Everything You Know is Wrong

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • Nothing can, ever has, or ever will turn guppies into puppies.

    Everything you know is wrong! (Hows that feel?)

    Lloyd Pye dismisses both Evolutionists and Creationists

    By Khier Starchylde

    Our egos tend to scream when told that what we have long believed and cherished is simply in error, or worse that weve been utterly duped by those with vested interests in our staying ignorant. Recall the stories of the Catholic Church refusing to pay any heed to Galileo? The Greeks those clergy studied wrote of the sun being the center around which Earth traveled, but that interfered with the dogma. They didnt want that view to be known. They wouldnt even look into the telescope! Finally science and Darwin triumphed. We had a monkey trial to let evolution be freely taught in the schools, and now you and I have come to think of evolution as the truthexcept for those whose primary source of beliefs comes from Creationists. People believing Genesis as a literal truth would cheer Lloyd Pyes Everything You Know Is Wrong because of how he devastates evolutionary theory, but then he swipes aside the usually believed Sunday school teachings as well. Literalist Creationists who measure creation in terms of seven days or seven thousand years, and human duration as 6000 years (after adding up all the begats in Old Testament), simply are trying to fit facts to their predetermined requirements. Yet rock strata, pollen, astronomical relationships, half-lives, DNA, and numerous indicators all testify to million-year/billion-year antiquity, despite the reportings of Christian Creationist, Kent Hovind. Perhaps theres a place for divine creation but not in the form its been generally proffered. The validity of Pyes rejection of evolution is not all that complicated, and well simplify it even further in this principle: No Macroevolution has ever taken place. The definition and meaning of this statement is easily seen in

  • this text from Pyes book: There is no such thing as macroevolution. There is no trace of it in the fossil record, nor in the world around us. Sea worms did not and do not become fishes, fishes did not and do not become amphibians, amphibians did not and do not become mammals. In every case the difference between critical body parts and functions (internal organs, digestive tracts, reproductive systems, etc.) are so vast, transition from one to another would require dramatic changes that would be easily discernible in the fossil record [19]. That leaves us with microevolutionthe simple modification of size or shape of a beak, but not the changing from gills to wings, or for that matter, even the change of a bacterium. Bacteria mutate but they dont alter from being a parasite to finding food for themselves. They have remained essentially the same for billions of years. Only microevolution takes place. One illustration of this is in Nature 29 Jan 98 which tells of an ant fossil dated at 50 million years, and its unchanged. Ants didnt turn in to arachnids with two more legs because it just doesnt happen in nature. Or else we would have found some form of ant-spiders, the in-between stages, but we never do. The missing links are never found. Even the formulation of life and what would actually be quite complicated bacteria from a primordial soup or plasma has obstacles beyond counting. The famous astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, calculated the likelihood of any living organismeven [the simple single-celled bacterium called a prokaryoteemerging naturally from a prebiotic soup is equal to a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Pye isnt unique in raising his voice against evolution. The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution by William Fix, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin Retried by Norman Macbeth, and Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton all sing similar songs. Milton says, Geological evidence that contradicts Darwins theory of gradual evolution, while favoring the position that life upon this planet reached its present form through sudden albeit mysterious changes. As a friend of mine put it, Nothing can, ever has, or ever will turn guppies into puppies. The Creationist readers are jumping up and down at this point and saying I told you so! but here are some Creationist ideas from the Bible that are totally irreconcilable with extant scientific data:

    1) the Earth came into existence before the sun and stars; 2) the land plants came into existence before the Sun;

  • 3) the first life forms were plants; 4) fruit trees appeared before fish; 5) birds appeared before land reptiles.

    Whether or not there was divine intervention in creation here on Earth, the above five events did NOT occur as the writer of Genesis describes. Creationists are simply going to have to give up a literal understanding.

    Primates, Hominoids and Hominids The last ditch attempt of the advocates for evolutionary theory has come from the well known Stephen Gould proposed punctuated equilibrium, that really rejects unintentionally evolutions gradualism to try to explain what happens after a massive extinction (like an ice age or asteroid impact). They practically join the Creationists by proposing a sudden burst of natures creativity, producing very different and evolved creatures either from nothing or from some left-over form from before the preceding catastrophe. Punk-eek (as its called) might as well have described God coming down and populating the millions of species in a few days. Thats how extreme punk-eek is as far as Pye is concerned.

