How does it make sense that the naked human body suddenly becomes "obscene" when it is simply outside of a building rather than inside a building? Why is the human body itself criminalized? Could this be a form of mind-control through pushing a form of fear, through subliminally pushing the idea that humans are inherently shameful?
I know the topic of nudity is not a concern for most people, it seems like a minor issue, or an already-settled issue, and so doesn’t deserve any attention, especially with all that’s being presented on mainstream news; I imagine someone might say, “We’re possibly facing World War 3 and you write an article on nudity? What’s wrong with you?” and I can put myself in the shoes of such a person, I can understand why that perspective could seem right. And I’m actually not personally very interested in this issue, I’m not looking to start up a new nudist organization/group/club/colony, or petition for the opening of a new stretch of nudist beach (though kudos to whoever is doing those things), it’s just that I’ve come to realize that this issue is much more important than most people, including myself until very recently, realize.
I was already aware of the pro-nudity movements, like that which coincided with the 1960’s hippy culture, and more recently with the “Free The Nipple” NYC demonstrations and documentary, and, in doing a little research for this article I discovered the re-emerging Naturism Movement, and I recognized that the main premise that nudity does not equate to obscenity is right and good, but I didn’t realize how important it is (and I think actually many people in the pro-nudity movements didn’t and don’t realize how very important an issue this actually is). The wild thing is that this issue is actually central to the Creation story of humanity, but it’s never explained as such.
Adam & Eve were fine with being naked before they ate the “fruit of the knowledge of Good & Evil,” but immediately after they ate it they became ashamed of their naked bodies.
Before eating the "knowledge" of good & evil:
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (Genesis 2:25)
After eating the "knowledge" of good & evil: "I heard your voice in the garden," Adam answered to God, "and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid from you." (Genesis 3:10)
So, the “knowledge” 1), made them afraid, and 2), convinced them that the naked body is actually evil. Those two elements need to be looked at carefully. Firstly, fear is very disempowering, it is perhaps the most disempowering emotion-thought that humans can have, and people, particularly the powers-that-be, have used fear as a means of control, for centuries. The particular form of fear that Adam& Eve followed was Fear of Humiliation (one of the three main types of fear), and that was actually their original/first sin, not simply "being disobedient," as the Church tells everybody (and yes, following fear is actually a sin, as is following anger, or craving). Secondly, the idea thatthe naked body is evil in and of itself is actually a blasphemous notion; the human form/design is actually good, designed by a good God. So then we can logically conclude that the knowledge they ate was false knowledge, it was a false morality, and following false morality is what actually led them to losing paradise. So, the other crucial point, also never taught by Christian pastors, is that if you equate the naked human body with something bad, if you believe the naked human body, just by itself, is a bad thing, that’s actually a very deep mind-control program. If you believe the human body is bad, that is basically the same as believing your natural Self is bad, and that belief, the “I am fundamentally bad” belief, is actually the foundation of human enslavement, at its various levels. It’s also a complete violation of what Jesus said are The Greatest Commandments, which are to love God, love others, and love yourself, since if you believe you and other humans in their natural state are shameful, that’s abusive slander toward yourself and others, as is calling God’s creation bad, and abuse is the complete opposite of love.
Even though the evaluation I just made is logically sound, many people will have their mind-control kick in as pseudo-intellectual false morality hysterics, namely that laws against nudity are “to protect the children,” and because you don’t want to feel even further shame, now for “not caring about the children,” you’ll probably drop this issue of nudity like a hot potato. The truth is that by accepting the idea that nudity = obscenity, you’re in no way protecting children, you’re actually setting them up to live a life of subconscious fearful shame and acceptance of constant low-level abuse from “authorities” because of the belief/program that humans are fundamentally bad and so need to be abusively controlled at all times to some degree. If your mind goes into hysterics about sexual assault at the mere mention or sight of a naked human body, I hope you can realize that’s mind-control, and completely irrational. The naked human body is not an act of aggression, nor does it support aggression, it’s just the human body without clothes on it, and there’s actually nothing wrong with that; every supposed explanation as to why it is bad is clearly nonsense, if you actually take a minute to analyze it, rather than just let false guilt turn your critical thinking off; again, if you think the human body is shameful, then you’re holding an abusive slanderous view toward yourself, others and God, and you’re supporting human enslavement of both body and mind, and that’s a very bad thing to do; the devil has tricked, and continues to trick, humanity into doing evil and thinking that it’s good, and that’s what keeps us in the devil’s world (including its world wars), that’s what keeps us out of the Paradise God created the Earth to be for us.
God is actually the Master Artist, and the human body, especially the female body, has been recognized for centuries as an exquisite work of art, along with other wonderful designs, like found with wildflowers, wildlife (hummingbirds come to my mind first), landscapes (e.g., Ireland), and even nebula in outer-space (e.g., the Orion Nebula). Denying that natural beauty and goodness isn't being virtuous, the devil and his powers-that-be push that false morality on us all (from the very beginning of humanity) for their own purposes (namely to wickedly go against God's perfect design, and gain more power and control over humanity).
Politicians love nudity laws, they love to cover up naked statues, etc., because: 1), criminalizing nudity pushes subconscious fear (as false guilt/ashamedness) and the subconscious belief that human beings are fundamentally evil, both of which greatly support social-systems of abusive control and power, and 2), criminalizing nudity is done under the guise of virtue, under the banner of “protecting women and children,” and that virtue-signal basically guilt-trips people into accepting their false morality (just as they and the media did with their medical mandates). And perhaps 3), because they know just how critical Vitamin D ("the sunshine vitamin") is for good health, and a sick population is easier to control.
Returning to the psychology of false guilt/shame, this issue of criminalized nudity is much more important than is commonly understood because if you can get a society to believe that their naked bodies are shameful then you've got them, then they have a thorn of fear held deep in their minds that will sabotage them their entire lives, because it's just a version of "I'm fundamentally bad and untrustworthy," and so therefore "deserve to be punished and controlled," and because fear is actually always disempowering, it's actually a demonic/toxic emotion-though that is never beneficial (no, it's not the same thing as the body's crisis response, aka fight-or-flight).
