[We'll get to current news and how this relates to today's post at the bottom]
Below, we see two perpetual lies that have been prominent in this last generation and both work hand-in-hand with the globalist, atheist anti-God agenda.
The first is the whole concept of "evolution". If you haven't really studied the topic - do so. Research the topic. Don't believe the mantra that the MSM spits out without thinking.
First of all - personally, I believe God could have administered His plan in any way that He so choose. If that included evolution, so be it. I came into the topic open minded, as I didn't really have a stake in the game. However, if you are someone who refuses to believe in God - then you have no choice but to believe in the myth of evolution. No choice whatsoever. Therefore, if you refuse to believe in God and His creation, then you must defend evolution at all costs - even if it means lying about the data, and the best fall-back position, which is ridicule and mockery of those who refuse to believe the mantra.
What is also interesting, is to engage in this 'debate' with an 'evolutionist', which I often do. What strikes me is the amazing lack of facts and lack of information for those believing in evolution. It seems to be an accepted dogma without much thought or research backing such opinion.
Just a quick look at the ridiculous theory of evolution reveals the holes:
- Rather than a stepwise slow 'evolution' of living creatures over time, what actually occurred was an explosion of life - an explosion that has been confirmed by fossil records. This is called the Cambrian "explosion" of life which is 100% inconsistent with any evolution model. What is actually humorous is watching the atheists jump over hoops try and explain this.
One of the most remarkable pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion” Most textbooks never mention it, and the ones that do relegate it to a short phrase or paragraph as if it is some insignificant detail. This phenomenon is so pronounced in the fossil record that Scientific American called it “life’s big bang.” It is considered one of the biggest challenges to evolutionary theory. Many reputable and highly accomplished scientists at major accredited universities worldwide say it is an insurmountable challenge. Moreover, I believe it is proof that evolution is merely a widely held myth of popular culture.
“Cambrian explosion” refers to the great quantity and diversity of life found in what is called the Cambrian layer of the geologic column. The Cambrian age in the geologic time scale is dated by scientists as being about 530 million years old. What is really interesting is not just what is found in this layer, but what is found in the layers above it, and what is not found in layers under it. The Cambrian layer has virtually every phyla known to man. Yes, all major body plans and enormous varieties of each all coexist in this layer. No evolutionary sequence here, they are all coexistent simultaneously.
Remarkably the layers below the Cambrian have practically nothing with regard to fossilized specimens. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are all soft-bodied organisms like worms. So essentially you have nothing along the lines of organic complexity and diversity pre-Cambrian, and then suddenly everything. But wait, it gets even more interesting. To compound this huge problem the number of species fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian period gradually decrease with each successive layer. Once you reach the most recent layers approximately 98% of every thing that has ever lived is extinct. Have you ever heard that 98% of everything that has ever lived is extinct? This is where that saying came from—hard scientific fact. A reasonable and honest person must conclude from the evidence that the fossil record is diametrically opposite what would be predicted by evolutionary theory. It is noteworthy that these conclusions are derived from a geologic time framework that is put forth by scientists own interpretation of geologic evidence. In fact, the belief that the strata represent different geologic ages is just that, a belief. Nevertheless, it is a belief held among scientists world-wide.
Then we have the common notion that "some experiment proved that life can originate in 'early earth' conditions. This misconception is one of the most common problems you will encounter. People believing in evolution will often misquote this, and it has been generally accepted by the 'low-information' crowd. Let's take a look at that.
What they are actually attempting to reference is the infamous "Miller experiment" which was conducted in 1953. Below are two solid articles that will do a better job at explaining this fallacy than I can explain:
The most generally respected study on the origin of life is the Miller experiment conducted by the American researcher Stanley Miller in 1953. (The experiment is also known as the "Urey-Miller experiment" because of the contribution of Miller's instructor at the University of Chicago, Harold Urey.) This experiment is the only "evidence" evolutionists have with which to allegedly prove the "chemical evolution thesis"; they advance it as the first stage of the supposed evolutionary process leading to life. Although nearly half a century has passed, and great technological advances have been made, nobody has made any further progress. In spite of this, Miller's experiment is still taught in textbooks as the evolutionary explanation of the earliest generation of living things. That is because, aware of the fact that such studies do not support, but rather actually refute, their thesis, evolutionist researchers deliberately avoid embarking on such experiments.
Stanley Miller's aim was to demonstrate by means of an experiment that amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, could have come into existence "by chance" on the lifeless earth billions of years ago. In his experiment, Miller used a gas mixture that he assumed to have existed on the primordial earth (but which later proved unrealistic), composed of ammonia, methane, hydrogen, and water vapor. Since these gases would not react with each other under natural conditions, he added energy to the mixture to start a reaction among them. Supposing that this energy could have come from lightning in the primordial atmosphere, he used an electric current for this purpose.
