IN BRIEF
·
The
Facts:
Many scientists around the world have voiced their concerns
regarding Darwin's theory of evolution. The science is not adequate to explain
life and human creation.
·
Reflect
On:
Why is this theory pushed so hard? Is this an example of
scientific dogma? Some educational institutions are teaching it as fact. Why
aren't we taught to question accepted beliefs regarding the origins of human
life? Why are there only two options?
It’s amazing how the theory of evolution is pushed on the populace
as fact and sound science, but like Professor Colin Reeves, from the Department
of Mathematical Sciences from Coventry University explains, “Darwinism was
an interesting idea in the 19th century, when handwaving explanations gave a
plausible, if not properly scientific, framework into which we could fit
biological facts. However, what we have learned science the days of Darwin
throws doubt on natural selection’s ability to create complex biological
systems – and we still have little more than handwaving as an argument in its
favour. “
He is one
of 500 scientists in several fields that came together a few years to create “A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism.” Here’s another
great quote from one of the scientists, Chris Williams, A
Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University:
As a biochemist and software developer who works in
genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible
complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of
six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a
fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all
this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside
of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive
details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic
information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require —
or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have — or did it even
have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before
natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to
amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life — the foundation of
evolution – is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact.
Although this seems to be ongoing, and new information has
emerged, I’d like to have a discussion about it.
We’re dealing with a controversial topic here, one that has some
scientists reprimanded for going against it in some cases. This theory is
really being pushed hard on the scientific community, which could be the reason
why these scientists chose to voice their concern in such a manner. It’s being
taught, in some cases, in schools as fact.
Although
the list is an old one, it goes to show that this thought is out there, and
this type of thinking is clearly legitimate and exists for several reasons.
There are multiple theories out there which we should be discussing, take for
example, Francis Crick, a Nobel Prize-winning co-discoverer of the DNA
double helix, as Gregg Braden points out,
Crick believed that life’s building blocks have to be the result of something
more than random mutations a “quirk” of nature…
Crick risked his reputation as a
scientist by publicly stating, “An honest man, armed
with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some
sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.” In
the scientific world, this statement is the equivalent of heresy, suggesting
that something more than chance evolution led to our existence.
Crick is
was one of many scientists who believed that intelligent intervention had
something to do with it, and also postulated an
extraterrestrial hypothesis.
Gregg Braden makes another great point,
The feeling that there’s something more to our story is
not just a recent phenomenon. Archaeological discoveries show that, almost
universally, from the ancient Mayan Popol Vuh and the
indigenous traditions of the American desert Southwest to the roots of the
world’s major religions, ancient humans felt connected to more than just their
immediate surroundings. They sensed that we have our roots in other worlds,
some that we can’t even see
It wasn’t
long ago when Apollo 15 pilot, Alfred Worden stated,
Top of Form
SUBSCRIBE
TO OUR DAILY EMAIL
START
YOUR DAY WITH THE LASTEST NEWS
SUBSCRIBE
Bottom of Form
We are the aliens, but we just
think they’re somebody else, but we’re the ones who came from somewhere else.
Because somebody else had to survive, and they got in a little spacecraft and
they came here and they landed and they started civilization here, that’s what
I believe. And if you don’t believe me, go get books on the ancient Sumerians
and see what they had to say about it, they’ll tell you right up front.
At the end of the day we simply have to ask ourselves, why is it
becoming more and more difficult to question things? Many people live in a
state of fear and feel worried about how they will be perceived these days for
taking a particular view, be it on human evolution, vaccines, whichever…
As a chemist, the most fascinating
issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was
no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works
(or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what
happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the
lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as
they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition
reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far.
It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student)
intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any
progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from
where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for
something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly
specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual
guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is
the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often
working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have
serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make
additional progress in this area.
–Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
–Edward Peltzer Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute), Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry
Mainstream education teaches us that 99% of DNA links is
indicative of where we came from, but we share approximately 65 percent of our
DNA with a Banana, what does that mean?
Human beings aren’t stupid, and this is why in 2014, a Gallup poll
revealed that in the United States alone, almost half the population believe
that there’s something more to the origins of human existence than the two
options that are constantly presented to the masses. They believe that there is
something more than Darwin’s theory of evolution.
This tells us that human intuition is pointing us
towards something more and some of the greatest scientific minds agree.
It’s also
very important to mention the fact that multiple discoveries continue to be
left off the record. The discovery of giant skeletons is
an excellent example. We have written some heavily sourced articles, displaying
a fraction of the evidence that’s out there today, you can access
them here.
The point is, there are still many questions left unanswered, and
still many discussions to be had.
We
interviewed David about what is happening within the cabal and disclosure. He
shared some incredible insight that is insanely relevant to today.
So far,
the response to this interview has been off the charts as people are calling it
the most concise update of what's happening in our world today.
