In an article published on online recently, the readers were made aware that
"Lightning strikes on the early Earth over the course of 1 billion years could have been key to the formation of the first life on our planet, according to a new study."
So, what was this "new study" about? It certainly did not reveal a scientific fact, and the proof of that is their admission that his "could have been the key to the formation of the first life on our planet." The use of the conditional past tense implies they do not know for sure, new study and all, which makes one wonder why as a scientist make a public statement about what might have happen. According to English language rules, "conditional grammar expresses an idea that is not real. It did not happen." As a result, this group of scientists was sharing with the world a "novel" idea that was not real, the assumption that lightning might have started a process that led to the appearance of life on planet Earth. The subliminal admission there was that after more than 160 years from the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species, with them claiming over and over on all channels this is a revolutionary work by a revolutionary mind, they still do not know what caused the appearance of life on this planet or anywhere else in the universe for that matter. Sure enough, as you are going to see in A Time of Change, On the Origin of Species is not about the origin of species.
For those who pay attention to the meaning of the words, the title of the paper reveals the study does not come even close to explaining the formation of the first life forms. It only suggests, key word, repeat lightning strikes over 1 billion years might have been "a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth." That is an assumed development. Nevertheless, they suppose it opened the door to a process of evolution that over millions and millions of year has produced, they say, the amazing diversity of life forms we have today on this planet, thousands of different mammals, reptiles, birds, fishes, insects, and yes, humans too. Except that, contrary to what the evolutionists are claiming, there is zero evidence that process really took place. Despite that, they teach evolution in schools and universities as if it were science fact while for more than a decade now churches decided it would be good for business to endorse evolution and praise Darwin all the way to the imaginary kingdom of what is now a gradualist God. They did that afraid, and rightfully so that the reality of intelligent design is going to make the entire dogma of religion collapse as a house of cards, so, we ended up with both creationists and evolutionists rejecting design.
There is another aspect of what we have hear that needs to be addressed. The same article says,
"The new study — in the journal Nature Communications — suggests trillions of lightning strikes spanning about 1 billion years helped create phosphorous, a key ingredient in the formation of life."
"The new study — in the journal Nature Communications — suggests trillions of lightning strikes spanning about 1 billion years helped create phosphorous, a key ingredient in the formation of life."
(Lightning strikes as a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth, by Benjamin L. Hess, Sandra Piazolo, Jason Harvey, March 16, 2021) (axios.com)
About this "new study" on the effect lightning might have had on the appearance of life on Earth, Benjamin Hess, one of the authors of the paper declared that, “This work helps us understand how life may have formed on Earth and how it could still be forming on other Earth-like planets.” The first problem with his claim that jumps right at you aside from the already mentioned here problem with evolutionists always making "may have" and "could" as part of their argument, meaning their input is only an assumption is that the new theory was actually decades old, something the majority of the public would not know. This makes one also question the real intent of those involved in the study, and related to that, their honesty.
They assume things all the time, could have/may have, and that is because they either have no idea what happened or do not want to share with the public what they know about what really happened. Evolutionists are confidently throwing around such non-factual concepts as abiogenesis, something supposedly describing the spontaneous birth of life forms from chemicals and other amorphous material, which is as much of a miracle as the six-day creation in the Genesis is, and speciation, which is imaginary gradual evolution spelled differently. In reality, and as basically even the authors of this study admit, no one knows how life has appeared on our planet, a reminder of the fact that, indeed, Darwin's On the Origin of the Species does not address the question of the origin of species and that the title of his book is a false label placed on an empty box.
Most everyone in the scientific community would agree, off the record of course, the claim that gradual biological evolution could occur spontaneously in nature and that on top of everything else it occurred at a slow pace over millions of years does not just defy common sense. It is biologically and genetically impossible, and one does not need to be a biologist or a geneticist to be able to understand that. Basic common sense does the trick just fine.