    We were developed/created by some entity who utilized genetic manipulation, crossbreeding, or a combination of both.

    From what weve seen so far, to think of humans deriving from apes, suddenly or slowly is quite out of the question. It is completely insignificant that chimps and humans share 98% of similar DNA It would still be macroevolution to make that transition. We have no record of any such leap ever occurring. It becomes logical to understand that somehow Cro-Magnon suddenly appeared. Neanderthal had been around a long time but then homo sapiens sprung to life. As Pye suggests, were left with these possibilities:

    (1) We [hominids] arrived of our own volition and under our own steam (i.e., we migrated from somewhere outside the planet. (2) We were brought from somewhere else by some entity who placed us here to live, with or without our cooperation. (3) We were developed/created by some entity who utilized genetic manipulation, crossbreeding, or a combination of both.

    Even these possibilities will jangle many readers, but as Pye puts it, How can ordinary people be expected to have access to even a sliver of the truth about

  • such matters if both the scientific establishment and religious fundamentalists link arms against it? The answer is we cant.

    Regarding prejudice David Icke in Robots Rebellion describes the maze of linked arms: As Arthur Findlay points out in his outstanding work, The Curse of Ignorance, people were still being fined and jailed in Britain up to the last century for daring to criticise David and other Old Testament heroes who were believed to be vehicles for the righteousness of God [56].

    Its always an up-hill struggle against tradition and accepted beliefs. One of Pyes battles is to uncover the huge evidence of (and private scientific belief in) the existence of Yeti, Sasquatch, Alma, and Agogwe. Well examine what Pye has shown about these creatures and their continuation of the line of Neanderthals. Pye states,

    Charles Darwins long-sought missing link remains missing and is certain to stay that wayforever. In its place stands the hominoids, patiently awaiting their turn on the world stage. When the first hominoid(s) is/are brought in, it will prove beyond doubt that humans did not evolve on planet Earth. In fact, genetic testing of it/

    them will prove they are indigenous primates that developed (a still-mysterious process that can include extensive microevolution but not macroevolution) here alongside monkeys and apes. Having to accept hominoids as real will

  • require having to acknowledge that the prehuman fossil record is comprised entirely of their bones, rather than ours. That admission will then force each of usincluding, however reluctantly, all Darwinists and Creationiststo confront a truly awesome question: Where did humans come from?

    That question will crush scientists and religious leaders around the world because it can have only one possible, plausible answer: Somewhere other than here.

    The creature that did come from here is the hominoid, an animal resembling man, i.e., the Yeti and Sasquatch. Hominoids came from primates, Pye teaches us. One of the things we know that is wrong is that macroevolution is real and that Neanderthals derived from apes and that we derived from Neanderthals. Not even Darwin believed this. Pye summarizes, [Darwin] said humans and apes shared a common ancestor that lived somewhere in the depths of prehistory, but they did not precede us on the lower rungs of our evolutionary ladder [37]. One ... basic truth is that no creature even remotely resembling humans appears on Earth until the Cro-Magnons at least 120,000 years ago (and almost certainly earlier than that ...). This can be considered a truth because for the prior 4,000,000 years the hominid fossil record contains only thick-boned, heavily muscled creatures who are brutes compared to humans [185].

    Where did humans come from? . . . Somewhere other than here.

    Immediately one wonders about the continued line of homo erectus and the Neanderthals if they didnt lead to humans, and remember they could not lead to humans because macroevolution doesnt happen. Enter the hominoids. The stories of the Yeti (Abominable Snowman), Sasquatch (Bigfoot) , Alma (Kaptar) and Agogwe are true. Scientists have had quite an extensive documentation but have chosen to pay no more attention to it, apparently because it bursts too many bubbles. First off there are dozens of other names for these creatures in different languages from peoples on all the continents except Antarctica. One Russian village in the 1890s actually captured, tamed, and raised children from one Alma named Zana. She fought hard after being captured and chained but eventually

  • both she and the townspeople of Tkhima accepted each other. Apparently this wasnt all that unusual. Pye states, It was a rare but well-accepted event in the 1600, 1700, and 1800s. Zana had children by some of the towns more bold men, and these offspring were not hairy and as brutish as she. They could talk and pass for humans. The townspeople who knew those descendants have been interviewed by Professor A.A. Mashkovtsev and Dr. Boris Porshnev (1960s). Her description fits what researchers have put together about Neanderthal. Her expression was far more animal than human, says Pye, and her body was completely covered with hair except for a few spots (like her palms). He goes on,

