Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Lies And The Endoctrination Of Our Youth

A month ago I went to Chicago and made a trip to one of my favorite museums, the Science and Industry Museum. Now if you know me, you know that I love science but hate lies in science. This is also called me hating evolution being indoctrinated at museums. I have a problem with lying to kids by presenting theory using facts that are false, made up, or just plain wrong. We thought, Well were not going to the Field Museum (where the biology would be) so this will be How do planes fly? or How does an engine work? and so on. While it was still a great museum and most of it was real science, there was a sweet display of robots.


However there was this area called Basic Science. I have to back up here and say that we started a game called, Spot EVOLUTION-On-on-on-on (you have to do the echo and in a booming voice). Well the first spot was Darwins name written among other great scientists such as Newton, Brahe, Euclid, Kepler, and a slew of others written in the fa├žade of the roofing. Well getting back to the Basic Science I walk up the stair turn the corner and the first words that are glaring at me are The Big Band! This entire room was dedicated to the lie of evolution. It went from evolution of the universe, to chemical evolution, stellar evolution, planet evolution, macro evolution, and life evolution. It was like I diedand became worm food. Now I could write and write about how all this was wrong but Ill just comment on the items I took pictures of.

In the overview of evolution it stated as facts, and there was a lot of stating and no interactive stuff, about how the big bang formed the universe, then made the solar system, and finally life. Now I want you to look at the following picture.


Does it remind you of anything? Where else have you seen a picture of a tree and a woman used to describe the beginning of creation?

And When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:6).

I call firsts! We, Christians, had that image first. However we didnt use it to describe how life was brought into this worldbut how death came about. I dont know if this is used as some weird joke, Satan having fun, or just some uber weird coincidence but it definitely is weird. Evolution brings in, thrives on, and loves death. Death means that the lesser organisms die so that the best can thrive. Evolution is a religion based on death. To choose the tree and woman as this sign is embracing a religion of death Christianity is a faith that embraces life, everlasting life at that.

Next I got to see a video presentation of the Miller-Urey experiment as well as the apparatus used.


This lie has been perpetuated since the 1950s as proof that life evolved! Its been a lie in science textbooks ever since. Now I dont care what religion you practice, its my contention that Im right and if you look at the facts of evolution and Christianity, youll pick Christianity as well. However I am against using my tax dollars to teach kids a theory that uses lies and manipulation to force kids to believe it. Let me get back to the Miller-Urey experiment before I go off on a tirade. Stanley Miller and Harold Urey wanted to know how the Earth and the solar system formed. So they mixed up a mixture of gases in the apparatus above and called it Earths primitive atmosphere and they were able to make amino acids. Textbooks claim that while they never proved how life evolved, they did add evidence to how life could have started by itself on Earth. Woahput on the breaks! Lets look at what they actually did. Now the theory of evolution claims that life started out in the primordial soup. That soup came from rain on the rocks that dissolved over millions of years. That soup was struck by lightning and cause life to form out of nothing. To state it another waywe came from a rockliterally! So what Miller and Urey did was they took the gases and put it in the circular tube above and set off a lightning spark. Well let us look at the gases they put in their. Methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen; is something missing? No oxygen was added. At the bottom of the flax, textbooks say, that they got a mixture rich in amino acids. Well they didnt even come close to making life in the lab, as the textbooks claim. First of all was the exclusion of oxygen. They knew that if they put in oxygen it would oxidize anything that formed. You cannot have life evolve with oxygen present. The amino acids would have oxidized if oxygen was present so they took out all the oxygen. They called it a reducing atmosphere and claimed that the early earth had no oxygen. This is, of course, a lie. Ozone is made from oxygen, without oxygen you dont have ozone, without the ozone you dont have an atmosphere, without the atmosphere you have the ultraviolet light come in and destroys ammonia which was one of the ingredients in their experiment. The early Earth has always had oxygen, even evolutionists admit this. In fact, the oxygen back then was even more rich than today. Obviously my back then is not as far back as evolutionists back then so dont get confused when I use terms that have different meanings. Philip H. Abelson, in Chemical Events of the Primitive Earth, said, What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on Earth? The answer is that there id no evidence for it, but much against it. Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, in Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron, said, In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well preserved sedimentary rocks. Again let me clarify that I am using these examples to show that even evolutionists agree with me that there has always been oxygen on Earth. Dont believe that I think there is a geological column like the above says.

