Intervention Theory

[Truthinus]

Now I don't want people to think that I believe that everything that Erich Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin says is true - but I say lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Intervention.htm

The Sumerians always referred to their gods in a multiple sense and never with upper case emphasis. They wrote about those gods in matter-of-fact terms, describing them as flesh-and-blood beings with whom they could have sex, produce hybrid offspring, even occasionally marry. And Sumerian knowledge went much deeper. They had a plausible explanation for how our solar system came to have its unusual lineup of planets and moons. Earth’s missing crust and Wegener’s tectonic plates are impossible in an astral body forming normally in the vacuum of space, yet the Sumerians accounted for both. It is equally impossible for earth’s oceans of water to form as close to the sun as the planet now orbits, yet there it is. The Sumerians gave a reason that makes sense. Earth’s overly large, precisely aligned moon is also dealt with, as is the asteroid belt, another conundrum they neatly accommodate.

 

Then comes the cruncher, a swing-from-the-heels knockout punch.

 

The Sumerians wrote that our immediate solar system contained nine planets plus one other, a tenth, travelling in a 3600-year elliptical (rather than the usual circular) orbit around the sun. That planet they called Nibiru, the home of their gods, whom they called the Anunnaki. At a stroke this negated the objection that off-world beings couldn’t make a journey to earth from the closest star systems in anything approaching a reasonable timeframe. These gods came from the neighborhood, so to speak, from just around the corner.

 

My comment:

Even if the above story is not true, it would take only around 8.4 years (in Earth terms) to travel from our nearest Star (apart from the Sun) to Earth, at half the speed of light. Then also, the travellers would have a different perspective of time by them travelling half-speed light and much more time would have gone by on Earth, than for the travellers to our World.

 

The Sumerians also counted planets from the perspective of the space-faring gods on Nibiru, from the outside in, calling earth the seventh, rather than the third rock from the sun. And, with a stunning flash of insight, they wrote that when viewed from “on high” in the heavens, Uranus and Neptune looked like “blue-green watery twins.”

 

Most astronomers assumed anything past Saturn was likely to be a cold dead rock, so it came as quite a surprise to see photographs from Voyager 2 in 1986, and again in 1989, proving the Sumerians were right. Uranus and Neptune were made of blue-green slush.

 

How could the Sumerians know such things? How could they know Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto were even there, much less how they looked if viewed up close in space? We didn’t learn about the existence of those three planets until 1781, 1846, and 1930, respectively. How could the Sumerians know about any of it, much less all of it? Simple…their gods told them.

 

This forum does not allow for many words so read the whole essay at

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Intervention.htm

 

Have a serious look around http://www.lloydpye.com/Articles.html

[Truthinus]

http://www.lloydpye.com/A-Literal.htm

 

THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT

 

by Lloyd Pye

 

In 1905, a 25-year-old patent clerk named Albert Einstein demolished the 200-year-old certainty that Isaac Newton knew all there was to know about basic physics. In a technical paper only a few pages long, Einstein sent a huge part of his current “reality” to history’s dustbin, where it found good company with thousands of other discards large and small. In 1905, though, Newton’s discard was about as large as the bin would hold.

 

Now another grand old “certainty” hovers over history’s dustbin, and it seems only a matter of time before some new Einstein writes the few pages (or many pages) that will bring it down and relegate it to history. And, as was the case in 1905, every “expert” in the world laughs heartily at any suggestion that their certainty could be struck down. Yet if facts are any yardstick—which should always be the case but frequently isn’t—Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is moving toward extinction.

 

Please note this: not everyone who challenges evolution is automatically a Creationist. Darwinists love to tar all opponents with that brush because so much of Creationist dogma is absurd. Creationists mulishly exclude themselves from serious consideration by refusing to give up fatally flawed parts of their argument, such as the literal interpretation of “six days of creation.” Of course, some have tried to take a more reasonable stance, but those few can’t be heard over the ranting of the many who refuse.

 

Recently a new group has entered the fray, much better educated than typical Creationists. This group has devised a theory called “Intelligent Design,” which has a wealth of scientifically established facts on its side. The ID’ers, though, give away their Creationist roots by insisting that because life at its most basic level is so incredibly and irreducibly complex, it could never have simply “come into being,” as Darwinists insist.