Remember, this very destructive taboo/mind-control program was the original lie of the Enemy that took us away from God's truth and original perfect design for humanity, Eden/Paradise. If being naked is illegal, that means the human body, as deigned by God, is inherently evil. If you accept that false morality, you blaspheme God and support abusive control. Whether you'd personally enjoy going outside naked or not is irrelevant, you should see that this issue is much bigger and more important than that personal preference, you should be against the criminalization of nudity for the very deep and important reasons pointed out here. You may be surprised at how empowering and transformative repeating the affirmation "My naked body is not shameful" is for you, again regardless of whether you actually have any interest in being nude outside; although, worth mentioning, it has certainly been proven that getting some full-body sunshine (and adequate Vitamin D from that sunshine), and fresh air (indoor air pollution is a real problem) is very health-giving; a lot of people would probably get off meds and resolve various health issues if they just did simply that regularly (along with leaving animals alone with their food choices).
Again, affirming that your naked body us not shameful is empowering and transformative becauseif you fearfully believe your naked body is shameful, that's basically the same thing as believing that you are shameful, from jump-street and till death, and that's pure spiritual sabotage.
No, it's not. In the context of medical mandates, it's a medical device, and it's being forcefully prescribed by politicians; you're being coerced to use this medical device as if government employees have a right to make medical decisions for you, as if you were their livestock, on their farm. A more honest and accurate statement by those pushing and supporting medical mandates would be: "If you don't submit to the medical tyranny of pre-emptive attack against your bodily autonomy, which pre-supposes the intellectual and ethical superiority of officials and their right to treat you as their livestock, then you're selfish, and should be subject to further violence in the form of fines and possible arrest (which if you resist you can be killed, and that's okay too); they are making the world a better, safer place, so just obey and shut up."
There is a clear right & wrong with this issue, and it's this: Controlling a nonviolent person's body is an act of aggression; your body does not become the property of the State whenever there is a sickness in the world.
People that yell at, stare/scowl at, video without permission, exclude from store entry, etc., someone just for not wearing a mask, are following a false morality, they're being aggressive toward someone who could only *possibly* and unintentionally harm someone else. The real aggression of medical mandates needs to be rejected, otherwise the State will likely push even more travel restrictions, bodily violation (e.g., toxic vaccines), control of private businesses (putting them out of business), charging people fines etc., making our lives even more controlled by untrustworthy people we are "mandated" to trust, always in the name of safety; remember, if you're being abused, you're not safe, even if you don't have the flu because of that abuse.
The nonsense-backed tyranny passing as "reasonable precaution" is fundamentally saying it's okay to commit actual violence against someone by controlling their bodies against their will (e.g., mandatory masks) in order to prevent possible harm, it's saying real violence now is fine if it *might* prevent harm, it's saying being abusively controlled is okay if it reduces risk of illness being spread in the world; by that premise the government could seal everyone up in prison cells for "safety," as if being abusively controlled is a condition of safety (of course it's not).
Preemptive attack is never legitimate, it's just aggression, which is always evil. This is what people should be pointing out, not the latest numbers; the number of supposed cases is irrelevant to the core ethics of it.
"How is the mask mandate communist?" you may have been wondering. The reason it's communism in action is because communism is defined as the end of private property, all that was previously owned by individuals is now owned by the State, and what is fundamentally more your property than your own body. Mask mandate operates on the unsaid subliminal premise that the State owns your body, because a main part of property rights is the ability to control your property; so if you can't control your body, but the State can, then who owns it?We are all now being attacked, yet we are to believe that we are now safer while under this daily attack?
We are essentially being told that we have to trust whatever numbers and "science" they put out are accurate, now and forever, trust that it's impossible that it's a deception in any way, trust that whatever medical treatment they deem necessary (masks today, who knows what tomorrow) is safe and effective... They want you to accept that the State is essentially your doctor and owns your body and the bodies of your children. State officials are not your doctor, and preventative health care medical choices should always be the choice of the individual.
If you think mask-wearing, distancing, etc., is a good idea at this time, that's fine, again the issue is it being a mandate. If you believe officials are saints that are never mistaken or deceptive, then you can go on obeying their every order for the rest of your life, submitting to slavery, but don't expect others to do the same.
Thankfully atheist statism is not everyone's worldview, many people are still clear-headed enough to recgonize the true moral authority of Jesus and his greatest commandments, and they have an inalienable right to do just that.
Let's say, even just hypothetically for argument's sake, that there are fascists in the world who engineer crisis situations so their proposed "solutions" (that increase their wealth and power), can be pushed on the public. Guess what would be a perfect scenario for consolidating their power at a global level previously unheard of? An alien invasion.And the aliens could come as enemies, or "friends;" either way could be utilized for the same purpose, either way could utilize the classic problem/reaction/solution dynamic/dialectic, it's jut a matter of whether they use the already-existing problem of the global environmental/health crisis they largely created, or use a new problem of aggressive "aliens." The reaction is the same for both (mainly anger/fear/discontent), and the solution would be the same too, namely some rehashed form of fascism/communism.
Did a UFO really crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and the technology has since been reversed engineered? Or was that just a psy-op to prepare the public for an even grander later psy-op?
Following several mass deceptions concerning terrorism, could there be another even bigger engineered crisis/deception, similar to the "War of The Worlds" book/movie? Could UFO's (that are really top secret military aircraft, possibly reverse engineered from real UFO's) appear and shoot powerful lasers (that the military already admits they have), and then the solution to this global crisis will be a global government, in keeping with the aforementioned ever persistent fascist agenda? Or will they come as "saviors," that will facilitate a fascist/communist restructuring of society "for our own good?"
Here's a very interesting quote attributed to Henry Kissinger (former U.S. Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, as well as the G.W. Bush Administration's first choice to direct the 9/11 Commission, a position later rejected for concern that it would be perceived as a conflict of interest):
"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there’s an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
And these from Ronald Reagan:
"... when you stop to think that we're all God's children, wherever we may live in the world, I couldn't help but say to him, just think how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We'd forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries and we would find out once and for all that we really are all human beings here on this earth together."
- White House transcript of "Remarks of the President to Fallston High School Students and Faculty," December 4, 1985
"In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world."
- Speech to the United Nations General Assembly, 42nd General Assembly, September 21, 1987
Keeping all this in mind, I find it very curious that lately there has been more talk of an imminent "revelation" of aliens visiting the Earth, for example, this "transmission" from the "humans are free" (we're definitely not currently free) website-->http://humansarefree.com/2014/10/alien-message-to-mankind-do-you-wish.html The important take-away from that post is the statement that "our destiny is fraternity." Fraternity is just a code word for collectivism/communism, i.e. the complete elimination of the sovereignty of the individual. And what exactly does "the safeguarding of fraternal equilibrium" mean? Control, no doubt.
