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 ft 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 defnition 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 fshes, fshes 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 modifcation 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 fnding 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 prokaryote
emerging 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 scientifc data:
1) the Earth came into existence before the sun and stars;
2) the land plants came into existence before the Sun;
3) the frst life forms were plants;
4) fruit trees appeared before fsh;
5) birds appeared before land reptiles.
Whether or not there was divine intervention in creation here on Earth,
the above fve 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 insignifcant 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 scientifc 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 fned 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 scientifc 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 way
forever.


In its place stands the hominoids,
patiently awaiting their turn on
the world stage. When the frst
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 fts 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 faking 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 defnitely 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 signifcant 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 scientifc
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 scientifc 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 fnd 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 frst 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 magnifcent 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 frsts ascribed
to every superior society. In addition, many of those frsts have not been equaled
until modern times.
Some of the monumental accomplishments were the frst schools, the
frst bicameral congress, the frst historians, the frst pharmacopoeia,... the frst
cosmogony and cosmology, the frst proverbs and sayings, the frst literary
debates, the frst library catalogue, the frst law codes and social reforms, the frst
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 frst 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 scientifc, 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 frst 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 edifces 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 scientifc and religious
histories and estimates of human beings.

Thats why various Egyptologists, astronomers, NASA offcials, 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 fve 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 afeld with his deductions and evidence than
perhaps might be imagined at frst. 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 frst 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 Baffes Science
Is 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 scientifc community with a bone profle 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 fattened, but not by artifcial means. The skull consists of calcium
hydroxyapatite, the normal material of mammalian bone.[6]
Dating
Carbon 14 dating was performed twice, the frst 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 fbers 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]