 

Actually, the “life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules” dogma is every bit as absurd as the “everything was created in six days” dogma, which the ID’ers understand and exploit. But they also suggest that everything came into existence at the hands of a God or “by means of outside intervention,” which makes clear how they’re betting. “Outside intervention” is a transparent euphemism for (with apologies to J.K. Rowling) You-Know-What, which to Darwinists, Creationists, and ID’ers alike is the most absurd suggestion of all. Yet it can be shown that You-Know-What has the widest array of facts on its side and, in the end, has the best chance of being proved correct.

 

Virtually every scientist worth their doctorate will insist that somehow, someway, a form of evolution is at the heart of all life forms and processes on Earth. By “evolution” they mean the entire panoply of possible interpretations that might explain how, over vast stretches of time, simple organisms can and do transform themselves into more complex organisms. That broad definition gives science as a whole a great deal of room to bob and weave its way toward the truth about evolution, which is ostensibly its goal. However, among individual scientists that same broadness of coverage means nobody has a “lock” on the truth, which opens them up to a withering array of internecine squabbles.

 

In Darwin’s case, those squabbles were initially muted. Rightly or wrongly, his theory served a much higher purpose than merely challenging the way science thought about life’s processes. It provided something every scientist desperately needed: a strong counter to the intellectual nonsense pouring from pulpits in every church, synagogue, and mosque in the world. Since well before Charles Darwin was born, men of science knew full well that God did not create the Earth or anything else in the universe in six literal days. But to assert that publicly invited the same kind of censure that erupts today onto anyone who dares to openly challenge evolution. Dogma is dogma in any generation.

 

Darwin’s honeymoon with his scientific peers was relatively brief. It lasted only as long as they needed to understand that all he had really provided was the outline of a forest of an idea, one that only in broad terms seemed to account for life’s stunningly wide array. His forest lacked enough verifiable trees. Even so, once the overarching concept was crystallized as “natural selection,” the term “survival of the fittest” was coined to explain it to laymen. When the majority of the public became convinced that evolution was a legitimate alternative to Creationism, the scientific gloves came off. Infighting became widespread regarding the trees that made up Darwin’s forest.

 

Over time, scientists parsed Darwin’s original forest into more different trees than he could ever have imagined. That parsing has been wide and deep, and it has taken down countless trees at the hands of scientists themselves. But despite such thinning, the forest remains upright and intact. Somehow, someway, there is a completely natural force at work governing all aspects of the flow and change of life on Earth. That is the scientific mantra, which is chanted religiously to counter every Creationist—and now Intelligent Design—challenge to one or more of the rotten trees that frequently become obvious.

 

Even Darwin realized the data of his era did not provide clear-cut evidence his theory was correct. Especially troubling was the absence of “transitional species” in the fossil record. Those were needed to prove that over vast amounts of time species did in fact gradually transform into other, “higher” species. So right out of the chute the theory of evolution was on the defensive regarding one of its cornerstones, and more than 140 years later there are still no clear-cut transitional species apparent in the fossil record.

 

Because this is the most vulnerable part of Darwin’s theory, Creationists attack it relentlessly, which has forced scientists to periodically put forth a series of candidates to try to take the heat off. Unfortunately for them, in every case those “missing links” have been shown to be outright fakes and frauds. An excellent account is found in “Icons Of Evolution” by Jonathan Wells (Regnery, 2000). But scientists are not deterred by such exposure of their shenanigans. They feel justified because, they insist, not enough time has passed for them to find what they need in a grossly incomplete fossil record.

 

The truth is that some lengthy fossil timelines are missing, but many more are well accounted for. Those have been thoroughly examined in the past 140-plus years, to no avail. In any other occupation, a 140-year-long trek up a blind alley would indicate a wrong approach has been taken. But not to scientists. They blithely continue forward, convinced of the absolute rightness of their mission and confident their fabled missing link could be found beneath the next overturned rock. Sooner or later, they believe, one of their members will uncover it, so they all work in harmonious concert toward that common goal. Individually, though, it’s every man or woman for themselves.

[Truthinus]

http://www.lloydpye.com/a-carpenter.htm

 

ESSAY ON CARPENTER GENES

Why Darwinian Evolution Is Flatly Impossible

 

by Lloyd Pye

 

This was in Australia's Exposure Magazine in November 1998.

