S. led MNF-I.

On July 31, 2006, a NATO-led force, made up mostly of troops from Canada, Great Britain, Turkey and the Netherlands, took over military operations in the south of Afghanistan from a United States-led anti-terrorism coalition.

During the 2011 Libyan civil war, violence between protestors and the Libyan government under Colonel Muammar Gaddafi escalated, and on 17March 2011 led to the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which called for a ceasefire, and authorized military action to protect civilians. Acoalition that included several NATO members began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya shortly afterwards. On 20 March 2011, NATO states agreed on enforcing an arms embargo against Libya with Operation Unified Protector using ships from NATO Standing Maritime Group1 and Standing Mine Countermeasures Group1,[16] and additional ships and submarines from NATO members.[17] They would "monitor, report and, if needed, interdict vessels suspected of carrying illegal arms or mercenaries".[16]

On 24March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone from the initial coalition, while command of targeting ground units remained with the coalition's forces.[18] By the end of the mission in October 2011, after the death of Colonel Gaddafi, NATO planes had flown about 9,500 strike sorties against pro-Gaddafi targets.[19]

For some years, the United States negotiated with Poland and the Czech Republic for the deployment of interceptor missiles and a radar tracking system in the two countries. Both countries' governments indicated that they would allow the deployment. The proposed American missile defense site in Central Europe is believed to be fully operational in 2015 and would be capable of covering most of Europe except part of Romania plus Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey.[20]

In April 2007, NATO's European allies called for a NATO missile defense system which would complement the American National Missile Defense system to protect Europe from missile attacks and NATO's decision-making North Atlantic Council held consultations on missile defense in the first meeting on the topic at such a senior level.[20]

In response, Russian president Vladimir Putin claimed that such a deployment could lead to a new arms race and could enhance the likelihood of mutual destruction. He also suggested that his country should freeze its compliance with the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE)which limits military deployments across the continentuntil all NATO countries had ratified the adapted CFE treaty.[21]

Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said the system would not affect strategic balance or threaten Russia, as the plan is to base only 10 interceptor missiles in Poland with an associated radar in the Czech Republic.[22]

On July 14, 2007, Russia notified its intention to suspend the CFE treaty, effective 150 days later.[23][24]

New NATO structures were also formed while old ones were abolished: The NATO Response Force (NRF) was launched at the 2002 Prague Summit on November 21. On June 19, 2003, a major restructuring of the NATO military commands began as the Headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic were abolished and a new command, Allied Command Transformation (ACT), was established in Norfolk, Virginia, USA, and the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) became the Headquarters of Allied Command Operations (ACO). ACT is responsible for driving transformation (future capabilities) in NATO, while ACO is responsible for current operations.

Did you know?

Membership went on expanding with the accession of seven more Northern European and Eastern European countries to NATO: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and also Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. They were first invited to start talks of membership during the 2002 Prague Summit, and joined NATO on March 29, 2004, shortly before the 2004 Istanbul Summit. The same month, NATO's Baltic Air Policing began, which supported the sovereignty of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia by providing fighters to react to any unwanted aerial intrusions. Four fighters are based in Lithuania, provided in rotation by virtually all the NATO states. Operation Peaceful Summit temporarily enhanced this patrolling during the 2006 Riga Summit.[25]

The 2006 NATO summit was held in Riga, Latvia, which had joined the Atlantic Alliance two years earlier. It is the first NATO summit to be held in a country that was part of the Soviet Union, and the second one in a former COMECON country (after the 2002 Prague Summit). Energy Security was one of the main themes of the Riga Summit.[26]

At the April 2008 summit in Bucharest, Romania, NATO agreed to the accession of Croatia and Albania and invited them to join; they both joined in April, 2009.

Future expansion is a topic of debate in many countries. Cyprus and Macedonia are stalled from accession by, respectively, Turkey and Greece, pending the resolution of disputes between them. Other countries which have a stated goal of eventually joining include Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Georgia. The incorporation of former Warsaw Pact countries has been a cause of increased tension between NATO countries and Russia.

NATO remains the key security structure in Europe. As such it has expansion plans to extend its security reach. Potential future members include the Republic of Macedonia/former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,[27] which was under consideration to enter NATO in 2009. FYROM is likely to enter the alliance at some point, with Jane's Defence Weekly commenting on 16 April 2008 that resolution to the naming issue that is holding up entry is "likely by the end of this year [2008] and no later than the 2009 summit."[28] At the same 2008 summit in Bucharest, the communique explicitly said that Georgia and Ukraine "will become members of NATO."

Other potential candidate countries include, in South-eastern Europe, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Other possible, long neutral countries that might become members are Finland and Sweden.

Russia continues to oppose further expansion, seeing it as inconsistent with understandings between Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and United States President George H. W. Bush which allowed for a peaceful unification of Germany. NATO's expansion policy is seen by Russia as a continuation of a Cold War attempt to surround and isolate Russia.[29][30][31][32]

NATO began in an attempt to thwart feared Communist expansionism, and despite the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the relationship between Russia and NATO still remains problematic.

There are currently 28 members within NATO.

A framework has been established to help further co-operation between the 28 NATO members and 22 "partner countries."

The 24 partner countries are the following:

Launched at the November 2002 Prague Summit, Individual Partnership Action Plans (IPAPs) are open to countries that have the political will and ability to deepen their relationship with NATO.[35]

Currently IPAPs are in implementation with the following countries:

Additionally, NATO cooperates and discusses their activities with numerous other non-NATO members.

Since 19901991, the Alliance has gradually increased its contact with countries that do not form part of any of the above cooperative groupings. Political dialogue with Japan began in 1990, and a range of non-NATO countries have contributed to peacekeeping operations in the former Yugoslavia. The Allies established a set of general guidelines on relations with other countries, beyond the above groupings in 1998.[38] The guidelines do not allow for a formal institutionalization of relations, but reflect the Allies' desire to increase cooperation. Following extensive debate, the term "Contact Countries" was agreed by the Allies in 2000. Two of these countries are also members of the AUSCANNZUKUS strategic alliance.

The internal NATO organization includes political structures, military structures, and agencies and organizations immediately subordinate to NATO headquarters. The main headquarters of NATO is located on Boulevard Lopold III, B-1110 BRUSSELS, which is in Haren, part of the City of Brussels.[39]

Like any alliance, NATO is ultimately governed by its member states. The North Atlantic Treaty[41] and other agreements outline how decisions are to be made within NATO. Each of the 28 members sends a delegation or mission to NATOs headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.[42] The senior permanent member of each delegation is known as the Permanent Representative and is generally a senior civil servant or an experienced ambassador (and holding that diplomatic rank).

Together the Permanent Members form the North Atlantic Council (NAC), a body which meets together at least once a week and has effective political authority and powers of decision in NATO. From time to time the Council also meets at higher levels involving Foreign Ministers, Defense Ministers or Heads of State or Government (HOSG); it is at these meetings that major decisions regarding NATOs policies are generally taken. However, it is worth noting that the Council has the same authority and powers of decision-making, and its decisions have the same status and validity, at whatever level it meets. NATO summits also form a further venue for decisions on complex issues, such as enlargement.

The meetings of the North Atlantic Council are chaired by the Secretary General of NATO and, when decisions have to be made, action is agreed upon on the basis of unanimity and common accord. There is no voting or decision by majority. Each nation represented at the Council table or on any of its subordinate committees retains complete sovereignty and responsibility for its own decisions.

The second pivotal member of each country's delegation is the Military Representative, a senior officer from each country's armed forces. Together the Military Representatives form the Military Committee (MC), a body responsible for recommending to NATOs political authorities those measures considered necessary for the common defense of the NATO area. Its principal role is to provide direction and advice on military policy and strategy. It provides guidance on military matters to the NATO Strategic Commanders, whose representatives attend its meetings, and is responsible for the overall conduct of the military affairs of the Alliance under the authority of the Council.

Like the council, from time to time the Military Committee also meets at a higher level, namely at the level of Chiefs of defense, the most senior military officer in each nation's armed forces. The Defense Planning Committee excludes France, due to that country's 1966 decision to remove itself from NATO's integrated military structure.[43] On a practical level, this means that issues that are acceptable to most NATO members but unacceptable to France may be directed to the Defense Planning Committee for more expedient resolution. Such was the case in the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom.[44]

The current Chairman of the NATO Military Committee is Ray Henault of Canada (since 2005).

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, founded in 1955, serves as the consultative interparliamentary organization for the North Atlantic Alliance. Bringing together legislators from all the member states of the Atlantic Alliance, the NATO PA provides a link between NATO and the parliaments of its member nations. At the same time, it facilitates parliamentary awareness and understanding of key security issues and contributes to a greater transparency of NATO policies. Crucially, it helps maintain and strengthen the transatlantic relationship, which underpins the Atlantic Alliance.[45]

Subordinate to the political structure are the International Staff and International Military Staff, which administer NATO programmes and carry out high-level political, military, and also civil emergency planning.[45]

Over the years, non-governmental citizens' groups have grown up in support of NATO, broadly under the banner of the Atlantic Council/Atlantic Treaty Association movement.

NATO's military operations are directed by the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, and split into two Strategic Commands both commanded by a senior US officer assisted by a staff drawn from across NATO. The Strategic Commanders are responsible to the Military Committee for the overall direction and conduct of all Alliance military matters within their areas of command.

Before 2003 the Strategic Commanders were the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic (SACLANT) but the current arrangement is to separate command responsibility between Allied Command Transformation (ACT), responsible for transformation and training of NATO forces, and Allied Command Operations, responsible for NATO operations worldwide.

The commander of Allied Command Operations retained the title "Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)," and is based in the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) located at Casteau, north of the Belgian city of Mons. This is about 80 km (50 miles) south of NATOs political headquarters in Brussels. ACO is headed by SACEUR, a US four star general with the dual-hatted role of heading US European Command, which is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany. SHAPE was in Paris until 1966, when French president Charles de Gaulle withdrew French forces from the Atlantic Alliance. NATO's headquarters were then forced to move to Belgium, while many military units had to move.

ACO includes Joint Force Command Brunssum in the Netherlands, Joint Force Command Naples in Italy, and Joint Command Lisbon, all multinational headquarters with many nations represented. JFC Brunssum has its land component, Allied Land Component Command Headquarters Heidelberg at Heidelberg, Germany, its air component at Ramstein in Germany, and its naval component at the Northwood Headquarters in the northwest suburbs of London. JFC Naples has its land component in Madrid, air component at Izmir, Turkey, and naval component in Naples, Italy. It also directs KFOR in Kosovo. JC Lisbon is a smaller HQ with no subordinate commands. Lajes Field, in the Portuguese Azores, is an important transatlantic staging post. Directly responsible to SACEUR is the NATO Airborne Early Warning Force at NATO Air Base Geilenkirchen in Germany where a jointly funded fleet of E-3 Sentry AWACS airborne radar aircraft is located. The C-17s of the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability, to be made operational in the next few years, will be based at Ppa airfield in Hungary, and probably come under SACEUR's control.

Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is based in the former Allied Command Atlantic headquarters in Norfolk, Virginia, USA. Allied Command Atlantic, usually known as SACLANT (Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic), after its commander, became ACT in 2003. It is headed by the Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT), a US four-star general or admiral with the dual-hatted role as commander US Joint Forces Command (COMUSJFCOM). There is also an ACT command element located at SHAPE in Mons, Belgium.

Subordinate ACT organizations include the Joint Warfare Center (JWC) located in Stavanger, Norway (in the same site as the Norwegian NJHQ); the Joint Force Training Center (JFTC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland; the Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Center (JALLC) in Monsanto, Portugal; and the NATO Undersea Research Centre (NURC),[48] La Spezia, Italy.

