quarta-feira, 27 de julho de 2016

The Big Lie - Exposed!

By David Brandt Berg

Part I Of Darwin's Doctrine Of Delusion Debunked

Forward: Did you know that the teaching of Evolution is linked to racism? If you don't believe it, please know that the full title of Charles Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" is, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" Reference:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_Species Evolution is also the cornerstone for Communism and Nazism and the justification of such evils as genocide.
The Big lie of Evolution

Hitler said in "Mein Kampf" that if you tell a lie for the purpose of propaganda, tell a big one! Because thebigger the lie is, the more people are apt to believe it, because they can't possibly believe you would dare to tell such a big lie unless it was the truth!
So the Devil was smart with Evolution. He told the big lie: "In the beginning, God didn't create the Heavens and the Earth; it just happened by some kind of a big accident, forces working on the materials, and blah, blah, blah. Therefore, man is merely a beast who evolved from lower forms of beasts over millions of years, from one species to another, and life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals!"
This doctrine of delusion has become the general theme of modern so-called science, and is therefore no longer true science, but pure, imaginary, evolutionary bunk! Evolution is now referred to as the "great principle" of biology. But a principle, according to the dictionary, is a foundation truth, or fact, the basis of other truths. And if you know anything about evolution at all, you know it has never been proven to be either a truth or a fact, much less the foundation or the basis of other truths.
Now when I'm talking about evolution, I'm not talking about or minimizing the true science of true biology, which can be proven--how plants grow and animals propagate and multiply and so on. I'm talking about a wild, fictitious fairy tale of imagination which they have never come close to proving!
There is no proof for evolution! It has to be believed, therefore it's a faith, therefore it's a religion! So they're teaching a new compulsory religion in today's hallowed halls of higher learning. Even the great high priest and founding father of this new false faith, Charles Darwin himself, confessed that "the belief (note the emphasis on belief) in natural selection (evolution) must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations. ... When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed ... nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."
Three monkeys sat on a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they're said to be.
Said one to the other,
"Now listen you two,
There's a certain rumor
That can't be true ...
That man descended from our noble race.
The very idea is sure to disgrace."
"No monkey ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
And you've never known another monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another."
"And another thing you will never see ...
Is a monk build a fence around a coconut tree;
And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all the other monks to taste."
"Why, if I put a fence around this tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me."
"And here's something else a monk won't do ...
Go out at night and get on a stew;
Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey's life."
"Yes, man descended ... ornery cuss,
But, brother, ... he didn't descend from us!

~ Author Unknown ~
Darwin's ardent apostle and dedicated disciple, Thomas Henry Huxley, likewise admitted that his own opinion was NOT grounded on any true scientific facts or evidence, but was more of a "religious" expression: "I beg you once more to recollect that I have no right to call my opinion anything but an act of philosophical faith."
So Evolution is really a religion of unbelief in God. And that's its whole purpose; To eliminate faith in God and to foster the false doctrine of devils that the creation created itself and God had nothing to do with it, so there doesn't need to be a God--it could have happened without Him!
This attitude was made evident at the Chicago Darwinian Centennial in 1959 where 2,500 delegates assembled themselves to commemorate the hundredth years since the release of Charlie's book The Origin of Species. The noted evolutionist Sir Julian Huxley, Thomas' grandson, declared in his sermon to the congregation,
"Evolution had no room for the supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved. We all accept the fact of evolution. The evolution of life is no longer a theory. It is a fact. It is the basis of all our thinking.
It's like what the idol-makers said to ancient Israel that day they made the golden calf: "Behold these be thy gods, O Israel, fall down and worship!" (Ex. 32:4) But today the calf doesn't even have to be golden anymore! In fact, it can be a monkey, or a tadpole, or any creeping thing. "Behold, these be thy gods, O Israel, crawl down and worship the little tadpole and a little bit of jelly, a little wriggle-tail and the four four-footed creatures and creeping things. These are thy gods, these are the creatures that made you, this is what you came from, they are your creators"--this is exactly what evolution teaches!

Life From Non-Life?

At the core of evolutionary theory is the big assumption that life somehow arose from non-life, that by pure chance the right chemicals happened to be in the right place, in the right arrangement, at the right time, under the right conditions, and by some mysterious, unknown electrochemical process -- POOF -- life created itself! This assumption is completely contrary to a universally accepted and proven law of science, known as the second law of thermodynamics, which states that "All processes (left to themselves) go toward a greater state of disorder, disorganisation, disarrangement and less complexity."4
In other words, inanimate matter never increases its own order, organisation or complexity--these always decrease! And even if the elements could arrange themselves into a certain definite pattern, as is necessary for life, they could not make themselves a living cell because LIFE is not a mere physical arrangement of chemicals! The likelihood of this happening is so far-fetches that Princeton University Professor of Biology Edwin Conklin has said: "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
Did Charley make a monkey out of you?
As for the so-called "simple cell", from which the evolutionists say all living creatures have evolved, Look Magazine declared, "THE CELL IS AS COMPLICATED AS NEW YOUR CITY." The well-known evolutionist Loren Eisely likewise admitted in his book, The Immense Journey, that "Intensified effort revealed that even the supposedly simple amoeba was a complex, self-operating chemical factory. The notion that he was a simple blob, the discovery of whose chemical composition would enable us instantly to set the life process in operation, turned out to be, at best, a monstrous caricature of the truth."
Can you imagine a dictionary, a chemical factory, or New York City, coming into existence by itself--POOF--without any assistance from an intelligent designer, planner or creator? Such is the logic of evolution's imaginary assumption that the infinitely complex "simple" cell accidentally came together and came alive by blind, unguided chance! Commenting on this assumption, the British biologist Woodger said, "It is simple dogmatism--asserting that what you want to believe did in fact happen." The absurdity of this evolutionary logic is only amplified as we move on to the even more complex, multi-celled forms of life.