The "aliens" say "making a decision by yourself, as an individual, is your right as well as your responsibility," but then they also say that whether they will come or not (to take their "hand-hold over the Earth") is a matter of a collective decision; this is contradictory, irrational and immoral. There is no such thing as a collective decision unless it is a consensus, and they are not talking about consensus at all, saying just a few is all that is really needed. What about the minority (or majority) that won't want their "hand-hold," whatever that turns out to be? (again, undoubtedly control, which "they" claim to be against.)
No mention of God in that "transmission" either, though they claim to be of a "higher" sort; this subliminal anti-God content gives credence to those that believe these aliens are actually the fallen angels/demons the Bible speaks of.
Yes, yes I know there are many billions of galaxies out there, so it seems probable that there is life out there somewhere. But before you think you're smarter than me, because you're making an assumption and I'm not (assuming is never smart btw), and/or that I'm just some "reactionary extremist" (or whatever similar label that might pop into your mind), keep these FACTS in mind:
There really are rich/powerful people that want a "New World Order," and are even pretty open about it sometimes.
Some other humanoid life-form has never been confirmed; sure there's lots of people who have seen UFO's (including me, 3 times), and people who have even testified to meeting them in friendly or very unfriendly encounters, but this doesn't actually prove that aliens exist. They could be humans (i.e. NWO engineers) with advanced costumes & tech posing as aliens, or they could even be extra-dimensional beings (a.k.a. demons).
There has been a lot of informationcoming at the public in the past 65 years or so (in news media, books, radio/TV/movies "entertainment," etc.) about the "reality" of aliens, and at an increasing rate in recent years, and public conditioning/manipulation/deception certainly does actually go on, a lot, so skepticism about all this unusual activity is definitely rational.
In the TV show Ancient Aliens there's an episode ("The Visionaries") that says that the super acceleration of modern tech, namely with the beginning development of computers,was inspired/given by aliens. This is thought to be a "gift," but if one looks at this through the Christian lens that identifies such beings as demonic, and the anti-civ lens that recognizes the terribly destructive consequence of modern tech, (to mind, body and spirit; e.g., the trans-humanist agenda, which was covered in "The Next Humans" episode, also in season 9 of Ancient Aliens), then this "gift" is seen more clearly for what may be, sabotage and assimilation by those that are fully possessed, having become totally unnatural cyborg beings with little to no soul left. The devil wants people to be more and more like him, more morally corrupt and just a tool of the larger collective/system; the trans-humanism agenda may be seeded by demonic ETs who are advanced cyborgs themselves. The idea being that just like "the Borg" from the TV show Star Trek TNG, they want to assimilate us to be like them and merge with their destructive collective, more aligned with the evil force and not the good & natural. This behavior of forceful assimilation of course predates cyborgs, and doesn't require tech to carry out (though it is made more powerful and destructive through those means); toxic devil-minded people take pleasure in corrupting others to be like them and really don't like when anyone takes a moral stand and resists.
Overall my two cents is this: I wouldn't bite an "alien" line, whether it came in friend or foe form. If anything like what's described in the above-shared "channeled transmission" does come to pass, I think it's most likely just the "elites" looking to bring in their New World Order via a grand deception, like 9/11/o1, but bigger. And of course they would ostracize those that don't buy it as "ignorant Christians set in their beliefs," etc., but that would just be more b.s.; there are really good reasons to doubt any alien revelation, and there is really good wisdom in the Bible too by the way, the warning of false prophets (e.g., "wise aliens") who can deceive many being an example of it (Mark 13:22).
Never assume, to do so is to be believing the lie that you know something that you really don't, and lies are of the devil, who is here only to kill and destroy (John 10:10).
Focus on la paz, la libertad, la verdad, y el amor!
C
p.s.
Here's another new article, also possibly for the purpose of mentally preparing the public for the coming fake revelation:
"Darwinism
is the totalizing claim that his [mutation-selection] mechanism
accounts for all the diversity of life. The evidence simply does not
support this claim. What evidence there is supports limited
variation within fixed fixed boundaries, or what is typically called
microevolution. Macroevolution--the unlimited plasticity of
organisms to diversify across all boundaries--even if true [which
it's not], cannot legitimately be attributed to the
mutation-selection mechanism. To do so is to extrapolate the theory
beyond its evidential base. This is always a temptation in
science--to think that one's theory encompasses a far bigger domain
than it actually does. In the heady early days of Newtonian
mechanics, physicists thought Newton's laws provided a total account
of the constitution and and dynamics of the universe. Maxwell,
Einstein and Heisenberg each showed that the proper domain of
Newtonian mechanics was far more constricted. So, too, the proper
domain of the mutation-selection mechanism is far more constricted
than most Darwinists would like to admit.
Indeed the
following problems have proven utterly intractable not only for the
mutation-selection mechanism but also for any other undirected
natural process proposed to date: the origin of life, the origin of
the genetic code, the origin of multicellular life, the origin of
sexuality, the scarcity of transitional forms in the fossil record,
the biological big bang that occurred in the Cambrian era, the
development of complex organ systems and the development of
irreducibly complex molecular machines. These are just a few of the
more serious difficulties that confront every theory of evolution
that posits only undirected natural processes. It is thus sheer
arrogance for Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett to
charge design theorists with being stupid or wicked or insane for
denying the all-sufficiency of undirected natural processes in
biology, or to compare challenging Darwinism with arguing for a flat
earth.
... Why
does Darwinism, despite being so inadequately supported as a
scientific theory, continue to garner the full support of the
academic establishment? What is it that continues to keep Darwinism
afloat despite its many glaring faults? Why are alternatives that
introduce design ruled out of court by fiat? Why must science
explain solely by recourse to undirected natural processes? Who
determines the rules of science? Is there a code of scientific
correctness which instead of helping lead us into truth, actively
prevents us from asking certain questions and thereby coming to the
truth? We are dealing with something more than a straightforward
determination of scientific facts or confirmation of scientific
theories."
-
Intelligent Design by
William A. Dembski (InterVarsity Press, IL, 1999), p.113, 114
“The
science of neo-Darwinism was poor all along, and supported by very few
facts. I have become ever more convinced that, although Darwinism has
been promoted as science, its unstated role has been to prop up a
philosophy—the philosophy of materialism—and atheism along with it. ...