NATO has numerous agencies and organizations.[49] They include:

NATO has a number of Centres of Excellence (COEs), essentially multinational research, development, and evaluation bodies. The Organization says they "provide recognized subject matter expertise in support of transformation and interoperability, especially in the fields of doctrine and concept development and validation, training, education and exercises, as well as analysis and lessons learned."[53]

They are funded nationally or multi-nationally and have individual relationships with NATO formalized through memoranda of understanding.

In 2012, there were 16 fully accredited COEs, with 5 additional COEs in development.[54]

All links retrieved September 26, 2016.

Arms race Nuclear arms race Space Race

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Read more from the original source:

NATO - New World Encyclopedia

Nato must improve defences against a ‘more aggressive’ Russia …

Posted on by

Nato must improve its defensive capabilities and willingness to act in the wake of increasingly aggressive and unpredictable actions by Russia, the head of the transatlantic alliance said in a German newspaper interview published on Sunday.

The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said he expected the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other Nato leaders to revamp their approach at the next Nato summit this summer, given a risk that Russia could gradually give more weight to nuclear weapons in its doctrine, exercises and new military capabilities.

I think Chancellor Merkel and her colleagues will face new decisions at the Nato summit in July in Brussels. We must be alert and resolute, Stoltenberg was quoted saying by Welt am Sonntag.

The Nato leader last week accused Russia of trying to destabilise the west with new nuclear weapons, cyber attacks and covert action, including the poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury.

We can always do more and must reflect on that now. Salisbury follows, by all appearances, a pattern weve observed for some years Russia is becoming more unpredictable and more aggressive, he said.

Russia denies any involvement and says it is the US-led transatlantic alliance that is a risk to peace in Europe.

Russia must not miscalculate, Stoltenberg told the newspaper. We are always ready to respond when an ally is attacked militarily. We want credible deterrence. We dont want any war. Our goal is de-escalation.

Georgi Markov

In one of the most chilling episodes of the cold war, the Bulgarian dissident was poisoned with a specially adapted umbrella on Waterloo Bridge. As he waited for a bus, Markov felt a sharp prick in his leg. The opposition activist, who was an irritant to the communist government of Bulgaria, died three days later. A deadly pellet containing ricin was found in his skin. His unknown assassin is thought to have been from the secret services in Bulgaria.

Alexander Litvinenko

The fatal poisoning of the former FSB officer sparked an international incident. Litvinenko fell ill after drinking tea laced with radioactive polonium. He met his killers in a bar of the Millennium hotel in Mayfair. The pair were Andrei Lugovoi a former KGB officer turned businessman, who is now a deputy in Russias state Duma and Dmitry Kovtun, a childhood friend of Lugovois from a Soviet military family. Putin denied all involvement and refused to extradite either of the killers.

German Gorbuntsov

The exiled Russian banker survived an attempt on his life as he got out of a cab in east London. He was shot four times with a silenced pistol. He had been involved in a bitter dispute with two former business partners.

Alexander Perepilichnyy

The businessman collapsed while running near his home in Surrey. Traces of a chemical that can be found in the poisonous plant gelsemium were laterfound in his stomach. Before his death, Perepilichnyy was helping a specialist investment firm uncover a $230m Russian money-laundering operation, a pre-inquest hearing was told. Hermitage Capital Management claimed that Perepilichnyy could have been deliberately killed for helping it uncover the scam involving Russian officials. He may have eaten a popular Russian dish containing the herb sorrel on the day of his death, which could have been poisoned.

Boris Berezovsky

The exiled billionaire was found hanged in an apparent suicide after he had spent more than decade waging a high-profile media battle against his one-time protege Putin. A coroner recorded an open verdict after hearing conflicting expert evidence about the way he died. A pathologist who conducted a postmortem examination on the businessmans body said he could not rule out murder.

Scot Young

An associate of Berezovsky whom he helped to launder money, he was found impaled on railings after he fell from a fourth-floor flat in central London. A coroner ruled that there was insufficient evidence of suicide. But Young, who was sent to prison in January 2013 for repeatedly refusing to reveal his finances during a divorce row, told his partner he was going to jump out of the window moments before he was found.

Stoltenberg said hybrid warfare could be added to the agenda of the next Nato-Russia council, a forum that brings together Nato ambassadors and Russias top diplomat to the alliance, despite the suspension of joint exercises and peacekeeping operations.

Hybrid warfare is a possible topic for the Nato-Russia council. We are now preparing the next meeting, so I dont want to say too much, he told the newspaper, referring to increased use of hybrid tactics such as soldiers without insignia.

Its important that we sit together at the table and speak to each other, he said, urging Russia to abide by nuclear arms control treaties.

Stoltenberg listed as evidence of Russias threat its 2014 annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in Ukraine, military presence in Moldova and Georgia, meddling in western elections and involvement in the war in Syria.

Go here to read the rest:

Nato must improve defences against a 'more aggressive' Russia ...

NATO defense spending goes up for third year in a row – The …

Posted on by

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke about defense spending at a news conference in Brussels March 15. (Reuters)

BRUSSELS NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Thursday that alliance members increased their defense spending in 2017 for a third consecutive year, amid complaints from President Trump that only a handful of the 29 allies are meeting their pledges.

The numbers were unlikely to allay Trumps anger over his perception that Europe is taking the U.S. defense umbrella for granted. No additional countries met NATOs defense spending goals last year, and only four the United States, Britain, Estonia and Greece reached the mark, although more are expected to get there in 2018.

Lagging European defense spending has frustrated U.S. officials for years, but in the Trump era, the numbers have taken on outsize importance.

Countries registering shortfalls face threats from Washington, including the prospect that the United States might not come to their defense. Some of Trumps economic advisers have said that exemptions to new steel and aluminum tariffs might be grantedonly to countries that spend at least 2percent on defense.

[Heres how Europe is pushing back against Trumps tariffs]

All allies are stepping up, doing more in more places in more ways, Stoltenberg said as he unveiled NATOs annual report.

NATO countries not including the United States collectively spent an estimated 1.45percent of their annual economic output on defense last year, still short of the 2percent agreed to by national leaders in 2014 as a 10-year target.

That was the year Russias annexation of Ukraines Crimean Peninsula sparked fears in Europe that the continent wasbadly prepared for a traditional ground war with Russia, once NATOs reason for being.

The report comes as Britain says it believes Russia carried out a nerve-agent attack on its soil this month, a casethe alliance described as the first instance of chemical weapons being used offensively against a member nationsince its foundingafter World War II.

British diplomats on Wednesday outlined their concerns about the attack to their NATO peers, but they stopped short of triggering a formal alliance response.

The substance used is one of the most toxic ever developed, Stoltenberg said.The attack was a breach of international norms and agreements. This attack was unacceptable. It has no place in a civilized world.

He added that the higher spending will help alliance members defend against and respond to chemical attacks of the type unleashed in Salisbury, which targeted a Russian who had spied for Britain.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg spoke March 15 about an attack in Salisbury, Britain that targeted former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. (Reuters)

This year, eight countries are expected to meet NATOs 2percent goal: Britain, Estonia, Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and the United States. In 2017, Poland narrowly missed the cut at 1.99percent of its annual economic output afterits economy grew faster than it had expected when it made its defense spending plans.

Under pressure from the United States, NATO members have pledged to create road maps of how they will meet the goals by 2024.

[NATO allies boost defense spending in the wake of Trump criticism]

Before individual members defense spending turned back upward in 2015, the overall figure had been falling every year since 2008, in part because of the global economic crisis that struck around that time.

Policymakers who were involved in the 2014 negotiations that ended with the spending commitments said that the 2percent figure was chosen in part to galvanize public discussion, not because it was a magic number that would signal NATO had reached a state of readiness.

It was a judgment about what level could be set that was politically at least somewhat credible and at least somewhat achievable and therefore had some mobilizing power about it,said Adam Thomson, who was British ambassador to NATO until 2016 and is now director of the European Leadership Network, a security-focused think tank.

Nobody could quite have expected the way it has been taken up in such an unsophisticated fashion by Trump, but that, too, has had a real impact, he said.

Leaders of countries that do not meet the goals sometimes say the raw numbers fail to fully capture defense commitments. Efficient spending and a willingness to contribute troops to NATO missions are also an important measure, some of them say. In Germany, which lags on hard military spending, leaders say their extensive development aid commitments contribute to global security.

The United States still spends the lions share on defense in the alliance 68.7percent of the total in 2017. That reflects its roleas the foremost global superpower. The United States spent 3.57percent of its overall economic output on defense last year.

Other countries have dramatically ramped up their spending, a reflection of U.S. pressure that started well before Trump was elected anda sense of vulnerability after the annexation of Crimea. Romania poured an extra 34.8percent into its spending last year. Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Spain and Luxembourg also recorded significant jumps.

Although most countries have boosted their spending, a handful have made cuts. Belgium, a nation of 11million that hosts NATO headquarters, cut defense spending by 0.73percent last year, reducing its outlay in the area to 0.9percent of its economic output. Greece and Britain also registered declines,although both are still meeting their pledges.

Read more:

German defense minister slams Trumps military-heavy approach to security

Will Trumps crude issue linkage work?

Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Like Washington Post World on Facebook and stay updated on foreign news

Read more from the original source:

NATO defense spending goes up for third year in a row - The ...

NATO Trends Heading Up, Annual Report Shows

Posted on by

WASHINGTON, March 16, 2018

NATO has stepped up recrafting deterrence and defense, and the alliances annual report for 2017 shows that the trend lines for the alliance are up, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in Brussels yesterday.

The alliance nations have followed through with some high-profile moves to deter Russian interference, the secretary general noted. In 2017, NATO nations deployed four multinational battle groups to the Baltic republics and to Poland. Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States each lead a battalion-sized group, and troops from many NATO nations are members.

Another action to counter Russia was increased forward presence in the Black Sea region. The alliance also increased our resilience against hybrid war, and strengthened our cyber defenses, Stoltenberg said. NATO joined as an entity in the global coalition to defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, he added, and the alliance also raised the level of cooperation with the European Union and welcomed Montenegro as NATOs 29th member nation.

Sharing the Burden

Burden-sharing has increased in the alliance, the secretary general said. At the 2014 summit in Wales, member nations pledged to stop cuts to defense budgets and increase spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product within a decade. Since then, we have seen three consecutive years of increased defense spending in Europe and Canada, adding a total of $46 billion, he said.

This increase means new equipment, Stoltenberg said. Since the decision, he pointed out, alliance nations have spent $18 billion on major equipment and increased investments in operations and exercises.

For instance, in 2017 we decided to increase contributions to our Resolute Support mission in Afghanistan, and allies have contributed thousands of troops to our increased presence in the east of the alliance, he said. At the end of 2017, there were over 23,000 troops serving in NATO deployments, up from just under 18,000 in 2014 before Russias illegal annexation of Crimea and the rise of ISIS.

Focus on Russia

Russia is a focus of all this activity. Stoltenberg discussed the poisoning of former spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter and a British police officer. The weapon a military-grade nerve agent was traced to Russia. British officials say this attack is an unlawful use of force by Russia against the United Kingdom.

This is the first offensive use of a nerve agent on alliance territory since NATOs foundation, the secretary general said. All allies agree that the attack was a clear breach of international norms and agreements. This is unacceptable. It has no place in a civilized world.

NATO regards any use of chemical weapons as a threat to international peace and security, he said. The attack in Salisbury has taken place against the backdrop of a reckless pattern of Russian behavior over many years, Stoltenberg said.

He spoke about the Russian attack into Georgia in 2008, the illegal annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in 2012 and Russias continued military support to separatists in Eastern Ukraine. He also pointed to Russias attempts to subvert democratic elections and institutions, and its military buildup from the north of Europe to the Middle East.

