Everything You Know is Wrong

Download Everything You Know is Wrong

Post on 11-Oct-2015

27 views

Category:

Documents

3 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p> Nothing can, ever has, or ever will turn guppies into puppies.</p><p>Everything you know is wrong! (Hows that feel?)</p><p>Lloyd Pye dismisses both Evolutionists and Creationists</p><p>By Khier Starchylde</p><p> Our egos tend to scream when told that what we have long believed and cherished is simply in error, or worse that weve been utterly duped by those with vested interests in our staying ignorant. Recall the stories of the Catholic Church refusing to pay any heed to Galileo? The Greeks those clergy studied wrote of the sun being the center around which Earth traveled, but that interfered with the dogma. They didnt want that view to be known. They wouldnt even look into the telescope! Finally science and Darwin triumphed. We had a monkey trial to let evolution be freely taught in the schools, and now you and I have come to think of evolution as the truthexcept for those whose primary source of beliefs comes from Creationists. People believing Genesis as a literal truth would cheer Lloyd Pyes Everything You Know Is Wrong because of how he devastates evolutionary theory, but then he swipes aside the usually believed Sunday school teachings as well. Literalist Creationists who measure creation in terms of seven days or seven thousand years, and human duration as 6000 years (after adding up all the begats in Old Testament), simply are trying to fit facts to their predetermined requirements. Yet rock strata, pollen, astronomical relationships, half-lives, DNA, and numerous indicators all testify to million-year/billion-year antiquity, despite the reportings of Christian Creationist, Kent Hovind. Perhaps theres a place for divine creation but not in the form its been generally proffered. The validity of Pyes rejection of evolution is not all that complicated, and well simplify it even further in this principle: No Macroevolution has ever taken place. The definition and meaning of this statement is easily seen in </p></li><li><p>this text from Pyes book: There is no such thing as macroevolution. There is no trace of it in the fossil record, nor in the world around us. Sea worms did not and do not become fishes, fishes did not and do not become amphibians, amphibians did not and do not become mammals. In every case the difference between critical body parts and functions (internal organs, digestive tracts, reproductive systems, etc.) are so vast, transition from one to another would require dramatic changes that would be easily discernible in the fossil record [19]. That leaves us with microevolutionthe simple modification of size or shape of a beak, but not the changing from gills to wings, or for that matter, even the change of a bacterium. Bacteria mutate but they dont alter from being a parasite to finding food for themselves. They have remained essentially the same for billions of years. Only microevolution takes place. One illustration of this is in Nature 29 Jan 98 which tells of an ant fossil dated at 50 million years, and its unchanged. Ants didnt turn in to arachnids with two more legs because it just doesnt happen in nature. Or else we would have found some form of ant-spiders, the in-between stages, but we never do. The missing links are never found. Even the formulation of life and what would actually be quite complicated bacteria from a primordial soup or plasma has obstacles beyond counting. The famous astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, calculated the likelihood of any living organismeven [the simple single-celled bacterium called a prokaryoteemerging naturally from a prebiotic soup is equal to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Pye isnt unique in raising his voice against evolution. The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William Fix, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth, and Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton all sing similar songs. Milton says, Geological evidence that contradicts Darwins theory of gradual evolution, while favoring the position that life upon this planet reached its present form through sudden albeit mysterious changes. As a friend of mine put it, Nothing can, ever has, or ever will turn guppies into puppies. The Creationist readers are jumping up and down at this point and saying I told you so! but here are some Creationist ideas from the Bible that are totally irreconcilable with extant scientific data: </p><p>1) the Earth came into existence before the sun and stars; 2) the land plants came into existence before the Sun; </p></li><li><p>3) the first life forms were plants; 4) fruit trees appeared before fish; 5) birds appeared before land reptiles. </p><p> Whether or not there was divine intervention in creation here on Earth, the above five events did NOT occur as the writer of Genesis describes. Creationists are simply going to have to give up a literal understanding.