 

No matter how high evidence was stacked up against evolution in the past, Darwinists could always slip through the "...it COULD have happened..." loophole. As long as genetic mutations and slight physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as at least plausible. Not any more. In five brief pages, this article closes the Darwinian loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same!

-David Summers, Publisher/Editor

 

Remembrance of Things Past

1999 will be the 140th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species. In that landmark volume he postulated that life on Earth had developed into its millions of forms through a long, slow series of fundamental changes in the physical structure of all living things, plants and animals alike. Though small and gradual, these changes would be relatively constant. Bit by imperceptible bit, gills would turn into lungs, fins would turn into limbs, scales would turn into skin, bacteria would turn into us. The problem for Darwin, and for all Darwinists since, came when the mechanism behind those changes had to be explained.

 

Because Darwin’s era was only beginning to understand cellular function (Gregor Mendel’s treatise on genetics did not appear until 1865), Darwin proposed a system of gradual physiological improvements due to small, discreet advantages that would accrue to the best-adapted progeny (his famous “survival of the fittest”) among all living things (a bit stronger, a bit swifter, a bit hardier), making them subtly different from their parents and producing offspring with similar advantages accruing in their physiological makeup. When enough small changes had compounded themselves through enough generations .... voila! A new species would have emerged, sexually incompatible with the original parent stock, yet inexorably linked to it by a common physiological heritage.

 

Once cellular function came to be better understood, particularly the importance of DNA as the “engineer” driving the entire train of life, it was quickly embraced as the fundamental source of change in Darwin’s original model. Darwinian evolution, as it came to be called, was indisputably caused by mutations at the genetic level. Because such mutations were obvious to early geneticists, and could eventually be induced and manipulated in their laboratories, it seemed beyond doubt that positive mutations in DNA sequencing were the key to explaining evolution. That left neutral mutations exerting no effect, while negative mutations afflicted only the unlucky individuals who expressed them but had no lasting impact on a species’ collective gene pool.

 

Darwin's Blackest Box

In 1996 Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., published a book called Darwin’s Black Box. He defined a “black box” as any device that functions perfectly well, but whose inner workings remain mysterious because they cannot be seen or understood. To Charles Darwin the living cell was an impenetrable black box whose inner workings he could not even imagine, much less understand. To scientists today the cell box is no longer quite as black, but it is still dark enough to leave them with only a faint understanding of how it works. They know its basic components and the functions of those components, but they still don’t know how all those pieces fit together to do what cells do--live.

 

Life is still every bit the profound mystery it was in Darwin’s day. Many additional pieces of the puzzle have found their way onto the table since 1859, but scientists today are not much closer to seeing the whole picture than Darwin or his cronies. That is an ironic reality which few modern Darwinists will accept in their own hearts and minds, much less advertise to the world in general. So they supply the media with intellectual swill that the media, in turn, unknowingly palms off as truth, while the scientists edgily cross their fingers and hold their breath in the hope that someday, maybe even someday soon, but certainly before the great unwashed get wise to the scam, they will finally figure out the great secret...they will see into the heart of the universe’s blackest box...they will understand how life actually works, from the first moment of the first creation to evolution itself.

 

Shall We Gather At The River?

Darwinists teach and preach that life began spontaneously in a mass of molecules floating freely in the Earth’s earliest rivers and seas. Those molecular precursors somehow formed themselves into organic compounds that somehow formed themselves into the very first living organism. This incredible feat of immaculately choreographed bioengineering was, Darwinists insist, accomplished without the aid of any outside agency, such as a Prime Mover (what some would call “God”), and especially not anything extraterrestrial. It was done using only the materials at hand on the early Earth, and accomplished solely by the materials themselves, with a probable assist from a perfectly timed, perfectly aimed lightning bolt that, in the most serendipitous moment imaginable, swirled tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of inanimate molecules into a living entity.

 

For as glibly as Darwinists have fashioned and promoted this scenario in schools to this day, the complexity of its mechanics might challenge the creative skills of a busload of Prime Movers. Countless lipids have to somehow be coaxed to form a membrane that somehow surrounds enough strands of DNA to create a cell that can manage life’s two most basic functions: it must absorb organic and inorganic compounds in its environment and turn them into proteins, which can then be converted into energy and excreta; and it must have the ability to reproduce itself ad infinitum. If all of those varied factors, each a bona fide miracle in itself, do not occur in the precise order demanded by all living cells for their tightly orchestrated, step-by-step development, then the entire process becomes laughably improbable.