The secretary general pointed to Russias military modernization program, especially its investment in modernizing nuclear weaponry. Russia has integrated conventional and nuclear warfare in its military doctrine and exercises, he said. This blurring of the line between nuclear and conventional lowers the threshold for Russias use of nuclear weapons, and the blurring of the line between peace, crisis and war is destabilizing and dangerous.

The alliance does not want a new Cold War or a new arms race, Stoltenberg said. But let there be no doubt: NATO will defend all allies against any threat, he added. We will maintain strong conventional forces, as well as a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.

Stepping Up in Afghanistan and Against ISIS

Russia is just one challenge to peace, and NATO has also stepped up in Afghanistan. NATO forces are helping to train Afghan forces to police their own country. We have decided to increase the size of our Resolute Support training mission from 13,000 to around 16,000, the secretary general said. With our assistance, Afghan forces have increased military pressure on the Taliban, ensuring they did not achieve their strategic objective of capturing a provincial capital in 2017.

The alliance strongly supports an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace and reconciliation process. I commend [Afghan] President [Ashraf] Ghani for his courageous leadership. His offer to the Taliban is the clearest invitation to peace yet. So I call on the Taliban to come to the negotiating table.

NATO also joined the coalition confronting ISIS. We are working to strengthen the Iraqi armed forces to fight terrorism, training almost 500 Iraqi trainers so they can share their new skills with thousands of others, Stoltenberg said. This year, we will further boost our contribution by launching a new training mission in Iraq to build on our efforts and by providing more support to our partners in the region such as Jordan and Tunisia.

The world does not stand still, he said, and neither does NATO.

Originally posted here:

NATO Trends Heading Up, Annual Report Shows

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate | United …

Posted on by

The Good News: Dr. Wells, you have been following the evolution vs. intelligent design debate for quite some time. What is your opinion on how its been faring and who iswinning?

Jonathan Wells: Before I answer, its important to clarify the issues. Evolution can mean many thingssuch as change over time, or minor changes within existing species, neither of which any sane person doubts. The problem is Darwinismthe theory that all living things are descended from a common ancestor by unguided processes such as natural selection acting on minor variations. Darwinists often confuse the issue by starting with the noncontroversial meanings of evolution and then slipping in their more controversialclaims.

According to intelligent design, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the worldsuch as some features of living thingsare explained better by an intelligent cause than by unguided natural processes. Intelligent design does not claim that everything is designed, nor does it claim that anything is perfectly designed. Nor does intelligent design tell us the nature of the designerthough many, including me, believe it was the God of theBible.

Since Darwinism claims that all features of living things can be explained by unguided natural processes, and intelligent design claims that some features are better explained by an intelligent cause, there is an irreconcilable conflict between thetwo.

Currently, Darwinism is winning on the political, legal and media fronts in the United States. Most universities and public schools teach Darwinism as though it were unquestioned fact, though the truth is that a growing number of scientists are questioning it on evidentialgrounds.

Data from the genome projects are revealing major inconsistencies in the Darwinian claim that all organisms share a common ancestor, and no one has ever observed the origin of a new speciesmuch less the origin of new organs and body plansby variation and selection. On the other hand, the evidence for intelligent design is increasing. Sooner or later, the evidence willwin.

GN: Some time back, you mentioned that if the junk DNA turns out to have viable functions, it would support the case for intelligent design. What does the recent data say on thissubject?

JW: According to modern neo-Darwinism, genes that are passed from generation to generation carry a program that directs embryo development, mutations occasionally alter this genetic program to produce new variations, and natural selection then sorts those mutationsthe raw materials of evolutionto produce new species, organs, and body plans. In the 1950s, molecular biologists discovered that proteins, the microscopic building blocks of bodily structures, are formed according to information encoded in different segments of DNA. They then equated gene with protein-coding sequence and mutations with molecular accidents in suchsequences.

By the 1970s, however, it was clear that most of the DNA in human beings and many other animals does not code for proteins. In 1980, Francis Crick [codiscoverer of the structure of DNA] and Leslie Orgel argued in Nature that this noncoding DNA is merely junk that has accumulated in the course of evolution. For the next 25 years, many biologists continued to regard noncoding DNA asjunk.

In his 2009 book Why Evolution Is True, neo-Darwinist Jerry Coyne compared predictions based on intelligent design with those based on Darwinian evolution. If organisms were built from scratch by a designer, he argued, they would not have imperfections. Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact, its precisely what we expect from evolution [p.81].

According to Coyne, when a trait is no longer used, or becomes reduced, the genes that make it dont instantly disappear from the genome: evolution stops their action by inactivating them, not snipping them out of the DNA. From this we can make a prediction. We expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or dead, genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed [pp.66-67].

In contrast, Coyne said that creation by design predicts that no such genes would exist. And the evolutionary prediction that well find pseudogenes has been fulfilled, he wrote. Our genomeand that of other speciesare truly well populated graveyards of dead genes [p.67].

But Coyne was dead wrong. A growing mountain of data from genome-sequencing projects shows that most DNA performs essential functions. The Darwinists claim that a large percentage of DNA is evolutionary junk is totally false. This reflects badly not only on them, but also on neo-Darwinism itself. By Coynes logic, the genome-sequencing data refute neo-Darwinism and support intelligentdesign.

GN: This year is Darwins bicentennial. What would you say is a good summary today about his writings onevolution?

JW: Why didnt we celebrate Mendels centennial in the 1920s, or Newtons tricentennial in the 1940s? Both were greatscientists.

Darwin is celebrated not because of his scientific contributions, but because his theory has become the creation myth of atheism. Darwin Day in the United States is a project of the Institute for Humanist Studies, which is dedicated to promoting a nonreligious philosophy. Some atheists have even said they want to establish Darwin Day as a secular alternative toChristmas.

Most people never read The Origin of Species, but if they do they will find that it is a work of theology as much as science. Darwins main argument was that certain features of living things are inexplicable on the theory of creation, but make sense only on his theory of unguided descent with modification. Indeed, there are so many discussions of creation in The Origin of Species that U.S. courts might well consider it unconstitutional to use in publicschools.

In my opinion, the best way to summarize Darwins writings on evolution would be as a revival of ancient materialistic philosophy, such as that taught by the Greek Empedocles and the Roman Lucretius, illustrated with examples drawn from 19th-century naturalscience.

GN: What would you say was Darwins greatest mistake regarding his theory ofevolution?

JW: Darwin was mistaken about a lot of things. He was mistaken about heredity, which he attributed to characteristicssome of them probably acquired during an organisms lifetimethat were blended together from every cell in thebody.

He was mistaken about vertebrate embryos, the earliest stages of which he believed showed us our fishlike ancestor in its adultstate.

He was mistaken about the geographic distribution of species, which he thought could be explained entirely by migration or by geologicalseparation.

He was mistaken in claiming that all organisms were part of one great tree of life with a common ancestor at theroot.

And he was mistaken about the power of natural selection, which he arguedby analogy with artificial selection, which had never produced anything more than changes within existing speciesproduced new species, organs and bodyplans.

But Darwins greatest mistake was to deny design in living things. The unguided processes he invoked have never been able to produce the major innovations needed for evolution. And the more we learn about living things, the more designed theylook.

GN: Some scientists claim the chimpanzee genome is about 99 percent similar to the human genome, but others claim it is closer to 75 percent. What is the truth about this, and how significant are thefindings?

JW: Comparing chimpanzee and human genomes is tricky, not the least because the sequences do not line up exactly and one has to decide where to start the comparison. The 99 percent figure involves only a part of each genome; and depending on the technique and the researcher, the estimates can varysignificantly.

But whatever the estimate, the deeper question is, what does it mean? According to evolutionist Jonathan Marks, who published a book in 2002 titled What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee, it means very little. Marks argues that since there are only four [molecular compound] subunits in DNA, any two living things are bound to be at least 25 percent similar. Someone who claims that humans are 99 percent similar to chimps might as well add that humans are 35 percent similar todaffodils.

In fact, the similarity between chimp and human DNAwhatever the figure may beposes a problem for neo-Darwinism. According to neo-Darwinism, organisms are what they are because of their DNAwhich is why DNA mutations can supposedly provide the raw materials for evolution. Then why are chimps and humans so different from each other not only in their anatomy and physiology but also in their intelligence and behavior? Basing an estimate of their similarity on DNA comparisons alone is a byproduct of neo-Darwinian dogma, not biologicalscience.

There is actually abundant evidence that embryo development is not entirely controlled by DNA. More information is necessary, and this information is located in cellular structures that the embryo inherits apart from its DNA. But neo-Darwinian dogma tends to blind people to this evidence and thereby hinders scientificprogress.

GN: You are a prolific writer about intelligent design. What are you currently working on in thisregard?

JW: In the past year I have written two book reviews: Darwin of the Gaps, a review of Francis Collins The Language of God and Why Darwinism Is False, a review of Jerry Coynes Why Evolution Is True .

Mostly, however, I have been doing empirical and theoretical research in my own field, cell and developmental biology. The empirical research involves testing an intelligent design-guided hypothesis about a possible cause of cancer, which I published in 2005. The theoretical research involves formulating testable hypotheses about the nature and location of non-DNA information in the embryo, by analyzing the embryo as though it were a designed whole instead of an accidental byproduct of DNA mutations and naturalselection.

GN: You mentioned some while ago that by the year 2025, the theory of evolution would have lost most of its appeal. Do you still think this date is feasible forthat?

JW: Yes, I do. Of course, its risky to put a date on such a prediction, but scientific discoveries are rapidly making Darwinism less and less plausible, and this is becoming more and more obvious to new students and to others not already committed to the old way ofthinking.

I compare Darwinism to a frozen pond in the springtime. As winter passes and the days grow longer, the ice may look thick, but it becomes honeycombed with melt water. In the next thaw it may disappear overnight. GN

Read the original here:

The Evolution vs. Intelligent Design Debate | United ...

Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution? | United …

Posted on by

Are we the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve or did God guide our journey into existence by the forces of evolution? The wisdom of this world, particularly in Europe, is increasingly embracing the idea that we can accept both the teachings of the Bible and the theory of evolution. But are they reallycompatible?

Wrote Clive Cookson in the Financial Times, The Vatican, which often appeared ambivalent in the past, has recently gone out of its way to affirm the compatibility of evolutionary science with the Bible (Dec. 23, 2005, emphasis addedthroughout).

Many clergymen believe inevolution

A movement known as the Clergy Letter Project, signed by 10,000 ordained ministers and priests in America, stated: We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children(ibid.).

It is astonishing to fully realize the grip that the concept of evolution has on increasing numbers who also profess to believe in God and presumably His Word. And yet at the same time growing numbers of competent scientists are becoming outspoken critics ofDarwinism.

As the Australian molecular biologist and medical doctor Michael Denton, himself an agnostic, has written, evolutionary theory is still, as it was in Darwins time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more aggressive advocates would have us believe ( Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, p.77).

Even some who support intelligent design (ID) somehow conceive of it as also compatible with Darwinism. The Economist put it this way: But if God has a plan for the world and everyone in it then it is much easier to imagine evolution occurring under divine guidance than as a result of random mutation and the survival of thefittest.

Many believe that God has used the evolutionary process of natural selection to accomplish His ultimate purpose for the humanfamily.

Even the noted paleontologist and agnostic Stephen Jay Gould saw fit to state, Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism (Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge, quoted in Dawkins God, 2005, p.80).

This approachbelieving that a divine being guided the evolutionary processis called theistic evolution. But according to what we find in the Bible, has God ever worked that way? The title of this article is: Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution? It could just as well have been titled Can You Believe Both God andEvolution?

Who made a man fromdust?

Since there is so little understanding about what Scripture actually says on this subject, lets make the consistent biblical position very plain and clear. The human creation account begins in the first chapter of the very first book of theBible.

Then God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth (Genesis 1:26 Genesis 1:26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.American King James Version).

