UFO Disclosure/Contact, Part 14 - B. Keith Robinson

Continuing information from a recent seminar, "Official Disclosure: Prepare For Contact," featuring top researchers, ex-government agents, world-famous field investigators, physicists and theologians. The post
contains info directly from the featured speaker. Questioner is Thomas Horn whose website is: www.raidersnewsnetwork.com. Any comments by me will be in brackets []. Very light editing done on Q&As.

B. KEITH ROBINSON, author, lecturer. Director of the Creations Science Institute of Milwaukee, WI. He is a public school educator, musician, and speaker.

Q: I would like to get your take on the recent Royal Society meetings. I know that you've done research in astrobiology. Do you believe there really is anything to UFOs and/or aliens?

A: That depends on one's philosophy and worldview. If you believe in evolution then it does make perfect sense to believe there is other life out there, because if it could happen on earth, then what's to say it couldn't happen in the vast universe? However, if you believe that we, and this planet, were uniquely created by God, and that he created the rest of the universe for us and our enjoyment, there is no reason to believe that there are other intelligent life forms out there. So, really, the whole question of whether you believe in aliens comes from whether or not you believe in evolution.

Q: I want to get your input on Vatican astronomers. We've had comments from Fr Jose Gabriel Funes talking about a certain possibility of intelligent life in the universe, that these could be our space brothers, and it won't interfere with either the Catholic faith or the authority of the Church. Funes was just the latest in a whole string of Vatican astronomers over the past couple of years. Guy Cosmonolgo, writing his 50-page booklet, "Intelligent Life in the Universe;" Msgr Balducci; even Fr Malachi Martin hinting some years ago that there was something approaching the earth. What do you make of the Vatican's interest in all of this, even hosting a conference in which they were discussion the search for ETs ? What is the importance of the Vatican's acceptance of aliens?

A: I think it's a sign of the times that the Church is beginning to compromise its message and not taking the scriptures, the Word of God, as being literal truth. It's starting to really compromise with the world. I think this is just one of the cases where the Vatican is trying to compromise its position. If they would take the Bible in its most easily understood interpretation, in my opinion they wouldn't be coming up with these conclusions. I think they are catering to the politically correct, and they want to seem like they're modern, they're up to date. I've been following this whole thing for the last couple of years, and I find it fascinating that Fr Funes asks: "How can we rule out that life may have developed elsewhere?" He also says: "Just as there is a multitude of creatures on earth, there could be other beings - even intelligent ones - created by God. This does not contradict faith, because we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom." What's interesting about that is that he says we cannot put limits on God's creative freedom; but if we take God at his word, we are not putting the limits on God. We're just letting God speak for himself in telling us what he did. Some examples from the Bible that seem to contradict the Vatican: Isaiah 45:18: "For thus saith the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God; who formed the earth and made it; who has established it; who did not create it in vain; who formed it to be inhabited. I am the Lord, and there is no other." So, it talks there about the fact that he created the earth for a specific purpose, to be inhabited. Also Romans 8:22: "The whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now because of Adam's sin." There are some theological implications to the belief in ET's. The Bible says the whole creation groans with birth pangs. Well, if there are aliens out there, are they free from sin? And if they are, then they would be suffering for Adam's sin that happened here on earth. In fact, Funes even says that they might be free of original sin, so he even acknowledges that point. Did they sin, and if they did, then did God appear to them, as he did to us, in the form of Jesus Christ? Did he go to their planets, and was he one of them, and did he die for them as he did here on earth? There are issues like that. You really get into muddy theological waters when you start asking those kinds of questions.

Q: And something that could even get a bit spookier, and this from Funes, too: the question that these aliens, if they contact us, may not even have been part of the fall and the need of redemption and therefore might even be morally superior to us - almost angelic in that sense - and may be able to show us the way. That's kind of scary. I've got five headlines in front of me that have come out since the Royal Society meeting. One is from The Guardian: "Life But Not As We Know It." One is from the Times: "What if The Aliens Decide They Don't Like Us?" One is from the Associated French Press: "Is Calling ET A Smart Move?" The Telegraph: "Royal
Astronomer Says Aliens May Be Staring Us In The Face." Why suddenly do you have a prestigious scientific body that is now interested in discussing the same thing the Vatican has been talking about? Are we poised for an imminent disclosure?

