New QPR manager Mark Hughes wants to sign Tottenham goalkeeper Heurelho Gomes, the Daily Mirror say.Hughes: Linked with keeper swoop.And the paper suggest Hughes remains keen on Manchester City left-back Wayne Bridge but a deal for Fulham forward Andrew Johnson is unlikely.But the Daily Mail say Rangers have cooled their apparent interest in the former England defender.The Daily Express say Hughes has been offered the chance to sign Gomes as the Brazilian is now third-choice keeper at White Hart Lane.The Mirror also claim Lille have told Chelsea they will not sell Belgian star Eden Hazard for less than £35m.Meanwhile, Cardiff City could be ready to make a bid for QPR forward Jamie Mackie, according to Wales Online.Chelsea have not discussed selling Fernando Torres, according to a report in The Independent.Former Blues boss Carlo Ancelotti, who has recently taken over at Paris St-Germain, has said he is interested in the Spaniard.Finally, the Mail say Fulham are rekindling their interest in Doncaster striker Billy Sharp. Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
Evolutionists get away with ridiculous stories because Big Science and Big Media are intolerant of opposing views. Healthy science requires open debate.Darwinians have their own blasphemy laws. Try criticizing Darwin, natural selection, universal common ancestry or any of his core precepts and you will feel the heat of wrath and mockery, if not expulsion. Darwin skeptics have been relegated to their own institutions outside of Big Science and Big Media, where many in the public never hear that answers to Darwinian claims even exist. In the vacuum of debate about the origin of life’s amazing diversity and complexity, charlatans have rushed in with no shame or conscience, presenting themselves as reliable spokespersons for ‘science.’ Take a look at these recent examples out of hundreds we have reported over the years.Evolution might favor ‘survival of the laziest’ (Science Daily). So malleable is Darwin’s Stuff Happens Law (i.e., “whatever happens, it evolved”), anything can count as ‘fitness,’ even laziness. Look how this article begins: “If you’ve got an unemployed, 30-year-old adult child still living in the basement, fear not.” Whoever wrote this has just given slackers a new excuse for irresponsibility: ‘Darwin made me this way.’ According to champion Darwin storytellers at the University of Kansas, lazy slackers are just as fit as cheetahs, peregrine falcons and pronghorns— maybe more so!“Maybe in the long term the best evolutionary strategy for animals is to be lassitudinous and sluggish — the lower the metabolic rate, the more likely the species you belong to will survive,” Lieberman said. “Instead of ‘survival of the fittest,’ maybe a better metaphor for the history of life is ‘survival of the laziest’ or at least ‘survival of the sluggish.’”Laziness May Have Driven Homo Erectus to Extinction (Live Science). This article illustrates how Darwinians can use their vacuous theory to ‘explain’ opposite things. We just heard one argue for survival of the laziest, and now another argues for extinction of the laziest. Stuff happens! What kind of ‘law of nature’ is this? A house divided against itself cannot stand. Can we laugh out loud at this writer’s folly, or will that risk arrest by the Darwin enforcers?It turns out laziness existed long before couches and takeout. The “why bother?” attitude not only existed hundreds of thousands of years ago, but may also have led to the decline of an ancient human ancestor.The illogic of this explanation presents itself if you ask the question, “Did natural selection make Homo erectus lazy, or did they choose laziness by intelligent design and free will?” If the former, then natural selection not only evolved extinction (the opposite of survival); it also evolved the lazy reporter who believes it. If the latter, then how could natural selection come up with its opposite, intelligent design? That’s not the only illogical aspect of the story. Are we to accept the either-or fallacy that every individual in the H. erectus population was lazy, and every individual in the modern human population was not? That is clearly not the case by observation of modern humans today. The story also commits the fallacies of glittering generalities, post hoc, non-sequitur, and other blunders (see Baloney Detector). Where are the peer reviewers who should have tossed this idea into the circular file, or submitted it to the IgNobel Prize contest?Why war evolved to be a man’s game – and why that’s only now changing (The Conversation). This politically-correct argument by Alberto Micheletti (PhD Candidate in Evolutionary Biology, University of St Andrews) may please liberals who decry ‘toxic masculinity’ but deserves laughter, not serious consideration. Why? Because if “the evolution of war” is a result of evolutionary biology instead of mental activity, free will or