Here Scripture draws a clear distinction between man and the animal world. Previous passages plainly show that mammals, birds and fish were definitely not created in the image of God (verses 20-25). Only man shares that awesome distinction and for a grand purpose. (To understand further, please request or download our free booklet Who Is God? )

God first states His intention to create human beings and then He does it. So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them (verse27).

More details are revealed in the second chapter. And the Lord God formed man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath oflife; and man became a living being (Genesis 2:7 Genesis 2:7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.American King James Version).

The biblical narrative is in sharp contrast to those who believe that evolution has shaped dust into humanity. In essence this belief amounts to idolatry since evolution has been put in the place ofGod.

The narrative continues with the creation of Eve. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man (Genesis 2:21-23 Genesis 2:21-23 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.American King James Version).

The account shows that sex was created by God, not by evolution as so many scientists seem to claim. Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh (verse24).

The Psalms confirmcreation

Other books in the Bible, like the Psalms, confirm the Genesis account of the human creation. Consider the human eye. We may ask, who designed the first eye? How could the eye possibly be the product of an accidental mutation? How could aeons of gradual change produce an eyean astoundingly complex organ that needs all of its highly integrated parts tofunction?

The psalmist gives the credit to God. He who planted the ear, shall He not hear? He who formed the eye, shall He not see? (Psalms 94:9 Psalms 94:9He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?American King James Version).

What did King David say about his own origins? I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalms 139:14 Psalms 139:14I will praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are your works; and that my soul knows right well.American King James Version). He attributed his existence directly to God and went on to describe how the Creator knew all of his parts even while he was in his mothers womb (verses15-16).

David asked the crucial question: What is man that You are mindful of Him ? You made him a little lower than the angels (Psalms 8:4-5 Psalms 8:4-5 4 What is man, that you are mindful of him? and the son of man, that you visit him? 5 For you have made him a little lower than the angels, and have crowned him with glory and honor.American King James Version). He goes on to tell us how man has been given rule over the earth, including the flora and the fauna (verses6-8).

Columnist Mark Steyn, writing in the British Spectator, said this pivotal passage accurately conveys the central feature of our worldour dominion over pretty much everything else out there. He adds that the writer of this psalm captured the essence of our reality better than your average geneticist (O Come, All Ye Faithless, Dec. 17,2005).

Jesus Christ and Paul believed in manscreation

Notice what Jesus Christ Himself said: But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female (Mark 10:6 Mark 10:6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.American King James Version). Then in Matthews parallel account Christ asks the question: Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female...? (Matthew 19:4 Matthew 19:4And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,American King James Version).

Christs question underscores the importance of reading and believing the Bibleand in this case especially the creation accounts in the early chapters ofGenesis.

When the apostle Paul confronted the blatant idolatry of the philosophers of Athens on the Areopagus, adjoining the Athenian Acropolis, he told them that the God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth ... From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth (Acts 17:24 Acts 17:24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwells not in temples made with hands;American King James Version, 26, New InternationalVersion).

All generations of human beings came from one manand that man was named Adam. Paul adds, And so it is written [in Genesis]: The first man Adam became a living being (1 Corinthians 15:45 1 Corinthians 15:45And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.American King James Version).

Paul also understood the order in which the first man and first woman were created. For Adam was formed first, then Eve (1 Timothy 2:13 1 Timothy 2:13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.American King James Version). And as surprising as it may seem, He also wrote: For man [Adam] did not come from woman, but woman [Eve] from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man (1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.American King James Version, NIV).

Since all of their descendants were born of a woman (verse 12), Paul could not have written this passage unless he implicitly believed in the Genesisaccount.

Drawing the obviousconclusions

There is simply no way of reshaping the Bible into a book that also somehow supports the theory of evolution. If we are brave enough to accept the creation account at face value, then theistic evolution becomes impossible to believe. We cannot believe both the Bible and evolution. Both Old and New Testaments consistently support the account of the divine creation of Adam andEve.

Logically, what we are obliged to do now is to examine the evidence for the authority and authenticity of the Bible, along with Gods existence, and compare them with the viability of the theory of evolution. If you would like to seriously pursue these lines of thought, we invite you to request or download our free booklets Is the Bible True? , Lifes Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? and Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe? GN

Read more:

Can You Believe Both the Bible and Evolution? | United ...

How Can You Talk With Your Children About Evolution …

Posted on by

If you have school-aged children, theyre probably being exposed to evolutionary theory on a regular basis, whether you like it or not. In most public schools, evolution is a major part of the sciencecurriculum.

Of course, even if your children are preschoolers, they still may be hearing a lot about evolution. Just take them to a zoo, visit a natural history museum, watch a nature show on television or read a book about animals. Darwins theories are promulgated practicallyeverywhere.

Thats exactly why you, as a parent, need to do some talking of your own on this subject. You need to counteract these ideas. Remember, when your children are at school evolutionary theory is most likely being presented to them as fact. Theyre unlikely to be told anything about the flaws with Darwinian thinking or about the existence of a divineCreator.

True, your children may go to church with you. They may know you dont believe in evolution. But theyre not likely to really understand why evolution is wrong unless you talk about it withthem.

This may sound like a tall order. After all, evolution can be a daunting topic. However, you dont have to be skilled in biology or paleontology to see the fallacies in evolution and explain these to your children. Here are some practical suggestions for doing this and, even more importantly, teaching your children what the Bible says aboutcreation.

While you dont need to be an expert in biology, you should at least have a general understanding of evolutionary theory before you discuss it with yourkids.

Know the basic terms like survival of the fittest, speciation, spontaneous generation, common descent, random mutation, natural selection, etc. You should understand what these terms mean and how they fit into evolutionary theory. This will allow you to discuss the issues on an intelligentlevel.

Also request from The Good News the two free booklets Lifes Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? and Creation or Evolution: Does It Really Matter What You Believe? Both include lists of helpful books, most written by scientists, that support the booklets mainpoints.

You can also find a lot of helpful material at Web sites such as http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.icr.org, as well as in books published by creationist publishing houses. But you need to be mindful of their varying views. Not all creationists believe the same thing. The majority consider themselves young earth creationists, meaning they believe that the stars, planets, earth and life on earth were created by God only about 6,000 yearsago.

If you think otherwisethat the earth is older than that, perhaps even as old as most scientists speculatethen you will have a lot of material to weed through when reading books and articles written by young-earthcreationists.

Old earth creationists, on the other hand, believe that the earth and the universe are billions of years old, as described by astronomers and geologists. Within this category is the view known as gap creationism. It maintains that the earth and life on it predate the time of mans creation and that the former world was plunged into chaos, necessitating a week of renewal in preparation for mans creation 6,000 yearsago.

Also within the old earth category is progressive creationism, which contends that the six days of creation in Genesis do not refer to literal 24-hour days, but rather epochs that could be millions or billions of years induration.

These are just a few of the ways that creationist groups differ with each other. Theres not room to describe all the different views here. The bottom line is that while these groups can provide a lot of good information to help you understand the problems with evolution, they can also give you many additional issues to grapple with if you dont hold the same beliefs regarding the age of the earth or the timing of creation. You need to choose educational materials verycarefully.

Once you have a good understanding of the issues, youre ready to have some discussions with your children. Plan a time to talk with them about this subject. Dont just wait for your kids to ask you a question about evolution, because they may never do that on theirown.

If you have regular family meetings at your house, you could make evolution one of the topics you discuss then. Or it could be a subject you bring up with your kids every now and then when youre all sitting around the dinnertable.

Either way, youll want to find out from your kids what they already know about evolution, to what extent theyre hearing about it in school and if they have any questions or concerns about what theyre being told. Then you can explain some of the fallacies with evolution, based on what youve found from all yourreading.

But dont do all the talking yourself. Try to get an interchange going. You might ask your children if they can come up with some examples from nature of obvious intelligent design or irreducible complexity (the latter referring to structures or systems that could not have evolved in gradual stages, as complete assembly is necessary to provide functional benefit so as to be passed on in the process of natural selection). See if you can get them really thinking about thissubject.

You can also use specially designed family field trips to address evolutionary ideas. Thats what Jack of London, Kentucky, does. He and his wife often take their middle-school-aged kids on fossil-hunting hikes to the creeks, cliffs and hills near theirhome.

All of the bedrock around here is full of fossils, he notes. Well show our kids the different fossils we find, and then Ill tell them isnt it interesting that we never find any fossils of transitional species (such as a fish with feet or a reptile with feathers), which would support claims of evolutionarychange.

Every fossil we find is a fully formed and functional species. Then I tell them that professional paleontologists have not found transitional fossils either. Its really driven the pointhome.

Obviously youll need to tailor your talks to the age of your children. You can go into much more depth if you have a preteen or teen who is studying biology in school than you would if your child is much younger and hasnt learned about genes yet. With young children, you may just want to stress that there is no scientific evidence for the big changes from amoeba to fish to frogs to reptiles to mammals and leave it atthat.

In addition to your planned talks, you should be ready to talk about evolutionary concepts whenever you encounter them. You might be at the zoo when a guide or sign states that giraffes evolved their long necks in order to eat leaves from the tallest trees. As soon as you can, take your children aside and remind them of why such concepts arefalse.

Not only should you be addressing whats wrong with evolution, but you should also be teaching your children about the biblical account of creation. Start this when they are very young. Read them the story of Gods creation in Genesis 1 and 2 again and again until it is firmly fixed in theirminds.

But dont stop with the book of Genesis. The Bible contains many verses that confirm the Genesis account of creation, particularly in the books of Psalms and Isaiah. Read these to your child too. Discuss these verses. Talk about what God did on each of the days of creation, and what it means for ustoday.

You might also want to take some family field trips to highlight creation. Take your children to a botanical garden and show them the intricate design in leaves and remind them again and again how unlikely it would be for such intricate patterns to occur by chance mutation and naturalselection.

Visit a farm or petting zoo in the springtime when there are baby animals to illustrate the point that God created the animals and plants to reproduce each according to its kind. If you have a garden, you can show your kids that particular kinds of seeds grow into particular kinds of fruits andvegetables.

Point out what a perfect system has been devisedthat it could not have happened without a creator. These kinds of hands-on lessons will make the creation story much more real to yourchildren.

Your children may be convinced that evolution is wrong, but how to deal with evolutionary teachings at school is another story. How, in good conscience, can they answer test questions about evolution? This is something you definitely need to address in your talks with yourchildren.

First, explain that evolution is a very common belief in our society. For that reason, they need to know something about it. They need to know what people mean when they talk aboutevolution.

With that in mind, your kids can see tests simply as a measure of how much they know about this pervasive idea. When they answer test questions, they are not saying they believe in evolution; they are simply demonstrating their knowledge about thetheory.

For example, with essay questions or if their teacher asks them a question in a class discussion, they could preface their responses with something like, The generally accepted belief is or Chapter 5 emphasized that These kinds of answers show that your children have done their homework and understand the concept of evolution, but without communicating that they believe init.

During your talks, you should stress why it is a big problem to accept the theory of evolutionthat it is an attempt to explain away the existence ofGod.

If the universe and life on earth evolved by itself over billions of years, then the Genesis account of creation is pure fiction and God isnt real. That is exactly what many in society want to believe and promulgate. If theres no God, then there are no absolutes about right and wrong and people are free to do whatever they want todo.

Explain this to your children. They need to understand that there really is an agenda here; evolutionary theory is being pushed on society for more reasons than simply the pursuit ofscience.

If your kids are older, they may ask you if its possible to believe in God and evolution. This would be the time to explain the fallacies of theistic evolution. This theory is an attempt to integrate creationism and evolution. Theistic evolutionists believe that God did indeed create the universe, but He did so by guiding the process of evolution over billions ofyears.

