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? Certainly not about 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," and the question is, why would they also use the conditional past tense form. Just in case anyone wonders, according to English languages rules, "conditional grammar expresses an idea that is not real. It did not happen." As a result, group of scientists shared with the world the "novel" idea, that is not real, that lightning might have started a process that led to the appearance of life on planet Earth. To begin with, after more than 160 years from the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species, what they mean by life remains a mystery for the independent truth seeker.
As the title of the paper published by the researchers implies 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, another bunch of revealing words, "a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth." That assumed development supposedly opened the door to an alleged process of evolution that over millions and millions of year would produce 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 evolutionists are claiming, there is zero evidence this is what happened. Despite that, they teach evolution in schools and universities as if it were 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 imaginary God.
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." (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 significance of evolutionists always having that "may have" as part of the sentence, meaning this is only an assumption they tend to treat as fact, not a real fact, is that the new theory they came up with is actually decades old, and most everyone knows that. This makes one also question the real intent of those involved in the study.
"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)
Nature Communications is an open access science journal, and that calls for one being extremely circumspect about everything published under its patronage. Open access means, you pay, they publish your paper, then your paper gains some measure of credibility 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. In addition to that, somebody is going to quote from your published paper to make a point in line with the old adagio, 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 that someone 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.
The open access science journals claim they peer-review every single submission. In A Time of Change, Volume 1, the topic of open access science journals is something else discussed in detail. It is done in the context of the less known by the large public fact that there are huge problems with peer reviewing. How huge are they? 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 by using a spoof cancer study containing errors any honest reviewer would have easily caught. Despite those obvious errors, a significant number of open access science journals agreed to publish it, over one hundred of them. Who knew, there is money to be made in the science paper publishing business too, and while they claimed they were peer-reviewing everything published, many of them did not and they would publish the faulty study, errors and all.
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) Another thing revealed in A Time of Change, to give the theory of evolution an otherwise false aura of academic legitimacy, as one can see, biology is no longer biology. It is "Evolutionary Biology," and yet no one could tell the difference. Other than that, as we can see, the "lightening theory" was thrown around for many years now, meaning the "new study" revealed the same thing others have been talking about even before 2016.
Are we to believe the scientists associated with this "new study" 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, or how it happen while other scientists concluded based on tests conducted in a laboratory, also many years ago, that this could not have happened?
They assume things all the time, could have/may have, because they either have no idea what happened, or they do not want to share with the public what they know. 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, pretty much another definition for miracle, 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 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. At the same time, it is possible no one wants to talk about certain aspects of how life has appeared on our planet, something to be addressed in A Time of Change with the help of an abundance of evidence showing that neither biblical creationism, nor Darwinian gradualism are factual.
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 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. 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 being one of them, 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 would weigh in on all sorts of topics of great 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.
They assume things all the time, could have/may have, because they either have no idea what happened, or they do not want to share with the public what they know. 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, pretty much another definition for miracle, 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 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. At the same time, it is possible no one wants to talk about certain aspects of how life has appeared on our planet, something to be addressed in A Time of Change with the help of an abundance of evidence showing that neither biblical creationism, nor Darwinian gradualism are factual.
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 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. 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 cause changes in an existing genetic code during the life of the species. This is something only a genetic engineer could do. Then there is the indisputable fact that, to be able to exist and reproduce as a species, you would have to have all you organs together and in working condition from day one of your setting foot on this planet. If you don't have the reproduction organs, for example, something known as the queen of problems for evolutionary theory, you are the last generation of your species. According to evolutionists, all your species' organs were in a transitional stage for millions of years, meaning you were a non-functional species for all that time. That, however, means natural selection, otherwise another imaginary process, had nothing of value to hold on to, to preserve.
As publicly admitted even by some of those on-again, off-again supporters of Darwinism, with American evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould being one of them, 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 would weigh in on all sorts of topics of great 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 or rather enforced by the academia resulted in only scientists associated with what some would call belief in some kind of deity are 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, on account of that, their otherwise valid scientific argument against gradualism.
They do not have though a problem with the Catholic Church and the Church of England officially endorsing these days evolution. As you are going to see in A Time of Change, 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 too realized a public aware of the true meaning of the reality of intelligent design would have catastrophic consequences for their existence too, reason why they joined the evolutions in Dover, Pennsylvania where in 2005, a judge appointed by the government put a what in fact is 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 their multi-billion-dollar preaching industry that happens to be an instrument of mass mind-control depends on.
Indeed, creationists and evolutionists, as well as certain entities behind our government were equally happy when at the end of the 2005 trial, a judge of no scientific expertise officially banned, as planned, discussing intelligent design in public schools under the false pretense that ID was religion and based on evidence that would normally be unacceptable in any other court of law. Everyone needed though the ban because, in reality, ID stands exactly for what Francis Crick said in his book Life Itself about the origin of the DNA: The DNA is not from Earth. It was created by an advanced civilization who brought it here for the purpose of preserving a special knowledge.
Significant positive change in the way we exist on this planet is much needed. It could only be the result of a significant improvement in the way we understand our origin, the nature of reality, and the purpose of life. Meanwhile, the protectors of the status quo have allowed every new generation to be indoctrinated with religious irrational, at the same time constantly issuing science papers on the result of practically are inconsequential "new studies" revealing decades-old "new theories." This is how someone out there keeps the public's attention away from what is really at stake here.
(Edited February 15, 2022)
* * *
A Time of Change is private intellectual property made available to the public in this format free of charge. Copyright laws prohibit the unauthorized commercial use or reproduction of any part of it. At the same time the reader is encouraged to share it, also free of charge, with anyone who may be interested.
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 1 OF 3
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 2 OF 3
A TIME OF CHANGE - VOLUME 3 OF 3
atimeofchangePG@gmail.com
