Tuesday, February 10, 2015

Citing quotes against the greatest modern myth

    So I have been receiving a fair amount of harsh criticism regarding my lack of citation and documentation regarding sources of scientific claims I made lately. In lieu of this criticism I wanted to share some information I unearthed giving some 3D dimensional filler to apparent abstract blueprint claims.

    Let me start by saying the name dinosaur did not even come about til 1841, before this they were commonly termed dragons meaning terrible lizards. Opposed to ancient eons and time periods spanning millions of years starting with the cretaceous period. There have been accounts of dragon sightings and slaying of these beasts described in detail throughout ancient texts by Marco Polo, Alexander the Great, and even Herodotus who is often called the father of all history. And accordingly we find soft tissue in these enormous animals. In a book labeled: Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences we find information regarding the inner tissues of these enormous beasts. This one of a triceratops fossil stating "hollow, transparent and flexible blood vessels.The presence of soft vessels is enigmatic". (Smith 841)

    Additionally, we are finding fossils of insects such as dragonfly's whose wingspan is measure to be 3 feet in length, clearly the atmospheric conditions pre-flood were vastly different than they are today, a dragonfly of that massive proportions in this day and age could not even get off the ground. Furthermore, fossils of alligator skulls are found to be 6x as large as the dimensions of current alligator heads today. A 16 ft in length turtle fossil was also unearthed in the 19th century and now resides at the Yale University museum which is further evidence showing organisms on a whole were far larger than they are today. Many human giant bones have been documented to have been unearthed throughout eastern america by archaeologists alluded to in the NY times. Giant bones that stood 12 feet fall.  It was the 16th president of the United States Abraham Lincoln who in 1848 was quoted to have said "the eyes of that species of extinct giant whose bones fill the mounds of america have gazed on Niagara as our eyes do now"

    The current  "only" purported missing link between humans and apes is called "Lucy" a dead monkey in Africa. And what they are stating is this: that if she had "hands"which she does not, they would be human hands; also if "Lucy" had a complete skull we could further tell that it was a humanish skull. Finally, the pelvis bone if it was complete which it also is not, would show this small monkey walked upright. And really, it would not matter if it did because we see monkeys today that walk upright. You'd have an extremely hard time convincing me this is credible evidence. All we really know is "a monkey died". Nonetheless, this "Lucy" is reconstructed with missing bones now slapped on over a in thin layer of skin and appears in a museum inside a glass box like a....mud covered swamp thing, coming forth,from a late night...science flick.

  Furthermore, I wanted to bolster some claims made in regards to the inaccuracy and crude science of radiocarbon dating. Humanitarian Dr. Robert Lee stated: "No matter how useful it is the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies. The chronology is uneven and relative and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole bless thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy and it all depends on which funny paper you read." He is also quoted to have said "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because the occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good unequivocal results. The numbers do impress people and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. "Absolute" dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."

    In regards to the reliability of our current methods of carbon dating it was Dr. Willard Libby, not only a noble prize winner but also a contributor to the Manhatten project who stated and I quote "You read books and find statements that such and such society or archaeological site is claimed to be 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages are not known (speculations and imaginative guesses) ; in fact it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last (earliest) historical date of any real significance has been established"

     I couldn't find it more appropriate to enter in to source documentation the words of Max Planck who is known as the father of quantum physics. He was quoted to have said "All matter originates and exists on earth only by the virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of an conscious and intelligent mind."

     Now this is all credible evidence painting a far different picture than that of our current educational systems systematic way of pushing evolution. Just to give you an idea of how intricate we are made, the building blocks (or recipe) if you will, of life itself: the human DNA strand is made up of a quantum of information inside every single cell roughly comparable to 12 sets of The Encyclopedia Britannica, an amazing 384 volumes worth of detailed data. Yet their the size is only two millionths of a millimeter thick. A teaspoon of DNA has "all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth. Let me tell you that in our universe perpetual motion is everywhere and many of us lack even a crude understanding how complex motion is. It was Jewish nobel prize winner Neils Bohr who very famously gave us the actual model of the atom who was quoted to have said and I quote "Everything we regard as real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real" Our ‘universe’ owes it’s combined energy to something much more advanced. He also once said “I don’t know how the electrons got started spinning, and I don’t know how to stop them, do you?”

   Let me also start by saying it was the noted attorney and advocate for american Indian affairs Vine Deloria who wrote in his book titled: Holocaust of the Giants "Some of these old country and regional history books contain real gems because the people were not subjected to a rigid indoctrination of evolution and were astonished by what they found and honestly reported it".

     All of these sources show that the truth is not what many high practitioner (scientists) believe it is. With all the technology and bones, fossils and ancient text including the Bible, those who cling to evolution, do it to their demise, they are outdated and irrelevant. They will continue to lie to us. I and many others will present to them another point of view and let them decide what is science and what is a fairy tell. They call the Bible a fairy tell, while they hold to a theory that Darwin himself began to doubt. The truth is truly stranger than fiction. If you really follow the hard, outlined evidence, apply scientific methods and open your closed indoctrinated minds you'll see evolution doesn't have a monkeys leg to stand on. I could go on but in the end you're going to hold on to your belief as much as I am going to hold on to mine. The Creationists have a much better argument all around. There's a big difference between observational and historical Science. All Scientists agree on the observational side, but not on the historical because we weren't there. So the nonsense perpetrated about of billions of years by mans measuring standards, just doesn't hold water. The very fact that Evolutionists believe that by sheer numbers they have validity over Scientists who stand across the floor from them is the epitome of arrogance. What do you think the Creationists have been doing all along, if not also studying their craft for years on end? Their arguments just make so much more sense. The sheer number of complex organisms on our planet running and working in perfect motion together could not just have been born out of random forces in some primordial soup. Complexity of this level could have only come about from an Intelligent Designer. The logic of the human mind simply points in that direction.

No comments:

Post a Comment