You could explain that the tenets of evolution and creationism are so strongly divergent that it doesnt make sense to believe in both. Trying to do so reduces the Bible to insignificance, and opens the door for wrongthinking.

The only kind of evolution that Scripture allows for is micro evolutionchange over time within created kinds, not change from one kind to another. Again, the missing intermediate links in the fossil record fit with what the Bible teaches, not with atheistic or theisticevolution.

To sum up, it certainly matters a great deal what we believe concerning the origins of the universe and of life itself. Darwin believed that life began when chemicals in a pond somehow became mixed together to spontaneously create living matter, even though he admitted it could not be proven. Today evolutionists cannot prove how life was first formedeither.

But we know the answer. We know that God created us in His image. We also know that He has a wonderful plan for us, intending us to be a part of His eternal Kingdom. This should be something we think about often and regularly talk about with our children. That is the only way they will learn to separate truth from fiction, and hold fast to Gods precious truths! GN

Visit link:

How Can You Talk With Your Children About Evolution ...

Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Man and His Ideas | United …

Posted on by

In a series of coincidences fewer than two years away, three important historical dates will convergethe bicentennial of the births of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln (both born on Feb. 12, 1809) and the 150th anniversary of the publication (in 1859) of Darwins The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Many celebrations will take place honoring the memories of these two influential men in worldhistory.

Abraham Lincoln, the 16th U.S. president, is known primarily for three great accomplishments: his Emancipation Proclamation that set the stage for freeing the American slaves; his efforts to preserve the United States when it was wracked by the American Civil War; and his actions that marked him as one of the most humane and respected leaders in recentcenturies.

Yet, of the two, the social, psychological, political and scientific impact of Charles Darwin is greater. Ideas based on Darwinian evolution still permeate most scientific fields and the philosophical perspectives presented in schools, universities and the popular press. Just recently, for example, the Science Channel named its top 100 scientific discoveries of all timeand trumpeted as number one Darwins theory ofevolution.

Who exactly was Charles Darwin? Why did his theory of evolution have such an impact? And more importantly, is what he proposed reallytrue?

Much has been written about the man, but two books (by proevolution authors) have exhaustively covered his life Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist (1992) by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, and the twovolume set Charles Darwin: Voyaging (1995) and Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (2002) by Harvard professor Janet Browne. Along with these two biographies are Darwins own autobiography and what was written by Darwins son,Francis.

On the other side of the ledger, books critical of Darwin and his theory include the masterly exposition Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985) by biochemist and physician Michael Denton and Darwin on Trial (1991) by University of California law professor Phillip Johnson, to name a few. Much of the material for this article is drawn from thesesources.

Darwins earlylife

Many today assume Darwin was the originator of the idea of evolution, but the concept had actually been around as early as Greek times. Darwins achievement was proposing a mechanism for evolution to worknaturalselection.

Two of the most influential people in Darwins early life and thoughts were his father, Robert, and, indirectly, his famous grandfather Erasmus. Although Erasmus died before Charles was born, Charles father made sure Charles was familiar with his grandfathers writings onevolution.

Erasmus Darwin wrote a book, Zoonomia, that included many evolutionary concepts Charles would later adopt. Erasmus had been a successful physician, as was his son, Robert, and both were decidedly antiChristianalthough careful to disguise their ideas in public. The name of Darwin, write Desmond and Moore, was already associated with subversive atheism. Dr Robert was himself a closet freethinker (p.12).

Charles Darwin eventually rejected Christianity, in part because he could not accept the fate he understood it to decree for unbelievers such as his grandfather, father, older brother and even himself. He wrote in his autobiography: Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion wascorrect.

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all of my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine (Onlineedition).

Sadly, Darwin was influenced by an erroneous, though widely believed, view of Christian doctrine. (To learn what the Bible really teaches on this subject, request or download our free booklet What Happens After Death? )

Darwin s mother tragically died when he was 8 years old, and he followed the loose and freethinking ways of his father and deceased grandfather. He wrote in his autobiography, I may here also confess that as a little boy I was much given to inventing deliberate falsehoods, and this was always done for the sake of causing excitement (emphasis addedthroughout).

He was an attentionseeker; he wanted praise , Desmond and Moore add. He would still do anything at school for the pure pleasure of exciting attention & surprise, and his cultivated lies... gave [him] pleasure, like a tragedy. He told tall tales about natural history ... Once he invented an elaborate story designed to show how fond he was of telling the truth. It was a boys way of manipulating the world (p.13).

He often told lies about seeing rare birds, concurs Janet Browne. The lies were not connected to any sense of shame ... More accurately, they mirrored a search for attention. He wanted to be admired ... Liesand the thrills derived from lieswere for him indistinguishable from the delights of natural history ( Charles Darwin: Voyaging, pp.1314)

As we will see, these tendencies for clever but unfounded tales and the fondness for hiding secrets would, regrettably, arise later in his adult life. As one biographer notes, There will always be an ineluctable mystery surrounding the origin of the theory of natural selection, just as there will always be a shadowy web surrounding the real Charles Darwin (Loren Eiseley, Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X, 1979, p.93).

Darwin was not a very good student at school. He quit medical school, only to be rescued by his wealthy father and sent to Cambridge in the hope he would make something ofhimself.

He confessed in his autobiography: When I left the school I was for my age neither high nor low in it; and I believe that I was considered by all my masters and by my father as a very ordinary boy, rather below the common standard in intellect. To my deep mortification my father once said to me, You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and ratcatching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all yourfamily.

Around the world on the Beagle

His father, although inwardly rejecting Christianity, thought the best thing for his undisciplined and carefree son would be to live the comfortable life of a country parson, wherein he could placidly pursue his interests in naturalhistory.

Darwin actually completed his theology degree and for a while embraced Scripture, but before he could find a job in the clergy he was offered a berth on the British vessel HMS Beagle, as the captains dining companion. He was not the naturalist on board, a role given to the ships surgeon. Those five years on a trip around the world would radically change his life andbeliefs.

Four great experiences then shaped Darwins future. The first was the trip itselfhe discovered a wonderment and love for natural history and geology that would continue throughout hislife.

Secondly, he would rebel at the bigoted Christianity of the ships captain, RobertFitzRoy.

Thirdly, he read Charles Lyells books on geology arguing the earth was millions of years old, shaking his faith in the Bible and ending any desire for a career in theclergy.

Fourth, he became perplexed by the different varieties of creatures he encountered, especially in the Galapagos Islands. He wondered how these differing species could fit into the standard creationist accounts of hisday.

Returning to England and wearied by the long and perilous journey, he vowed never to sail again. He would spend most of his life within the confines of his rural home in Downe and in London, some 15 milesaway.

At 29, he married his first cousin, Emma, and it looked like he would become another British squire, living comfortably off his fathers money and surrounded by a cohort of cooks, maids, butlers and gardeners. He was never duly employed by anyone and had all the wealth and free time he needed to seek whatever interests suitedhim.

Conflicting ideas on naturalselection

He dedicated his life to the study of nature, deeply desirous of making a name for himself as anaturalist.

While reading Thomas Malthus book Essay on the Principle of Population, he was struck by the similarity between mans competitive struggle for limited resources and the constant fight for survival in nature, providing a possible basis for evolutionnatural selection, the survival of the fittest. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work, hewrote.

In Darwins conception, random genetic mutations would give some offspring physical advantages over others. These fitter creatures would outlive their companions in struggles with environmental conditions and with one another, enabling them to reproduce in greater numbers, passing the genetic advantages on to the next generation. Darwin imagined that over many generations this would give rise to whole new speciesthus explaining all the kinds of plant and animal life wesee.

As he mused over evolution, then called transmutation, Darwin started to question the need for a Creator God. He began to write some secret notebooks on the subject, afraid to divulge his radical ideas. For a country gentleman with a Christian wife and many Christian friends, he wanted to keep his heretical thoughts to himself. He said they made him feel like confessing amurder.

So he cleverly disguised his ideas and used many euphemisms. He began devising ways of camouflaging his materialism, say Desmond and Moore. Dont mention it, he admonished himself, talk only of inherited mental behavior: To avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism, he scrawled in a rush, say only the emotions[,] instincts[,] degrees of talent, which are heredetary [sic] He was learning to guard his words (p.259).

Yet in his secret notebooks he was candid enough to say to himself, Oh, you Materialist! In the terminology of the day, this meant one who believed that only matter exists in the universe and that this strictly material universe is governed by physical laws without the need for aCreator.

Sadly, as he tried to live a respectable life that outwardly appeared very normal, his conscience was being torn by his shocking beliefs. But now, deep into his clandestine work, continue Desmond and Moore, compiling notes that would shock his geological compatriots, his health was breaking. He was living a double life with double standards, unable to broach his species work with anyone ... for fear he be branded irresponsible, irreligious, or worse (p.233).

Two devastating deaths in thefamily

Next, he received two devastating blows to his young family. According to biographer Janet Browne, the death of his beloved daughter Annie at age 10, followed a year later by the death of his firstborn son William, caused great bitterness toward God. This death was the formal beginning of Darwins conscious dissociation from believing in the traditional figure of God ... Bleakness swept in. The gradual numbing of his religious feelings ... and the godless world of natural selection he was even then still creating came implacably face to face with the emptiness of bereavement (p.503).

Yet, ironically, some might say Darwin was a victim of his own theory of natural selection because of the genetic dangers ofinbreeding.

In 1839, he married Emma, his first cousin. Both families had intermarried through first cousins for some time, a dangerous trend for heredity. Twentysix children were born from these firstcousin marriages; 19 were sterile and five died prematurely, including Darwins daughter and first son. Many suffered from mental retardation or other hereditary illnesses, as was the case with his last son. All these effects engendered great hostility toward the idea of a personal, interveningGod.

A DevilsChaplain

Darwin wrestled at this time with publishing his theory, fearing ostracism. Moore writes: The strain showed In a letter, Darwin blurted, What a book a Devils Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low and horridly cruel works of nature! It was a book that Darwin feared he might be accused of writing, a book that would reveal him as an unbeliever and open him to punishmentlike the original Devils Chaplain, Rev. Robert Taylorthe Cambridge graduate and apostate priest, who was twice imprisoned for blasphemy (DarwinA Devils Chaplain? onlineedition).

He finally did write what he called his accursed book, but most of the writings were hidden away for 20 years. Only after a colleague, Alfred Russel Wallace, sent him a paper with essentially the same theory was his hand forced. Fearing Wallace might get credit for the theory, Darwin first read his own paper and then Wallaces at a scientificmeeting.

From the time he began to write his secret notebooks on evolution and materialism, he started to suffer terrible psychosomatic disorders for most of his long life. He experienced some 40 years of generally poorhealth.

Not only was he suffering from what seemed to be psychologically induced illnesses, but he was also racked with doubts about his own book. He confessed to some fellow scientists: It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaws & holes as sound parts ... [but] I can carry in it my fruit to market ... A poor rag is better than nothing to carry ones fruit to market in. To another colleague he wrote, I ... have devoted my life to a phantasy [sic] (quoted by Desmond and Moore, pp.475477).

The fruit he wanted to market was his theory of evolutionwhich included a direct attack on the prevailing notions of God, Christianity and the Bible. And what deadly fruit it turned out tobe!

As Desmond and Moore explain: Plumbing the radical depths Darwin saw the cataclysmic consequences. Once grant that species ... may pass into each other ... & the whole fabric totters & falls. The Creationist fabric and all it entailed was his target. He peered into the future and saw the old miraculous edifice collapsing (p.243).

A man for thetimes

Although torn with doubt, Darwins ideas came at an opportune moment for him. It was a period deeply affected by the French Revolution and the overthrow of many European monarchies and clerical power. In his autobiography Darwin wrote, Nothing is more remarkable than the spread of skepticism or rationalism during the latter half of my life. He was able to take advantage of the radical political and social winds that were blowing hisway.

