[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:
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:
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.
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'.