EVOLUTIONARY LIGHTNING STRIKES AGAIN!

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? A group of scientists shared with the world the "novel" idea that lightning might have started a process that led to the appearance of life on planet Earth, and yet after more than 160 years from the time Darwin published On the Origin of Species, what they mean by life is still a mystery. 

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 key word, "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. Meanwhile, they teach evolution in schools and universities as if it were an actual fact.

The same article says that, 

"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, the paper gains some measure of credibility because it has appeared in a science journal, and you can claim now you are a published researcher. This opens the doors 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 people at Axios did. In other words, you pay to have a so-called research paper stating something that someone would reference in order to make the case for evolution even though reality tells a different story about biological gradualism.

The open access science journals claim they peer-review every single submission. In A Time of Change, Volume 1, among many others, the topic of open access science journals is discussed in detail in relation to the fact less known by the large public that there are huge problems with peer reviewing. Along the time, 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. The results, however, were not exactly reassuring. 

One of those tests was conducted a few years ago by Science magazine, and to that end they used 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, for there is money to be made in the science paper publishing business too, over one hundred of them, and while they claimed they were peer-reviewing everything published, many of them did not and they published the faulty study errors and all. 

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, is that the new theory they came up with is actually decades old and everyone knows it. This makes one question the real intent of those involved in the study. 

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; On that note, another thing discussed in the book, 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.)

Are we to believe the scientists associated with the "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 have 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 even 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 gradual evolution spelled differently. In reality, as basically even the authors of this study admit no one actually 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. 

To have a life form, any life form, you would first have to have its DNA, and the origin of the DNA is a capital problem for the theory of evolution, another something no one wants to talk about. Someone did talk about the origin of the DNA, though, and that was no other than Francis Crick, its co-discoverer and a Nobel Prize recipient for that very reason. According to him, and he stated this in his published book, the DNA was produced outside planet Earth by an advanced civilization. Considering that the DNA contains coded information, this is something Lady Evolution and Aunt Natural Selection, two imaginary characters in a fictional story presented as fact in schools and universities, precisely how the six-day fictional creation story in the Bible is described to trusting churchgoers would be incapable of putting together. On the other hand, according to both genetics and field theory, Crick's assertion makes perfect sense. 

When we also consider its amazing information storying capacity, that the DNA acts during the process of reproduction in conjunction with its printout, something called RNA, and the fact that someone has placed within our general biological system genetic devices that make sure the copying of the genetic information during the reproduction process is done correctly so that no mistakes, no "evolutionary" mutations happen, it is hard to believe scientists have not yet figured out that the DNA could not be a chance product of adaptation to changes in the environment, a claim that comes in conflict with the very standards imposed by the scientific method of research. It is either that, or they do not want to admit to the reality this Nobel Prize recipient describes in his book.

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, once again, 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, nor could an assumed process of adaptation cause changes in an existing genetic code during the life of the species. As most of us know, 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 you setting foot on this planet. If you don't, you are the last generation of your species, whatever form or shape you are in as a species since, according to evolutionists, once again, your organs and functions would be in a transitional stage for millions of years. 

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, for example, would often weigh in on all sorts of topics of great human interest. He has never discussed though evolution publicly, one way or the other, and yet we know for a fact he was well-aware of the controversy. 

The standard explanation, as acknowledged by Gould, is one does not want to tell it the way it is for that gives comfort to church creationists. For a rational human, church creationists have done actually a pretty good job at destroying the appearance of legitimacy of the institution of religion and of its dogma from the moment it was established, no redeeming chance there either. In other words, the current rule of the game is, you either support in public an otherwise undefendable theory of evolution, as described by molecular biologist Michael Denton in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, or you keep quiet about the huge problems with the theory. The alternative to that is you risk being ridiculed, your books are not going to be published, and you may even end up loosing your teaching job. As it turns out, though, not everyone abided by this rule.

The code of silence imposed by or rather reinforced through the academia resulted in the fact that only scientists that happen to have a very intimate association with what some would call religion, belief in some kind of deity that is not always one and the same with the god of religion are being heard speaking 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. 

The other problem with the fact that evolution propagandists are claiming only creationists state evolution is no fact, many churches, with the Catholic Church and the Church of England being on top of the list are 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 nobody believes that and we have the Gallup polls to prove it. And while we have Catholic Church officials on record declaring evolution the best available explanation for the existence of the universe (obviously false) and everything in it (obviously false, biological evolution has nothing to do with the origin of the universe and everything in it), this endorsement comes with a caveat. The no so subtle implication is, as long as their god was in charge of the process, evolution happened the way Darwin, a god believer, said it happened. 

The actual reason why they would rather endorse evolution then have intelligent design discussed in science class is that they want to protect a status quo their multi-billion-dollar preaching industry that also happens to be a reliable instrument of mass mind-control depends on. For, and this may cause a shock to most churchgoers, the other actual reason why church creationists endorse these days evolution is the same reason why a few years ago they surreptitiously abandoned their support for intelligent design. 

Indeed, creationists and evolutionists were equally happy when at the end of the 2005 trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, a judge of no scientific expertise officially banned discussing intelligent design in public schools under the false pretense that ID was religion. Not according to Socrates, who was sentenced to die because he was critical of religion and of religious authority and who made a non-religious strong case for design some 2,400 years ago, and not according to dozens of bona fide scientists along the entire known history of our civilization all the way to present days. He also declared evolution a sound theory, for a judge's court is where you go when you want to establish if a scientific theory is fact or fallacy. Everyone needed though the ban because, in reality, ID stands exactly for what Francis Crick said in Life Itself about the origin of the DNA, and that too has nothing to do with religion: The DNA is not from Earth. It was created by an advanced civilization.

Significant positive change in the way we exist on this planet is much needed, and 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 continue to allow every new generation to be indoctrinated with religious irrational, at the same time issuing science papers on practically inconsequential "new studies" revealing decades-old "new theories." The studies are conducted by scientists with credentials and their inconsequential results are published in impressively named science journals to give them the aura of credibility they are after. This is how someone out there keeps the public's attention away from what is really at stake here.  

A Time of Change is a 3-volume book of knowledge that took 15 years to complete. Its first volume will be made available on this website, free of charge, before the end of spring of 2021.