Miller heated this gas mixture at 100°C for a week and added the electrical current. At the end of the week, Miller analyzed the chemicals which had formed at the bottom of the jar, and observed that three out of the 20 amino acids which constitute the basic elements of proteins had been synthesized.
Before digging in to all of the problems with this 'experiment' - let me interject right here. Please note - life was not formed in the Miller experiment - THREE AMINO ACIDS were formed. That is a far far far cry from life.
That is like saying I have three car tires, therefore when I wake up in the morning I will have a Lexus sitting in my driveway. But I digress, because even the three amino acids have no relevance:
This experiment aroused great excitement among evolutionists, and was promoted as an outstanding success. Moreover, in a state of intoxicated euphoria, various publications carried headlines such as "Miller creates life." However, what Miller had managed to synthesize was only a few inanimate molecules.
Miller's experiment sought to prove that amino acids could form on their own in primordial earth-like conditions, but it contains inconsistencies in a number of areas:
1- By using a mechanism called a "cold trap," Miller isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so, the conditions in the environment in which the amino acids were formed would immediately have destroyed these molecules.
Doubtless, this kind of conscious isolation mechanism did not exist on the primordial earth. Without such a mechanism, even if one amino acid were obtained, it would immediately have been destroyed. The chemist Richard Bliss expresses this contradiction by observing that "Actually, without this trap, the chemical products, would have been destroyed by the energy source."254 And, sure enough, in his previous experiments, Miller had been unable to make even one single amino acid using the same materials without the cold trap mechanism.
2- The primordial atmosphere that Miller attempted to simulate in his experiment was not realistic. In the 1980s, scientists agreed that nitrogen and carbon dioxide should have been used in this artificial environment instead of methane and ammonia.
So why did Miller insist on these gases? The answer is simple: without ammonia, it was impossible to synthesize any amino acid. Kevin Mc Kean talks about this in an article published in Discover magazine:
Miller and Urey imitated the ancient atmosphere on the Earth with a mixture of methane and ammonia. ...However in the latest studies, it has been understood that the Earth was very hot at those times, and that it was composed of melted nickel and iron. Therefore, the chemical atmosphere of that time should have been formed mostly of nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapour (H2O). However these are not as appropriate as methane and ammonia for the production of organic molecules.255
3- Another important point that invalidates Miller's experiment is that there was enough oxygen to destroy all the amino acids in the atmosphereat the time when they were thought to have been formed. This fact, overlooked by Miller, is revealed by the traces of oxidized iron found in rocks that are estimated to be 3.5 billion years old.257
4- At the end of Miller's experiment, many organic acids had also been formed with characteristics detrimental to the structure and function of living things. If the amino acids had not been isolated, and had been left in the same environment with these chemicals, their destruction or transformation into different compounds through chemical reactions would have been unavoidable.
Moreover, Miller's experiment also produced right-handed amino acids.258 The existence of these amino acids refuted the theory even within its own terms, because right-handed amino acids cannot function in the composition of living organisms. To conclude, the circumstances in which amino acids were formed in Miller's experiment were not suitable for life. In truth, this medium took the form of an acidic mixture destroying and oxidizing the useful molecules obtained.
In brief, neither Miller's experiment, nor any other similar one that has been attempted, can answer the question of how life emerged on earth. All of the research that has been done shows that it is impossible for life to emerge by chance, and thus confirms that life is created. The reason evolutionists do not accept this obvious reality is their blind adherence to prejudices that are totally unscientific. Interestingly enough, Harold Urey, who organized the Miller experiment with his student Stanley Miller, made the following confession on this subject:
All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did.261
Also - if engaged in this conversation with an evolutionist - ask one simple question:
-> For cellular division, one has to have functional DNA. Lets assume that somehow, miraculously, a cell spontaneously formed (as ridiculous as that is - and let's not forget that in Darwin's generation, a cell was considered to be a gelatinous mass - none of the intricate complexities of a cell were known at that time...)....So how did DNA spontaneously form? [I promise you, the answer from the atheist will be crickets. Trust me.]
One of the problems is - by being fed the lies of the MSM and watching the scorn and ridicule that is pushed towards those who know the facts - many people opt out of the whole discussion and blindly accept evolution because it is socially acceptable.
Why can't scientists get a cell to form, even if they put all components of a cell in the most favorable conditions? WHY DOESN"T A CELL SPONTANEOUSLY FORM?
And one cell formed all life as we know it on the planet today?