Another problem with their experiment was that they filtered out the product. After the mixture went through the tubes and the lightning spark, the red goo at the bottom was drawn off. They didnt want it to go through the tube again because the lightning strikes would tear it apart. That is not realistic for nature.

A third problem was the filtered product itself. What they made was 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, and 2% amino acids. Tar and carboxylic acid are both harmful to life. That mean 98% of his mixture would kill anything living. I would call anything thats 98% poison to the other 2% a failure. However with evolution you just have to ignore that little insignificant problem and continue on with the lie. The amino acids they made were only two amino acids. It takes at least twenty amino acids to make life. Whats even more interesting is that those two amino acids bond with the tar and acid very quickly. Amino acids are a lot like letters used to make words. You have to get the letters in the right sequence to make the specific word you want. What they did was make a few letters when they needed to make a huge book. Another problem with their amino acids was that half of them were backwards. Half were left handed and the other half were right handed. The smallest proteins have 70 to 100 amino acids in precise order and all are left handed. If you combine DNA and RNA nucleotides they all have to be right handed. Hundreds of amino acids must combine to make proteins yet they un-bond in water faster than they bond. Now remember evolutions say that it rained on the rocks for millions of years and the soup formed in the ocean. I think the oceans are made up of water so no amino acids could have formed in the water. Finally Brownian motion drives amino acids away from each other to equilibrium and not together. The Miller-Urey experiment was a complete failure. Whats even worse is that people believe it worked and went so far as to put the failure on display to children and unquestioning people in a Chicago museum. Not one place in that museum talked about creationism or problems that evolution has in proving itself. However look at what they did do. If scientists even make life in a lab, wont that show that scientists created it? So you need a creator to create life. I think thats called creationism! What evolutionists really need to do to prove their theory is to find this primordial soup in nature and life springing up from it. To learn more about the Miller-Urey experiment Id recommend the book, Icons of Evolution: Science Or Myth? by Jonathan Wells. A final comment on this. If all that is needed for life to evolve is having all the proper molecules in the same place and adding energy why dont you put a frog in a blender and turn it on? You have all the molecules right there and you have your energy. I dont care how long you look at the frog nog or how much electricity you run through itthat frog isnt coming back.


This was just one of the many lies I saw that day in that Basic Science part of the museum.

Along the back wall there was an excellent display of the formation of a human fetus. Now I could rant and rave about how its hypocritical for us to talk about the stages of life while at the same time we say that these fetuses arent alive or human yet, but I wont. I will show you something that always gets my blood boiling. It is a lie that has been disproved for a hundred years and yet is still held up to be truth. This lie, I believe, in the basis for Hitlers beliefs and actions used to justify what he did at concentration camps. Moving away from the back wall I went to the opposite wall where I saw the History of Discovery plaques. What it actually was was a mixture of actual science and evolutionary theory. Of course they were both held on the same high plane. I was set out to find a particular plaque since I saw the fetus stages. I really did hope that it wouldnt be there, but of course, I knew it would be. I did find ithere it is:



Ernst Haeckel and his lie of embryonic development hung as truth along this wall. Again, Icons of Evolution is a greater source than what Im going to present. The similarity between early stages in the development of many different animals helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors. Darwin considered this by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of his theory. Haeckel called it the biogenetic law. Hackel said that as a human baby is forming in his mothers womb it forms gill slits, like a fish.


LIAR! Those are not gill slits, they are folds that develop into bones of the ear and glands in the throat; we can see that today. Haeckel is saying that people with three or four chins can breathe through them.