    Her teeth were large and strong enough to crack any nut. She was incredibly swift afoot, fast enough to keep pace with a running horse! She was also powerful enough to swim the Mokvi River when it raged during spring thaws. She often playedsometimes obsessivelywith rocks, grinding them together or flaking and smashing them into chips and cores. Apparently some deep-seated instinct drove her to create edges and/or points on stones, which not surprisingly resembled the Mousterian tools made by Neanderthals (some of whose skeletal remains were later found near Tkhina). However, she was never known to use them for more than [throwing] projectiles at dogs [whom she definitely did not like, 180].

    Pye relates other famous cases too, including one where a modern person was captured by Almas, put in a sack, then kept around the camp for six days till he escaped. Additional large amounts of tracks have not only been sighted but preserved in plaster as well. Im mentioning a few of the plentiful items of support that Pye and others have documented for the certain existence of these generally 7-8-foot creatures (except for the pigmy Agogwes). What also makes Pye significant is that he connects the Neanderthal to these beings. In other words the homo erectus and Neanderthals did not lead on an impossible chain (theres no macroevolution) to humans but clearly to the Almas, Yetis, Sasquatch, and Agogwes who look just like them, track like them, and act like them. No language to speak of, highly vegetarian, large boned, and massively strong. It certainly is surprising that this creature could be impregnated by humans (about 10 times!), so perhaps theres more to the origins of Almasand to the origins of humans.

  • How did we get here if we didnt develop from the Neanderthal? While Pye and others show macroevolution to be thoroughly impossible, and Creationism as presented to be completely inadequate, he still comes up with the scientific puzzle of how did the Earth repopulate after catastrophes and even arrive at the enormous variety of species that could not have evolved into each other? Were going to answer these questions to some degree. No matter what we come up with, you can be sure that the scientific and religious models weve so far let ourselves be governed by do NOT tell us the truth, for whatever reasons those may be. Perhaps we are ready to find out what really has been going on.

    Origins of humanity: perhaps its not what you think.Lloyd Pyes further exploration of humans, Sasquatch,

    and the Anunnaki

    Pye has tried to convince us in his book Everything You Know Is Wrong that both the story of human creation did not occur in the way that evolutionists or creationists say it did. Science and religion have both had axes to grindto the point that they prefer tradition to accuracy. Pye tells us this repeatedly. We saw that macroevolution has never occurred; therefore humans did not evolve from Neanderthal. Another point to substantiate that certainty is that DNA taken from Neanderthals shows no possible linkage with humans The facts drive Pye, Sitchin, and others to recognize that since homo sapiens like you, our ancestors, and me did not develop on this planet, we have to have come from somewhere else. Most of these researchers

  • believe we arrived as, or with, ETs. However, we do have some sources that tell of human origins that actually could satisfy the evolutionist, creationist, and historian, if they were willing to let go of their pet beliefs. The first human civilization that our history documents (Atlantis and Mu notwithstanding) was Sumer, a sudden culture whose unaccountable achievements perplex historians who describe these people arising from a stone age. Yet to indicate how magnificent the Sumerian peoples were, Pye suggests that their culture may have been the best that ever existed; he says, [it] appeared full-blown ... with models of over 100 of the most important cultural firsts ascribed to every superior society. In addition, many of those firsts have not been equaled until modern times. Some of the monumental accomplishments were the first schools, the first bicameral congress, the first historians, the first pharmacopoeia,... the first cosmogony and cosmology, the first proverbs and sayings, the first literary debates, the first library catalogue, the first law codes and social reforms, the first medicine, agriculture, and search for world peace and harmony [192].

    . . . sources that tell of human origins that actually could satisfy the evolutionist, creationist, and historian,

    if they were willing to let go of their pet beliefs.