The scientific evidence for evolution is not only weaker than is
generally supposed, but as new discoveries have been made since 1959,
the reasons for accepting the theory have diminished rather than
increased.”
- Darwin’s House of Cards: A Journalist’s Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates by Tom Bethell, p. 20, 45
"The attempt to explain the origin of life solely from chemical constituents is effectively dead now. Naturalism cannot answer the fundamental problem of how to get from matter and energy to biological function without the infusion of information from an intelligence. Information is not something derived from material properties; in a sense, it transcends matter and energy. Naturalistic theories that rely solely on matter and energy are not going to be able to account for information. Only intelligence can. I think that realization is going to progressively dawn on more and more people, especially younger scientists who have grown up in the age of information technology. ... Information is the hallmark of mind. And purely from the evidence of genetics and biology, we can infer the existence of a mind that's far greater than our own--a conscious, purposeful, rational, intelligent designer who's amazingly creative. There's no getting around it." - Professor Stephen C. Meyer Ph.D, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture [updated May 25th, 2021]
by Colin Denny Donoghue
Do you think your great, great, great (and so on) grandfather, was a
fish, and further back, pond scum? Do you think a banana is your distant cousin?
If so, I recommend thinking about that more (e.g., is that idea
disempowering?), and researching whether that idea is really true or not (it's not, as books like Zombie Science by Jonathan Wells make clear).
The
mainstream acceptance of Darwinian Evolution Theory as a fact, namely the theory that all life descended from single-cell organisms (which came into existence without any intelligence to give the needed complex genetic information), and then one species turned into another species (despite this never being observed),
demonstrates the power of forceful persuasion. If a false idea is
pushed on people repeatedly from "experts," and any questioning of the
idea is forcefully slandered and rejected outright, trying to intimidate people to accept their view, many people will be intimidated, and are then less likely to do their own research and discover that the idea being pushed is false. This is exactly what you find with those pushing Darwinian Evolution, they often resort to name-calling/slander, ignore the evidence that macro-evolution (i.e., one species becoming another species) doesn't actually happen, and try to frame the debate as "Science vs. God" (as if those that believe in God are necessarily anti-science, when they're not), or otherwise slander those that are rejecting Darwinian Theory.
But even if you
get passed that type of opposition to those questioning Darwinism to the more rational/professional-sounding, you're still being presented with misinformation. For example you can find articles on the internet that say certain fossils are definitely "transitional" from one species to another, and other articles that say some microscopic observation "proves" that one species can turn into another, but this all turns out to be little more than hand-waving, time and time again it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Be prepared for this; don't just take their word
for it, look critically to see if the evidence is really substantial, and read and listen to critiques of these studies if you can find them, luckily
there are a few good scientists out there that will explain why this
evidence is bunk (check resources below). If you just take the word of these scientific "authorities" then you are really just like Christians who believe in Church dogma without question. (And there is intersection between God-believers and atheists here too since many people now believe that Darwinian Evolution is just part of the design of the Creator.) Just as Christians have been misled by what church authorities say (especially the false teachings of the so-called Apostle Paul), many science-loving people have been misled by so-called authorities in the Scientific community; in both cases the public needs to look into the truth for themselves, especially concerning matters of such importance as the origin and nature of humanity. Just as there are those that point out the misinformation in nutrition studies backed by meat/dairy-industries (telling you dairy, eggs and butter are good for you), or chemical and cell-phone industries that tell you that their product is "safe," there are those pointing out the misinformation concerning human biology. Remember that "science" is often, and this is a historical fact, used to push misinformation on the public. It's prudent to be suspicious of the validity of various online articles, Wikipedia entries, social-media posts, along with popular magazine articles, and content in State-issued science textbooks, etc., and take a close look at the evidence refuting the so-called "proof"
of Darwinian Evolution. Despite its suppression, you can find a lot of technical scientific
literature, and common sense, showing that basic tenets of this
theory don't fit with reality, despite all the heated assertions of those pushing it on humanity; the fact of the matter is that Darwinian Evolution Theory flunks the science test. The following is just a brief summary of some of the main problems:
No real fossil evidence of transitional forms between species/kinds
at all; "Lucy" and other so-called "evidence" of a transitional species
is laughable in quality and has been thoroughly refuted, as the videos
and listed books below, along with many other sources, show. Whether
pointing to an ancient bird fossil and saying it's "half reptile"
without scientific basis (plus a useful/good reptilian leg mutating,
becoming less useful, while slowly becoming a good wing over
generations, doesn't help their survival chances by the way!), or
pointing to parts of a verified ape species and saying they're human, it's all just a mess of so-called evidence
that has been scientifically disproved time and
time again; every supposed "transitional fossil" turns out not to be so
when you look deeper into it (getting passed all the misinformation).
If there were really all these transitional species, there should be
massive numbers of examples of them (since the process of gradual
evolution supposedly happens over millions of years), but the Darwinian
evolutionists can only point to artist renditions and things like a
single tooth of "Nebraska Man" (that turned out to be from a pig!),
"Java Man" (that turned out to be a human), etc. This is probably why those pushing Darwinian Evolution tend not to
talk for long about specific fossil evidence of transitional
species from one kind of animal to another, or if they do it's pointing at more monkey, ape or human skulls. Speaking
of this commonly encountered tactic of avoidance of undisputed scientific evidence,
interestingly in the 2015 "Mistakes and Hoaxes" issue of Popular
Science magazine they have two separate articles on bunk evolutionary
science: the first on the "Piltdown Man," declared as another "missing
link" but turned out to be a hoax, and the second article on how the idea that
man evolved from apes doesn't actually hold up to the evidence. Admitting these
facts is very good, yet, for no scientific reason, they still insist
there is a "common ancestor" between humans and apes, even though they
cite no specific evidence for one! They just say there is, and that's
it. That's not real science. This heavily
slanted irrationality is typical of false belief, rather than of evidence
or experience taking precedence with one's claims about reality. They
refuse to let go of the evolutionary theory which has been proven bunk
over and over, and side-step the reality, referencing nothing in
particular, and apparently hope no one will notice! This same exact
thing is found in the HBO documentary Questioning Darwin,
in which they speak of "infinite evidence" for macroevolution, but then don't get into the
details of any! Again they just expect you to believe the "experts."