The age of positivism had arrived, promising science would lead to an epoch of constant scientific and material progress, ultimately answering all of mans questions and solving his problems without the help of religion. It was also a time when the churches of Britain were viewed by many radicals like Darwin as corrupt andoutdated.

Darwin proposed a theory that essentially displaced the Creator God, with only physical and undirected mechanisms such as natural selection and adaptation doing the creating. His vision, state Desmond and Moore, was no longer of a world personally sustained by a patrician God, but selfgenerated. From echinoderms [marine creatures such as starfish] to Englishmen, all had arisen through a lawful redistribution of living matter in response to an orderly changing geological environment (p.237).

It should be noted that in later editions of The Origin of Species , Darwin did add the term Creator in a few places and in his conclusion, in one place stating: There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one. Yet he later confessed to his outraged colleagues that this impression of theistic or deistic evolution was to soothe the feelings of his Christian wife and of a likemindedpublic.

Even so, Darwin admitted to wavering views and claimed to be an agnostic. In an 1879 letter he wrote: I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind (Darwin to J. Fordyce, published by him in Aspects of Scepticism, 1883).

Consequences of thetheory

The results of Darwins theory ofevolution were dramatic. Atheism and secularism became widely popular. As one of todays most ardent modern supporters of Darwin and atheism, Richard Dawkins, has famously said, Darwin made it possible to become an intellectually fulfilled atheist ( The Blind Watchmaker , 1986, p.6).

So scientific materialism spread like wildfire. Karl Marx, the father of communism, out of gratitude to Darwin, sent him Das Kapital, his principal book on communism. Although developed in the crude English fashion, he wrote to his communist colleague Friedrich Engels, this [Darwins The Origin of Species ] is the book which in the field of natural history, provides the basis for our views. To another he wrote that Darwins work suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle (Browne, p.188).

This evolutionary backing eventually helped establish the philosophical framework for the twin scourges of communism and atheism in Russia, China and many othernations.

As Darwins ideas gained respectability, moral absolutes were increasingly questioned. If there is no Creator, then it seemed all things are permissible. If there is no God, then there are no ultimate consequences. If there is no greater authority than yourself, then the rules of survival of the fittest are in effect and back the idea that you can succeed by any means by applying the law of the jungleonly the strongsurvive.

To cap it off, Darwin wrote in 1871 his Descent of Man, describing human descent from apes, a book with considerable baseless speculation and even racist claimsincluding that of white supremacy (as whites were reckoned as further from apes along the evolutionary advancement chain thanblacks).

Hitler later used some of these ideas, called social Darwinism, in World War II to eradicate millions of Jews and others he thought were racially inferior. He said: Nature is cruel, therefore we, too, may be cruel ... I have the right to remove millions of an inferior race that breeds like vermin!... Natural instincts bid all living beings not merely conquer their enemies, but also destroy them (quoted by Hermann Rauschning, The Voice of Destruction, 1940, pp.137138).

In effect, Hitler could say he was applying the theory of evolution and only quickening the inevitable end of the weak. This was necessary to make room for a fitter, superior race. It gave him what he thought was a scientific and moral validity for his warped viewsand some 65 million people died in World War II largely because of those warpedviews.

Flaws in Darwinstheory

As we near the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species, we find a world deeply divided over Darwins ideas. The belief in God, creation and the Bible has not disappeared, although admittedly it has been greatlyweakened.

Yet as more scientific discoveries are made, including the intricacies of the human DNA genome (consisting of carefully assembled instructions 3 billion genetic letters long), the mindboggling complexity of the cell and the millions of missing transitional forms between different animal and plant types, Darwins theory truly is introuble.

As recently as twentyfive years ago, noted Patrick Glynn, a former atheist and a Ph.D. from Harvard, in 1997, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis ( God: The Evidence, 1997, pp.5556).

But many scientists are unwilling to give up evolution because of the theological and philosophicalimplications.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once candidly admitted, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated justsostories, because we have a prior commitment ... to materialism ... We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door (Billions and Billions of Demons, New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, p.31).

Wheres theevidence?

Of course, what Darwin always lacked was the evidence of transitional forms between onecelled and multicelled organisms, between reptiles and mammals, and between apes and men, just to name a few. He even asked: Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory ( The Origin of Species, 1958, Mentor edition, pp.293294).

So what did he do? He explained away the missing fossil evidencesaying the geologic record was sparsely excavated and imperfect. Yet, today, according to biochemist Michael Denton, of the 44 orders of living terrestrial vertebrates, 43 have been found as fossils (a 97 percent recovery rate!). And no transitional forms have been found among these groups. Not even, for instance, anything in between reptile scales and bird feathersand these are groups of creatures supposedlyrelated.

Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould admitted, The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology ( The Pandas Thumb, 1980, p.181).

If Darwins theory is correct, there should be millions of transitional formsanimals and plants in different stages of transformation into other kinds through mutation and natural selection. In fact, if evolution were true, we should see far more transitional forms than fully complete, fully functioning species. In addition, we should expect to clearly see gradually changing creatures in the more than one million species on earth and the even more numerous fossil types. Yet none have beenfound.

There are some reports that Darwin had a shift in thinking near the end of his lifeperhaps regretting how far his ideas had been taken and even accepting the idea of salvation through Christ (though still believing in evolution). While possible, as Darwin considered personal beliefs to be private, none of his family ever admitted to such a change in his thinking, including his believing wife. And for society it wouldnt have really mattered, as his disciples would not have turnedback.

Biographers Desmond and Moore conclude on page 677 with the following scene as Darwin is solemnly laid to rest in Westminster Abbey: It marked the accession to power of the traders in natures marketplace, the scientists and their minions in politics and religion. Such men, on the upandup, were paying their dues, for Darwin had naturalized Creation and delivered human nature and human destiny into their hands. Society would never be the same. The Devils chaplain had done his work. GN

Excerpt from:

Charles Darwin: Evolution of a Man and His Ideas | United ...

Micronation | MicroWiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Posted on by

A micronation sometimes referred to as a model country or new country project is a political entity that intends to replace, resemble, mock, or exist on equal footing with a recognised and/or sovereign state.

Some micronations are created with serious intent, while others exist as a hobby or stunt.

The term micronation, which literally means small nation, is a neologism. The first reference in English to the word micronation in a popular book appears in the 1978 edition of The People's Almanac #2, where David Wallechinsky and Irving Wallace write:

"Established in 1972 by a declaration of sovereignty by a group of Californians, the Republic of Minerva has more claim to authenticity than most micronations because it actually has some land, although it disappears at high tide. The republic consists of two coral reefs 17 miles apart in the South Pacific Ocean some 3,400 miles southwest of Honolulu and 915 miles northeast of Auckland, New Zealand."

The term has since come to be used also retrospectively to refer to earlier unrecognised entities, some of which date to as far back as the 17th century. Micronations should not be confused with internationally recognised but geographically tiny nations such as Fiji, Monaco, and San Marino, for which the term microstate is more commonly used.

Micronations generally have a number of common features:

A criterion which distinguishes micronations from imaginary countries, eco-villages, campuses, tribes, clans, sects, and residential community associations, is that these latter entities do not usually seek to be recognised as sovereign.

The Montevideo Convention was one attempt to create a legal definition distinguishing between states and non-states. Some micronations meet this definition, while some do not. The academic study of micronations and microstates is termed 'micropatrology', and the hobby or activity of establishing and operating micronations is known as micronationalism.

The Principality of Sealand is one of the more recognised micronations in the world.

The 17th century saw the rise to prominence of a world order dominated by the existing concept of the nation-state, following the Treaty of Westphalia. However, the earliest recognisable micronations can be dated to the 18th Century. Most were founded by eccentric adventurers or business speculators, and several were remarkably successful. These include the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, ruled by the Clunies-Ross family, and Sarawak, ruled by the "White Rajas" of the Brooke family. Both were independent personal fiefdoms in all but name, and survived until well into the 20th Century.

Less successful were the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia (1860-1862) in southern Chile and Argentina, and the Kingdom of Sedang (1888-1890) in French Indochina. The oldest extant micronation to arise in modern times is the Kingdom of Redonda, founded in 1865 in the Caribbean. It failed to establish itself as a sovereign nation-state, but has nonetheless managed to survive into the present day as a unique literary foundation with its own king and aristocracy although it is not without its controversies; there are presently at least four competing claimants to the Redondan throne.

M. C. Harman, owner of the UK island of Lundy in the early decades of the 20th century, issued private coinage and postage stamps for local use. Although the island was ruled as a virtual fiefdom, its owner never claimed to be independent of the United Kingdom. Thus, Lundy can at best be described as a precursor to later territorial micronations.

The 1960s and 1970s saw a 'micronational renaissance', with the foundation of a number of territorial micronations, some of which still persist to this day. The first of these, the Principality of Sealand, was founded in 1967 on an abandoned World War II gun platform in the North Sea, and has endured a military coup, court rulings and rough weather throughout its existence. Others were based on schemes requiring the construction of artificial islands, but only two are known to have risen above sea level.

The Republic of Rose Island was a 400 square metre platform built in international waters off the Italian town of Rimini, in the Adriatic Sea in 1968. It is reported to have issued stamps, minted currency, and declared Esperanto to be its official language. Shortly after completion, however, it was destroyed by the Italian Navy.

The Republic of Minerva was set up in 1972 as a libertarian new country project by Nevada businessman Michael Oliver. Oliver's group conducted dredging operations at the Minerva Reefs, a shoal located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji. They succeeded in creating a small artificial island, but their efforts at securing international recognition met with little success, and near-neighbour Tonga sent a military force to the area and annexed it.

On April 1, 1977, bibliophile Richard Booth, declared the UK town of Hay-on-Wye an "independent republic" with himself as its king. The town has subsequently developed a healthy tourism industry based literary interests, and "King Richard" (whose sceptre consists of a recycled toilet plunger) continues to dole out Hay-on-Wye peerages and honours to anyone prepared to pay for them. The official website for Hay-on-Wye, however, admits that the declaration of independence, along with the later claim to have annexed the USA and renaming it the "US of Hay" were all merely publicity stunts.

Micronationalism has since evolved mainly into hobbies, and with younger participants. Although no all-compassing authority on micronations exists, nor any comprehensive listing, it is known that a number of widely diverse communities and sectors persist throughout the micronational world, often on the internet.

The internet provided micronationalism with a new outlet, and the number of entities able to be termed as 'micronations' skyrocketed from around 2000 onwards as a result. Exact figures may never be known, but it is thought that many thousands of micronations now exist throughout the world. However, with this new outlet of the internet came a large anomaly between micronationalists and micronations. Before the advent of micronationalism on the internet, micronations were few and far between, and were able to coax many hundreds of people in their citizenry. At present, many micronations are 'One-man micronations' or 'Egostans', with only one or two people being citizens of the micronation. The majority are based in English-speaking countries, but a significant minority arose elsewhere in other countries as well.

Micronational activities were disproportionately common throughout Australia in the final three decades of the 20th century. The Principality of Hutt River started the ball rolling in 1970, when Prince Leonard (born Leonard George Casley) declared his farming property independent after a dispute over wheat quotas. 1976 witnessed the creation of the Province of Bumbunga on a rural property near Snowtown, South Australia, by an eccentric British monarchist named Alex Brackstone, and a dispute over flood damage to farm properties led to the creation of the Independent State of Rainbow Creek in northeastern Victoria by Tom Barnes in 1979. In New South Wales, a political protest by a group of Sydney teenagers led to the 1981 creation of the Empire of Atlantium, and a mortgage foreclosure dispute led George and Stephanie Muirhead of Rockhampton, Queensland to secede as the Principality of Marlborough in 1993. Although some newer micronations, like Ding Dong, were created purely for the experience of forming and running a micronation.

