The Bible shifted some Gears in my mind.

[DusanS]

Snyder, I have no personal vendetta against any "christian God" since I am christian myself, just having to experienced death of my beloved God loving parents, it opened my eyes...in fact I began to see....

I began to look at big picture, and realize, well, I am next in line to die,

just matter of time,

No point to anything

I got twins on aniversary of my mother death,

To PROVE to "God", that he can take life, but I CAN create a new one.

Now with twins, I just live to live another day...

With eyes wide open.

[Mickiel]

DusanS;1298276 wrote:

our achivements die with us,

Unless we go into history by doing something,

no matter how "perfectly" created, we go nowhere from this planet,

The point is that there is no point.

...

.




The point is that YOU see no point to life, YOU think like YOU do, YOU feel about God as YOU do! I don't feel like YOU, I don't think like YOU, and I don't want to think like YOU! Concerning God, YOUR mind is bland and empty, void and meaningless, so you seek others to join YOU in the meaningless. There is nothing in your mind concerning God, and YOU want to spread that nothing into others, because misery loves company.

YOU are transparent, I see through YOU. I want no parts of YOUR world, its empty and shallow, angy and sullen. Blind and delusional, soaked in a hot vendetta against a God YOU never knew.

You have regurgitated God from yourself, but you cannot remove him from me.

I wish you peace on your journey,

Nice talking to you.

[DusanS]

Yes, you are right, naked reality about life on this planet, is terrible thing to comprehend...

That is why we should look at some meaning in life, and believe in God...

To tell you the truth, I would LOVE to escape reality, and give meaning to everyday life by believing in all that about God, and such, but I just can't get back to the point before enlightement.

Once you cross to the other side, you can't go back.

Once you take a look at a big picture, you can't see small any more...

[K.Snyder]

DusanS;1298276 wrote: There are much better things "God" could "give" people besides consciousness, and you are missing very important point...why.

Why would something called "God" give anything to just one species on this planet.

To be more miserable, to know how to use computer?, how to kill other animals...

You just refuse in your own mind to look at a big picture, BIG picture...

Think, but really, really think about it, but you can not think freely if you think from this perspective, imagine you sit on a space ship and you go into space, up, in the universe...

Now, turn around and take a look at this planet.

What do you see?

"God" marvelous creation? of course not, the strongest believe in God comes from living, and thinking on this planet, once you move, at least in your mind away from this planet, your mind gets more clear...

All this wars, killings, palestinains, Israelis, inter religious wars, nothing makes sense, once you look from high above, from space, all that you see is one tiny, micro small planet, like a speck of dust...tiny little piece of rock we call earth...

And what is the point?

"God" created us for what reason?

What kind of impact we would make in the universe?

For the first time in your life THINK deep about this.

We can do philosophy as much as we want, but one thing remain...

We are here for no reason at all,

We live life, and we die,

Besides buying a new car, new house, life means nothing,

all our achivements die with us,

Unless we go into history by doing something,

no matter how "perfectly" created, we go nowhere from this planet,

The point is that there is no point.

End is the only sure thing...

We witness many ends throughout history, but we witness very few beginings,

and we will never be sure about our own beginings...

but we certanly will see the end. Purpose is created constantly to the point it's always existed so long as one has the mind to recognize it. By default you create purpose by "having no purpose at all". The conclusion is that Love will always be purpose.

Worshiping God is a subconscious reaction to an apparent end. It proves that one doesn't need God to Love and that just because one claims to worship God doesn't automatically Love.

Anything else comes down to preference which many define as free will but similarly one needs not religion to have it.

[Mickiel]

DusanS;1298343 wrote: Yes, you are right, naked reality about life on this planet, is terrible thing to comprehend...

That is why we should look at some meaning in life, and believe in God...

To tell you the truth, I would LOVE to escape reality, and give meaning to everyday life by believing in all that about God, and such, but I just can't get back to the point before enlightement.

Once you cross to the other side, you can't go back.

Once you take a look at a big picture, you can't see small any more...


Well I can agree with some of this, particulary seeing the big picture and not returning to the small. My enlightenment is that all of humanity are destined to be with God, no matter what happens on earth. THAT is the big picture, and once seen and reconized, nothing can ruin a real look at why life. Nothing! Thats why nothing people say or believe fazes me, I know that Gods will is that we suffer now, and then be renewed much later. And he is burning that eternal lesson into humanity now!

When this crap is over, none of us will doubt him, none of us will forget his real intent, his real motives, his real way of being. We all are now being taught a very serious, eternal lesson, we will know what it is like to be " Without God!" The sheer horror of that. But then we are destined to know his eternal Love and Peace, his real Heart, and he will burn that lesson into us also.

This world is not what it ought to be, its not now what its going to be, but God will be sure that it never will be what it used to be.

Peace.

[DusanS]

Mickiel, do you know at all what "Universe" means?

Universe is a huge space, to which we are extremely small part...

Our planet is very tiny Mickiel, insignificant, inside the universe.

Our planet is like tiniest dust particle suspended in the space, and why would some "God" create life on such a small tiny thing? and nowhere else?

and what would be the point of such creation, we are not going anywhere from here...

For example, it is like creating life in the fish bowl, fish will always stay inside, and worship me for creating it, but it would look like I created it simply for my own pleasure, since fish will always stay inside the fish bowl...

We wil always stay on tiny little planet called "Earth".

we will live off, and die off,

Insignificant in comparison, to the rest of the universe...