This "science" documentary, just like the very misleading PBS TV Series Evolution,
completely ignores all the scientists that reject Darwinian Evolution
as unscientific. Also showing its scientifically hollow core, it
is filled with long tangents on the
romanticized life of Darwin, plus a few cherry-picked Christians that
believe in an absolute
literal interpretation of everything in the Bible; the makers of this
documentary
(like current Wikipedia writers) were clearly trying to discredit the
idea of Intelligent Design (and Christianity), but, to
anyone with some basic awareness of the issue, obviously failed, just
as the PBS series failed, though both will sadly probably still work as
effective propaganda on many. It
appears the alternative possibility of Intelligent Design is so
unacceptable to these evolutionary theory propagators that they will
continue to twist (or just declare!) so-called facts to fit an
evolution/atheist world-view so that design appears "disproved," even
after it has been admitted in mainstream publications that it's their
own previous claims on evolution
that are the only thing that has been proven false.
National Geographic
magazine (the same magazine that recently had a perverse cover photo of
a boy dressed as a girl, pushing the transgender "revolution") had a
cover story titled "Was Darwin Wrong?," and ridiculously highlighted the
bulldog as proof that he wasn't! A bulldog is still a dog!
It's not a new species! Even though supposed transitional species
just keep getting disproven over and over again, atheist scientists keep
trying to fabricate evidence to fit their macro-evolution story, the
latest and most popular being "proof" of land animals morphing into
whales; if you actually look into this possibility you will discover
reality (and real science) does not support it.
"Assuming a generation time of twenty-five years for humans and five years for the ancestors of cetaceans [i.e., whales], Sternberg pointed out that fixing [i.e., establishing the population with the new mutation] just two mutations in the latter would take millions of years longer than the time available in the fossil record. So there isn't enough time to fix even two mutations, yet we need hundreds or even thousands of new mutations. Obviously, eight million years is not long enough to accumulate enough accidental mutations to turn a "walking whale" into a real whale--even if neo-Darwinian theory were right about the power of mutations (which it isn't)."
- Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p. 113
Related to the above problem of lacking fossil evidence for gradual
progressive change in life-forms going from one species to another,
there is no satisfactory explanation/evidence for how Darwinian
Evolution mechanisms could have facilitated the "Cambrian Explosion," otherwise known as "Darwin's Dilemma."
The fossil record of the immense number of new species suddenly
appearing on Earth directly contradicts Darwin's "tree of life"
hypothesis; there is not a slow gradual progression from simple to more
complex life forms as his theory claimed.
Other evolution theorists posit "cladogenesis" (i.e., one species
jumping to/"branching out" to be another kind of animal without
transition) as an alternative to the problem of lack of evidence for
transitional species, but they also deliver no solid
evidence/observation/explanation for their idea; in fact all that has
been observed is the extinction of many species over time, not
new ones popping up from older ones via physical birthing; therefore
this other aspect of evolutionary theory is also not scientific at all,
and it also contradicts the very definition of evolutionary theory!
These evolutionists now say evolution occurs suddenly without transition
(hence the "genesis," no irony using that term huh?), but that's exactly the opposite of what the theory has been proposing:
gradual changes in species that result in a whole new species!
Evolutionists claim that so-called "micro-evolution" leads to "macro-evolution" (i.e., Darwinian Evolution
of one kind into another), but again this is just speculation without
confirmed observation. The common claim by evolutionary theorists that
"from one-celled
organisms evolved all life on earth" is a baseless statement (no
authoritative specific evidence, only circumstantial); that's not good science! Even the the term "microevolution" is not accurate:
"It is
usual at this point to make a distinction between microevolution and
macroevolution, and to add that microevolution is obviously true.
You differ from your parents, and you may do so in a thousand ways;
we all differ from each other in small ways. Therefore, the argument
goes, microevolution is a fact. But it is misleading, surely, to
identify small individual differences as "evolutionary"--even
if only in a "micro" way. Variations between generations
were known to us long before Darwin, without ever being regarded as
small steps in the direction of something completely new--incipient
speciation, for example. They are a fact of life, not evolution in
miniature." ...
"In
1980, the science writer Roger Lewin described a gathering of about
150 leading evolutionary theorists at the University of Chicago.
Their conference was entitled "Macroevolution," and their
task was "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of
species." Lewin wrote the following in Science magazine:
'The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the
mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain
the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to
the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be
given as a clear No.'"
- Darwin's
House of Cards by Tom Bethell (Discovery Institute Press, Seattle
WA, 2017), p. 94, 97.
"The
proliferation of antibiotic resistance is clearly an example of
microevolution, but it just as clearly not an example of
macroevoltion. Bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics do not
thereby become new species. Yet many people in the scientific
establishment routinely equivocate
on the word "evolution," switching back and forth between
microevolution and macroevolution as though they were the same thing.
In some cases theequivocation might be due to misunderstanding but
in other cases it is a deliberate attempt to mislead.
When anthropologist Eugenie Scott was serving as executive director
of the aggressively pro-evolution National Center for Science
Education, she wrote about how to deal with "anti-evolutionism."
Scott would introduce college students to evolution "as an
issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understand
change through time. The present is different from the past.
Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether
it happened, and so on." Only afterwards would she bring in
Darwin's "Big Idea," which is what "we want students
to know about organic evolution." This is called
"bait-and-switch." Start with an idea everyone accepts,
then slip in something more controversial and hope no one notices."
[False equivocation and bait-and-switch are classic propaganda
techniques.]
-Zombie
Science: More Icons of Evolution
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p.155
Changes within a species have been observed, like with
the beaks of finches ("Darwin's finches"), the color of
beach mice or moths, and the development of antibiotic-resistant
bacteria. There has been no observation or evidence
of mutation creating a new kind of animal (despite great efforts,
especially with many generations of fruit flies, and irrational focus on changes in some flowering plants), and yet this is given
as the
main means of evolution! Evolutionists, who couldn't find examples of speciation with
animals, suggested redefining the word species to include different
breeds of dog; this is classic bullshit artistry, redefining terms
to fit your bunk argument. Very limited speciation has only been observed with some flowering plants, but nothing of enough complexity occurring to account for the major changes that need to be explained by Darwin's common ancestry tree of life for all life forms, including us. With animals mutations are observed to
recombine alreadyexisting information, or to result in a loss
of information (a.k.a. genetic entropy); it doesn't add new information
to the
genome that would account for molecules-to-man evolution; which
follows the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (See chapter eleven of the book Darwin's Doubt for responses to the supposed "proof" of new information emergence counter-claim of Darwinists.) The consistent observation is overwhelmingly that the human genome has been degrading over time, not evolving into superior form. Mutation is overwhelming destructive, not constructive. No mutations have ever been shown to produce new beneficial anatomical features that could turn land animals into whales, and when examining the amazing details of whale biology, becomes even more clearly impossible (no transitional species could survive).
