From: Natural News
by Mike Adams
(NaturalNews) Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and
they'll usually give you a one-word answer: "Evolution." Immediately
thereafter, they will usually give you a condescending look that also
implies you're an idiot for not knowing this "scientific fact" that
everyone else has accepted as true.
It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn't even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. "natural selection") explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.
Darwin, in other words, did not study the "reproduction of rocks" because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.
Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from. How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can't "evolve" life forms from dead rocks, after all... unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.
It turns out, however, that the scientist is suffering from a delusion. Evolution doesn't even encompass origins of life. Rather, evolution (i.e. "natural selection") explains a process by which species undergo a process of adaptation, fitness and reproduction in response to environmental, behavioral and sexual influences. No rational person can deny that natural selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria, plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to non-existent life.
Darwin, in other words, did not study the "reproduction of rocks" because there is no such thing. He studied animals which were already alive.
Thus, the "Theory of Evolution" utterly fails to address the ORIGIN of where the first life forms came from. How did natural selection have anything to work on in the first place? You can't "evolve" life forms from dead rocks, after all... unless the evolutionists are now embracing the theory of spontaneous resurrection of dead objects into living organisms.
So the question remains: Where did life ORIGINATE?
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question. So let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest skepticism.
Evolution as a theory of the origin of life is a FAITH, not science
According
to scientists, you can never argue with scientists because they
uniquely have a monopoly on all knowledge. Their beliefs can never be
questioned because they are beyond any need to be validated. "Scientific
truth" is true because they say it is, and the faith-based belief that
evolution explains the origins of life cannot be questioned either.
Yet question it we will! So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.
According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of -- gravity, electromagnetism, etc. -- came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. "Give me one miracle," they're fond of saying, "and we can explain everything that follows."
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang -- where no life existed -- and today, life must have appeared.
But how?
Yet question it we will! So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang. No biological organism could have possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological life.
According to physicists, the Big Bang itself followed no pre-existing laws of the cosmos. In fact, all physical laws that we know of -- gravity, electromagnetism, etc. -- came out of the Big Bang. Even the very fabric of reality was created by it (space and time).
The Big Bang is the faith-based miracle of modern science. "Give me one miracle," they're fond of saying, "and we can explain everything that follows."
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained. How could everything suddenly come from nothing? How could an entire universe come into existence without a cause? These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe. This is, of course, a matter of faith, not fact.
And what about the origins of life in all this? Today, supposedly 13.8 billion years later, we see life all around us. Logically, somewhere between the Big Bang -- where no life existed -- and today, life must have appeared.
But how?
Scientists believe in magic
Again,
if you ask most scientists about the origins of life, they will blindly
and dutifully answer "evolution!" Yet without life already existing,
there is nothing to evolve. So where did LIFE come from?
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that's their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because "magic" is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does. Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it's all done by magic! (I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)
All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.
Ultimately, the answer given by scientists is that life spontaneously sprang from lifelessness. Seriously, that's their real answer. They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because "magic" is the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
So evolution really doesn't explain the origins of life after all. Magic does. Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it's all done by magic! (I guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)
All of a sudden, the idea of a Creator who seeded the Big Bang or seeded the universe with life seems a lot less whacky than the "magical" explanations of many conventional scientists. It is far more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient, highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into existence for no reason whatsoever.
Atheism, soullessness and permanent death
Conventional
scientists, of course, will go through tremendous contortions to try to
remove any idea of a designer, engineer or Creator from their
worldview. That's because nearly all of them are devout atheists who
also disavow any belief in consciousness, free will, the soul, God or
spirituality. According to their own explanations, they themselves are
mindless biological robots suffering from the mere delusion of mind
created as a kind of artificial projection of mechanistic biological
brain function.
See my mini-documentary "The God Within" for a more detailed exploration of this:
The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually "alive" in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it's actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.
Their faith-based beliefs are always described as "facts" while they proclaim other people's beliefs are "delusions." You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
See my mini-documentary "The God Within" for a more detailed exploration of this:
The twisted philosophy of many scientists also raises bizarre ethical lapses, such as their belief that killing a lab rat, or a dog, or even another human being is of no ethical consequence since all those creatures are not actually "alive" in any real way. This is why drug companies, vaccine manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for conducting deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
The worst trait of conventional scientists is not merely that they are wildly self-deluded into believing they have no real consciousness; it's actually the fact that they are simultaneously wildly arrogant, even combative about forcing their twisted beliefs onto others.
Their faith-based beliefs are always described as "facts" while they proclaim other people's beliefs are "delusions." You cannot argue with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational defense.
The vaccine faith test
As an example of this, ask any doctor or pharmacist this question: "Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine?"
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!" In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
It's like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.
You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, "Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?"
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, "Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe."
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of "mercury," a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.
Ask the doctor, "Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?"
The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about vaccines -- a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).