As publicly admitted even by some of those on-again, off-again supporters of Darwinism, with American evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould making a strong case against evolution only to be forced by editorial staff serving the protectors of the status quo to declare evolution fact, there has been a code of silence imposed on scientists on this subject, something similar to the UFO phenomenon and the contacts we made for thousands of years with extraterrestrials being a taboo topic for the media. Albert Einstein, for example, who was not just a brilliant scientist but also a philosopher, would weigh in on all sorts of topics of human interest. He has never discussed evolution publicly, one way or the other, and yet we know for a fact he was well-aware of the controversy.
Nature Communications is an open access science journal, and that calls for us to be extremely circumspect about the validity of everything published under its patronage. Open access means, you pay, they publish your paper, then your paper and you as its author gains some measure of popularity because it has appeared in a science journal. As a result, you can claim now you are a published researcher. This opens the door to book publishing and to the lecturing circuit where you will diligently promote your book on something that is perceived as been peer reviewed even though no one known if this was the case or not. In addition to that, precisely what we have in this instance, somebody with an agenda is going to quote from your published paper to make a point in line with the old reality-defying adagio saying evolution is fact, fact, fact, as the good people of Axios did. In other words, you pay to have a so-called research paper stating something false labeled science that someone else would reference to make the case for evolution even though reality tells a different story about biological gradualism and about the history of life on this planet in general.
Most open access science journals claim they peer-review every single submission.They do not. A less known fact by the large public, there are huge problems with peer reviewing. How huge? There have been a number of tests conducted by certain scientific organizations and journals to make sure the open access system is credible and reliable, and the results were not exactly reassuring.
One of those tests was conducted a few years ago by Science magazine. It used a spoof cancer study containing errors any honest reviewer would have easily caught. A significant number of open access science journals agreed to publish it, over one hundred of them. There is money to be made in the scientific paper publishing business too, and while they claimed they were peer-reviewing everything published, many of them did not and they published the faulty study the way it was, errors and all. There are close to 12,000 open access journals in America alone, and there is a strong possibility this was not the only instance when a faulty study claimed to have been peer-reviewed when in reality it was not was published.
According to an article published in Sky News in 2016,
"For nearly nine decades, science’s favorite explanation for the origin of life has been the “primordial soup”. This is the idea that life began from a series of chemical reactions in a warm pond on Earth’s surface, triggered by an external energy source such as lightning strike or ultraviolet (UV) light." (Have We Been Wrong About Life's Origin, by Arunas L. Radzvilavicius, at the time a Postdoctoral Researcher in Evolutionary Biology with the University of Pennsylvania.)
To give the theory of evolution an otherwise false aura of academic legitimacy, biology is no longer just biology, it is "Evolutionary Biology," and yet no one could tell the difference, in a rational way that is.
Other than that, the fact is the "lightening theory" was thrown around for many years now, meaning at the best the authors of the "new study" were assuming the same thing others have been assuming for decades, with no one having evidence this was what happened, leads us to asking the same question asked before: What was the real reason for publishing and discussing the results of a "new study" that is neither new, nor a real study. Are we to believe the scientists associated with this farce were completely in the dark about the fact that in the past 100 years other scientists would once in a while propose the same thing, that lightning may have caused life to miraculously appear on our planet, and that same as the authors of the new study none of them had any idea if this did, indeed, happen?
They assume things all the time, could have/may have, and that is because they either have no idea what happened or do not want to share with the public what they know about what really happened. Evolutionists are confidently throwing around such non-factual concepts as abiogenesis, something supposedly describing the spontaneous birth of life forms from chemicals and other amorphous material, which is as much of a miracle as the six-day creation in the Genesis is, and speciation, which is imaginary gradual evolution spelled differently. In reality, and as basically even the authors of this study admit, no one knows how life has appeared on our planet, a reminder of the fact that, indeed, Darwin's On the Origin of the Species does not address the question of the origin of species and that the title of his book is a false label placed on an empty box.
