Shakespeare Antenna

Shakespeare 5247 36″ VHF Antenna 5247-A $69.88

36″ SHAKESPEARE 5240-R VHF MARINE ANTENNA $0.99

NEW Shakespeare Style 4187 Ratchet Mount Marine Antenna $38.95

NEW Shakespeare 5101 Marine Radio VHF Antenna 8ft 6 dB $45.99

Shakespeare 5223-XT-Shakespeare 5223-XT 8′ CB Antenna - $126.14

Shakespeare 5207-Shakespeare 5207 8′ CB Antenna – W/ 2 $94.76

Shakespeare 5205-Shakespeare 5205 8′ CB Antenna – W/ 2 $85.11

Shakespeare 5400-XTM Galaxy 3dB 4′ VHF Marine Antenna $90.99

Shakespeare 5420-XT 4′ AM/FM Marine Antenna & Cable $69.99

Shakespeare AM/FM 8 Ft 5235-XT Galaxy Marine Antenna $74.99

Shakespeare 4050-B 3′ CB Marine Antenna & Cable $63.99

Shakespeare VHF 19″ 5218 Black SS Whip Antenna Magnet $44.99

Shakespeare Galaxy Style 5400-XT VHF Antenna $89.99

SHAKESPEARE 3FT CB ANTENNA #4050-B SHIPPING L@@K $49.99

Shakespeare 2020-G-Shakespeare 2020-G 14″ TV Antenna $123.09

Shakespeare 2030-G-Shakespeare 2030-G TV Antenna $142.07

Shakespeare Centennial Style 5101 VHF Antenna $39.99

Shakespeare 5240-R 36″ VHF Antenna $51.75

Shakespeare Stainless Antenna Straight Mount #4365 NEW $9.99

Shakespeare 2025-Shakespeare 2025 TV Antenna – W/ 2 Yr $190.42

Shakespeare 4351-Shakespeare 4351 39″ AM / FM Antenna - $60.81

Shakespeare 5250-AIS Skinny Mini Marine Antenna 36″ $46.99

Shakespeare 4351 39″ AM / FM Marine Antenna $48.99

Shakespeare Galaxy 5390 17.5 ft. SSB Marine Antenna $219.99

Shakespeare VHF 36in 5242-A SS Whip Marine Antenna $58.99

Shakespeare 5421-XT 4′ Black AM / FM Antenna $63.99

Shakespeare 5420-XT 4′ AM/FM Antenna $63.99

Shakespeare 5400-XT Galaxy 4′ VHF Antenna $87.99

Shakespeare 5400-XP 4′ VHF Antenna $107.99

Shakespeare 5248 2ft Wi-Fi Antenna $127.99

Shakespeare 5247 36″ VHF Antenna $51.99

Shakespeare 5241 3′ VHF Antenna $51.99

Shakespeare 4050-B 3′ CB Antenna $57.99

Shakespeare 5215 3′ Stainless Steel Whip Antenna $35.99

Shakespeare 5240-R 36″ VHF Antenna $45.99

Shakespeare 4051 3′ CB Antenna $39.99

Shakespeare VHF 19″ 5218 Black SS Whip Antenna – Magnet $37.99

Shakespeare 4351 39″ AM / FM Antenna $39.99

Shakespeare Low Profile Skinny Mini VHF Antenna – 36″ $39.99

Shakespeare VHF 15in 5216 SS Black Whip Antenna – Brack $31.99

Shakespeare 5911 10″ VHF Antenna $39.99

Shakespeare VHF 7in 5912 Rubber Duck Antenna $35.99

Shakespeare Galaxy 6.5′ Broadband Antenna $253.99

Shakespeare 5318 17′ 6″ Cellular Antenna $271.99

Shakespeare 2025 TV Antenna $163.99

Shakespeare 2020-G 14″ TV Antenna $119.99

Shakespeare 5401-XT Galaxy 4′ Antenna $87.99

Shakespeare 5412-P 2′ Cellular Antenna $133.99

Shakespeare 420 5′ VHF Antenna $63.99

Shakespeare 5400-XTM 4′ Galaxy VHF Antenna $87.99

The facade Decline of Theory of Evolution

by Josh Greenberger

(March, 2008) scientific concept of the origin of life on earth begins with the premise that life first appeared billions of years ago with the formation of microscopic organisms from inanimate matter. In the billions of years that followed, small organisms evolved into higher and more complex forms of life through random mutations, and one species evolved into another.