intelligent design, so is “the evolution of evolutionary just-so storytelling.” Short circuit!Evolution and the concrete jungle (Phys.org). Evolutionists from the University of Toronto are finding that birds or plants that inhabit cities show variations from those in the wild. That much is not controversial; even the most ardent young-earth creationists accept variation within kinds. But these evolutionary biologists bring in Darwin:“These papers greatly advance our knowledge of urban evolutionary biology,” says Marc Johnson, an associate professor of biology at UTM and director of the Centre for Urban Environments. “These are the same evolutionary mechanisms first identified by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago and the findings from these studies will be increasingly important as more and more of the world’s population flocks to urban environments.“It’s pretty remarkable. For years, biologists ignored cities, seeing them as ‘anti-life’, and only recently biologists began to realize that cities are agents of change, driving evolution of organisms living around us and even some living on us.”Clarity about terms is essential for seeing through this equivocation fallacy, which confuses microevolution with macroevolution. Darwin argued that the entirety of life, from bacteria to humans, arose by natural selection. Creationists back to Adam have known about small-scale changes, such as in flower color or plant height. There is no Darwinian evolution or ‘origin of species’ then or now. Notice:The clovers are still clovers.The Daphnia are still Daphnia.The burrowing owls are still burrowing owls.The Brachypodium sylvaticum grass is still the same species.Nothing has ‘evolved’ in a Darwinian sense. The evolutionists only observed very small-scale changes within species. Ken Ham would yawn at this. He believes even greater changes have occurred in just the last few thousand years since the Flood, so much so that we might not recognize the animals that came off Noah’s Ark. If these evolutionists cannot distinguish between Darwin’s theory and creationist baraminology (variation within created kinds), the actual data could be adduced by creationists in support of their view. Unfairly, Big Science and Big Media forbid them to make their case. Readers get the impression that Darwin’s macroevolutionary theory has been vindicated by the observations.What is nothing? Q&A with Martin Rees (The Conversation). If you don’t believe that highly-educated people can say stupid things, watch the Astronomer Royal of Great Britain flub up the definition of ‘nothing’ by making it something. This ardent materialist and evolutionist says, “empty space isn’t really empty – there’s a mysterious energy latent in it which can tell us something about the fate of the universe.” Dr Rees, please: if the vacuum of space has energy and properties, then it is not nothing. He admits, “everyone who ponders these mysteries should realise that the physicist’s empty space – vacuum – is not the same as the philosopher’s “nothing”.” OK, then answer the question: What is nothing? He commits a major sidestepping blunder by talking about something instead of nothing. A child could have noticed this.Evolutionists would be ashamed to make such arguments if creationists had a chance at the podium. Whenever an ID advocate or creationist has a fair opportunity to debate an evolutionist (something Darwin himself stated was essential to get a fair result), the evolutionist usually gets voted down by the audience. Silliness thrives in the absence of debate. Darwinist totalitarianism, enforced by Big Science and Big Media, must be overthrown!C.S. Lewis pulled the rug out from everything evolutionary materialists say by pointing out how it is self-refuting. The moment an evolutionist speaks or writes to ‘explain’ nature in material terms, he shoots himself in the foot. Here are Lewis’s inimitable words. Learn these ideas well.Unless you start by believing that reality in the remotest space and the remotest time rigidly obeys the laws of logic, you have no ground for believing in any astronomy, any biology, any paleontology, any archaeology. If my own mind is the product of the irrational— if what seem my clearest reasonings are only the way in which a creature conditioned as I am is bound to feel – how shall I trust my mind when it tells me about Evolution? They say in effect ‘I will prove that what you call a proof is only the result of mental habits which result from heredity which results from bio-chemistry which results from physics.’ But this is the same as saying: ‘I will prove that proofs are irrational’: more succinctly, ‘I will prove that there are no proofs’.” …A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound—a proof that there are no such things as proofs. (Visited 516 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