Most everyone in the scientific community would agree, off the record of course, the claim that gradual biological evolution could occur spontaneously in nature and that on top of everything else it occurred at a slow pace over millions of years does not just defy common sense. It is biologically and genetically impossible, and one does not need to be a biologist or a geneticist to be able to understand that. Basic common sense does the trick just fine.
Random natural events do not code genetic information, which is what we have in the case of the DNA and of other genetic devices, nor could an assumed process of adaptation generate coherent changes in an existing genetic code during the life of the species. Only a genetic engineer could do that. Then there is the indisputable fact that, to be able to reproduce as a species and this perpetuate the species, you would have to have all you organs together and in working condition from day one of your setting foot on this planet, separate male and separate female sex organs included. If you don't have the reproduction organs, and this is known as the queen of all problems for the theory of evolution, you are the last generation of your species.
According to evolutionists, all your species' organs have been in a transitional stage for millions of years. The meaning of that is you were a non-functioning species for all that time. That defies common sense. In line with that, it means natural selection, otherwise an imaginary process, had nothing of value to hold on to, to preserve. A rational logical conclusion, neither gradual mutations, nor natural election happened.
As publicly admitted even by some of those on-again, off-again supporters of Darwinism, with American evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould making a strong case against evolution only to be forced by editorial staff serving the protectors of the status quo to declare evolution fact, there has been a code of silence imposed on scientists on this subject, something similar to the UFO phenomenon and the contacts we made for thousands of years with extraterrestrials being a taboo topic for the media. Albert Einstein, for example, who was not just a brilliant scientist but also a philosopher, would weigh in on all sorts of topics of human interest. He has never discussed evolution publicly, one way or the other, and yet we know for a fact he was well-aware of the controversy.
The code of silence imposed and enforced by the academia, the reason for that is one does not want to give comfort to creationists, resulted in only scientists entertaining beliefs in the existence of some kind of higher power being heard speaking publicly against evolution, and even though some of them are Nobel Prize recipients in all sorts of science related fields, the evolution propaganda machine calls them creationists and invites the public to dismiss their otherwise valid scientific argument against gradualism.
These days a Catholic Church and a Church of England supposedly working for that delusion God, as described by Richard Dawkins, the front man of the pro-evolution cabala within the academia, have officially endorsed evolution, and Atheist Dawkins cheerfully interviews men of God, in the house of God, who now say evolution is fact and that intelligent design should not be taught in schools. As you are going to see, they do not do that because they sincerely believe evolution is fact, almost no one out there truly believes that and we have the Gallup polls to prove it. They do it because they realized a public aware of the true meaning of the reality of intelligent design would have catastrophic consequences for the existence of their religious institutions, reason why they joined the evolutionists in Dover, Pennsylvania, where in 2005, a judge appointed by someone behind the government put a what in fact was an unconstitutional ban on discussing ID in schools. The actual reason why they would rather endorse evolution then have intelligent design discussed in science class is that they too want to protect a status quo the survival of their multi-billion-dollar preaching of irrational belief industry depends on.
Creationists and evolutionists were equally happy when at the end of that 2005 sham trial, a judge of no scientific expertise declared evolution fact and officially banned, as planned, discussing intelligent design in public schools under the false pretense that ID was religion. This was no normal judicial process, and the entities behind our government needed the ban because intelligent design stands exactly for what Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the DNA and Nobel Prize recipient for that had declared in his 1981 book Life Itself about the origin of the DNA: The DNA is not from Earth. It was created by an advanced civilization and was brought here for the purpose of preserving a special knowledge by the way of an experiment that was to result in the most advanced civilization in the entire universe.
***
To read the manuscript click below:
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 1 OF 3
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 2 OF 3
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 3 OF 3
A Time of Change is private intellectual property. Copyright laws prohibit the unauthorized commercial reproduction of either the entire set of documents or parts of it.
