Search this website...



June 21, 2014





Dear Liberty,


     I watched you sleep today.  You are so beautiful.  I saw your little eyes flitter in dream.  I listened to your breathing while your chest raised and lowered.  I noticed your little fingers twitch and was overcome with love for you.  


     As I watched, I considered the multitude of muscles, tissues and intricate pieces that make up your little body.  I pondered all the amazing things that have to come together to make you work.  The miles of veins that take blood from your heart to every other part of you and back again.  I thought of your little brain and how much you have already learned in your two short years and how much more you have to go.  I contemplated the 200 separate components in your eyes working in concert to make those beautiful baby blues shine.


     Glancing over to one of your recent favorite books, The Tooth Book by Dr. Seuss, I was humbled by the fact that we are given two sets of teeth like most mammals.  How fascinating it is that the body knows to grow a set and after a standard amount of time those teeth fall out on their own and a new set grows in.


     My thoughts wondered to your little stomach and how much it can actually hold.  You are your father’s daughter, you know.  There are acids in your stomach so powerful that if a drop were placed on a piece of wood it would eat right through it, yet it does not disturb your tissue.  It amazes me how incredible the human body is.


     Inevitably I began to meditate how you became you.  We are told that science proves humans evolved to our current form over millions of years.  Ok.  Can science prove how the central nervous system developed?  How did the sensory lines form and work their way all through the body to send messages to the brain?  How did the body know that it needed two sets of teeth and how did that second set develop?  Has science demonstrated how the fish developed lungs and was able to begin breathing through the nose instead of gills?  Can science replicate the process that allowed the reptile, an egg-laying creature, to turn into a mammal, a live-birthing creature, or are we forced to just accept millions of years of evolution without any definitive proof?  (see When Does Life Begin?)


     Many will tell you the monotreme is evidence of that transition as they are egg-laying mammals.  Ok, but where is the transformation from reptile to monotreme and more importantly, how did the monotreme evolve into a creature that birthed their off-spring?  If it took millions of years, where are the fossils of all the missing links between the specimens we do have?  If it was spontaneous evolution, why do we not have examples of that happening now?  Also, not only would a male have to undergo the necessary changes to evolve, a female would have to identically mimic those changes as well so the new species could be reproduced.  What are the odds?


     Liberty, you are going to be faced with people demanding there is a consensus regarding evolution.  The claim itself is a huge red flag that something is wrong with this theory as discussed in my letter entitled Is Consensus Always Right?  As science is always changing and new evidence is continuously being discovered, they will never have consensus in science, nor should there be.  This reality will lead some to call you a hater of science.  On the contrary, it is because of science, because of the extraordinary discovers made about our anatomy every day, that the thought of millions of complex components accidentally coming together at just the right moment to form the human body proves to be more and more impossible as we go along.  By their own admission, many evolutionists know this to be true but accepting the alternative is not a possibility for them.  They would rather devote themselves to a lie than accept God.


     Dr. George Wald, a Professor of Biology at the University of Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in medicine and stanch evolutionist, said it best.  “There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”   “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here—as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.”


     Militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith declared, "Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."


     Many will say that there is no credible evidence that creation is possible.  There’s plenty of evidence supporting creationism but those entering the discussion with their results already concluded are the ones dismissing any oppositional proof.  If you refuse to accept a creator  then any evidence supporting that will be outrageous to you.  Even Charles Darwin acknowledged reservations in his own theory in his book The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.  "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible.”  Yet even today his theory is indoctrinated as fact.


     Understand, Liberty, there is a very dangerous practice happening with modern “science”.  The study of science requires one develop a scientific hypothesis, test that hypothesis and then draw conclusions depending on the results i.e. is the hypothesis correct?  Finding support for a hypothesis is not really science.  Proving a hypothesis true is achieved by conducting experiments to DISPROVE the theory.  Unfortunately, too many people with an agenda are trying to use “science” to satisfy the conclusions they want and call any results contrary to that thesis false science, agenda driving, religious based and outright stupid.  (see The Science Is Settled)  Only experiments and discoveries yielding the outcomes supporting their theory are quoted, while discarding any facts disproving their thesis.  This is not science. 


     The truth is there are hundreds of studies being published questioning the evolutionary theory, but teachers are being reprimanded for daring to even discuss them in schools.  Why?  That is what science is all about.  Showing both sides, examining all evidence and determining the best conclusion.  That is not achieved when one is only given a specific, skewed amount of information and told it is definitive.  When this happens, someone is hiding something.  


     Use your brain, my dear Liberty, that so called ‘evolutionary’ wonder.  Think for yourself.  Never accept what someone tells you as truth without researching it yourself, especially information that disproves the theory.  Never be afraid to challenge someone on their beliefs, but make sure to do it with respect and love.  Better yet, know all the positions of a philosophy so you can argue their beliefs better than they can, but then show them where that opinion may be incorrect.  For example, the best way to discuss evolution with someone is to know the arguments for evolution and what the theory really teaches.  You’d be surprised how many people say they believe humans evolved from apes but really have no idea what evolution is truly advocating, starting with primordial soup.  


     Scientifically we can show that no species has ever transformed into another species, yet this is the basis of evolution.  Science also confirms that genetic mutations never add information to DNA but always subtracts, contrary to a fundamental evolutionary requirement.  


     Hold to truth, Liberty.  Always hold to truth and facts.  In this case is it scientific proof of evolution or is it an outright denial of God?  Remember Satan is always trying to persuade you with his original question, “Did God really say that?”  (see Fruit Of The Forbidden Tree)  Yes, Liberty, yes He did.


     That’s my 2 cents.


Love,

Mom




SLEEPING BEAUTY