[Mickiel]

One of the proofs of God, is the law of " Entrophy", which states that closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to a lower order of avialible energy and organization. Entrophy always increases and never decreases in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder. Because the avialible energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the Universe couldnot have always existed. Definte proof of creation, sure proof of God!

And things like that are why the bible has shifted gears in my mind, turned my awareness towards the real truth out there. There is a difference in evolution and Spirituality. A stark difference. Evolution complettely ignores the law of Entrophy, because it wants no beginning to things which point to a God. Wallace, the founder of the theory, saw this contridiction, he eventually saw that things had to have some kind of " Spiritual help."

And I want to go into the difference between evolution and Spirituality.

Peace.

[DusanS]

How can universe be a" closed system"?

it goes into infinity in all directions

spirituality, and evolution are all tied to planet earth, and all other "God" stories, it is all imagined here among people, but that is nothing in comparison to greater space in which we live, no matter how you put it, just to prove your convictions, it is all for domestic consuption.

Once you leave out solar system, at least in your mind, nothing matters what happens far away on some planet earth...

everything diminishes, looses any point, and disipates into darkness of great cold universe....

Look at little ants down into grass, for them their world is everything to them, maybe they too have some God they worship, to which they are grateful they exist, but to us...they are nothing...

same thing with us, we are nothing to great universe...

[Mickiel]

Mickiel;1298461 wrote: One of the proofs of God, is the law of " Entrophy", which states that closed systems go from a state of high energy to low energy and from order to disorder. All closed systems, including our universe, disintegrate over time as they decay to a lower order of avialible energy and organization. Entrophy always increases and never decreases in a closed system. All scientific observations confirm everything continues to move towards a greater state of decay and disorder. Because the avialible energy is being used up and there is no source of new energy, the Universe couldnot have always existed. Definte proof of creation, sure proof of God!

And things like that are why the bible has shifted gears in my mind, turned my awareness towards the real truth out there. There is a difference in evolution and Spirituality. A stark difference. Evolution complettely ignores the law of Entrophy, because it wants no beginning to things which point to a God. Wallace, the founder of the theory, saw this contridiction, he eventually saw that things had to have some kind of " Spiritual help."

And I want to go into the difference between evolution and Spirituality.

Peace.




Evolution is Natural selection, comming from the mind of man, Spirituality is the real advancement of Consciousness, comming from two different Spirits of God.

And tommorrow I will go into that.

Peace.

[Bill Sikes]

Mickiel;1298484 wrote: Ev


Hi Mickiel, aren't you talking to me?

[Mickiel]

Bill Sikes;1298543 wrote: Hi Mickiel, aren't you talking to me?




Yes, I am speaking to all who speak to me.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

This is in response to Saints apparently impressive and large argument in favour of evolution but no evolutionsts I have debated with can answer the fundamentals that underpin evolution.

There is no credible evidence for life spontaneously arising on this planet and even the smallest organisms have irriducible complexity The "simple" cell is now seen as a small universe at the micro level and as for the genetic codes:

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?

by Mario Seiglie

Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.

The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.

Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.

It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.

The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood.

What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.

Amazing revelations about DNA

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

DNA language not the same as DNA molecule

Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.

If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).

The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).

Information from an intelligent source

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.

As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).

We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.

Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

Evolution fails to provide answers

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!

Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

Quality of genetic information the same

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?

Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).

The clincher

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.

Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.

This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

More witnesses

Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.

"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

"Fearfully and wonderfully made"

Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).

Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! but I am sure I will her otherwise soon! Blessing be uupon you all

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1299189 wrote: This is in response to Saints apparently impressive and large argument in favour of evolution but no evolutionsts I have debated with can answer the fundamentals that underpin evolution.

There is no credible evidence for life spontaneously arising on this planet and even the smallest organisms have irriducible complexity The "simple" cell is now seen as a small universe at the micro level and as for the genetic codes:

As scientists explore a new universe—the universe inside the cell—they are making startling discoveries of information systems more complex than anything ever devised by humanity's best minds. How did they get there, and what does it mean for the theory of evolution?

by Mario Seiglie

Two great achievements occurred in 1953, more than half a century ago.

The first was the successful ascent of Mt. Everest, the highest mountain in the world. Sir Edmund Hillary and his guide, Tenzing Norgay, reached the summit that year, an accomplishment that's still considered the ultimate feat for mountain climbers. Since then, more than a thousand mountaineers have made it to the top, and each year hundreds more attempt it.

Yet the second great achievement of 1953 has had a greater impact on the world. Each year, many thousands join the ranks of those participating in this accomplishment, hoping to ascend to fame and fortune.

It was in 1953 that James Watson and Francis Crick achieved what appeared impossible—discovering the genetic structure deep inside the nucleus of our cells. We call this genetic material DNA, an abbreviation for deoxyribonucleic acid.

The discovery of the double-helix structure of the DNA molecule opened the floodgates for scientists to examine the code embedded within it. Now, more than half a century after the initial discovery, the DNA code has been deciphered—although many of its elements are still not well understood.

What has been found has profound implications regarding Darwinian evolution, the theory taught in schools all over the world that all living beings have evolved by natural processes through mutation and natural selection.

Amazing revelations about DNA

As scientists began to decode the human DNA molecule, they found something quite unexpected—an exquisite 'language' composed of some 3 billion genetic letters. "One of the most extraordinary discoveries of the twentieth century," says Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Wash., "was that DNA actually stores information—the detailed instructions for assembling proteins—in the form of a four-character digital code" (quoted by Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, 2004, p. 224).

It is hard to fathom, but the amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes" worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves!