The Existence Of Species

According to evolution, today's plant and animal species are all merely transitional forms, part of an endless chain of life whose links are gradually evolving into more advanced stages. For this reason Darwin regarded the classification "species" as "a mere useless abstraction" and "as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience."
This is in direct contradiction to God's Word which states that all living creatures were created "after their kind" with the ability to bring forth seed, or fruit, "after their Kind." (Gen. 1) Now this word "kind" is the old King James translation of the Hebrew word "min", which today's scholars have translated to mean "species" So today's living creatures are not the result of some sort of transmutation of species, but definite set species! Not natural selection, but God's selection! Not evolutionary adaptations, but God's Creations!
We never heard yet or they never proved yet that any dog ever became a cat or a cat a dog! There are all kinds of dogs and all kinds of cats, but there are no dog-cats or no cat-dogs! Because God created everything "after its own kind" and they can't possibly get out of that kind. They may vary within their kind or specie, but they'll never change into another! It's impossible!
These facts even disturbed Darwin, who questioned, "Why, if species have descended from the other species by fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" The answer to Charles' question is simple! All he had to do was read Genesis Chapter One and he could have known that species have not descended from other species, but were created by God in orderly, set "kinds"--and that's why all nature is not in confusion!


But haven't the scientists working with genetics produced new species of hybrid plants and animals? Doesn't this prove that entirely new species could have evolved from the interbreeding of different parent species? NO! The accepted definition among the scientific community of a species is, "A group of organisms that freely interbreed and produce fertile offspring." And the rare hybrids that can be produced by crossing two species are not "fertile offspring," but are sterile! As The Collegiate Encyclopedia acknowledges, "The infertility of species hybrids is one mechanism by which species can remain distinct."
In other words, God Himself has placed the barrier of sterility against the mixing up of his original appointed "kinds." An example of this is the mule, which is a species hybrid between a male, ass and a female horse. Although outwardly appearing to be a new species or "kind", it is impossible for a male and female mule to reproduce mule offspring!--They cannot bypass the unmovable boundary of sterility! The only way to produce more mules is to continually cross a male ass with a female horse. This God ordained biological principle was verified by the famous evolutionary professor of zoology, Richard B. Goldschmidt, who wrote, "No where have the limits of the species been transgressed, and these limits are separated from the limits of the next good species by the unbridged gap, sterility."


What about the extensive radiation experiments that have produced actual mutations and changes in creatures such as the fruit fly? Isn't this ample evidence to prove that similar mutations could be the "chief building blocks of evolutionary change," as Sir Julian Huxley has called them, and as most scientists and educators today claim them to be?
No! None of the many thou sands of scientific experiments with mutations have ever produced a new "kind" or specie of animal or plant--never! All of the geneticists and evolutionists, with all of their knowledge and intellect, under "perfect" laboratory conditions, and using their modern radiation techniques that speed up the occurrence of mutations a million-fold--they have utterly failed to change or mutate one "kind" into another! Yet these same evolutionists somehow expect us to believe that blind, unguided chance has produced the millions of beautiful, varying and complex forms of life on the earth today!
And as far as mutational changes being the "chief building blocks" of evolution, Hermann J. Muller, who won the 1946 Nobel prize for his contributions to the science of genetics, said,
"IN MORE THAN 99 PERCENT OF CASES THE MUTATION OF A GENE PRODUCES SOME KIND OF HARMFUL EFFECT, SOME DISTURBANCE OF FUNCTION. ... Most mutations are bad; in fact, good ones are so rare that we may consider them ALL as BAD." To illustrate the effect of gene mutations on an organism, H. Kalmus stated in his book, Genetics, "A popular comparison would be with a watch; if a part of the mechanism is altered by some change, it is very unlikely that the watch will be improved by the accident."
A clear-cut example of the negative effects of gene mutations occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, at the end of World War II. The members of the populace that escaped immediate death from the hellish atomic bombs used against these cities were subjected to varying degrees of atomic radiation--resulting in thousands of mutations. None of these mutations produced any new, superior, advanced forms of human beings, as evolution might lead us to expect. Instead, the pitiful victims of these gene mutations suffered deformities, damage and death!
Drugs and chemicals can also cause mutations, as countless victims today can sadly testify. One of the most widely known instances of this in recent years was the tranquilizer THALIDOMIDE. Again, none of these chemically-induced mutations were beneficial to the "human species," but rather resulted in cruelly deformed babies, many without arms or legs! These tragic examples certainly affirm the assertion of Dr. W.E. Lammerts, former director of research for Germains Seed Company, that "biologically, ALL mutations are defective!" They are by no means the purely theoretical "building blocks of evolution" that some liars claim them to be.