Scientific Establishment

There is a very important distinction to be made between real scientific inquiry, and false science that is used to deceive. The definition of real science is finding solutions to problems that are testable, observable, and repeatable. Through use of the scientific method (trial and error), people have invented cars, computers, telephones, and all kinds of other amazing technology and infrastructure.

However, the purpose of the scientific establishment is to act similarly to organized religion, controlling public policies and the way people believe and feel towards certain topics. Here are a couple examples of the scientific establishment directly lying to us:

- Claiming that man-made global warming is occurring when there is absolutely no evidence to support that the earth is getting significantly warmer, or that man-made industry is the cause. Also, in the 1970's, scientists scared everyone to death about the next ice age coming, and that obviously did not happen.

- Claiming that the earth is overpopulated. I realize that almost 7 billion people in the world sounds like a huge number, and it is, but the land area of the earth is incredibly huge. As an example, the entire earth's population could fit in the state of Texas, while only having half the population density of New York City!

Most government-sponsored “scientific” groups (usually alphabet-agencies such as NASA, EPA, FDA, etc) don’t produce any science that people like us can verify for ourselves. They keep their studies very self-contained, and manipulate scientific results to support their own theories of evolution, global warming, overpopulation, heliocentric universe, etc. Usually their articles are hidden in extremely confusing and complex sounding jargon to make us think that they have esoteric knowledge that few can understand.

In the religion of science, people must rely on authorities to tell the truth about life. And knowing what we know about how lies are put out there to control us, I don’t trust the scientific establishment for a single second.

Thinking Critically

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.” -Ghandi

I feel that we're currently at the ridicule stage. In the past six months or so, there have been more attacks on critical thinkers than ever before. Actually, that’s good news - because it's a sign that the people in charge realize that lots of us are becoming aware of the propaganda. Simply disregarding the minority opinion won’t work anymore. Nowadays, the mainstream media is actually reporting about alleged "conspiracy theories" that would not have appeared in the press years ago.

In this NY Times article above, the author, Maggie Koerth-Baker, purports that everything on the news is 100% fact, and that anyone who questions any aspect of the news is misguided (or perhaps even has psychological issues). Of course, I don't think even Ms. Baker genuinely believes what she is writing.

It's rather encouraging to me that the mainstream media is now putting out absolutely laughable articles in attempt to silence critical thinkers. It's just more confirmation to me that the news is lying to us. The reason that the media puts out fluff pieces trying to make themselves seem trustworthy is to cover up their own lies.

Adam Curry's No Agenda Podcast

I was recently introduced to a podcast called the No Agenda Show. This podcast features Adam Curry (a former MTV presenter) and John C. Dvorak. Below is some fan-submitted promotional artwork for the show:

This podcast offers the best insights I have heard on the fact that nearly everything on the mainstream media is scripted, staged and therefore inherently dishonest. After all, who else would know better about this topic than Curry, someone who was a mainstream media presenter for many years?

These guys use humor to bring their message across, which is something I always enjoy.

I would recommend this show for anyone who is interested in listening to an insider's perspective on the media and its contrivances. Also, there is a lot of just plain interesting dialogue between Curry and Dvorak as they analyze things and try to make sense of the world around them.

The only downside of listening to the show is when they take lots of time talking about all their donations they are receiving (while asking for more). I mean, I don't mind them thanking their donors on air, but sometimes they take too long with it and it gets a tad boring.

Other than that, I expect you will be entertained and learn a lot at the same time.

You can listen to the show here.

Special thanks to Markus Allen for introducing me to this show.

Can life be created?

The evolution theory states that humans evolved from lower life forms. That insects, fish, reptiles, etc. are therefore "lower" life forms than humans, because they evolved gradually over time.

I have some proof that the "lower" life forms are just as complex as "higher" forms.

First of all, anything that is alive is EXTREMELY complex. Even single-celled organisms. Cells are made of series of amino acids, proteins, and lipids, all arranged in a precise manner. The odds of this arranging itself by chance is quite unlikely, in fact, maybe even impossible. Cells can transport nutrients, rid themselves of unwanted material, fight off disease, reproduce through mitosis, and do other tasks.

Do you really think that cells just evolved by chance, and yet are precisely designed to do all these necessary tasks? Based on what we observe about the universe, randomly arranged materials should be disordered, not ordered.

If evolution were true, then cells would start off very simply and get more and more complex. But this doesn't back up what we observe. A single cell is so complex that the chances of it arising on its own by random processes are unfathomably low. Further, even consider the complexity within a single molecule within a single protein within a single cell. Plus, there are still unicellular organisms to this day. How can this be the case if everything has been evolving for billions of years?

Now I am not saying that things do not change over time. I agree that there is speciation and that organisms have variances, but the variances all are based off of a pre-determined genetic starting point. There has never been a single experiment that proves that time and chance can create something new; all time and chance can do make slight variations on what's already there.

Experiments have shown that some of the organic matter in cells can be recreated in a controlled environment. Life has never actually been created by scientists, just a few of the basic building blocks of life. Despite this, these experiments are widely touted as proof that life can arise on its own by chance.

This might sound appealing when talking about evolution, but here are a couple things to consider. For one, these materials were created in a directed and controlled environment, utilizing some of the brightest minds in the world to create a very specific set of conditions. This is far from the conditions of materials floating around in the wild. Also, it is treated as an afterthought that the scientists have only created a few organic materials, rather than having actually created a living cell. That's a pretty important distinction to make, wouldn't you think? And, even if they *could* make a cell in a laboratory, it would only prove that it requires intelligence to make life.

The fossil record doesn't prove evolution either. There is plenty of admitted manipulation and fakery of so-called missing links. Also (thanks to Chris Kendall for mentioning this), why did evolutionary scientist Steven J. Gould need to dream up punctuated equilibrium theory to explain away the absence of fossils? This theory states that gradual, incremental evolution did not occur the way Darwin thought, and that species rapidly changed leaving no fossil trace.

Punctuated equilibrium theory is now a widely accepted evolutionary tenet - and it has to be, because the fossil record to supposedly prove Darwinian evolution simply isn't there. It's common sense that if the fossils existed, there would be no need to make up a theory to explain away their absense.

Knowing this information, the only logical conclusion for me is that all life was created by a wise, super-intelligent being.