"From
a materialistic point of view, organisms are reducible to molecules,
so the central dogma can be summarized as DNA makes RNA makes
protein makes us." ...
"Historian
of biology Jan Sapp has documented how gene-centered thinking became
the dominant viewpoint in biology during the twentieth century. But
evidence has accumulated that such a narrow view distorts reality.
If "makes" is taken to mean "fully specifies,"
then it turns out that DNA does not make RNA, RNA does not make
protein, and protein does not make us." "... the claim
that "DNA makes RNA makes protein" is false. but it is
the central dogma's final step--making us--that it fails the most
dramatically. ... Animal
development creates a complex three-dimensional multicellular
organism not by starting from the linear information in DNA... but
always starting from an already highly complex three-dimensional
unicellular organism, the fertilized egg. ... In her 2000
Harvard University Press book The Century of the Gene, MIT
professor Evelyn Fox Keller had written, "For almost fifty
years, we lulled ourselves into believing that, in discovering the
molecular basis of genetic information, we had found the 'secret of
life.'" But "the primacy of the gene as the core
explanatory concept of biological structure and function is more a
feature of the twentieth century than it will be of the
twenty-first." This is so, she argued, because it has become
clear that the program for living things "consists of, and lives
in, the interactive complex made up of genomic structures and the
vast network of cellular machinery in which these structures are
embedded. It may even be that this program is irreducible--in the
sense, that is, that nothing less complex than the organism itself is
able to do the job." But if this fantastically sophisticated
program is irreducible, if nothing less complex could do the job,
then how could it have evolved to its present state by one mutation
at a time--genetic or otherwise? Zombie science lumbers past this
question without taking it seriously. Fruit flies with useless extra
wings or missing legs have taught us something about developmental
genetics, but nothing about how evolution might build new form and
function. All of the evidence points to one conclusion: No matter
what we do to the DNA of a fruit fly embryo, there are only three
possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a
dead fruit fly. Not even a horse fly, much less a horse. ... So the
central dogma continues to mislead scientist and non-scientists
alike. True, some DNA sequences encode some RNAs, and some RNA
sequences encode proteins, but in general the central dogma is false.
DNA does not contain the genetic program for an organism, and DNA is
far from being the secret of life. Continued faith in it is rooted
in materialism. The fault doesn't lie with our genes, but with
zombie science." - Zombie
Science: More Icons of Evolution
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., p. 86, 90-91, 92-93, 97
No scientific explanation for the immense complexity of DNA
(or the brain, etc., of all
of the incredible life-forms found on Earth) occurring via random
mutations. To say the immense complexity that comprises all the
life-forms of such awe-inspiring beauty and functionality could come
into existence simply via mutation, random chance and time is baseless
irrationality (basically equivalent to saying a whirlwind in a junkyard
could produce a fully functioning and polished Ferrari, if the whirlwind
just had enough time!)... it's
evidence-less
theory,
that also goes against the Second Law of Thermodynamics (we observe
material things decay over time when left to themselves, they don't
become more ordered). To posit that the amazingly functional
biological complexity found
on Earth (like humans) happened by Darwinian processes alone, without Intelligent
Design of life-forms or of the supposed Darwinian life-making process,
is accepting probabilities
that
are so astronomically low as to be impossible for all practical
purposes. For example, based on the observed complexity
of DNA, in order for that to exist by chance as it is in its fully functional
and amazing form in even "simple" organisms,
it's been calculated that
we're talking about something like a chance of 1
in 10-to-the-600th power (1 followed by 600 zeros), a number so
ridiculously large it's well beyond any
comprehension, or relevance. Good science always rejects impossible
probabilities, yet Darwinian Evolution proponents give a pass on this
requirement, to blindly support their bunk theory. And regardless, on
top of this
mathematical implausibility, the idea of DNA manifesting randomly
contradicts what scientists have observed and discovered about DNA:
There is no evidence that DNA can exist without already existing DNA to create it; all observation shows no
DNA manifestation from existing material substances. Evolutionists
propose "abiogenesis" happens, i.e. "the natural process by which life
arises from non-living matter," yet once again they can provide zero
observational evidence for this ever occurring! Both DNA
replication and correct reading of its code require information, information in enzymes that are precisely specified by the DNA itself;
absolutely no by-chance creation of DNA by something of lesser
complexity has ever been observed. The Law of Biogenesis states
that no life can come from non-living matter, and this is for good
reason, it is an observational fact that is in complete opposition to
their abiogenesis theory.
The amazing automatic DNA self-repair process, which is carried out by a fully developed repair machinery that is already in place when you begin with life, and is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the DNA. Trying to explain this very elaborate repair mechanism by random chance and mutation is really absurd; even "the most modest bacterium has over 200 repair mechanisms at play at all times."
Natural selection is not a macro-evolutionary process, there is
always a genetic barrier that prevents someone from breeding dogs into
cats (or any other species). Darwinists utilize an insufficient
natural process to try to remedy the problem of macro-evolution's
impossible probability. The impossible remains impossible over time, yet
they want you to believe some unobserved biological magic happens just
because of the passing of a lot of time. Natural selection is a tautology: "Animals that have the most offspring (the fittest), will have the most offspring." This is taken as the means for the diversity of life on Earth? That's absurd.
One very common (and very bunk) claim made by Darwinisits is that
similarity between some life-forms is proof of a common ancestor.
Shared DNA is not proof of speciation (i.e. one species becoming
another species). An analogy: Shared lego building blocks between
lego
creations doesn't prove that one lego creation can transform into
another lego creation. A Darwinian scientist once used photos of
similar cars (corvettes) in back-to-back model-years to supposedly demonstrate
how macro-evolution happens, forgetting that each car was designed and
made by intelligent beings! His "science" was bunk, just as is
that which says my ancestors include bananas. Humans share about
50% of their DNA with
bananas, but that doesn't prove that humans and bananas have a common
ancestry, it only proves that they share some of the same building
material. (And by the way the claim that humans and chimpanzees
have DNA that is 98% similar has been shown to be false, the number is
about 70%.) Since having the majority of the same DNA building
blocks is not sufficient to prove macro-evolution or explain how exactly organs, etc. would drastically change from one form to another,
evolutionists resort to simple drawings they make up to try and deceive
the public and/or rationalize their bunk theory. And when there
are not similar enough looking species to line up next to each other in
illustrations, those illustrations are often doctored in ways that there
is no fossil evidence for whatsoever (putting in webbed feet, making
Neanderthals (who were ancient humans) look more like apes, etc.).