A: In the research that I have done it seems very plausible that what we're encountering and what we see happening ... the Lord is preparing us for the end times. And people are really looking at this evidence for aliens and are misunderstanding. It very well could be demonic activity, and I think it could very well set things up for official disclosure, where the governments of the world start telling everybody we have contact with aliens, etc., and it turns out they're really demons masquerading as aliens, to defeat people. That wouldn't surprise me at all. I think the fact that you have such an influential religious organization as the Vatican coming out and saying these things, is preparing people so that when it does happen they won't be surprised. I think that's a very likely possibility.

Q: Any possibility that they actually already know something we don't know? Balducci wrote extensively that aliens are already interacting with the earth and that some of the Vatican leaders are aware of it. He has never been reproved or corrected by the Vatican for making those comments. Even if it's deception, do you think that the Vatican could have in their possession information contact already? Something that they may be using to try to prepare the world for something that may be right around the corner? Am I reaching too far with that?

A: It's very possible that could be the case. It almost seems like too much of a coincidence if it's not the case, that they're putting out these articles, that they're holding a conference, things like that. 50-100 years ago there was not even a discussion about aliens, and now all of a sudden you get mainstream scientists who before would have been ridiculed. But now they just come out and talk about aliens existing as if it's a done deal, as if we already know about it. So, it wouldn't surprise me.

Q: You're a music director, you're a public school school educator, you're a terrific novelist. What made you decide to write a series of science fiction novels that talk about creation and evolution, but also talk about astrobiology?

A: In many ways, what we've been talking about is the answer to that question, because I believe that there's so much deception out there, particularly in regards to evolution. I've been studying about creation and evolution for 12-13 years, and I can tell you there's a lot of misinformation out there; and I'd even say deception. There's a lot of stuff that's being touted as proof of evolution, but it's not at all, when you study it. I'm talking about studying it from secular sources. When you study their science journals, they actually come out and tell you that these so-called arguments for evolution are really not as solid as they indicate. In fact, sometimes they go in opposite directions and they disprove evolution. So, when I started researching all of this, I said people need to hear this information. While there are large creation organizations out there that are doing a great job of getting that information to the public, there's a whole ton of people out there who don't like to read informational books or watch informational DVDs, but when it comes to reading fiction they would pick it up and devour it. Because of all the research I've done in creation and evolution, I wanted to try to get it out to an audience that may not normally be interested in reading informational books. So I repackaged it into action adventure science fiction stories.

Q: Tell us a little bit about the plot line of the latest book "Pyramid of the Ancients."

A: [Fascinating...I won't go into all of the discussion here. He writes TRUTH as fiction...I may read it myself ... I believe it's a trilogy. Most adults do not know this information, so it would be good for any age.] There's a difference between 'operational' and 'origin' science. Operational science is repeatable in a laboratory. It's the science that put a man on the moon, that gives us computers, airplanes, the technology to study micro organisms and things like that. You can repeat it in a lab. But, origin science is dealing with the origin of life, and that's a one time event. It's not something that you can repeat in a lab. Even if we could create life in a lab today all that would prove is that we could do it today with our intelligence. It doesn't mean that it happened millions of years ago from random process. Also, when you study DNA - there's nothing we can create in science that can create a code system randomly. Because of the complexity of a single cell they estimate that the chances of life coming into being randomly, just a single cell would be 10 to the 40,000th power. And there is only a 10 to the 80th number of atoms in the entire universe, according to the estimates. So the stuff in my books is based on real science, and is well documented in footnotes. But it's also an easy read.

Q: Several publishers we know have read the books and say they consider them to be among some of the best fiction they've ever read, so that's quite a statement. You're a fantastic novelist. And you call the genre of your books "apologetics fiction." (!) Explain that.

A: It means a real defense, with real arguments, which are incorporated into the story with footnotes. WEBSITE: www.apologeticsfiction.com (Includes books of other authors, too.)

Q: Why do you believe that the mainstream scientific explanations continue to be in error?