 

British astronomer Fred Hoyle has offered the classic analogy for this scenario, stating that its actual likelihood of being true and real equals “that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly assembling a Boeing 747.” It did not and could not happen then, just as it cannot be made to happen now. The very best our biochemists can do today is construct infinitesimal pieces of the puzzle, leaving them little nearer to seeing how life truly works than Darwin and his cohorts 140 years ago. But why? What’s the problem? Haven’t we cracked the atom? Haven’t we flown to the moon? Haven’t we mapped the ocean floors? Yes, yes, and yes. But those things were easy by comparison.

 

Looking For Life In All The Wrong Places

 

If the Darwinists are so wrong, where are they wrong? What is the fundamental mistake they are making? It has to do with where they are looking, which is the cell, inside the cell, and specifically at the functioning of DNA. Because the twisting double-helix of DNA contains the instructions for all of life’s processes, the assumption has always been that disruptions in the patterns of those instructions are the only logical explanation for how physiological changes at both the micro (small) and macro (large) level must be created and executed. In other words, changes in DNA (mutations) must be the engine driving all aspects of evolutionary change. Nothing else makes sense.

 

Sensible or not, however, it is wrong. Why? Because in 1984 a group of British researchers decided to do an experiment utilizing what was then considered to be a universal truth about genes, handed down from Gregor Mendel himself: the idea that genes are sexless. Mendel had postulated that a gene from either parent, whether plant or animal, was equally useful and effective throughout the lifetime of the individual possessing it. This was taken as gospel until those British researchers tried to create mouse embryos carrying either two copies of “father” genes or two copies of “mother” genes. According to Mendel’s laws of inheritance, both male and female embryos should have developed normally. After all, they had a full complement of genes, and if genes were indeed sexless they had all they needed to gestate and thrive.

 

The researchers were stunned when all of their carefully crafted embryos were dead within a few days of being transferred to a surrogate mother’s womb. How could it happen? What could have gone so wrong in a scenario that couldn’t go wrong? They were completely baffled. What they didn’t know, and what many refuse to accept even now, fourteen years later, is that they had unwittingly opened their own--and their icon’s--darkest, blackest box. They had ventured into a region of the cell, and of the functioning of DNA, that they hadn’t imagined was off-limits. By taking that inadvertent journey they ended up forging an entirely new understanding of Mendelian inheritance, while driving a stake through the already weakened heart of Darwinian evolution.

 

A Time To Live And A Time To Die

Normally, father genes or mother genes control the expression of their own activity. A father gene might give, for example, the signal for a crop of head hair to grow--to “express” itself--and to stop expressing when the follicles had been constructed in their proper places in the scalp. The cessation of the expressing process is called methylation, which is the surrounding of expressing genes with clusters of chemicals that shut them off (picture the cap being put back on a toothpaste tube). In the same way, a mother gene might express a pair of eyes and then, when they were completed, “methylate” the gene’s growth processes into inactivity.

 

Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dad’s side of the mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Mom’s side of the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all, while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled unchecked into cancers. Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly sex-biased. What could it possibly mean?

 

Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly, methylated by the other parent! Somehow, someway, by means not clearly imagined, much less understood, genes from one parent had the ability to independently begin or end processes that were critical to the lives of forming embryos. In the world of genetics as it had always been perceived, that was impossible. Only a localized (sexless) gene should be able to control its own destiny or purpose, not a separate gene from an entirely different parent. Cooperating genes broke all the rules of physical inheritance that had been written by Gregor Mendel. Yet imprinted genes do, in fact, disregard Mendel’s rules; and by doing so they provide the above mentioned stake that will inevitably be driven through the heart of classic Darwinian evolution.

 

Life's Blueprint Writ Wrong

So far geneticists have identified about 20 imprinted genes embedded within the 80,000 to 100,000 believed to comprise the entire human genome. New ones are discovered on a regular basis, with many geneticists predicting the final tally will reach hundreds, while others suspect the total might reach into the thousands. But whether hundreds or thousands, any imprinted genes at all means that classic Darwinism can no longer count on mutations in DNA as a plausible mechanism for fundamental physical change.