    We are told by experts that the language was marvelous with precise grammar and rich vocabulary [Pye, 192], and the first cities housed 10,000-50,000 people. Home of ziggurats, well planned street layouts, and palaces, the cities also contained their richest treasures for us, hundreds of thousands of clay tablets intricately detailing the lives of these ancient people. About 200 scholars can read the cuneiform of the Sumerians, but the most impressive researcher for understanding the teachings is the famed Zecharia Sitchin who has gleaned large amounts of information from the tablets in the museums of the world. His book The Twelfth Planet in 1976 increasingly shocks and rocks the scientific, religious, and lay worlds because his scholarship reveals the simple, faithful accounts of these brilliant, inexplicable Sumerians who describe human origins in terms that do not smack of myth or parable. In fact they form the bases for the tales (called mythology and religion by our civilization) of the Greeks and Hebrews. When Lloyd Pye searched for answers to the dilemma of the leap from

  • Neanderthal to human he found solutions in Sitchins descriptions of the Sumerian libraries. They told of all aspects of their lives in sober, intricate, reliable detail. Why discount their origination stories? Especially since the Hebrews obviously borrowed and copied them! Some astonishing items that persuaded Lloyd to take Sitchin and Sumer gravely seriously is that their science quite accurately described the heavens. For example they showed full knowledge of a spherical planet moving in an ecliptic orbit around [the] sun [197] a couple thousand years before Abraham was herding sheep and people. But more amazing is that they knew fully about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Here is where Nibiru, the additional planet to our system, comes in because they numbered the eleven solar system bodies (counting our Moon and the Sun) we have now, plus a twelfth that our scientists are only now predicting. Various astronomers, historians, archaeologists, and religious clergy know of this information, but as Lloyd wryly puts it, the todays facts [are] turned into myths by scholars desperate to avoid confronting any reality that their training has taught them is not acceptable [199]. Those who conceal this information are protecting their jobs, reputations, and/or belief systems.

    [The Sumerians . . . knew fully about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. Here is where Nibiru . . . comes in.

    Additionally the tablets tell that the Earth was formed from the collision of Nibiru when it first came into our Solar System. Two of its moons smacked into and cleaved an original planet (Tiamat), creating our Earth and the asteroid belt, another astronomical knowledge Sumerians knew of. Our Moon used to be one of Nibirus. The upshot is that Nibirus inhabitants (the Anunnaki) cycle back into our solar system every 3600 hundred years. During one of those cycles, over 400,000 years ago they colonized Earth, and about 200,000 years ago they made humans from the Neanderthals, just as current scientists and genetically engineering and cloning species in laboratories today. Does that sound like the myth stories youve ever heard of? Elsewhere I examined C.L. Turnages research on the Mesopotamian and Jewish renderings of Sumerian tablets and teachings that indicated derivation from the Anunnaki. Turnage points to abundant evidence that proves considerable technology wielded by the ancients. She shows evidence of atomic

  • blasts that occurred in Palestine (corroborated by Alan Alford, David Childress, and others). Pye addresses the cry of the skeptics who want proof:

    Where is something they left behind? Where is any hard evidence for their presence? Actually, the Earth bristles with such evidence, but each case is rejected by science. The Great Pyramids of Giza? Built by primitive Egyptians. The remarkable city of Tiahuanaco on Lake Titicaca in Bolivia? Built by primitive Amerinds. Stonehenge in England? Baalbek in Lebanon? Teotihuacan in Mexico? Sacsahuaman, Ollantaytambu, and Machu Picchu in Peru? Easter Island? The Sphinx? These and many others, authorities insist, were all built by the primitive humans alive in those areas at those times; and they insist it despite the fact that none of those megalithic (massive stone) monuments could be duplicated today. With all the technological expertise at our command, we still cannot build edifices of such enormous size using such hard stones cut and placed with such Swiss-watch-like precision. Like the tracks of hominoids, that alone should be evidence enough of at least one superior culture at work on Earth at some time in its distant past [238].

    One has to have a considerable agenda to dismiss these obvious visible signs of highly advanced cultures. These arent quaint Ripley curiosities. These are facts of greatness, understood only in terms that reject current scientific and religious histories and estimates of human beings.

    Thats why various Egyptologists, astronomers, NASA officials, evolutionists, and governments lie! They seek to cover up the obvious elephant sitting on our couches in our living rooms. The Giza Pyramid was (is potentially still?) part of the ground-based landing system for Anunnaki space-craft [Pye, 241].

    Its clear that such information is quite a bit for various camps to swallow, yet even numerous religious leaders are referring to ET or to Sumerian representations of him.

    Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Vatican theologian insider close to the Pope, has gone on national Italian television five times in recent months to proclaim that extraterrestrial contact is a real phenomenon. Balducci recently said with great emphasis, At this point ... with certainty ... the existence of these beings is. It cannot be doubted. The noted talk show host Jeff Rense paraphrased the now famous comment by the Pope that if there are ETs out there, they are Gods

  • children too.

    A Protestant Pentecostal minister, Miriam Hellman in Washington DC, has written a book called God and the gods: Travelers from Another World which focuses on the Nephilim because of her impressions from both Sitchin and a famous Jewish scholar. Her studies led her to write The Bible presents amazing evidence of alien invasions.

    Pye, then, appears to be not so far afield with his deductions and evidence than perhaps might be imagined at first. Even the religious are acknowledging ET.

    If Lloyd and Sitchin are right they have accounted for the anomalies in information that science with evolution and that religion with cretinism have given us. The Neanderthal did lead to humans but not as the evolutionists think, but via ET genetic engineering. Natural Neanderthal went on to become Sasquatch and Alma (not a large leap, just more microevolution). Hebrew Genesis for Sitchin, Turnage, and Hellman respresents a careful code of great truths but symbolically portrayed and requiring a key not unsimilar to the repeating Bible code popularized by Michael Drosnin.

    None of this information of course even touches the question of where ET comes from. Not what planet did he come from, but what method made him and Neanderthals ancestor arrive in the first place?

    Clearly theres still quite a major role for the creationist, once more information has been gathered.

    Since I wrote the above, Llyod Pye has had chance to run into what appears to be a genuine ET skull. Here are some commentary from YouTube and Wikipedia:

  • Ancient Bone Skull Baffles ScienceIs It Human? Is It Alien? Is it BOTH?

    THE STARCHILD SKULL is a unique 900-year-old bone skull found in Mexico in the 1930s. The Starchild Project is an informal organization which began in 1999 when Ray and Melanie Young, the owners of the Starchild Skull, asked Lloyd Pye to head research efforts to determine what caused the unusual shape and properties of the bone.

    The results uncovered by Pyes team ruled out all known deformities, and presented the scientific community with a bone profile never before seen on Earth.

    Analysis

    The skull is abnormal in several respects. A dentist determined, based on examination of the upper right maxilla found with the skull, that it was a childs skull, 4.5 to 5 years in age.[5] However, the volume of the interior of the starchild skull is 1600 cubic centimeters, which is 200 cm larger than the average adults brain, and 400 cm larger than an adult of the same approximate size. The orbits are oval and shallow, with the optic nerve canal situated at the bottom of the orbit instead of at the back. There are no frontal sinuses.[4] The back of the skull is flattened, but not by artificial means. The skull consists of calcium hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6]

    Dating

    Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the first on the normal human skull at

  • the University of California at Riverside in 1999, and on the Starchild skull in 2004 at Beta Analytic in Miami, the largest radiocarbon dating laboratory in the world. Both independent tests gave a result of 900 years 40 years since death. [7]

    DNA testing

    DNA testing in 1999 at BOLD, a forensic DNA lab in Vancouver, British Columbia found standard X and Y chromosomes in two samples taken from the skull, conclusive evidence that the child was not only human (and male), but both of his parents must have been human as well, for each must have contributed one of the human sex chromosomes.[8] BOLD was unable to extract any DNA from the maxilla.[7] Further DNA testing at Trace Genetics, which unlike BOLD specializes in extracting DNA from ancient samples, in 2003 recovered mitochondrial DNA though it was not the child of the skull found with it. Its mother did belong to a known Native American haplogroup, haplogroup C. However, useful lengths of nuclear DNA or Y-chromosomal DNA for further testing have not yet been recovered. [9]

    Further abnormalities

    It is claimed that later testing in 2004 at the Royal Holloway college of the University of London revealed unexplained fibers in the bone of the skull and a reddish residue in the cancellous bone, neither of which are known or recorded to exist prior to the discovery.[10]

    Paranormal interest

    The skull has garnered great interest with those interested in UFOs and alien visitation. Some contend that it is the skull of an alien, or a human/alien hybrid, based on the shape of the skull bearing similarities to the common representation of aliens as Greys.[13] Proponents of a paranormal explanation for the skulls origin reject hypothesis involving non-paranormal causes such as cradle boarding or hydrocephaly,[14] and contend that it has many other abnormalities such as the thickness, density, and strength of the bone that argue against the skull being human.[15]