Yet in their actual size—which is only two millionths of a millimeter thick—a teaspoon of DNA, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, could contain all the information needed to build the proteins for all the species of organisms that have ever lived on the earth, and "there would still be enough room left for all the information in every book ever written" (Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1996, p. 334).

Who or what could miniaturize such information and place this enormous number of 'letters' in their proper sequence as a genetic instruction manual? Could evolution have gradually come up with a system like this?

DNA contains a genetic language

Let's first consider some of the characteristics of this genetic 'language.' For it to be rightly called a language, it must contain the following elements: an alphabet or coding system, correct spelling, grammar (a proper arrangement of the words), meaning (semantics) and an intended purpose.

Scientists have found the genetic code has all of these key elements. "The coding regions of DNA," explains Dr. Stephen Meyer, "have exactly the same relevant properties as a computer code or language" (quoted by Strobel, p. 237, emphasis in original).

The only other codes found to be true languages are all of human origin. Although we do find that dogs bark when they perceive danger, bees dance to point other bees to a source and whales emit sounds, to name a few examples of other species" communication, none of these have the composition of a language. They are only considered low-level communication signals.

The only types of communication considered high-level are human languages, artificial languages such as computer and Morse codes and the genetic code. No other communication system has been found to contain the basic characteristics of a language.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, commented that "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Can you imagine something more intricate than the most complex program running on a supercomputer being devised by accident through evolution—no matter how much time, how many mutations and how much natural selection are taken into account?

DNA language not the same as DNA molecule

Recent studies in information theory have come up with some astounding conclusions—namely, that information cannot be considered in the same category as matter and energy. It's true that matter or energy can carry information, but they are not the same as information itself.

For instance, a book such as Homer's Iliad contains information, but is the physical book itself information? No, the materials of the book—the paper, ink and glue contain the contents, but they are only a means of transporting it.

If the information in the book was spoken aloud, written in chalk or electronically reproduced in a computer, the information does not suffer qualitatively from the means of transporting it. "In fact the content of the message," says professor Phillip Johnson, "is independent of the physical makeup of the medium" (Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, 1997, p. 71).

The same principle is found in the genetic code. The DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the message has not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

As George Williams puts it: "The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, it's not the message" (quoted by Johnson, p. 70).

Information from an intelligent source

In addition, this type of high-level information has been found to originate only from an intelligent source.

As Lee Strobel explains: "The data at the core of life is not disorganized, it's not simply orderly like salt crystals, but it's complex and specific information that can accomplish a bewildering task—the building of biological machines that far outstrip human technological capabilities" (p. 244).

For instance, the precision of this genetic language is such that the average mistake that is not caught turns out to be one error per 10 billion letters. If a mistake occurs in one of the most significant parts of the code, which is in the genes, it can cause a disease such as sickle-cell anemia. Yet even the best and most intelligent typist in the world couldn't come close to making only one mistake per 10 billion letters—far from it.

So to believe that the genetic code gradually evolved in Darwinian style would break all the known rules of how matter, energy and the laws of nature work. In fact, there has not been found in nature any example of one information system inside the cell gradually evolving into another functional information program.

Michael Behe, a biochemist and professor at Pennsylvania's Lehigh University, explains that genetic information is primarily an instruction manual and gives some examples.

He writes: "Consider a step-by-step list of [genetic] instructions. A mutation is a change in one of the lines of instructions. So instead of saying, "Take a 1/4-inch nut," a mutation might say, "Take a 3/8-inch nut." Or instead of "Place the round peg in the round hole," we might get "Place the round peg in the square hole" . . . What a mutation cannot do is change all the instructions in one step—say, [providing instructions] to build a fax machine instead of a radio" (Darwin's Black Box, 1996, p. 41).

We therefore have in the genetic code an immensely complex instruction manual that has been majestically designed by a more intelligent source than human beings.

Even one of the discoverers of the genetic code, the agnostic and recently deceased Francis Crick, after decades of work on deciphering it, admitted that "an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Life Itself, 1981, p. 88, emphasis added).

Evolution fails to provide answers

It is good to remember that, in spite of all the efforts of all the scientific laboratories around the world working over many decades, they have not been able to produce so much as a single human hair. How much more difficult is it to produce an entire body consisting of some 100 trillion cells!

Up to now, Darwinian evolutionists could try to counter their detractors with some possible explanations for the complexity of life. But now they have to face the information dilemma: How can meaningful, precise information be created by accident—by mutation and natural selection? None of these contain the mechanism of intelligence, a requirement for creating complex information such as that found in the genetic code.

Darwinian evolution is still taught in most schools as though it were fact. But it is increasingly being found wanting by a growing number of scientists. "As recently as twenty-five years ago," says former atheist Patrick Glynn, "a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism [regarding a Creator]. That is no longer the case." He adds: "Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution . . ." (God: The Evidence, 1997, pp. 54-55, 53).

Quality of genetic information the same

Evolution tells us that through chance mutations and natural selection, living things evolve. Yet to evolve means to gradually change certain aspects of some living thing until it becomes another type of creature, and this can only be done by changing the genetic information.

So what do we find about the genetic code? The same basic quality of information exists in a humble bacteria or a plant as in a person. A bacterium has a shorter genetic code, but qualitatively it gives instructions as precisely and exquisitely as that of a human being. We find the same prerequisites of a language—alphabet, grammar and semantics—in simple bacteria and algae as in man.

Each cell with genetic information, from bacteria to man, according to molecular biologist Michael Denton, consists of "artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction . . . [and a] capacity not equalled in any of our most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours" (Denton, p. 329).

So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?

Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it. Lee Strobel writes: "The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made . . . No hypothesis has come close to explaining how information got into biological matter by naturalistic means" (Strobel, p. 282).

Werner Gitt, professor of information systems, puts it succinctly: "The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself . . . The information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus [ruled out]" (Gitt, p. 124).

The clincher

Besides all the evidence we have covered for the intelligent design of DNA information, there is still one amazing fact remaining—the ideal number of genetic letters in the DNA code for storage and translation.

Moreover, the copying mechanism of DNA, to meet maximum effectiveness, requires the number of letters in each word to be an even number. Of all possible mathematical combinations, the ideal number for storage and transcription has been calculated to be four letters.

This is exactly what has been found in the genes of every living thing on earth—a four-letter digital code. As Werner Gitt states: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather that a [lucky] chance" (Gitt, p. 95).

More witnesses

Back in Darwin's day, when his book On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, life appeared much simpler. Viewed through the primitive microscopes of the day, the cell appeared to be but a simple blob of jelly or uncomplicated protoplasm. Now, almost 150 years later, that view has changed dramatically as science has discovered a virtual universe inside the cell.

"It was once expected," writes Professor Behe, "that the basis of life would be exceedingly simple. That expectation has been smashed. Vision, motion, and other biological functions have proven to be no less sophisticated than television cameras and automobiles. Science has made enormous progress in understanding how the chemistry of life works, but the elegance and complexity of biological systems at the molecular level have paralyzed science's attempt to explain their origins" (Behe, p. x).

Dr. Meyer considers the recent discoveries about DNA as the Achilles" heel of evolutionary theory. He observes: "Evolutionists are still trying to apply Darwin's nineteenth-century thinking to a twenty-first century reality, and it's not working ... I think the information revolution taking place in biology is sounding the death knell for Darwinism and chemical evolutionary theories" (quoted by Strobel, p. 243).

Dr. Meyer's conclusion? "I believe that the testimony of science supports theism. While there will always be points of tension or unresolved conflict, the major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction" (ibid., p. 77).

Dean Kenyon, a biology professor who repudiated his earlier book on Darwinian evolution—mostly due to the discoveries of the information found in DNA—states: "This new realm of molecular genetics (is) where we see the most compelling evidence of design on the Earth" (ibid., p. 221).

Just recently, one of the world's most famous atheists, Professor Antony Flew, admitted he couldn't explain how DNA was created and developed through evolution. He now accepts the need for an intelligent source to have been involved in the making of the DNA code.

"What I think the DNA material has done is show that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinary diverse elements together," he said (quoted by Richard Ostling, "Leading Atheist Now Believes in God," Associated Press report, Dec. 9, 2004).

"Fearfully and wonderfully made"

Although written thousands of years ago, King David's words about our marvelous human bodies still ring true. He wrote: "For You formed my inward parts, You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made . . . My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought. . ." (Psalm 139:13-15, emphasis added).

Where does all this leave evolution? Michael Denton, an agnostic scientist, concludes: "Ultimately the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century" (Denton, p. 358).

All of this has enormous implications for our society and culture. Professor Johnson makes this clear when he states: "Every history of the twentieth century lists three thinkers as preeminent in influence: Darwin, Marx and Freud. All three were regarded as 'scientific' (and hence far more reliable than anything 'religious') in their heyday.

"Yet Marx and Freud have fallen, and even their dwindling bands of followers no longer claim that their insights were based on any methodology remotely comparable to that of experimental science. I am convinced that Darwin is next on the block. His fall will be by far the mightiest of the three" (Johnson, p. 113).

Evolution has had its run for almost 150 years in the schools and universities and in the press. But now, with the discovery of what the DNA code is all about, the complexity of the cell, and the fact that information is something vastly different from matter and energy, evolution can no longer dodge the ultimate outcome. The evidence certainly points to a resounding checkmate for evolution! but I am sure I will her otherwise soon! Blessing be uupon you all




Very interesting and very well written.

Peace.

[DusanS]

Well "written", I see you learned how to "Copy", and "Paste" text on internet, but you can't prove any point beyond fairy tales stories, you have no proof to any asumption that something called "God" exist at all.

maybe we are sooo "marvelous" creation, wonderful, complicated, intelligent, but just our very existence does not prove existence of some imaginary god that you try so hard to show he, or she, or it, created us.

Its ridiculous to even believe in such a thing.

We evolved from cave men, and that is a fact.

[Mickiel]

Evolution has the anti-Christ spirit written all over it. Some would put out anything to get creation out of Gods hands, and they are desperate and viral in doing so. Some humans indeed have an " Animal magnetism " in their arcane attraction to evolution, it is the pull of the Darkness. Its the Darkness expressing itself, using the human to discredit God.

The Darkness is enraged because God created it so, and it is venting through humanity, looking to seperate the human consciousness from God.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

[DusanS]

Evolution is anti- christ?

what about rest of the world? about six billion people of other religions that don't believe in christ?? they are anti christ too?

If you need belief in god for your own sanity, hey, be my guest.

some people do not need anything like that, to lead normal healthy mentally stable life.

and some people need god for anything, from justification for their mental issues, to some weird hope for forgivness for things they did....in that case god plays major role in their every day life.

but wheter he, she, or it exist, that's another issue.

[Mickiel]

Mickiel;1299455 wrote: Evolution has the anti-Christ spirit written all over it. Some would put out anything to get creation out of Gods hands, and they are desperate and viral in doing so. Some humans indeed have an " Animal magnetism " in their arcane attraction to evolution, it is the pull of the Darkness. Its the Darkness expressing itself, using the human to discredit God.