Yet another Australian secessionist state came into existence on May 1, 2003, when Peter Gillies declared the independence of his 66 hectare northern New South Wales farm as the Principality of United Oceania after an unresolved year-long dispute with Port Stephens Council over Gillies' plans to construct a private residence on the property.

In the present day, the following categories are generally accepted as being standard:

Micronations of the first type tend to be fairly serious in outlook, involve sometimes significant numbers of relatively mature participants, and often engage in highly sophisticated, structured activities that emulate the operations of real-world nations. A few examples of these include:

These micronations also tend to be fairly serious, and involve significant numbers of people interested in recreating the past, especially the Roman or Mediaeval past, and living it in a vicarious way. Examples of these include:

With literally thousands in existence, micronations of this type are by far the most common. They are ephemeral, and tend to be Internet-based, rarely surviving more than a few months, although there are notable exceptions. They generally involve a handful of people, and are concerned primarily with arrogating to their founders the outward symbols of statehood. The use of grand-sounding titles, awards, honours, and heraldic symbols derived from European feudal traditions, and the conduct of 'wars' with other micronations, are common manifestations of their activities. Examples include:

Micronations of this type include stand-alone artistic projects, deliberate exercises in creative online and offline fiction, artistic creations, and even popular films. Examples include:

These types of micronations are typically associated with a political or social reform agenda. Some are maintained as media and public relations exercises. Examples of this type include:

A number of micronations have been established for fraudulent purposes, by seeking to link questionable or illegal financial actions with seemingly legitimate nations. Some examples of these are:

A small number of micronations are founded with genuine aspirations to be sovereign states. Many are based on historical anomalies or eccentric interpretations of law, and tend to be easily confused with established states. These types of micronations are usually located in small (usually disputed) territorial enclaves, generate limited economic activity founded on tourism, philatelic and numismatic sales, and are at best tolerated or at worst ignored by other nations. This category includes:

New-country projects are attempts to found completely new nation-states. They typically involve plans to construct artificial islands (few of which are ever realised), and a large percentage have embraced or purported to embrace libertarian or democratic principles. Examples include:

Seasteading is a lifestyle of making the oceans, or at least water-borne craft, one's home. Most seasteads historically have been sailing craft, whether perhaps demonstrated by the the Chinese Junk, modified canoes of Oceania, or even the famous Pirates of Libertaria. In modern times in the west the cruising sailboat has begun to be used in the same manner. The term seasteading is of uncertain origin, used at least as early as the turn of the century by Uffa Fox, and others; many feel that catamaran designer and historian James Wharram and his designs represent ideal seasteads. More recently, American sailor and ecological philosopher Jerome FitzGerald has been a leading and effective proponent of seasteading, mostly teaching the concept through the environmental/sailing organisation "The Oar Club". The Seasteader's Institute in Hilo, Hawaii offers classes, boat-building opportunities, education in forage foods, diving, and other aspects of a Seasteading lifestyle.

Some theoretical seasteads are floating platforms which could be used to create sovereign micronations, or otherwise serve the ends of ocean colonisation. The concept is introduced in a paper by Wayne Gramlich, and later in a book by Gramlich, Patri Friedman and Andy House, which is available for free online. Their research aims at a more practical approach to developing micronations, based on currently available technology and a pragmatic approach to financial aspects.

The authors argue that seasteading has the potential to drastically lower the barrier to entry to the governing industry. This allows for more experimentation and innovation with varying social, political, and economic systems. Potential business opportunities include data havens, offshore aquaculture, and casinos, as well as the gamut of typical business endeavours.

There has been a small but growing amount of attention paid to the micronation phenomenon in recent years. Most interest in academic circles has been concerned with studying the apparently anomalous legal situations affecting such entities as Sealand and the Hutt River Province, in exploring how some micronations represent grassroots political ideas, and in the creation of role-playing entities for instructional purposes.

In 2000, Professor Fabrice O'Driscoll, of the University Aix-Marseille University, published a book about micronations: Ils ne sigent pas l'ONU ("They are not in the United Nations"), with more than 300 pages dedicated to the subject.

Several recent publications have dealt with the subject of particular historic micronations, including Republic of Indian Stream (University Press), by Dartmouth College geographer Daniel Doan, The Land that Never Was, about Gregor MacGregor, and the Principality of Poyais, by David Sinclair (ISBN 0-7553-1080-2).

In May 2000, an article in the New York Times entitled "Utopian Rulers, and Spoofs, Stake Out Territory Online" brought the phenomenon to a wider audience for the first time. Similar articles were published by newspapers such as the French Liberation, the Italian La Repubblica, the Greek "Ta Nea", by O Estado de So Paulo in Brazil, and Portugal's Viso at around the same time.

The Democratic Empire of Sunda, which claims to be the Government of the Kingdom of Sunda (an ancient kingdom, in present-day Indonesia) in exile in Switzerland, made media headlines when two so-called princesses, Lamia Roro Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misri, 21, and Fathia Reza Wiranatadikusumah Siliwangi Al Misiri, 23, were detained by Malaysian authorities at the border with Brunei, on 13 July 2007, and are charged for entering the country without a valid pass.

In August 2003 a Summit of Micronations took place in Helsinki at Finlandia Hall, the site of the Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE). The summit was attended by delegations such as the Principality of Sealand, Neue Slowenische Kunst|NSK, Ladonia, the Transnational Republic, and by scholars from various academic institutions.

From November 7 through December 17, 2004, the Reg Vardy Gallery at the University of Sunderland (UK) hosted an exhibition on the subject of micronational group identity and symbolism. The exhibition focused on numismatic, philatelic and vexillological artefacts, as well as other symbols and instruments created and used by a number of micronations from the 1950s through to the present day. A summit of micronations conducted as part of this exhibition was attended by representatives of Sealand, Elgaland-Vargaland, New Utopia, Atlantium, Frestonia and Fusa. The exhibition was reprised at the Andrew Kreps Gallery in New York City from 24 June29 July of the following year. Another exhibition about micronations opened at Paris' Palais de Tokyo in early 2007.

The Sunderland summit was later featured in a 5-part BBC light entertainment television series called "How to Start Your Own Country" presented by Danny Wallace. The series told the story of Wallace's experience of founding a micronation, Lovely, located in his London flat. It screened in the UK in August 2005. Similar programs have also aired on television networks in other parts of Europe.

On 9 September 2006, The Guardian newspaper reported that the travel guide company Lonely Planet had published the world's first travel guide devoted to micronations, the Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations (ISBN 1741047307).

Original post:

Micronation | MicroWiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Singularity (Multiverse) | Marvel Database | FANDOM …

Posted on by

Secret Wars

Singularity's origin and early history are largely a mystery. She first appeared as a meteorite streaking across the sky and crashing into the Battleworld domain of Arcadia near the Bishop Lighthouse where Nico Minoru was mourning the exile of her friend Ms. America to The Shield.[3]

Singularity found by Nico.

Nico took the girl from the crater home and tried to talk to her, but she had not spoken a single word since they'd first met. When Loki came into the room, wanting to comfort Nico because of what happened to Ms. America, she discovered the girl whom Nico had found, she explained that she must be shown to the rest of A-Force.

As the team was introduced to the newcomer, Medusa touched her with her hair, startling her. All of a sudden, a portal opened right above the women, dropping a hostile Sentinel into their midst. As the team defeated it, the strange girl displayed the power to teleport herself and others, saving Dazzler, as well as innocent bystanders. Immediately after the fight was won, Medusa accused the girl of being responsible for the portal. Skeptical, She-Hulk tried to determine the true source of the portal by jumping through the one the Sentinel came through, taking her to a devastated Bronx.[4]

Shortly after She-Hulk arrived in the Sentinel Territories, she was attacked by a group of Thors for having left her domain. She fought them off and jumped back through the portal once more, where she concludes that the magic connected to it must have come from Arcadia, so there must be a traitor among them who tried to frame the strange girl and who was also responsible for Ms. America's banishment.

Once She-Hulk explained this to her teammates, the Thors she had previously fought against arrived and planned to exile her as well. Medusa gave the others a chance to flee by throwing the Thors back through the portal, which resulted in her death as she was struck by lightning summoned by Gamora.

As A-Force mourned the loss of Medusa, She-Hulk gave the order to alert the rest of Arcadia, for she knew the Thor Corps would come back for her. As she announced the plan to her team, Nico interrupted her because the strange girl has something to show them, to compensate for the kindness and trust she has been shown, the newcomer offered to conceal A-Force inside herself, as she spoke her first word: "Hide".[5]

The strange girl then enveloped Captain Marvel, Dazzler, She-Hulk, and Nico and ran out of the city into the woods where she released them to hide in the woods. She-Hulk finished explaining to her team that the magic used for the portals was not only generated by Arcadian magic but must also be fueled by Asgardian magic, as she had seen a rainbow bridge when jumping through the portal.

Meanwhile, the Thors declared A-Force outlawed, and thanked Loki for her loyalty to Doom, stating that she most likely would become the next baroness of her domain. As Loki talked about keeping Arcadia safe and accepting the throne, she was suddenly attacked by A-Force, who again used the strange girl as a method of transportation.

Loki was defeated in battle and the Thors realized that she had been the traitor all along. As Loki accepted that there was no way for her to rule over Arcadia any longer, she used her magic to break a giant hole through The Shield that protected Arcadia from the Deadlands.[6]

Singularity defeating the army of undead.

As Arcadia was attacked by the army of Zombies, the heroes and heroines of the domain join together to defeat them. While Nico was about to be attacked the same Megalodon that got Ms. America exiled, the strange girl swooped in to save her from the monster's strike and whispered her name into Nico's ear, Singularity. To save her friends and the domain, Singularity then absorbed all of the undead, flew up into the sky, and exploded in a flash of light while saying goodbye.

In the aftermath, She-Hulk comforted Nico, telling her that Singularity's sacrifice made the members of A-Force better people; however, Singularity was not really gone, rather she was literally resting amongst the stars.[7]

Singularity next emerged in Earth-616 after Alpha Flight first encountered Antimatter near the Alpha Flight Low-Orbit Space Station.[8] She remembered her time in Arcadia, but instinctively knew that world was gone and that this one was different. Reaching out for something familiar, she found Carol Danvers aboard the A.F.S.S., but was sad to discover Captain Marvel did not recognize her. When Antimatter returned, Singularity could hear the entity in her head, and stole an Alpha Flight Life Support Pod to flee.

Once again reaching out for anything familiar as she descended to Earth, the pod steered Singularity towards New York City, clipping New Attilan before crash landing in Manhattan, where she found Jen Walters. Unfortunately, She-Hulk didn't remember her either and the pair were soon attacked by Antimatter who had pursued Singularity from orbit. The two engaged Antimatter, but were vastly outclassed. When Queen Medusa arrived with a large force of Inhumans, Singularity recognized her voice and was overjoyed to see her alive; however, Medusa had other ideas and placed handcuffs on Singularity, planning to hand her over to Antimatter.[9]

When Antimatter killed an Inhuman, it convinced Medusa that She-Hulk was right, they could not simply turn over Singularity, and so the trio teamed up, but quickly found themselves still outmatched. Medusa used a piece of prototype technology to buy them some time by teleporting Antimatter to an unknown destination, which happened to be near the Moon. Deciding that they needed help from someone who was the "opposite of punching", the three were warped without warning by Singularity to Japan, unintentionally crashing the wedding of Nico Minoru's cousin. They quickly explained the situation as Antimatter arrived once more, only to be temporarily banished by the magic of Nico and her Staff of One.

They then demanded that Singularity explain herself and what she knew about the entity chasing her. As she told them about her time in another reality, they were interrupted by a call from Captain Marvel who had been monitoring the situation from the A.F.S.S. and described a plan devised by Dr. Tempest Bell to use Singularity as bait to lure Antimatter into a situation in which it could be bombarded with light particles in order to gather enough data to find the weakness of this new adversary.