If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in "Scientism." Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate "facts" anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise. This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are "interfering with their medications" and not the other way around. The drugs are assumed to have originated from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred, divine status: Big Pharma!
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!" In the faith-based beliefs of the scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition. Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other words.
It's like asking a devout Christian whether there might be no God. The question is so contradictory to their belief system that it cannot be processed.
You can test this further by asking a vaccine-pushing doctor, "Is there anything that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe?"
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer, "Well, sure, there are all sorts of toxins that could be added to a vaccine that would make it unsafe."
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble onto the self-evident answer of "mercury," a deadly neurotoxin which remains present in many modern vaccines.
Ask the doctor, "Has any safe level of mercury ever been established for injection into a child?"
The answer, of course, is no. Logically, no vaccine containing mercury can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about vaccines -- a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).
If, at any point in this questioning process, you get stonewalled by this person, recognize they are abandoning reason and reverting to their faith in "Scientism." Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status. They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is required nor even desired. Who needs to validate "facts" anyway? Everyone already knows they are true, right?
All drugs are assumed to be safe and effective unless proven otherwise. This is why doctors warn patients that their dietary supplements are "interfering with their medications" and not the other way around. The drugs are assumed to have originated from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred, divine status: Big Pharma!
Many scientists are incapable of recognizing their own logical fallacies
Many
scientists, sadly, do not grasp the chasms in their own belief systems.
They are incapable of realizing that many of their own beliefs are
based in a system of faith rather than a system of rational thought.
When scientists talk about evolution, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of Scientism requires no proof, only faith. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of Scientism.
This is not unusual in religions. Christianity, for example, assumes God exists and does not need to "prove" it. His existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject. Yet science follows the exact same pattern.
Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn't enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here's a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.
These promises are now little more than laughable examples of delusional thinking from a failed Scientism project that mostly yielded bankrupt biotech companies rather than miracle cures.
When scientists talk about evolution, they do so from an all-encompassing arrogance that assumes they are correct by default. Anyone daring to debate with them must prove they are wrong, yet they themselves have no obligation to prove they are right. The faith of Scientism requires no proof, only faith. It is assumed correct as a key principle of the religion of Scientism.
This is not unusual in religions. Christianity, for example, assumes God exists and does not need to "prove" it. His existence is accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong; it is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject. Yet science follows the exact same pattern.
Even the theory of natural selection based on purely mechanistic genetic inheritance contains enormous gaps in logic and is therefore a matter of faith. For starters, there isn't enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: Here's a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease. Once the human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from humankind, we were all promised.
These promises are now little more than laughable examples of delusional thinking from a failed Scientism project that mostly yielded bankrupt biotech companies rather than miracle cures.
Most scientists believe all people are mindless robots
Another glaring contradiction among many scientists is their comedic belief that everyone else is a mindless biological robot except themselves!
Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free will,
inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone, as their
books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.
Yet this very belief contradicts their entire view of everyone else. All "minds" are illusions, they claim, and there is no such thing as consciousness. If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking or other devout Scientism worshippers are, according to their own claims, worthless drivel produced via an "automatic writing" process powered by mindless, soulless chemical reactions housed in a mechanistic mass of neurons floating in a skull. Their books, therefore, utterly lack all meaning and serve no purpose. The words they contain are merely "knee-jerk writings" from humanoid automatons.
Yet this very belief contradicts their entire view of everyone else. All "minds" are illusions, they claim, and there is no such thing as consciousness. If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking or other devout Scientism worshippers are, according to their own claims, worthless drivel produced via an "automatic writing" process powered by mindless, soulless chemical reactions housed in a mechanistic mass of neurons floating in a skull. Their books, therefore, utterly lack all meaning and serve no purpose. The words they contain are merely "knee-jerk writings" from humanoid automatons.
How can consciousness have evolved if it serves no purpose?
And
there's another huge contradiction in the scientific community. Most
conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion which
somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual members of a
species could operate under the illusion of free will. Yet, at the same
time, they claim this false "mind" has no actual impact on the real
world because it is, by definition, an illusion.
So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
This is a stinging contradiction demonstrating the false beliefs of the materialists (i.e. mainstream scientists). Given enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions they shamelessly promote as "facts."
In truth, many scientific "facts" all boil down to "beliefs."
So how can an illusory phenomenon drive natural selection and evolution if it has no impact on the real world?
This is a stinging contradiction demonstrating the false beliefs of the materialists (i.e. mainstream scientists). Given enough time and effort, I could name a hundred more obvious contradictions they shamelessly promote as "facts."
In truth, many scientific "facts" all boil down to "beliefs."
Today's twisted "science" is just another kind of religion
Why am I covering all this here on Natural News?
Because if we are to move forward as a civilization, we must transcend
the silly belief that anything pursued under the flag of modern-day
"science" is automatically and factually superior (perhaps even divine)
to all other forms of understanding.
Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.