You can also look at the problem with "Irreducible Complexity"
Since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that “any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.”(Behe, M, 1996b. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm). By defining irreducible complexity in terms of “nonfunctionality,” Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or “selects” those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe’s latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:
We can also look at many many other holes in the theory of evolution:
Such as - the fact that genetic mutations rarely lead to positive changes in a species - 99.99999% of time genetic mutations are unfavorable to survivability of any species - yet we are told that random genetic mutations account for all life, all diversity and the evolutionary process? Really. Please.
Enough of that - but the above backdrop leads to today's article:
A petition posted on a White House website has called for the ban of intelligent design and creation science from schools.
Begun by a poster identified as "A.J." of Vienna, Va., the petition demands that the Obama administration "ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution."
"Since Darwin's groundbreaking theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, scientists all around the world have found monumental amounts of evidence in favor of the theory, now treated as scientific fact by 99.9% of all scientists," reads the petition in part.
"However, even after 150 years after the establishment of evolution, some schools across the US are 'teaching the controversy,' including Creationism and Intelligent Design …These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science."
Posted on Saturday and filed under the Education category, the petition has already received the support of over 7,000 signatories. To be guaranteed an official response from the Obama administration, it must garner at least 100,000 signatures by July 15.
According to a survey released in 2011 and conducted by Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer of Penn State University, 13 percent of high school biology teachers "explicitly advocate creationism or intelligent design by spending at least one hour of class time presenting it in a positive light."
“Both of these so-called ‘theories’ have no basis in scientific fact, and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science,” reads the petition created by someone listed as A.J. of Vienna, Virginia. “Therefore, we petition the Obama Administration to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.”
The petition must receive 100,000 signatures by July 15 to guaranteed a response by the Obama Administration.
In an interview with the Christian Post, Ken Ham, the president of a creationist organization named Answers in Genesis, said the White House petition is just one more example of the growing intolerance against Christians.
“This anti-creationist petition is yet another example of the intolerance of evolutionist activists” who do not “want to see any challenge to their deeply held secularist worldview,” said Ham.
Lies and distortions are the order of the day in these end times. We should expect no less.
This afternoon we'll take up one of the other huge lies that is being used for globalist purposes and that is the myth of carbon based 'global warming'.
Thanks Scott for the information debunking evolution. We have a couple pf doctors at church who believe theistic evolution. We debated it once among the church elders on a weekend retreat.
From a christian perspective I think it is very hard to defend. Not only do we have the six day account which I believe are literal days but we also have the problem of years of death and dying required by evolution that Paul says was introduced by the sin of Adam and Eve.
PS I am speaking at church tonight on discipling and teaching biblical values to our children and would appreciate your prayers.
Yea. I agree. I tend to go where the facts lead - and in this case, with ANY in-depth study the theory of evolution/
In fact, this is now being admitted by many 'scholars' in their camp, and they will attempt to explain away the creation of life by suggesting some kind of "alien seeding" which is really getting comical IMO
Great post Scott, evolution will go down as one of the biggest lies in the history of mankind.
There are only three options as to how the universe came into existence.
1. It always existed.
2. It created itself.
3. It was created.
The first option that the universe always existed has been utterly rejected by scientists because of the motion of the galaxies, the backround radiation echo and others.
Option two, that the universe created itself is impossible because before the universe existed it would not have been around to do the creating.
Obviously a non-existent universe could not do anything, It did not exist.
We all know nothing comes from nothing.
Option three is the only logical answer.
If you see a painting, what evidence do you need to prove that there was a painter?
The painting itself proves the painter exists.
The same is true with the universe, the universe itself proves that a creator ie. God, exists.
Got this from Charlie Campbell at
Above comment is David H
I changed my profile name, save the confusion :)
Wow. I love reading wha your write. Cant wait to read about the global warming!
The earthquakes are still rising and so many in so many places now.
PLEASE READ THIS >>>>>
let it sink in, read it 10 times
if need be...
Fascinating article - I agree with the entire piece.
Rikki - I really need to get back to the earthquake story as there has been an upturn (again) recently - I'm glad someone else is noticing.
David - good points - I agree
Stephen, agree.....was a very good article. My one bone of contention with it is that they apparently fail to recognize this entire thing is engineered. All the markets are fixed.....especially the bonds, gold/silver, and stock market by the funny money.
This is an engineered collapse form inside and outside.
Good point Caver
Caver, you are right on that IF
one makes the case that the AC
will soon arrive......then it
makes sense. But then again the FP
is already in power since 13 MAR 13
At this point, I have NO answer on AC revealing, who knows ??
BUT WHAT WE DO KNOW IS that FP is
76 going on 77, he is already
old, with only one lung.
compute that please >>>>>>>>>
Post a Comment