 

For mutations to be acceptable as the engine of Darwinian change, they have to be able to occur in isolation and then, as stated earlier, pass themselves intact to succeeding generations. By definition that means they have to be able to regulate their own functions, both to express and to methylate their genetic processes. Whenever a trait mutates, whether a longer limb, a stronger muscle, or a more efficient organ, it should pass into the gene pool whole and complete, not half of it being expressed from the male side of a pairing and half from the female side. Why? Because both parents would have to mutate in complementary ways at the same time to the same degree...and then they would have to find each other and mate in order to have even a chance to pass the mutation on!

 

Natural mutations, while statistically rare, are clearly documented. They can be neutral, negative, or positive. So when geneticists contend that isolated mutations in DNA can occur and be passed on to succeeding generations, they first assume the individual with the mutation has been fortunate enough to have the correct one out of the three possibilities. They further assume the individual survives the brutal winnowing process Darwin so correctly labeled “survival of the fittest.” But fittest or not, any fledgling animal or plant must contend with an infinite number of ways to miss the boat to maturity. Assuming that passage is safe, the lucky individual with the positive mutation has to get lucky several more times to produce enough offspring so that at least a few of them possess his or her positive mutation and also survive to maturity to pass it along. It is a series of events that, taken altogether, are extremely unlikely but at least they are feasible, and they do, in fact, happen.

(Text truncated due to restrictions of the forum)

[Truthinus]

Dat funny

 

There is no "life somehow assembled itself out of organic molecules" in the theory of evolution. Another who doesn't know the difference between the theory of evolution and the various ideas about how life started (which evolution does not deal with!).

You are saying that Evolution does not explain how life began on this planet - so how exactly did it begin? I don't have to agree with everything that Lloyd Pye says but when looking at the theories of Evolution as opposed to an 'Almighty God' making us directly, then the Intervention Theory makes much more sense.

 

Don't just pick on one thing (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) but read the whole Website before you deicide what is true or not true.

[f0rd]

You are saying that Evolution does not explain how life began on this planet -[/Quote]

Bingo, hence the title of Darwin's seminal piece, On the origin of species....

 

so how exactly did it begin?[/Quote]

Abiogenesis, perhaps?

 

I don't have to agree with everything that Lloyd Pye says but when looking at the theories of Evolution as opposed to an 'Almighty God' making us directly, then the Intervention Theory makes much more sense.[/Quote]

Apart from Evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.

 

Don't just pick on one thing (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) but read the whole Website before you deicide what is true or not true.

 

Based on what you have posted so far, it's not going to inform me in the slightest.

[flamingjimmy]

You are saying that Evolution does not explain how life began on this planet - so how exactly did it begin? I don't have to agree with everything that Lloyd Pye says but when looking at the theories of Evolution as opposed to an 'Almighty God' making us directly, then the Intervention Theory makes much more sense.

Evolution does not concern the origin of life. It only concerns what happened afterwards, try to understand it is quite simple.

 

Also the 'intervention theory' does not make any more sense at all, it only adds more questions, your 'annunaki' need to have an origin too, or are you fine with just assuming that they appeared out of nothing?

 

Don't just pick on one thing (throwing out the baby with the bathwater) but read the whole Website before you deicide what is true or not true.

I've read your three massive walls of text that you've posted here, I don't need to pick on one thing, it is all complete nonsense, pretty much none of it is true, there is no baby in the bathwater, it's just all dirty water. It would take me all day to respond to every single point that it not true, why don't you try presenting one claim at a time, and providing the evidence for it?

[flamingjimmy]

btw, lloyd pye is a bigfoot and yeti proponent

 

His wiki page's criticism section is longer than the rest of the entry put together

[f0rd]

Secondly, I should add from a practical physics point of view how on earth do you accelerate to half the speed of light without killing yourself?

[HeadingNorth]

Now I don't want people to think that I believe that everything that Erich Von Daniken and Zecharia Sitchin says is true

 

 

Well, that's reasonable. If either one of them says that the sky is blue and today is Wednesday, I'd be inclined to believe them.

 

If we're discussing any of their ludicrous claims about alien visitors and the like, I'm quite happy to disbelieve everything they say. So much of what they say is false, is known to be false, and was already known to be false even before they said it, that I have no qualms about ignoring the rest.

[gabby]

Darwin invented Darwinism.

 

Lloyd Pye invented pye in the sky.