The Darkness is enraged because God created it so, and it is venting through humanity, looking to seperate the human consciousness from God.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.




The Darkness is enraged because it is the Darkness, it was created to be enraged. The Devil has an aittitude problem, he is hate, was created to hate, and can only hate. Sullen and angry, he exist in the negative zone, and lashes out those aittitudes amoung unsuspecting humans. This is why so many people are sullen and negative, always complaining, never happy or satisfied. The Devil is broadcasting these ways of being directly into the human Consciousness, and like blind sheep, we walk and live in those ways of being.

Satan has constructed an historical attack on the human mind, and is not letting up. He seeks to " Spoil" and rotten human suscesses. Because he is rotten himself and highly against God. He is the root cause of being against God and his target is to pull as many humans as he possibly can , to his way of thinking, thats why so many humans are against God.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

[Snowfire]

Mickiel;1299478 wrote: The Darkness is enraged because it is the Darkness, it was created to be enraged. The Devil has an aittitude problem, he is hate, was created to hate, and can only hate. Sullen and angry, he exist in the negative zone, and lashes out those aittitudes amoung unsuspecting humans. This is why so many people are sullen and negative, always complaining, never happy or satisfied. The Devil is broadcasting these ways of being directly into the human Consciousness, and like blind sheep, we walk and live in those ways of being.

Satan has constructed an historical attack on the human mind, and is not letting up. He seeks to " Spoil" and rotten human suscesses. Because he is rotten himself and highly against God. He is the root cause of being against God and his target is to pull as many humans as he possibly can , to his way of thinking, thats why so many humans are against God.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.


I dont understand the devil. I dont understand God really but I understand the devil even less. Why would and omnipotent creator, devise such an evil entity, an adversary, a contender for the attention and praise meant for only him ? God cannot so powerful if he cannot defeat this devil. He must be weak

I'm happy with my moral compass. I'm happy that my morals have kept me from "sinning" I'm unhappy that those that proport to represent God and his word do not seem to have the same moral compass as some of those that do not follow your God. Those that the Pope has had to apologise to the world for. The molesters and abusers that stink out the Vatican.

You wont find the devil in me because I do not praise God. Look closer to home maybe, within the church.

[Mickiel]

Snowfire;1299581 wrote: I dont understand the devil. I dont understand God really but I understand the devil even less. Why would and omnipotent creator, devise such an evil entity, an adversary, a contender for the attention and praise meant for only him ? God cannot so powerful if he cannot defeat this devil. He must be weak

I'm happy with my moral compass. I'm happy that my morals have kept me from "sinning" I'm unhappy that those that proport to represent God and his word do not seem to have the same moral compass as some of those that do not follow your God. Those that the Pope has had to apologise to the world for. The molesters and abusers that stink out the Vatican.

You wont find the devil in me because I do not praise God. Look closer to home maybe, within the church.




The church, as we know it, is surely not my home, speaking for myself, as I can only do. I am not happy with my moral compass, I can never trust that. So we think different. For example, in my view, the devil is already defeated, he is actively doing just what God wants him to do. I think God created him to be the symbol of all that is against him. God is not weak, but he wanted humanity conceived in weakness. It is we who are weak, because that is our given lot in life.

Thats how God wanted it, thats how it really is, no matter who thinks differently.

I think it strange myself, I don't truly understand it. In Gods mind, obviously he feels our creation will turn out better with it being done in this manner. I can only take swipes at it, trying to comprehend it myself. In Gods mind, when we are weak, it is better for us to later become stronger, than to have it in reverse.

Right now, my mind does not have all the answers, and I know that only God can provide them.

So I groupe in the Darkness just like everyonelse, needing his Light.

Peace.

[DusanS]

"The remains of a little finger discovered in a cave in the mountains of southern Siberia belong to a previously unknown human ancestor, scientists said today.

The finding suggests an undocumented human species lived alongside Neanderthals and early modern humans in parts of Asia as recently as 30,000 years ago. If confirmed, it would be the first time a new human ancestor has been identified since the discovery of Homo floresiensis, the diminutive "hobbits" that lived on the Indonesian island of Flores until 13,000 years ago.

Fragments of the finger bone were recovered from Denisova cave in the Altai mountain range that straddles Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan. The cave was occupied by humans for 125,000 years and a variety of stone tools and bones have been recovered.

The size of the bone has led scientists to believe it came from a child, aged between five and seven, though they are unable to say whether it was male or female.

Scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, ran genetic tests on the bone fragments and were stunned to find it did not match the DNA profile of Neanderthals or early modern humans.Johannes Krause sequenced DNA from mitochondria, the sub-cellular bodies that carry genetic material passed down only the maternal line. Because the DNA came from the mother, they called the creature "X-woman".

"It really looked like something I had never seen before. It was a sequence which is similar in some ways to humans, but still quite distinct," Krause said. It is the first time a new type of human has been identified from DNA alone.

By comparing the DNA with sequences from Neanderthals and modern humans, Krause's team concluded that modern humans shared a common ancestor with the creature a million years ago. Humans and Neanderthals diverged from an ancestor that lived 500,000 years ago.

When Krause saw the results of the genetic test, he called project leader Svante Pääbo. "It was absolutely amazing, I didn't believe him. I thought he was pulling my leg," Pääbo said. The bone fragments were recovered from a layer of rock in the cave dated to between 48,000 and 30,000 years ago.

The first humans to move from Africa to Eurasia were Homo erectus 1.9m years ago, but scientists believed they died out around 100,000 years ago. The new species probably migrated from Africa more recently, around 1m years ago, and survived in Eurasia until at least 40,000 years ago.