</p><p>Primates, Hominoids and Hominids The last ditch attempt of the advocates for evolutionary theory has come from the well known Stephen Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium, that really rejects unintentionally evolutions gradualism to try to explain what happens after a massive extinction (like an ice age or asteroid impact). They practically join the Creationists by proposing a sudden burst of natures creativity, producing very different and evolved creatures either from nothing or from some left-over form from before the preceding catastrophe. Punk-eek (as its called) might as well have described God coming down and populating the millions of species in a few days. Thats how extreme punk-eek is as far as Pye is concerned.</p><p>We were developed/created by some entity who utilized genetic manipulation, crossbreeding, or a combination of both.</p><p> From what weve seen so far, to think of humans deriving from apes, suddenly or slowly is quite out of the question. It is completely insignificant that chimps and humans share 98% of similar DNA It would still be macroevolution to make that transition. We have no record of any such leap ever occurring. It becomes logical to understand that somehow Cro-Magnon suddenly appeared. Neanderthal had been around a long time but then homo sapiens sprung to life. As Pye suggests, were left with these possibilities: </p><p>(1) We [hominids] arrived of our own volition and under our own steam (i.e., we migrated from somewhere outside the planet. (2) We were brought from somewhere else by some entity who placed us here to live, with or without our cooperation. (3) We were developed/created by some entity who utilized genetic manipulation, crossbreeding, or a combination of both.</p><p> Even these possibilities will jangle many readers, but as Pye puts it, How can ordinary people be expected to have access to even a sliver of the truth about </p></li><li><p>such matters if both the scientific establishment and religious fundamentalists link arms against it? The answer is we cant.</p><p>Regarding prejudice David Icke in Robots Rebellion describes the maze of linked arms: As Arthur Findlay points out in his outstanding work, The Curse of Ignorance, people were still being fined and jailed in Britain up to the last century for daring to criticise David and other Old Testament heroes who were believed to be vehicles for the righteousness of God [56].</p><p>Its always an up-hill struggle against tradition and accepted beliefs. One of Pyes battles is to uncover the huge evidence of (and private scientific belief in) the existence of Yeti, Sasquatch, Alma, and Agogwe. Well examine what Pye has shown about these creatures and their continuation of the line of Neanderthals. Pye states,</p><p> Charles Darwins long-sought missing link remains missing and is certain to stay that wayforever. In its place stands the hominoids, patiently awaiting their turn on the world stage. When the first hominoid(s) is/are brought in, it will prove beyond doubt that humans did not evolve on planet Earth. In fact, genetic testing of it/</p><p>them will prove they are indigenous primates that developed (a still-mysterious process that can include extensive microevolution but not macroevolution) here alongside monkeys and apes. Having to accept hominoids as real will </p></li><li><p>require having to acknowledge that the prehuman fossil record is comprised entirely of their bones, rather than ours. That admission will then force each of usincluding, however reluctantly, all Darwinists and Creationiststo confront a truly awesome question: Where did humans come from?</p><p> That question will crush scientists and religious leaders around the world because it can have only one possible, plausible answer: Somewhere other than here.</p><p> The creature that did come from here is the hominoid, an animal resembling man, i.e., the Yeti and Sasquatch. Hominoids came from primates, Pye teaches us. One of the things we know that is wrong is that macroevolution is real and that Neanderthals derived from apes and that we derived from Neanderthals. Not even Darwin believed this. Pye summarizes, [Darwin] said humans and apes shared a common ancestor that lived somewhere in the depths of prehistory, but they did not precede us on the lower rungs of our evolutionary ladder [37]. One ... basic truth is that no creature even remotely resembling humans appears on Earth until the Cro-Magnons at least 120,000 years ago (and almost certainly earlier than that ...). This can be considered a truth because for the prior 4,000,000 years the hominid fossil record contains only thick-boned, heavily muscled creatures who are brutes compared to humans [185].</p><p>Where did humans come from? . . . Somewhere other than here.