Over the years, a process called natural selection eliminated these mutations and organisms less fit to survive than others. Therefore, it was mostly the more "fit" that passed on its genetic character traits to subsequent generations. And this is how we and all other life forms got here.

On the surface, this sounds very good. However, a more deep underlying mechanism and the fossil record, leaves little doubt that mutations of the random nature can not have been the driving force behind the development of life on earth.

When it comes to a random process, there is always the question of whether the organization can occur. An analogy would be the monkey age on a typewriter: given enough time, can a monkey on a typewriter, producing works of Shakespeare by pure random keystrokes? Let to assume that the purpose of this discussion that this is possible – and that random mutations, given enough time, can also eventually produce more life forms complex.

Let us begin by rolling a die (one "dice"). To obtain a "3", for example, should throw the die on average six times (there are six numbers, so for any of them would take an average of six rolls). Of course, you could get lucky and shoot a 3 for the first time. But to keep throwing the dice, you will find that the 3 will come on average once every six rolls.

The same is true for any random process. You will get a "Royal Flush" (the five highest cards in the same suit) in a game of 5 card poker on average, about once every 650,000 hands. In other words, for every 650.00 hands of agreements on most of the cards meaning (and perhaps a few other poker hands), you will only receive a Straight Real.

From multi-million dollar lotteries are also based on the concept. If the odds of winning a grand prize are millions to one, which usually happen is that for every game in which one person wins the grand prize with the right combination of numbers, millions of people will not win the jackpot, as it took millions of combinations of meaningless numbers. To my knowledge, there has been a multi-million dollar lottery yet where millions of people who won first prize and only a few won little or nothing. It's always the other way around. And sometimes there's not a big winner.

How does this relate to evolution?

Let's take this well-understood concept about randomness and apply it to the old story about a monkey on a typewriter. As mentioned earlier, the purpose of this discussion, we assume that if we let a monkey randomly hitting keys on a typewriter long enough that it could ultimately become the work of Shakespeare. Of course, it would take a very long time, and he do the hills and mountains of pages of meaningless garbage in the process, but over time (we assume) could become Shakespeare.

Now, say, after putting a monkey in front of a typewriter out of Shakespeare, you decide they also want a copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica. So put another monkey in front of another typewriter. Then, put a monkey third ahead of the machine write in third place, because you also want a copy of "War and Peace". Now they shout, "Monkeys, type", and everyone begins to beat away at typewriters.

You leave the room and the same has been cryogenically frozen so you can come back in a few million years to see the results. (The monkeys do not have to be frozen. Let's say you are an advanced species, all they need to survive millions of years is fresh ink cartridges.)

You become in a few million years and are surprised at what he sees. What crisis is not what we find, but I can not find. First, is that monkeys have produced the works of Shakespeare, the Encyclopedia Britannica and "War and Peace". But all that I expected.

What crisis are you do not see the mountains of papers of meaningless arrangement of letters that each monkey had been produced for each literary work. You find some pages misspelled here and there, but not nearly account for the millions of pages of "mistakes" that should have found.

And even if the monkeys who happened to get them all to the first, which is pretty big stretch of the imagination, which still should be kind to millions of meaningless pages in those millions of years. (Who told them that will stop writing?) Anyway, every work of art must have occurred randomly millions of meaningless typed pages.

This is precisely what the problem is with the Darwinian theory of evolution.

A Random process, as represented by Darwinian evolution and accepted by many scientists, even if it says it can produce more complex forms of life, should have produced at least millions of dysfunctional organisms for every functional. And with agencies more complex (like a "Royal Flush" as opposed to a number 3 on a die), a greater number of dysfunctional "mistakes" should have been produced (as there are so many more possibilities of "mistakes" in a deck of 52 cards in a 6-sided).