Krause's team is now analysing DNA from the nuclei of cells in the finger fragments in the hope of locating the species in the human family tree. The tests should also indicate whether there was any interbreeding between the new species, Neanderthals and modern humans.

"There were at least three different forms of humans in the area between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago, and there were also the hobbits in Indonesia, so the picture of what was around in human form in the late Pleistocene gets a lot more complex and a lot more interesting," Pääbo said.

Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "This new DNA work provides an entirely new way of looking at the still poorly understood evolution of humans in central and eastern Asia."

Ian Sample, science correspondent

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 24 March 2010 19.19 GMT

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1299602 wrote: The church, as we know it, is surely not my home, speaking for myself, as I can only do. I am not happy with my moral compass, I can never trust that. So we think different. For example, in my view, the devil is already defeated, he is actively doing just what God wants him to do. I think God created him to be the symbol of all that is against him. God is not weak, but he wanted humanity conceived in weakness. It is we who are weak, because that is our given lot in life.

Thats how God wanted it, thats how it really is, no matter who thinks differently.

I think it strange myself, I don't truly understand it. In Gods mind, obviously he feels our creation will turn out better with it being done in this manner. I can only take swipes at it, trying to comprehend it myself. In Gods mind, when we are weak, it is better for us to later become stronger, than to have it in reverse.

Right now, my mind does not have all the answers, and I know that only God can provide them.

So I groupe in the Darkness just like everyonelse, needing his Light.

Peace.


Mikael I am concerned about your understanding of God's creation. The devil was originally a beautiful angel with musical talents tyo praise God and one of his leading angels but before God created this universe and eternity the devil became Proud of himself and his beaty and talent but it was God who created him. He then tried to big himself up by Saying he was more powerful and beautiful than God and one thrid of the angels rebelled with him,

Also the first humans Adam and Eve were created in God's image and without knowledge of evil and immortal until they were tempted by satan and then became sinners, they had no idea before that that nakedness could be thought of as dirty and only hid from God after taken the forbidden fruit and disobeying Our God. So the first Sin ws pride and the second rebellion. Satan is also the Father of lies which is shown when he temtped Eve and lied about God.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

DusanS;1299414 wrote: Well "written", I see you learned how to "Copy", and "Paste" text on internet, but you can't prove any point beyond fairy tales stories, you have no proof to any asumption that something called "God" exist at all.

maybe we are sooo "marvelous" creation, wonderful, complicated, intelligent, but just our very existence does not prove existence of some imaginary god that you try so hard to show he, or she, or it, created us.

Its ridiculous to even believe in such a thing.

We evolved from cave men, and that is a fact.


Cave men were also homo sapiens as we are so how did we evolve? We simply became more advanced technologically also the new bine fragment referred to is of a different proabaly ape which has not been seen before and is not even related to so called neanderthals.

No one can answer who wrote the Dna code without crediting God as as for the big bang out of nothing came everything? Come on!

[DusanS]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1299724 wrote: Cave men were also homo sapiens as we are so how did we evolve? We simply became more advanced technologically also the new bine fragment referred to is of a different proabaly ape which has not been seen before and is not even related to so called neanderthals.

No one can answer who wrote the Dna code without crediting God as as for the big bang out of nothing came everything? Come on!


When you say out of nothing came everything, think about it for a moment....

we are still nothing regardless...

this tiny planet in comparison to universe when you look at big picture, is really nothing, little speck of dust suspended in space that goes into infinity in all directions, but you are right on that dust particle, we are a miracle created.

But, why would god do that on a first place?

what would be the point?

create life on some little dust particle in extremely huge universe, for what purpose?

what kind of impact we are going to make in universe?

Even if we blow this planet up with all our atomic explosions, it would not be heard further than moon...no one would hear us....

in some way we are "something" but in some way we are really nothing when you look at bigger things...

I think Lucifer stole three, out of five secrets from god, when he was sent down to earth, and that free masons, only few on top above 33 rd degree, knows some of them, I was told...

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1299721 wrote: Mikael I am concerned about your understanding of God's creation. The devil was originally a beautiful angel with musical talents tyo praise God and one of his leading angels but before God created this universe and eternity the devil became Proud of himself and his beaty and talent but it was God who created him. He then tried to big himself up by Saying he was more powerful and beautiful than God and one thrid of the angels rebelled with him,

Also the first humans Adam and Eve were created in God's image and without knowledge of evil and immortal until they were tempted by satan and then became sinners, they had no idea before that that nakedness could be thought of as dirty and only hid from God after taken the forbidden fruit and disobeying Our God. So the first Sin ws pride and the second rebellion. Satan is also the Father of lies which is shown when he temtped Eve and lied about God.




In my belief, the Devil was never anything but evil from his creation. He was a liar and murderer from his beginning, according to Christ. Once Christ has made a statement like that, it matters not to me what men say differently, I believe Jesus.

Also I disagree that the first sin was pride, and the second rebellion. The first sin was a woman listening to a devil instead of God. The second sin was a man listening to a woman instead of God.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

DusanS;1299772 wrote: When you say out of nothing came everything, think about it for a moment....

we are still nothing regardless...

this tiny planet in comparison to universe when you look at big picture, is really nothing, little speck of dust suspended in space that goes into infinity in all directions, but you are right on that dust particle, we are a miracle created.

But, why would god do that on a first place?

what would be the point?

create life on some little dust particle in extremely huge universe, for what purpose?

what kind of impact we are going to make in universe?