A: If you have a couple of hours...It goes back to what I said before, about operational and origin science. I have two talked to several evolutionists, and they've learned that line; they don't understand anything different. As a public school teacher, I've looked at the biology textbooks, and they are filled with a lot of ... it's a mixed bag of things.

For instance, they talk about Darwin's finches, and how he observed on the Galapagos Islands all these finches with different beaks, and when there was a dry season the beak size grew bigger because only the finches with the larger beaks survived, so he said natural selection occurred. The problem is, that even if we observe that kind of thing it doesn't prove evolution. All it does is show that there's genetic variation within a species - the difference between what some people call micro evolution and macro evolution. Micro is variation within a species, based on environment; natural selection is real, we observe that. It's observable science, within a species ['after its own kind'].

However, to speculate that over millions of years, one creature can turn into another - now you've just stepped out of the realm of operational science, and you've stepped into the realm of interpretational origin science. You're drawing speculations that are all about interpretation. So, with Darwin's finches, it's all interpretation and speculation based on what we do observe. But what's interesting about that scenario - that argument - is that secular science says that when the rains came back, the finches reverted back to their original status, which just goes to show that it's not a progressive change. You're not adding more and more to a creature to make it change into something else.

In fact, science knows by observation that there are barriers. They spent millions or dollars to breed horses, but you get to a certain point that no matter how many millions you spend in breeding, you cannot get a racehorse to go any faster. There's a certain level that God put in there which you cannot cross. The evolutionists blur that line, and when you study what's in the textbook, it doesn't support it. You can talk about geology and how they look at the fossils and layers of rock, and the creationists' biblical explanation of it all being laid down quickly under flood conditions actually matches the observable science. For example they've found sea-going animal fossils on top of Mt Everest and the whole thing was covered under water. They found the fossilized tracks of animals that are going up through multiple layers of rock as if trying to escape being buried alive, as these layers were laid down very quickly. You find fossilized trees that stick up through multiple layers of rock. The list goes on and on.

Q: What about dinosaurs? They appear in your story a lot.

A: This is just to whet people's appetites. I would encourage you to just go on the internet and just Google "dinosaurs and humans" or things like that and just look at some of the alternatives to the creationist perspective on it, and all of this will make more sense. In "Pyramids of the Ancients," I give a website that people can go to, to see some of what I'm talking about. They have found cave paintings of animals that looked just like dinosaurs. There's pottery, there's stones with pictures etched on them.

When you really understand that the word 'dinosaur' is a modern invention; it's only been around since 1841 I believe it was, then you start to look at some other things like even the passage in Job, I believe it's chapters 39-40, where he talks about the behemoth and the Leviathan. He talks about creatures that sound massive ... it's tail swings like a cedar tree. Modern translations will say it could be an elephant or a hippo, neither of which has a tail that swings like a cedar. When you read about the Leviathan it sounds like some of the sea-dwelling animals that were huge and lived concurrent, I believe, with dinosaurs; and it really starts to make sense that what Job is describing are some of these animals that live in the ocean. What I believe happened to the dinosaurs, and from a biblical perspective, it seems that dinosaurs were land animals and the Bible says land animals were created on Day 6, so they were created with all the other animals.

So then the question is, what happened to them during the flood? They were no doubt on the ark. When you study the flood there really weren't that many species. Everyone is always wanting to claim they've found a new dinosaur, so there are lots of different 'dinosaurs' that are labeled as such out there, but really when you break it down there's only a few kinds of dinosaurs. I think it's around 50 or so. Noah would probably not have taken senior citizen dinosaurs on the ark because he wanted them to reproduce! If he took juvenile dinosaurs onto the ark, dinosaur eggs were very small, even for the large dinosaurs. So you have juvenile dinosaurs on the ark and they wouldn't take up that much space.

Then that explains all the fossils that ...most of the dinosaurs were not on the ark, so they died and were buried, and even the existence of fossil graveyards - which are massive deposits of dinosaur bones all jumbled together - even the fact that those exist indicate a rapid burial, which would have been exactly what we see in the flood conditions. So the dinosaurs probably died during the flood and the reason we don't see dinosaur fossils and human fossils together...first of all, the number of dinosaur fossils and human fossils are very small when you compare them to all the fossils that we do find. Dinosaurs wouldn't have been able to swim or get on rafts, and use escape methods humans could, and so they would be buried first in the flood sequence, and humans would have been near the top layers. There are explanations for all this.