The fossil record should have been full of billions on billions of completely dysfunctional agencies looking at various stages of development for the evolution of every life form. And for every life form superior – human monkey, chimpanzee, etc. – there should have been millions more "mistakes."

Instead, the fossils that are well preserved, the fossil record shows an overwhelming number of fairly well-built, functional agencies seeking, such as trilobites. We found the large quantity of "improving gradually "or intermediate species (sometimes referred to as" missing links ") that we have, we have not found the large number of" errors " known beyond a shadow of doubt to be produced by every random process.

We do not need billions of years to duplicate a random process in a laboratory to demonstrate that chaos will occur every time, regardless of whether or not it might eventually produce some "meaningful complexity." To say the Chance can produce organization is one thing, but to say that not even produce the chaos that randomness invariably produces is inconsistent with established fact.

A process that will produce organization without the chaos normally associated with randomness is the greatest proof that the process is not random.

The notion that fossil record supports Darwin's theory of evolution is as ridiculous as saying that a decomposed body proves an animal is still alive. This shows exactly otherwise. The relative scarcity of deformed-looking creatures in the fossil record proves beyond a doubt that if a species gave rise to another (which in itself is far from being an accepted and even viewed by many as a theory) that could not have been by a random process.

You may be tempted to explain we do not see many of the "mistakes" in the fossil record, because the genetic code has a repair mechanism that is able to correct the damage DNA and thus prevent abnormal organisms ever coming into existence.

Beyond this is not the issue, this is still not completely true. Although genetic code has the ability to repair or eliminate malfunctioning genes, many diseased genes fall through the cracks, despite this. There are a lot of diseases Genetic – hemophilia, various cancers, congenital cataract, spontaneous abortions, cystic fibrosis, color blindness and muscular dystrophy, to name just a few – that ravaged bodies and are passed to later generations, unhampered by the genetic repair mechanism. Throughout the history of the Earth robust speciation (species spawning new ones) through, allegedly, random mutation, genes that have fallen more through the cracks.

And as an aside, how genetic repair mechanism evolve before there was a genetic repair mechanism? Where are the million deformed and diseased organisms that should have been produced before the genetic repair mechanism was fully functional?

But all this is in this point. A more serious problem is the assumption that natural selection eliminated most or all of the "misfits".

A mutation genetics that have given rise to, say, the first cow that was born with two legs instead of four, would not necessarily be recognized as dysfunctional by the mechanism genetic repair. (I will use the "cow" as an example in everything, but applies to almost any organism). From a genetic standpoint, always that a gene is good in itself, there is really no difference between a cow with four legs, two legs, or six tails and an ingrown milk container. It is only after that the cow is born that natural selection, at the macro level, if not eliminate them fit to survive.

It is this type of mutations, organisms unfit to survive at the macro level, yet genetically sound, which should have covered the planet for billions.

Sure these deformed cows would have gotten quickly eliminated by natural selection because it had no chance of survival. But how many millions of dysfunctional cows alone, even before reaching to the billions of other species in Earth's history, should have covered the planet and fossil record before the stability first, the cow did their debut performance? Extrapolating the random combinations of a simple deck of cards to the much greater complexity of a cow, we're probably talking about tens of millions of "errors" that should be crowded planet earth for cows only functioning first.

Where are all these relics of an evolutionary past?

Nature did miraculously get billions of species right the first time? From well-preserved fossils for study, Most seem to be well designed and functional for the future. With the relationship of low aberration of fossils being no more significant due regard to speciation, a common birth deformities, there seems to have been no randomness in the development of life.

One absurd response I received from a scientist for not a lot of existing species is deformed: No such thing as speciation driven by the harmful mutation.

That's like asking: "How is it that everybody leaves the lecture hall through exit 5, but never through exit 4?" and get an answer, "Because people do not leave the conference hall through exit 4. Was not this the question?