Even if we blow this planet up with all our atomic explosions, it would not be heard further than moon...no one would hear us....

in some way we are "something" but in some way we are really nothing when you look at bigger things...

I think Lucifer stole three, out of five secrets from god, when he was sent down to earth, and that free masons, only few on top above 33 rd degree, knows some of them, I was told...


How can you possibly say we are nothing, This planet alone has a veritble universe of womnders whch we are still discovering, Human anatomy is incredibly cdomplex and amazing if you know half of boilogical understanding, This planet is also the cente of the universe as physicist now understand that from wihichever point in the universe you look at this universe it appears you are in the centre but much more importantly This is the ONLY plaent teeming with Life, may God bless you to see his Glory

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1299839 wrote: In my belief, the Devil was never anything but evil from his creation. He was a liar and murderer from his beginning, according to Christ. Once Christ has made a statement like that, it matters not to me what men say differently, I believe Jesus.

Also I disagree that the first sin was pride, and the second rebellion. The first sin was a woman listening to a devil instead of God. The second sin was a man listening to a woman instead of God.

Peace.


I agree with you that you should trust our Saviour above all others but if you take the Bible as a whole it does explain that Lucifer was the Angel who became the devil and if you really Spitual learn the lesson of the Fall of man you will have much deeper understanding.

It does sound as if you have a bit of an issue with the fairer sex from you comments above, I hope I am wrong about this as God Blesses a Spiritual union beteen a man and a woman for God see the song of solomon for example and the leeters of Paul

Bless you

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300274 wrote: I agree with you that you should trust our Saviour above all others but if you take the Bible as a whole it does explain that Lucifer was the Angel who became the devil and if you really Spitual learn the lesson of the Fall of man you will have much deeper understanding.

It does sound as if you have a bit of an issue with the fairer sex from you comments above, I hope I am wrong about this as God Blesses a Spiritual union beteen a man and a woman for God see the song of solomon for example and the leeters of Paul

Bless you


Lucifer was not Satan, and the bible nowhere teaches as such. Simply show me where it does.

And there is no such thing as " The Fall of Man", man didnot fall from the garden, he was pushed out by God.

And I have no issue with women, other than having too many of them.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Try Issiah 14. 12 for starters abouyt Lucifer the morning son worshiper before this eternity!

Humans did indeed fall by breaking the ONE instruction he gave to the first ( and unmarried) couple not to eat of the Tree of the knowlege of GOOD and evil!! God gave then free will but they sucummbed to temptation and lies. How an you truely say the Bible has shifted some gears if you don't even understand this???

Bye the way dating many women is no big deal, it is pure flesh way and so unspiritual, you can only **** these women, with the greatest of respect, I did similar before I began to know God and it is emphatically not God's way!!! I can tell that compared to making love to a woman, that which you do is little more than wanking. whereas my love making with my woman is so amazing every time by the Grace of GOD. You cannot make love to them for By Gods universal laws, we can only have one spiritual partner in flesh which in the spiritual realm if both parties truely love each other with their hearts become one flesh in God's eyes



To dursan, I make no apologies for cutting and pasting the following amplification of why Christianity is the only way to God and freedom and Mikael with respect Jesu himself siad 2 or 3 people gathered together in my name is a church and this paste amplifies the message beautifully and I know that when these messages are given profoundly thery are inspired by Gods blessed Holy Ghost:

Few things in life are more exhilarating and fulfilling than the crowning celebration of some great achievement. What makes it so, of course, is the struggle to get there; without the agony and the pain the triumph would not be as sweet. And while these moments seem to be the culmination, they are in reality transitions, for they open the way to new beginnings. With the celebration of victory comes the commencement of a new role to play--if the success is to have any lasting value.

Think of the great crowning moments down through history. I have just read about Charlemagne. After years of struggle he established his empire. Through war, legislature, education, and various other dealings, he was able to rescue the world from barbarism, violence and ignorance, and to begin to develop the dream of civilization. But on Christmas Day, 800, he was crowned supreme ruler over what is known as the Holy Roman Empire. He was able to give his empire the prestige, sanctity, and stability of Imperial and papal Rome. An incredible coronation! An amazing recognition! What a moment that must have been! It was a coronation that would have results for the next thousand years. But then, that is the point. With this coronation he began a new phase of his life-- extending, and sustaining the empire.

But as great as that may have been, it does not begin to compare with the greatest crowning triumph of all--the Ascension of Jesus Christ to the right hand of the Father in Heaven. When we consider the doctrine of the Ascension, we must not only think of it as the culmination of his earthly ministry, the crowning victory, but we must also think of it as the beginning of a new phase of his ministry.

The doctrine is not covered very well in many theology books or commentaries; all too often it seems to have been tucked away as an afterthought. Of course, if some theologians deny the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, they are not likely going to do very much with the ascension.

But even those who believe in the resurrection give little more than a nod to the Ascension and what it means. When I was studying in Cambridge in England it was an Ascension Day service that made an impression on me, perhaps because it was, well, unexpected. My professor cancelled classes for the services; and the services culminated in the choirs of St Johns College ascending to the roof top of the chapel tower to sing anthems to the exalted Christ that echoed across the skies over the city. But when I returned to the States and tried to attend an Ascension Day service in our church, I was surprised to learn that the church had completely forgotten about it. (And this was a liturgical church that was to observe these things.) They had to scurry about to put something together--for the five or six of us there.

The Ascension cannot be forgotten. It must not be ignored. For without the Ascension, the death and resurrection of Jesus would carry far less value, if any, in the plan of redemption. It is this glorious Ascension that is the culmination of the atoning work of Christ, the guarantee of his promises, the proof of his claims, and the beginning of his dominion.