For the ape-to-human-connection they we able to convince many people
because there are many extinct monkey and ape species they could point
to, and fill in the gaps with "Lucy" etc.. This is their more convincing
(while still very false) macro-evolution story, but then with animals
like elephants or trilobites they have little to nothing to offer in
their story-telling, so they usually don't talk about the latter.
Again,
some similar genetics or body structures does not demonstrate common
ancestry, but just
some common building materials and at times somewhat similar
bodies. Returning to the example of similar cars (all of which
were designed and created by an intelligent being), putting them
side-by-side to prove that one morphed into the other is not "science,"
it's just a story that can seem plausible; lies often can seem plausible
to people, but if they look and think more carefully they will discover
that they are lies.
Inference of intelligence (i.e., of Intelligent Design) from
biological/physical evidence is valid science, to claim that scientific
evidence can never indicate the operation of an intelligent being, is
clearly false, e.g. scientists have been listening to signals in space
for many years hoping to find some signs of intelligent extraterrestrial
life. Inference of intelligence is also of course key to
archaeology and forensic science.
The problem of "irreducible complexity," i.e., if you backtrack one
step in the supposed evolutionary process of an organism, like say
remove one of the components of the flagellum (a whip like appendage
that moves around to propel a bacteria, spun by a precise biological
motor), it wouldn't work at all, so the species would be at an extreme
disadvantage, e.g. not being able to move. In Darwin's book The Origin of Species, in the "Difficulties on Theory" chapter, Darwin said: "If
it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not
possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."And that's exactly what has been demonstrated by the flagellum, along with other biological components (see also book references below for even more details). Also speaking of the origin of life-forms, the clearest and most important example of irreducible complexity is the origin of life,
which Darwinists have given no solid explanation for whatsoever,
theorizing that it possibly involved "amino acids piggy-backing on
crystals" and/or "advanced aliens"! Even "basic" proteins are actually of such a
complexity that expecting them to form without design also doesn't hold
up to analysis. How the initial building blocks of life
actually turned into complex cellular life is completely unaccounted
for, they just give unscientific ideas like that, or the classic
"lightning strikes in a primordial soup could do it," even though this
has never been observed or produced in a laboratory.
Darwinian Theory has no solid explanation for consciousness, free
will, or conscience. Speaking of consciousness, use your own
to ponder this question: How could dead matter evolve into consciousness? And related to this, where did our conscience
come from? And where did free will come from if there is no free
will among atoms, etc. which always unwaveringly obey physical
laws? Darwinian Evolution Theory, and the
ultra-materialist anti-spiritual perspective that goes along with
it, seems to be even against the obvious fact of our own consciousness
and free will, by saying that we're governed simply by chemical
processes and survival instincts.
These rational scientific observations are repeatedly ignored and
sidestepped by Darwinian Evolution proponents, who in my experience
often resort to hate-filled name-calling at this point in the
conversation, along with statements like "If you believe in God prove
its existence!" or they will otherwise just give sweeping statements
like "We're all related!" and "Evolution is a fact!" (as if that's
fulfilling the request for specific evidence!); all of the replies like
these totally abandon the science of evolution as the topic of discussion, a debating failure/loss. Some even seem to be trying to redefine the meaning of science (just
as they have also tried to redefine the meaning of evolution with
"cladogeneis" and redefine the term species to "prove" evolution between
two species that are really still the same species). Science is: "The evidence-based study of the material/physical world/universe, using observation and experimental investigation utilizing the scientific method," so
saying that being able to produce solid evidence, reproducible
experimental results or mechanistic/physical explanation isn't necessary
is quite a stretch of legitimacy. In so doing (along with their
dubious redefining of terns), they are showing what's really going on
beneath their scientific veneer: they're actually pushing a false
belief, not a science, and their hateful attacks on people that believe
in Intelligent Design/a Creator, and/or others who are simply pointing out the lack of
evidence for Darwinian Evolution, is just lame and dumb (making their
slanderous remarks on those intelligently questioning Darwin a clear example of psychological projection).
"In the face of these forced admissions of failure to find supporting
scientific evidence, how can these men of science continue to press so
dogmatically for their shaky views? No wonder they fight to keep
students from hearing the opposing arguments. Their positions would
crumble under the impartial investigation of honest research." ~ Joe Crews, How Evolution Flunked the Science Test, p. 20
This all shows that a) their theory is not actually sound, and b) they
are more interested in defending their ideology than in following the
scientific method and honoring whatever the truth is. They want people
to believe bananas are our distant cousins (which is an extremely
incredible idea, whether you are religious or not), and then ignore requests to show solid evidence for this claim.
This inability to point to specific evidence is ongoing as I add this
additional note now; the comments I keep receiving on this post from the
Darwinian-Evolution-defenders consist of one diversion after another
and/or one personal attack after another, but still no solid scientific
evidence. Here's a
good comment I found in reply to some of the aggressive/slandering
anti-science pro-Darwinian Evolution trolls that abound online: "You
should not make comments. You
aren't helping the evolutionists' cause because all your speech is
filled with hatred and scorn but no actual scientific refutations!
... - the things in this video [below] have certainly NOT been
debunked. You are either lying or are just ignorant." The slanderous non-scientific comments being referred to, that I have also seen many times, just add further support to
the scientific position rejecting Darwinian Evolution as fact. When Darwinian evolution has been put on trial by those who care more about the truth than pushing an atheistic world-view, it has been found clearly guilty of impersonating solid science.
~~~
As
I said at the top of this post, the theory of Evolution has been pushed
very forcefully on the population, by supposed experts, and so many
"educated" people just take it as fact because they "trust the
scientific community." In the same way, people follow the blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation version of Christianity
that is pushed on them via the church establishment, because they trust
in that too. Misplaced trust in, and one could even say the worship of, the false idols of hierarchical and authoritarian
institutions is a long, sad and tragic story that continues
to this day, disempowering and misleading countless people, generation after generation.