Excitedly Singularity told them she knew someone who could help and the five women rendezvoused in Miami, Florida to seek the aid of Alison Blaire. Singularity rushed to greet Dazzler, only to be promptly dropped by a wicked right cross to the jaw. Alison's unexpected anger concerned Singularity, but there was little time to do more than explain the reason for their presence before Antimatter arrived yet again.[2]

Singularity teletports away from Antimatter.

After a burst of light by Dazzler, She-Hulk and Medusa attempted to restrain Antimatter as Captain Marvel powered up a containment device, but the equipment failed when Antimatter overloaded the system and confronted them once more. Nico then used a spell to remove Antimatter's ability to track Singularity, and Little Blue protected her friends by enveloping them within herself and teleporting back to the A.F.S.S. with the other five women inside her.

Lt. Wendy Kawasaki then explained the data they'd gathered from the experiment in Miami and Dr. Bell indicated that she could create a machine which would dismantle Antimatter; however, there was quantum entanglement between him and Singularity, which meant his destruction would destroy Singularity as well.

After a particularly bad attack from Antimatter, at which point Nico was wounded and healed herself, Singularity transported all of them back to the Alpha Flight Low-Orbit Space Station. There was a brief pause in the action before the team changed into space suits and went to fight Antimatter outside the space station. During the fight, Dazzler was hit by an energy blast, which killed her when it depressurized her space suit. Back on the A.F.S.S., Singularity blamed herself for being talked into staying behind, and asked Nico if she could resurrect Dazzler, but was told that was impossible. Saddened by the loss of life, Singularity then teleported to the Blue Area of the Moon alone, in order to confront Antimatter once and for all.[10]

She-Hulk, Nico, and Captain Marvel went to reinforce Singularity, while Medusa placed a Molecular Destabilizer Bomb inside Antimatter. When the bomb exploded, a revived Dazzler teleported in and whisked Singularity away just in time.[11]

Singularity has the curiosity and navet of a child.

Singularity is a sentient quantum singularity within which a pocket dimension exists.[1]

Enveloping Shroud: Singularity is able to deploy herself as an enveloping shroud, shielding others from harm via an energy field, and even storing others within herself as a form of concealment or for transportation.[12]

Teleportation: Singularity possesses the ability to generate teleportation warps, allowing her to displace both people and objects.[6] Her effective range is seemingly unlimited as she's even teleported between realities.[8]

Flight: Singularity is capable of flight by means of an unknown form of energy propulsion.[7]

Telepathic Tracking: Singularity exhibits enhanced psionic senses, enabling her to detect and track other sentient beings by their unique psionic emanations, over vast distances.[9]

Singularity deploying herself as an enveloping shroud.

Her own flight and teleportation powers.

Read the rest here:

Singularity (Multiverse) | Marvel Database | FANDOM ...

Libertarianism in the United States – Wikipedia

Posted on by

Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting individual liberty and minimized government.[1][2] Although the word "libertarian" continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins.[3] The Libertarian Party asserts the following to be core beliefs of libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[4][5]

Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 1723% of the American electorate.[6] This includes members of the Libertarian Party, Republican Party (see Libertarian Republicans) and Democratic Party (see Libertarian Democrats) as well as independents.

In the 19th century, key libertarian thinkers, individualist anarchists and minarchists, were based in the United States, most notably Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. These political thinkers argued that government should be kept to a minimum and that it is only legitimate to the extent that people voluntarily support it as in Spooner's No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. American writers Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson advocated for individualism and even anarchism throughout that century, leaving a significant imprint on libertarianism worldwide.[citation needed]

Moving into the 20th century, important American writerssuch as Rose Wilder Lane, H. L. Mencken, Albert Jay Nock, Isabel Paterson, Leonard Read (the founder of Foundation for Economic Education) and the European immigrants Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Randcarried on the intellectual libertarian tradition. In fiction, one can cite the work of the science fiction author Robert A. Heinlein, whose writing carried libertarian underpinnings.

As of the mid-20th century, no word was used to describe the ideological outlook of this group of thinkers. Most of them would have described themselves as "liberals" before the New Deal, but by the mid-1930s that word had been widely used to mean the opposite of "classical liberal".[7] The term "liberal" had ceased to refer to the support of individual rights and minimal government and instead came to denote left-wing ideas that would be seen elsewhere as socialist or democratic socialism. American advocates of freedom bemoaned the loss of the word and cast about for others to replace it.[7] The word "conservative" (later associated with libertarianism either through fiscal conservatism or through fusionism) had yet to emerge as Russell Kirk's The Conservative Mind was not published until 1953 and this work hardly mentioned economics at all.[7]

In August 1953, Max Eastman proposed the terms "New Liberalism" and "liberal conservative" which were not eventually accepted.[7][8]

In May 1955, writer Dean Russell (19151998), a colleague of Leonard Read and a classic liberal himself, proposed a solution: "Many of us call ourselves 'liberals.' And it is true that the word 'liberal' once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkward and subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trade-mark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian'".[7][9]

Subsequently, a growing number of Americans with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as "libertarian". The person most responsible for popularizing the term "libertarian" was Murray Rothbard,[10] who started publishing libertarian works in the 1960s. Before the 1950s, H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock had been the first prominent figures in the United States to privately call themselves "libertarians".[11][12][13] However, their non-public use of the term went largely unnoticed and the term laid dormant on the American scene for the following few decades.[7]

Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free market libertarianism has spread beyond the United States since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[14][15] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[16][17] However, libertarian socialist intellectuals Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term "libertarianism" is considered a synonym for social anarchism by the international community and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[18][19][20] The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a left-wing positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a letter French libertarian communist Joseph Djacque wrote to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[21][22]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater's libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement[23] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for President in 1964.[24] Goldwater's speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[25]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard's The Libertarian Forum[26][27] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[28]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[29] The split was finalized in 1971, when conservative leader William F. Buckley Jr. in a 1971 New York Times article attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: "The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded".[30]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[31] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[32]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[33] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, "Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia".[34]

Texas congressman Ron Paul's 2008 and 2012 campaigns for the Republican Party presidential nomination were largely libertarian. Paul was affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization. His son Rand Paul is a Senator who continues the tradition, albeit more "moderately".

The 2016 Libertarian National Convention which saw Gary Johnson and Bill Weld nominated as the 2016 presidential ticket for the Libertarian Party resulted in the most successful result for a third-party presidential candidacy since 1996 and the best in the Libertarian Party's history by vote number. Johnson received 3% of the popular vote, amounting to more than 4.3 million votes. Johnson has expressed a desire to win at least 5% of the vote so that the Libertarian Party candidates could get equal ballot access and federal funding, thus subsequently ending the two-party system.[35][36][37]

As was true historically, there are far more libertarians in the United States than those who belong to the party touting that name. In the United States, libertarians may emphasize economic and constitutional rather than religious and personal policies, or personal and international rather than economic policies,[38] such as the Tea Party movement (founded in 2009), which has become a major outlet for Libertarian Republican ideas,[39][40] especially rigorous adherence to the Constitution, lower taxes and an opposition to a growing role for the federal government in health care. However, polls show that many people who identify as Tea Party members do not hold traditional libertarian views on most social issues and tend to poll similarly to socially conservative Republicans.[41][42][43] Eventually during the 2016 presidential election, many Tea Party members abandoned more libertarian leaning views in favor of Donald Trump and his right-wing populism.[44]

Additionally, the Tea Party was considered to be a key force in Republicans reclaiming control of the House of Representatives in 2010.[45]

Polls (circa 2006) find that the views and voting habits of between 10 and 20 percent (and increasing) of voting age Americans may be classified as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal, or libertarian".[46][47] This is based on pollsters and researchers defining libertarian views as fiscally conservative and culturally liberal (based on the common United States meanings of the terms) and against government intervention in economic affairs and for expansion of personal freedoms.[46]

Through 20 polls on this topic spanning 13 years, Gallup found that voters who are libertarian on the political spectrum ranged from 1723% of the electorate.[6] Libertarians make up a larger portion of the electorate than the much-discussed "soccer moms" and "NASCAR dads", yet this is not widely recognized. Most of these vote for Republican and Democratic (not Libertarian) Party candidates, leading some libertarians to believe that dividing people's political leanings into "conservative", "liberal" and "confused" is not valid.[48]

Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education, the Reason Foundation, Liberty International and the Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party is the world's first such party.

The Free State Project, an activist movement formed in 2001, is working to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. As of May 2015, the project website shows that 16,683 people have pledged to move once 20,000 are signed on and 1,746 participants have already moved to New Hampshire or were already residing there when New Hampshire was chosen as the destination for the Free State Project in 2003.[49] Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.

The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard and Charles Koch,[50] chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries.[nb 1] In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute.[50][51] Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence.[52] According to the 2014 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 16 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 8 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".[53] Cato also topped the 2014 list of the budget-adjusted ranking of international development think tanks.[54]

The Center for Libertarian Studies (CLS) was a libertarian and anarcho-capitalist oriented educational organization founded in 1976 by Murray Rothbard and Burton Blumert, which grew out of the Libertarian Scholars Conferences. It published the Journal of Libertarian Studies from 1977 to 2000 (now published by the Mises Institute), a newsletter (In Pursuit of Liberty), several monographs and sponsors conferences, seminars and symposia. Originally headquartered in New York, it later moved to Burlingame, California. Until 2007, it supported LewRockwell.com, web publication of CLS vice president Lew Rockwell. It had also previously supported Antiwar.com.

Former United States Congressman Ron Paul and former United States Senator Barry Goldwater popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms. United States President Ronald Reagan tried to appeal to them in a speech, though many libertarians are ambivalent about Reagan's legacy.[55] Since 2012, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has been seen as one of the leaders of the libertarian movement in the United States.

Read more here:

Libertarianism in the United States - Wikipedia

How Are Gambling Winnings Taxed? | The TurboTax Blog

Posted on by

Most people dont think about taxes on their way to a race track or casino,but what might seem like nothing more than the chance to win some extra moneyactually carries significant tax implications. As is often the case, federal and state governments single out casino winnings for unique taxes of their own. Here is what you need to know about reporting gambling winnings:

Gamblers are lucky in that casino taxes are not progressive like income taxes are. That is, you will owe the same percentage to the IRS on a $100,000 jackpot as a $10,000 one. Yet, its important to know the thresholds that require reporting. Winnings in the following amounts must be reported:

All of these require giving the payer your Social Security number, as well as filling out IRS Form W2-G to report the full amount won. In most cases, the casino will take 25 percent off your winnings for the IRS before even paying you.

Not all gambling winnings in the amounts above are subject to IRS Form W2-G. W2-G forms are not required for winnings from table games such as blackjack, craps, baccarat, and roulette, regardless of the amount.Note that this does not mean you are exempt from paying taxes or reporting the winnings. Any and all gambling winnings must be reported to the IRS. It only means that you do not have to fill out Form W2-G for these particular table-based games.

Even if you do not win as much as the amounts above, you are still legally obligated to report. You also need to report any awards or prize money you won during the year in question. Yes, even if you only win $10, you still technically have to report it (even if the casino didnt). Gambling income plus your job income (and any other income) equals your total income.

Fortunately, you do not necessarily have to pay taxes on all your winnings. Instead, if you itemize, you can claim your losses up to the amount of your winnings.

In addition to federal taxes payable to the IRS, many state governments tax gambling income as well. Each state has their own unique formulas and rules for gambling income, and some levy no gambling taxes at all. Others charge a flat percentage, while still others ramp up the percentage owed depending on how much you won.

Original post:

How Are Gambling Winnings Taxed? | The TurboTax Blog