You are leading a transformation. What you are doing is critical to the future of your organization. It’s strategic. You can’t afford to fail.You built the burning platform and you made the case for change. You sold that change with a massive meeting, and you threw down the gauntlet.Week one: Everyone is on board, excited, and taking action. You are implementing, executing, and gathering feedback. You are sharing the results. Things are moving a long nicely.Week two: Mostly everyone is still on board and taking some action. Some of them are implementing, and some are struggling with the new actions. Those that are struggling are asking questions–and they’re questioning whether or not they can do what is being asked of them. Your leadership team keeps pushing forward.Week three: A lot of people are still on board, but they’ve gotten busy. They are too busy to focus on the new initiative, and they start slipping back into their old habits, the habits and activities that you are trying to kill. Your leadership team keeps pushing forward, but it’s hard to hold back the flood of problems, challenges, and backsliders.Week four: The leadership team starts to give up the ghost. They start backsliding. You’ve let up a bit, and you accept that they really are busy. You start to give them more room. You let them off the hook. The initiative teeters on the brink.Maybe I have the timeline wrong. Maybe it’s not 4 weeks. Let’s say it’s 12 weeks. Or 16 weeks if you like that better. It changes nothing; this is how initiatives die. Here’s what to do about it.Hold Them Accountable: If you are going to push your initiative over the line, you are going to have to hold everyone in the organization accountable for the changes. This includes the leadership team, as well as all of the individuals they lead.Put Change First on the Agenda: Begin every conversation and every meeting with an update on the status of the changes being made. By putting the change initiative first, you demonstrate its importance. And you prove that you are never going away or giving up.Appoint a Task Force: Find the true believers, the proselytizers, the fire-breathers and appoint them to a task force. Give them responsibilities for identifying those who are struggling to make change with the directive to help them–at any cost.Identify and Resell the Holdouts: There are many who will try to wait you out. They’re smart, too. They’ve seen enough initiatives die in the past, they’ve been trained to wait you out. Identify them. Single them out. Isolate them and sell them individually on the importance of your initiative. Ask them to personally support you and to act as leaders.If you give people space, they will wait you out. If you aren’t serious about your transformation, if you dabble around the edges, you will lose to the great pull and the irresistible allure of the status quo.
This Mahalaya, the last day of the Shraadh period of the Hindu calendar, BJP working president J.P. Nadda will, in Kolkata, participate in offering “tarpan” to nearly 78 BJP workers, who, the BJP says, lost their lives in political violence since 2013. It will mark, what party leaders say, a systematic block-level upward plan to combat the ruling Trinamool Congress in West Bengal.“On September 28, Naddaji will be in Balurghat in Kolkata along with family members of around 78 of our party workers who had been slain because of political violence, and will offer ‘tarpan’ for their souls,” Lok Sabha MP and State president of the BJP Dilip Ghosh told The Hindu.The event seeks to push the narrative of not just “widespread violence” against the BJP allegedly by the Trinamool but also that the party is the only one that has the ‘stomach’ to take on Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on her turf.Party president Amit Shah held a meeting of office bearers involved in the State a few days ago, and as a starting point has asked that a four-member committee be set up for each Assembly constituency. “Each of these committees will include an MP, a legislator and two West Bengal leaders who will not be local to that constituency, in order that a correct report of the situation in the area be recorded, away from any local prejudices. The committees will be constituted by October 8 and the report handed over to the State core group. All reports will then be reviewed by Amitbhai [party president Amit Shah] in the first week of November,” said a senior source in the party.Political programmes on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and the proposed Citizenship Amendment Bill will also be undertaken across the State. “Protests over the ‘appeasement politics’ of the Trinamool in each block of the State, will be undertaken from October 15 onwards,” added the source.The BJP is hopeful that these programmes will not only strengthen the basic organisation of the party down to the block level, but will give a momentum to the campaign for the 2021 Assembly polls.