And, finally, when you consider that 'dinosaur' is a very modern word, there's a possibility that dinosaurs were called by a different name, such as dragon. And when you study dragon legends, they're from all over the world. Many cultures have legends of dragons. In "Pyramid of the Ancients" I actually quote from some of the encounters that people had with dragons, and these don't sound like fictional legends. They sound like eye witness accounts of real encounters.

Q: Are you familiar with, just yesterday, the mainstream media reported that the missing link
between man and apes has been found?

A: Another one?! [I read that this one has already been discredited.] Let's see, in May of last year it was Ida. I haven't heard about this latest one. I'd like to mention a couple of things. First, notice that up to this point it's always been MISSING. So what does that tell you? That the whole theory of evolution doesn't have a lot to go on when it comes to proof. One of the points I make in "Logic's End" is that, if evolution were true, we would see tons and tons of evolutional fossils. In fact everything should be transitioning from one to another.

Since they don't have an answer for that, they came up with another theory called 'punctuated equilibrium,' which basically says that evolution happens in spurts. Anyone familiar with the X-Man movies would be familiar with that concept because that's the whole point behind those movies. We've been stagnant for many years, and all of a sudden, Boom! We're evolving into a new kind of human. It's just fascinating to me that they always call it a missing link.

Secondly, when you really think about it, it's just a matter of interpretation. You get one group of scientists who have letters after their names, PhD's, etc., who look at the fossils and say 'this is half human and half ape...and this is why.' And they write all these papers and make all this money from all the hype from it. Then you get other PhD scientists who have all the same letters after their names, who happen to be either middle-of-the-road evolutionists who are very skeptical; or you have some who are creationists proponents, and they look at the exact same fossil, and they say it's an ape, or they say it's a human who has some deformities.

So, again, it goes back to my point of operational science vs. origin science. That when it comes to interpreting these fossils, these fossils don't have name tags with them saying how old they are or what they are. It's all about interpretation, which is based on your bias or your presupposition. So, when it comes to these half human, half ape things it's just a matter of interpretation.

Q: Going back to the Royal Society and this whole idea of aliens, there are those who would look at this news story of this so-called missing link, and would see it as evidence that at one time the earth was visited by flying geniuses, ancient astronauts. And that this is why civilization seems to have appeared overnight in Mesopotamia; that they came here, that they accelerated hominid DNA, apes, and they made homosapiens. Theologians, though, will look at the same kind of evidence, and say maybe this is a leftover of something that the Watchers did in the creation of the Nephilim, by tinkering with human DNA, which then brought about the flood as God's
judgment. Do you buy into either one of those theories?

A: Well, I don't want to give away too much, because that's a lot of what I talk about in book #3. But you're talking about interpretation, and I think it's very possible. God created us humans to be creative. It's a reflection of his nature. And there's good reason to believe that he may have created angels with a lot of knowledge that we, as terrestrial-bound beings, don't have. So I think it's very possible that before the flood, humans could have been given some technology by the angels that we don't have to this day. I believe that, coming from a biblical perspective, that when God created Adam and Eve they probably had 100% use of their brain power. Today we
only have 10%. We've lost that ability. Why would evolution create 90% of a brain that we don't use? After the flood, people still had a lot of that knowledge. Noah and his family would have had all that technology. They knew how to build pyramids. Then after the Tower of Babel when the language was forced dispersion, people began to lose the technological knowledge because they were forced to live in caves and fight for their survival, and follow wherever the herds went. I think God did that on purpose.

Q: These angels would have known at least as much as our scientists know today, who are currently merging humans with animals at the embryonic level; and some of the rogues are going beyond that and raising these beings to full maturity. If men can do this in their own knowledge, then angels who worked side by side with God in creation know enough about genetic manipulation that they could be doing Humans 2.0. In your new book, you talk about the issue of theistic evolution. What is it?

A: That kind of brings this conversation full circle, because that's a lot of what the Vatican is proposing. People who believe in theistic evolution, believe in evolution because they believe what evolution scientists tell them; then they also believe in God because of their personal faith - and so they try to find a way of making the two merge. Which basically says that God used evolution, that God sparked the first life on earth, and then he guided the evolutionary process. He added the genetic information to get a certain outcome. That's where theistic evolution stands.