I dont think they can through any of them but the top one. Now for the background story. Ernst Haeckel taught embryology at the University of Gena in Germany. In 1861, a year after he read Charles Darwins book origin of Species, he sent out to find proof of evolution. For nine year, Haeckle and everyone else, found no evidence for evolution. Haeckle decided to make some up. He took drawings of a dog and human embryo and changed them to make them look similar

He did this to many other animals and made them look very similar. Look how close a human embryo is like an embryo of a fish. This proves we have a common ancestor. This also proves we came from a rock thirty million years ago.

The pictures above are Haeckels fake drawings and below are the actual photographs. So is Haeckel a bad artist or a liar? Well it turns out hes a liar because he admitted to the fraud! The University of Gena had a trial for him and he was convicted. When he confessed he said, A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those namely, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis. He then went on to say, I should feel utterly condemnedwere it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge. What Haeckel is saying is that its common practice for evolutionists to lie! This became to be known as the biogenetic law. Walter J. Bock in Science Journal under the article called Evolution by Orderly Law said, Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars. Keith Stewart Thomson in American Scientist in Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated said, Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.

If Haechels drawings are fake, he admits to them as being fake, scholars say the theory is deadwhy are they still in textbooks today?! These are all from different textbooks and these are only a few of the many textbooks today that I have:

Its only been proven wrong 150 years ago! Youd think thatd be enough time to get these lies out of the textbook. Another thing thats funny about this theory is that not even fish develop gills at the stage Haeckel claimed they did! Now I wont spend time on how people can use this lie to try and back up their thinking that human fetuses arent humans but I think itll be even more prosperous to show how Hitler used Haeckles idea to promote his worldview. In 1936 the German Supreme Court refused to recognize Jews living in Germany as persons in the legal sense. This opened the flood gates to the killing of 6 million Jews. Sir Arthur Keith in Evolution and Ethics wrote, The German Fuhrerhas consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution. Hitler even wrote about it in his book Mein Kampf, No more than nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger indivudals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race.

This is how dangerous evolution is. If you believe in evolution you believe in a word without right and wrong. You believe in a world without absolute truth. You believe in a word where its not only ok to kill lesser people but that its actually beneficial! Ill be writing an article soon that goes more into this subject.

On the wall I also got to see the stages of evolution.

If I were a black person I would be extremely ticked off that evolutionists rate me as lower on the evolutionary totem pole.

Next we got to see this quote:

So we decided to show evolution in action.

To understand why this is even funnier, read my article of the so called Missing Links.

Finally I was pointed to this quote on the ceiling by Carl Sagan.

I think my Bible talks about this:

For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written. The just shall live by faith.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 1:17-25)

And who says God is out of date?!

1 Comments:

At 1:19 PM, Blogger Seamus said...

It's too bad, but unabashedly ubiquitous. Evolution is in every museum, regardless of its purpose or premise. It is in every movie by nova, every BBC production, every scientific publication, and every student's textbooks.

Why can't we look at the data around us without the obligatory, "and this formed x million years ago through these forms, on these continents, etc...". What's more, we often get more of that subjective garbage than the actual facts about the organisms!

Like you said before, it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that any fossils ever evolved into anything or any other fossils! It can not be done, it can only be speculated. Nothing can be proven this way. Nothing.

I don't understand why science can't admit this. It only shows how deeply philosophical their discipline really is. The only "proof" of evolution is:

1.) God doesn't exist (or doesn't interfere with the universe), therefore only natural processes must have created everything, therefore life must have been created this way, therefore life must have evolved from non-living matter, therefore everything alive today evolved.

-- OR --

2.) God wouldn't have created things this way because they aren't perfect or they aren't unique enough (like homologous pentadactyl limbs which are used for too many purposes, or vestigial organs seemingly without purpose, or a million other things). Since we presume to know what God would and wouldn't have done, He must not have made things this way, therefore creationism is wrong, therefore evolution must be right.

All philosophy, no fact.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home