So what is so disempowering and misleading about the theory of Evolution? It's simple
and subtle, but powerful. The main take-away from this theory, that remember says humans evolved from a "primordial soup," is: "You
came from pond scum." Therefore the subconscious association made is "You are scum." And therefore also "There is nothing
Divine about you," also supporting, "God does not exist."
These beliefs do have an affect on the minds of men; for example the mass-murderer Jeffrey Dahmer:
"If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be
accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify
your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I
thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth,
that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you
know, that was it, there is nothing…" ~ Interview with Stone
Phillips on the NBC television program Dateline, Nov. 29,
1994.
It would be wrong to not address the latter subject of Divinity in more depth here, since it is of course very worthy of discussion, and is usually part of the debate concerning the origin of life, so I will do so now, but briefly, since this post is more about disproving Darwinian Evolution than it is about trying to convince people there is a Divine Creator. Many atheists point to evils in the world as proof that there is no loving Divinity. This perspective operates on certain assumptions, though as far as I've seen, usually never directly stating the assumptions, probably because their perspective would become instantly less solid-sounding if they did:
Assumption #1: "There is no evil force opposing the Creator." This is quite an assumption, being that it goes against thousands of years of theology, history and psychology that clearly point to exactly the opposite. They assume that the Creation hasn't been corrupted by separate evil, and isn't continuing to be corrupted further by separate evil, even though the evidence for that grows daily.
Assumption #2: "A good God wouldn't permit evil." And you know this without a doubt... how exactly? You know the entire metaphysical reality and what is ultimately necessary and/or for the best? This is basically the "I'm enlightened" atheist perspective... yet I'm pretty sure they're not enlightened/omniscient. Also the question of evil has very intelligent responses from current and ancient philosophers, e.g. that in order for there to be people with free will evil has to be allowed as a possible choice, otherwise we would all just be programmed robots, which would be a world without love or freedom, and so not worth creating.
Assumption #3: "Natural Disasters and Birth Defects prove there's no loving Creator and that Intelligent Design is false." A study of the Earth's amazingly complex and against-all-odds life-sustaining operations makes fixation on natural disasters irrational, and also ignores their unavoidable existence within the Ecology/Earth-Sciences that is overall life-preserving (e.g. Plate Tectonics: "For life, advanced or primitive, to exist for more than a few million
years, a planet’s crust must easily crack into movable plates that can
slide both past and underneath one another.") As for birth defects, again this is irrational fixation, ignoring the fact that the majority of babies are still, even with the problems of genetic entropy, extreme increases in toxic chemicals, radiation, etc. born perfect. (Similarly atheists will point to "Junk DNA" and vestigial organs as evidence there is no designer, while both fixations again ignore the bigger reality, and also ignore the repeated revelations concerning what was at first thought useless turned out to be not so). They also ignore the fact that leading causes of birth defects are caused by evils of human society that were not part of the original natural design at all, e.g. chemical/radioactive weapons, recreational and pharmaceutical drugs, x-rays and other tools of modern medicine, etc. Creation has been increasingly corrupted; to ignore the pure origin and focus only on the present is irrational. So Assumption #3 ignores the details of physiological/geological reality and history, and that does not make for a good basis of argument (nor does any assumption).
~~~
Returning to the reality-ignoring theory of Evolution, the main affect of this theory on humanity, like all malevolent propaganda, is disempowerment. Think this evaluation of Evolution theory as propaganda is a
stretch? Well, the reality is: Transmitting a very simple and subtle, but also very detrimental false
idea, repeatedly and forcefully to your subconscious mind, is the very
hallmark of effective propaganda. Darwinian Evolution theory which
is pushed on the population fits that formula perfectly, it is "Big Lie"
propaganda that is pushed out in the open (like the official 9/11 story,
from which the main subconscious takeaway is "I need the Government to
protect me, the Government = the good guys."). There are of course other subtle
forms of propaganda out in the mainstream too, like the popularized "revolutionary" street
artists whose main imagery depicts common people as rats/vermin, or who
plaster the word "Obey" everywhere, neither of which is revolutionary at all,
despite whatever "clever" rationalizations are given in explanation.
The subconscious doesn't deal with those rationalizations, it deals with
"I'm scum," "I'm vermin," "I should obey," and "Government is
good/needed and keeps us safe." Those that seek to control populations
(yes, there really are such authoritarian people, if you doubt this read
a little history), especially in current times, seem to know that the
power of belief serves them better than anything else, and if you get
the population to believe extremely disempowering ideas like that of
scum-of-the-earth Evolution and distorted
blood-sacrifice/magical-incantation Christianity, then the masses are much
much easier to control; both science and religion have been clearly
manipulated via establishment institutions to serve the purpose of
mind/population control. You can dismissively call this a conspiracy
theory, but then that would just ironically reveal another false belief
you've been indoctrinated to hold, i.e. that conspiracies don't actually
happen on a regular basis; conspiracies (i.e. people working secretly
together for a selfish/harmful purpose) are commonplace in the
corporate, political and economic realms of society; that's just a
common-sense fact. Once you see clearly how the main scientific and
religious ideas pushed on us are complete bullshit, and you see why
those ideas would be pushed, it's no stretch of the imagination, it's
actually waking up to the truth.
The following are excellent resources on the theory of evolution for evaluation, keep in mind that the science academy/institutions have been heavily censoring the publication of reputable articles concerning Intelligent Design and/or showing the faults of Evolutionary Theory (and firing/"disciplining" any scientists that even mention Intelligent Design), so these books in particular are how the quality information has thus far been best presented to the public (though the videos/interviews and websites below also contain excellent information):
"No one has ever seen a quark, and we believe that no one ever will. They are so tightly bound to each other inside the protons and neutrons that nothing can make them break out on their own. Why, then, do I believe in these invisible quarks? ... In summary, it's because quarks make sense of a lot of direct physical evidence... I wish to engage in a similar strategy with regard to the unseen reality of God. His existence makes sense of many aspects of our knowledge and experience: the order and fruitfulness of the physical world; the multi-layered character of reality; ... the phenomenon of Jesus Christ... I think that very similar thought processes are involved in both cases. I do not believe that I shift in some strange intellectual way when I move from science to religion. ... In their search for truth, science and faith are intellectual cousins under the skin."
~ John Polkinghorne, Quarks, Chaos and Christianity, p. 98-100
"Faith does not imply a closed, but an open mind. Quite the opposite of blindness, faith appreciates the vast spiritual realities that materialists overlook by getting trapped in the purely physical."