What scientists have apparently done is look at the record Fossil and found that new species tend to make his first appearance as well formed, healthy-looking bodies. So instead of asking how can a random series of accidents rarely occur "accidents" that have just made a new rule in evolutionary biology: There is no such thing as speciation driven by deleterious mutation. This response is so scientific, logical and insightful as, "Because I said so."

A thing is the genetic code to spawn relatively flawless cows today, after years of stability. But before cows took root, a cow that could we thought it would have been deformed more or less "harmful", from the genetic standpoint, from a cow that we see as normal. The repair mechanism Genetics may recognize "healthy" or "diseased" genetic code, but we can not know how many legs or horns completely new species should have if we are talking about a trial-and-error crapshoot. If the genetic repair mechanism could predict what a functioning species should be similar to Eventually, years before natural selection on the macro level had the opportunity to eliminate the unfit, we would be talking about a very weird science, prophetic.

In an article published on 21 February 2002 issue of Nature, Biologists Matthew Ronshaugen, Nadine McGinnis and William McGinnis described how they were able to suppress the limb development in some fruit flies simply by activating certain genes and suppress all limb development in some cases with mutations Additional during embryonic development.

In another experiment widely known, the genetic damage caused fruit flies grow legs on their heads: Mutations of homeobox genes in fruit flies can cause legs where antennae should be.

These experiments showed how easy it is to make drastic changes an organism through genetic mutations. Ironically, while the previous experiment was presented as supporting evolution, both in fact do the opposite. The apparent ease with which organisms can change so dramatically and take on bizarre properties, drives home the point that the strange creatures, and versions strange species known, should have been mass produced by nature, history of the Earth was formed billions of years of development life through random changes.

Claiming that the random development of billions of life forms occurred, yet the massive aberrations is not a contradiction absurd to everything known about randomness.

Evolutionists tend to point out that the fossil record represents only a small fraction biological history, and that's why we did not find all the biological aberrations we should. But the issue here is not one of numbers, but one of proportion.

For every fossil of an abundance of well-formed, viable-looking body, which should have found a "strange" or deformed, regardless the total number. What we are finding, however, is the opposite proportion.

Evolution through a random series of events may have had some sense in the days of Darwin. But in the 21st century, random evolution seems to be little more than the product of a brilliant imagination. Although this imaginative concept has, in the years since Darwin, amassed a fanatical cult like following, science is not. Science has yet to be proven, not only can vote on ideas "fact". And especially when they contradict the facts.

An article in a 2007 edition of Current Biology, also available at ScienceDaily.com, reports that a multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is orderly and not random, based on a study of different species of nematodes. This is not Darwinian evolution.

It's ironic how evolutionists defend refutations of Darwinian evolution, often called creation, Sin But compliance is dogmatic evolutionary concepts that are more imagination than fact that smacks of a belief in the mystical, supernatural powers. What evolutionists have done, in effect, invented a new god, less religion and re-invented its own version of creation by supernatural means. However, God simply removing the image that is not exactly science.

So if the development of life was not an accident, how is life?

Well, not necessarily pointing to a problem depends on whether it exists or not a solution. In this case, presenting an alternative may actually be counterproductive. Evolutionists often get so bogged down in trying to discredit an alternative, often with nothing more than invectives, they tend to walk away believing evolution must still work.

The objective here, therefore it should be noted that Darwinian evolution does not collapse, because a solution is presented says it happened differently. The objective here is to show that the mechanics of evolution is incompatible with empirical evidence, verifiable science and common sense, regardless anything else that may or may not take place.

For a true study of science, we must put the theory of evolution to rest, as we have Indeed with so many other primitive concepts born of ignorance. Science today is far beyond such notions as metals that turn into gold, brooms that fly, the earth is flat, and mystical powers that accidentally create life. What all these foolish beliefs have in common is that were popular in his own time, never duplicated in a laboratory, and were never tested by any other means.

We would be doing society a great service if we fill our textbooks of science with verifiable facts that demonstrate how science works, instead of glossy fabrications that demonstrate how imaginative and irrational some scientists can get.

by Josh Greenberger

About the Author