</p><p> Immediately one wonders about the continued line of homo erectus and the Neanderthals if they didnt lead to humans, and remember they could not lead to humans because macroevolution doesnt happen. Enter the hominoids. The stories of the Yeti (Abominable Snowman), Sasquatch (Bigfoot) , Alma (Kaptar) and Agogwe are true. Scientists have had quite an extensive documentation but have chosen to pay no more attention to it, apparently because it bursts too many bubbles. First off there are dozens of other names for these creatures in different languages from peoples on all the continents except Antarctica. One Russian village in the 1890s actually captured, tamed, and raised children from one Alma named Zana. She fought hard after being captured and chained but eventually </p></li><li><p>both she and the townspeople of Tkhima accepted each other. Apparently this wasnt all that unusual. Pye states, It was a rare but well-accepted event in the 1600, 1700, and 1800s. Zana had children by some of the towns more bold men, and these offspring were not hairy and as brutish as she. They could talk and pass for humans. The townspeople who knew those descendants have been interviewed by Professor A.A. Mashkovtsev and Dr. Boris Porshnev (1960s). Her description fits what researchers have put together about Neanderthal. Her expression was far more animal than human, says Pye, and her body was completely covered with hair except for a few spots (like her palms). He goes on,</p><p> Her teeth were large and strong enough to crack any nut. She was incredibly swift afoot, fast enough to keep pace with a running horse! She was also powerful enough to swim the Mokvi River when it raged during spring thaws. She often playedsometimes obsessivelywith rocks, grinding them together or flaking and smashing them into chips and cores. Apparently some deep-seated instinct drove her to create edges and/or points on stones, which not surprisingly resembled the Mousterian tools made by Neanderthals (some of whose skeletal remains were later found near Tkhina). However, she was never known to use them for more than [throwing] projectiles at dogs [whom she definitely did not like, 180]. </p><p> Pye relates other famous cases too, including one where a modern person was captured by Almas, put in a sack, then kept around the camp for six days till he escaped. Additional large amounts of tracks have not only been sighted but preserved in plaster as well. Im mentioning a few of the plentiful items of support that Pye and others have documented for the certain existence of these generally 7-8-foot creatures (except for the pigmy Agogwes). What also makes Pye significant is that he connects the Neanderthal to these beings. In other words the homo erectus and Neanderthals did not lead on an impossible chain (theres no macroevolution) to humans but clearly to the Almas, Yetis, Sasquatch, and Agogwes who look just like them, track like them, and act like them. No language to speak of, highly vegetarian, large boned, and massively strong. It certainly is surprising that this creature could be impregnated by humans (about 10 times!), so perhaps theres more to the origins of Almasand to the origins of humans.</p></li><li><p> How did we get here if we didnt develop from the Neanderthal? While Pye and others show macroevolution to be thoroughly impossible, and Creationism as presented to be completely inadequate, he still comes up with the scientific puzzle of how did the Earth repopulate after catastrophes and even arrive at the enormous variety of species that could not have evolved into each other? Were going to answer these questions to some degree. No matter what we come up with, you can be sure that the scientific and religious models weve so far let ourselves be governed by do NOT tell us the truth, for whatever reasons those may be. Perhaps we are ready to find out what really has been going on. </p><p>Origins of humanity: perhaps its not what you think.Lloyd Pyes further exploration of humans, Sasquatch, </p><p>and the Anunnaki</p><p> Pye has tried to convince us in his book Everything You Know Is Wrong that both the story of human creation did not occur in the way that evolutionists or creationists say it did. Science and religion have both had axes to grindto the point that they prefer tradition to accuracy. Pye tells us this repeatedly. We saw that macroevolution has never occurred; therefore humans did not evolve from Neanderthal. Another point to substantiate that certainty is that DNA taken from Neanderthals shows no possible linkage with humans The facts drive Pye, Sitchin, and others to recognize that since homo sapiens like you, our ancestors, and me did not develop on this planet, we have to have come from somewhere else. Most of these researchers </p></li><li><p>believe we arrived as, or with, ETs. However, we do have some sources that tell of human origins that actually could satisfy the evolutionist, creationist, and historian, if they were willing to let go of their pet beliefs. The first human civilization that our history documents (Atlantis and Mu notwithstanding) was Sumer, a sudden culture whose unaccountable achievements perplex historians who describe these people arising from a stone age. Yet to indicate how magnificent the Sumerian peoples were, Pye suggests that their culture may have been the best that ever existed; he...</p></li></ul>