The problems with it are just huge, especially as it relates to theology. It undermines the authority of the Bible. The Bible says that God created the earth first, and the earth was full of water. And then after that he created the sun. Nothing exploded, by the way, to create everything. Well, according to evolution all these gases exploded, and eventually you had the sun, and after that the earth formed, and it was a molten glob. That's in direct contradiction to the Bible. So, people then say if that part of the Bible is not true, there are other things that aren't true, and the next thing you know it unravels their entire theological background.

And, then, if evolution is true you have dinosaurs living before humans, which means death came before Adam and Eve. The Bible says Adam and Eve sinned, and death came into the world,
and that all creation groans because of their sin. There was cancer in dinosaur bones, and if you have dinosaurs living before humans, then all of a sudden you have to start asking: well, God said that things were very good when he created them, so does he mean cancer is very good? From a
biblical point of view you understand that cancer and death came after Adam and Eve sinned, and that's why there is cancer in dinosaur bones. By the way, speaking of dinosaur bones, they have actually found hemoglobin in blood cells in T-Rex bones, and scientists are baffled as to how those blood cells over millions of years! Another proof that dinosaurs lived with humans.

Q: At the end of your book you also provide some additional scientific evidence, and statistics that back up some of the arguments in the novel, particularly the idea of a young earth. Can you explain that?

A: It goes back to why scientists believe that the earth is billions of years old. Right now they believe it's 4.5 billions of years, and they base that on radio carbon dating and other methods. But those methods have assumptions built into them. If you look at the rates at which we see things occurring, you start to realize that they're cherry picking their data.

Example: the erosion of continents. They estimate that the continents have been around for 3.5 billion years. But every year the erosion is cutting into the rocks and mountains of the continents. All of that eroded sediment enters the oceans by way of the streams and rivers. We can measure the rate at which this occurs, and the rate is 27.5 million tons of sediment per year. Scientists have measured the volume of the continents above sea level to be 383 million billion tons. When you take the amount at which erosion is occurring, and you go backwards in time, the maximum age which our earth could be would be 14 million years, because in that amount of time all of the continents would have been eroded flat. So the fact that we still see erosion happening shows that the earth can't be billions of years old.

Another example: Helium in the atmosphere. Helium forms under the earth's surface and because it's very light weight it comes up through the rock and makes its way to the surface. They can measure the rate at which the helium comes out into the atmosphere, and it's 13 million atoms per square inch, each second. They take that rate, and measure the amount currently in the atmosphere, and if you go backward in time it turns out that the earth cannot be more than 2 million years old. Again, these are maximum ages. That's assuming that there was zero helium in the atmosphere to begin with. So, from our perspective, if God created the atmosphere with a lot of the helium we now, then 6-10,000 years would be very normal for us to get that much.

One other example: The existence of comets. We see comets streaking through space, and yet these comets are basically balls of ice that are burning up. They've determined that these comets can't last more than about 1,000 or so years, and that's for the oldest comet. So, the evolutionist ask how they can answer that, because the fact that we see comets means that comets haven't been around for millions of years. So, evolutionists come up with a hypothetical spherical cloud called the Oort cloud. And they believe that this Oort cloud exists somewhere out in the galaxy and we can't see it yet, of course. And that it's constantly creating new comets. And that's why we see these comets that don't survive very long. Another example of evolutionists cherry picking the evidence, and they're ignoring what I just mentioned, which is observable science, and they're just using the radiometric dates, which are based on bad assumptions.

Q: You also include a list of resources in this novel, and also what are your favorite websites, and what books or videos would you recommend?

A: A lot of stuff can be seen at www.apologeticsfiction.com on our links page. In the back of my novels I have the materials I used for my research. www.answersingenesis.org. and The Institute for Creation Research at
www.icr.org (or com?). The Creation Society of Milwaukee at www.cssmwi.com (or .org?). My goal in my novels is to whet people's appetites, and there's tons of information out there. If you want to read an
action-adventure story, it's a little more interesting to read a novel than just dry information. There are also other author's books listed on my website.