the Health Ranger
Ask any scientist where life on our planet came from, and they'll usually give you a one-word answer: "Evolution."
Immediately thereafter, they will
usually give you a condescending look that also implies you're an
idiot for not knowing this "scientific fact" that everyone else has
accepted as true.
No rational person can deny that natural
selection is ever-present and happening right now across bacteria,
plants, animals and even humans, yet natural selection can only
function on pre-existing life forms. It does not give rise to
Evolutionists prefer to skip over that all-important question.
let us pick up their slack and explore this subject with honest
Their beliefs can
never be questioned because they are beyond any need to be
validated. "Scientific truth" is true because they say it is, and
the faith-based belief that evolution explains the origins of life
cannot be questioned either.
So let's see how this goes: The entire cosmos starts out as an unimaginably dense point that explodes in an event cosmologists call the Big Bang. All the physical matter we know today has its origins in that event, yet, importantly, there was no life in the Big Bang.
No biological organism could have
possibly survived Inflation, for starters. And before Inflation, the
density of matter would have crushed anything resembling biological
Except the miracle of the Big Bang itself goes entirely unexplained.
These questions are routinely ignored. Instead, we are told that we should believe in the Big Bang as a matter of faith and trust that it is the only exception to the laws of the universe.
This is, of course, a matter
of faith, not fact.
where did LIFE come
They have more technical-sounding names for it, and there
are hundreds of books written on various theories that might explain
it, but ultimately, scientists believe in magic. Because "magic" is
the only way you can really explain life rising from lifelessness.
Life arose from lifelessness in exactly the same way the
Big Bang suddenly happened without cause: it's all done by magic! (I
guess that makes two miracles, not one, but who's counting?)
It is far
more feasible that our universe was created by an omniscient,
highly-advanced consciousness than it somehow springing into
existence for no reason whatsoever.
That's because nearly all of them are
devout atheists who also disavow any belief in consciousness, free
will, the soul, God or spirituality. According to their own
explanations, they themselves are mindless biological robots
suffering from the mere delusion of mind created as a kind of
artificial projection of mechanistic biological brain function.
This is why
manufacturers and science in general feels no remorse for
deadly experiments on children, blacks, prisoners or minorities.
You cannot argue
with any group of people who are wholly convinced their beliefs are
facts because any critical thinking you might invoke is
automatically and routinely rejected as a matter of irrational
The answer you will be told is a condescending "No!"
In the faith-based beliefs of the
scientific status quo, no vaccine can ever be harmful by definition.
Vaccines are beyond questioning in their belief system, and so the
very question of asking if a vaccine could possibly be anything less
than 100% safe doesn't compute. It contradicts their faith, in other
After careful thought, an honest doctor might answer,
Ask them to name some examples. Sooner or later, they should stumble
onto the self-evident answer of "mercury," a
deadly neurotoxin which
remains present in many modern vaccines.
The answer, of course, is no.
Logically, no vaccine containing mercury
can be considered "safe" regardless of the level of mercury it
contains. Thus, by merely asking a few direct questions, you can
easily get an honest doctor to shatter their own false belief about
vaccines - a belief based on the faith-driven delusion that there
is no such thing as an unsafe vaccine (no matter what it contains).
Scientism is a system of belief in which all creations of pharmaceutical companies, biotech companies and chemical companies are automatically assumed to hold God-like status.
They are beyond questioning. They are supreme. They can
never be questioned or even validated. In fact, no validated is
required nor even desired. Who needs to validate "facts" anyway?
Everyone already knows they are true, right?
The drugs are assumed to have originated
from a higher order, as if they emanate from a place of sacred,
divine status: Big Pharma!
They are incapable of realizing that many of their own
beliefs are based in a system of faith rather than a system of
Christianity, for example, assumes God exists and does not need to "prove" it. His existence is
accepted as a matter of faith. This is neither right nor wrong; it
is characteristic of a belief system that science claims to reject.
Yet science follows the exact same pattern.
For starters, there isn't enough data storage in the human genome to fully describe the physical and behavioral inheritance of a human being. The massive failure of the Human Genome Project also comes to mind: here's a project that promised to solve the riddle of the origins of nearly all disease.
human genome was fully decoded, disease would be eliminated from
humankind, we were all promised.
Yes, they alone have intelligent thought based on free
will, inspiration and creativity. We should read their books alone,
as their books came from original thoughts powered by unique minds.
All "minds" are illusions, they claim, and there is no such thing as consciousness. If you believe what they say, then all the books written by Dawkins, Hawking or other devout Scientism worshippers are, according to their own claims, worthless drivel produced via an "automatic writing" process powered by mindless, soulless chemical reactions housed in a mechanistic mass of neurons floating in a skull.
Their books, therefore, utterly lack all meaning and serve no purpose.
The words they contain are merely "knee-jerk writings" from
Most conventional scientists claim that consciousness is an illusion
which somehow arose out of natural selection so that individual
members of a species could operate under the illusion of free will.
Yet, at the same time, they claim this false "mind" has no actual
impact on the real world because it is, by definition, an illusion.
Because if we are
to move forward as a civilization, we must transcend the silly
belief that anything pursued under the flag of modern-day "science"
is automatically and factually superior (perhaps even divine) to all
other forms of understanding.
... and so on.
With questions like these, it is a simple matter to
expose conventional Scientism believers as incompetent thinkers.
publication that says people should not know what's in their food (GMO
labeling) is, of course, not engaged in real science because real
science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the burying of facts for
corporate interests. No legitimate science would want the public to
be denied knowledge.
The most devout followers of this "science" define themselves as meaningless, mindless biological robots living out purposeless lives. They all believe that murder, rape and even child molestation have no ethical considerations whatsoever because no one is responsible for their own actions due to free will being "an illusion" as they explain it.
is ethically equivalent to Mother Theresa, according to the soulless
beliefs of modern-day science.
All pronouncements of drug companies, biotech firms
and chemical companies are automatically accepted as The Word of
in that they are all-knowing, all-powerful and never to be
That's another case where the arrogance and
delusional thinking of modern-day science may quite literally result
in the apocalyptic, permanent destruction of humankind.