For your amusement and explorations, some useful questions you can ask Scientism followers to quickly exposed their false beliefs include:
• Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?
• Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
• If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, "automatic" and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any "choice" in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no "choice" because they have no free will?
• If the human genome doesn't contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?
• If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the "illusion of consciousness" cannot have any "real" impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?
• If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)
• What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by "laws" which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?
• If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe "remember" its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
... and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter to expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
Any system of thought which cannot tolerate questions or challenges to its beliefs is no science at all.
For your amusement and explorations, some useful questions you can ask Scientism followers to quickly exposed their false beliefs include:
• Is there such thing as an unsafe vaccine? Or are all vaccines automatically safe by definition?
• Do you beat your dog? If animals have no souls and no consciousness, then do you agree it is of no ethical consequence to torture dolphins and elephants? What about primates? Cats? Neighbors?
• If free will does not exist, then no one can be held responsible for their actions. All actions are, by definition, "automatic" and of no fault of the person because there cannot be any "choice" in an unconscious brain. If you believe this, then do you also support freeing all murderers and rapists from prison because they are not responsible for their actions? What purpose does punishment serve if violent criminals have no "choice" because they have no free will?
• If the human genome doesn't contain enough information to describe a complete human form, then how is inheritance purely mechanistic?
• If consciousness is an illusion, by what mechanism does the brain create this illusion? And for what purpose? What evolutionary advantage could this serve if the "illusion of consciousness" cannot have any "real" impact on behavior? By definition, natural selection should de-emphasize useless brain functions. So how did consciousness survive for so long?
• If natural selection can only function on pre-existing life forms, where did the first life come from? How did it arise? (Magic?)
• What caused the Big Bang? If nothing caused it, how do you explain a universe governed by "laws" which, itself, sprang into existence by not following laws?
• If the laws of the universe came into existence during the Big Bang, and if other parallel universes might have different constants governing variations of the physical laws we know and understand, how does our universe "remember" its selected laws? Can physical constants change? Can the speed of light change? Does it vary in a repeatable pattern?
... and so on. With questions like these, it is a simple matter to expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
It's time to dethrone the High Priests of Scientism
If we are to move forward as a civilization we must dethrone the high priests of Scientism
and get back to a process of real science where questions are welcomed,
humility is restored, and discovery, not arrogance, reigns supreme.
This is the process I embrace here at Natural News, and it is why millions of readers across the world now turn to Natural News instead of arrogant science publications like Scientific American, a faith-based Scientism magazine that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda "Bible" for believers. Any publication that says people should not know what's in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.
Bottom line? Modern-day "science" is riddled with enormous contradictions and knowledge gaps. The most devout followers of this "science" define themselves as meaningless, mindless biological robots living out purposeless lives. They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being "an illusion" as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.
These Scientism followers will never acknowledge any gaps in their own knowledge, as they believe they are uniquely gifted with a divine, irrefutable truth which cannot be questioned and need never be validated. No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as "mercury in dental fillings is harmless" or "chemotherapy saves lives." All pronouncements of drug companies, biotech firms and chemical companies are automatically accepted as The Word of God in that they are all-knowing, all-powerful and never to be questioned.
To succeed as a civilization, we must collectively recognize the fallibility of this faith-based system of false belief and return to a process of true discovery that transcends the failures of modern-day science.
And don't even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That's another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.
This is the process I embrace here at Natural News, and it is why millions of readers across the world now turn to Natural News instead of arrogant science publications like Scientific American, a faith-based Scientism magazine that now functions as little more than a corporate sellout propaganda "Bible" for believers. Any publication that says people should not know what's in their food (GMO labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to be denied knowledge.
Bottom line? Modern-day "science" is riddled with enormous contradictions and knowledge gaps. The most devout followers of this "science" define themselves as meaningless, mindless biological robots living out purposeless lives. They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being "an illusion" as they explain it. Jerry Sandusky is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless beliefs of modern-day science.
These Scientism followers will never acknowledge any gaps in their own knowledge, as they believe they are uniquely gifted with a divine, irrefutable truth which cannot be questioned and need never be validated. No evidence is required to support their core faiths such as "mercury in dental fillings is harmless" or "chemotherapy saves lives." All pronouncements of drug companies, biotech firms and chemical companies are automatically accepted as The Word of God in that they are all-knowing, all-powerful and never to be questioned.
To succeed as a civilization, we must collectively recognize the fallibility of this faith-based system of false belief and return to a process of true discovery that transcends the failures of modern-day science.
And don't even get me started on the rise of killer robots and artificial intelligence. That's another case where the arrogance and delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.
For further reading for those who dare to question the false beliefs of Scientism
Essential knowledge for all: Science Set Free: 10 New Paths to Discovery by Rupert Sheldrake.
Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dean Radin.
Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat.
Supernormal: Science, Yoga, and the Evidence for Extraordinary Psychic Abilities by Dean Radin.
Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era by James Barrat.
No comments:
Post a Comment