The Nicene Creed affirms that Christ Jesus “ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father, and he shall come again with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.” In other words, the Creed affirms what the Bible clearly teaches, that after the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, after he appeared to various people and groups, he departed from his disciples from the top of the Mount of Olives. That is, he simply ascended from the earth in the clouds and entered into the heavenly court to be exalted. The ascension teaches that there is in heaven today a “God-man,” Jesus, who is fully human and fully divine. And because he ascended into heaven, those who are alive at his second coming will be caught up to be with the Lord in the air, along with those raised from the dead. And that coming of the Lord will be in the same manner as his departure, for he will descend in the clouds with saints and angels, to judge the world. The doctrine teaches that neither time nor space interferes with our Lord’s movements; he was able to travel between earth and heaven (whether a distance or a dimension we cannot say) by his own power.

The biblical teaching on the ascension, found in several passages in the New Testament (some of which draw upon the Old Testament prophecies), presents not only the fact of the exaltation, but the several purposes for it. These must be considered in any study of the doctrine; and this survey will look at several passages, beginning with Ephesians 1. At the risk of oversimplifying a profound doctrine, I have tried to make my points on the meaning of the Ascension as clear and easy to understand as possible. They are:

I. The Son of God went home.

II. The Son of God presented His work to His Father.

III. The Son of God sat down.

IV. The Son of God sent the Spirit to continue His work.

V. The Son of God will come back.

I have deliberately tried to make these point sound very human, very anthropomorphic, because of the amazing point of the Ascension--Jesus, as resurrected and glorified human, is in heaven. If in the incarnation deity entered into the human race, in the ascension humanity (joined with deity in one person) entered into the realm of God. The implications of this for you and me are staggering.

The Implications Of The Doctrine

I. At his ascension Jesus returned home to glory to continue to prepare a place for us.

A. The Meaning

This is the basic meaning of the Ascension--he returned to heaven, to the angels, to the glory he had before the foundation of the world (John 17). He ascended up into heaven, in his resurrected bodily form. He went from the human place on earth to the Father’s place in heaven. It was not a journey into outer space; rather, he ascended and was removed from space and time into the immediate sphere of God's holy presence.

He had descended into time and space when he came into the world to save sinners. What a condescension the incarnation was. This world, with all its sin and corruption, was not and is not suitable for the Son of God. But he chose to enter for our redemption. He made it abundantly clear that he was from above, whereas we are from below. His rightful place was in glory! And so he prayed that his Father would glorify him with the glory that he had before the foundation of the world. And so when his earthly task was done that prayer was answered when he returned to his heavenly home. Imagine how the angels welcomed him!

But Jesus also knew that this world was not the place for us either. Jesus taught that in his Father's house were many “rooms”, and that he was going to prepare a place for us, that where he was, there we might be also (John 14). What a marvel that is. I think the statement refers more to spiritual preparation for us than simply constructing places: it refers to all that Christ did in completing the process of our atonement so that we could be there. Thus, the main point is that he actually wants us there with him in his heavenly home. His mission here was not merely to rescue us from judgment; it was to bring us home with him, so that we might be with him evermore. How amazing is the love of our Lord!

So Jesus completed his mission to redeem his fallen creation by bringing glorified humanity into heaven at his ascension--in his own person. This is but the foretaste of things to come, for we will follow him there. In fact Ephesians says that we are already seated in the heavenlies, because we are in him. Our future is certain. All creation is his; but his new creation is precious to him. He will not relinquish it.

B. The Significance

The significance of this aspect of the Ascension as explained by Scripture is that heaven is our home and not this world. The entire ministry of our Lord has been and continues to be to fit us for glory. So the lesson should be clear: We must live above the world and not like the world (world meaning the present world system that has no place for the Lord). The Scripture again and again tells us not to love the world, neither the things that are in the world, for it is passing away; we are not to lay up treasures here on earth where there is corruption, but in heaven; and we are not to be conformed to this world. I think these warnings go beyond material things to attitudes. We get so caught up in worldly living--the petty competitions, the little power plays, the desire for worldly fame, and the sometimes dishonest and selfish ways of gaining such. But the Word of God reminds us that our faith in Christ is the means of victory over the world. So we must not get so attached to this world, or this world's way of thinking, that we become worldly.

Rather, we must measure everything by heavenly standards, by spiritual, eternal things (2 Cor. 4). We do not belong here. Our rightful place is with Jesus in glory. The more that we grow spiritually, the more that we become like Jesus Christ, the more we will realize that we do not belong here, and that our stay here is an earthly ministry in our eternal life. This proper perspective will influence all our choices.

So Jesus would have us realize that we are to ascend with him over the present evil world. And when we say in a worship service, “Lift up your hearts,” we mean that for that little moment we transport ourselves in the spirit on the Lord's day into the heavenlies--and that is a picture of when we in fact will be lifted out of this world and into his presence. We do this by faith now; but someday in the future we shall go to our heavenly home.

Thus Paul, in writing to the Ephesians (chapter 1), lists as one very practical issue from his Ascension our INHERITANCE. How foolish to clamor for what is temporal and temporary, when we have an inheritance in heaven.

II. In his ascension Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary to complete his atoning work.

A. The Meaning

The second significant truth about the Ascension concerns Christ's atoning work, so clearly expounded in the Book of Hebrews. There are two aspects of this. First, Jesus offered himself as the perfect sacrifice. Using the imagery of the earthly temple, that shadow of the heavenly sanctuary, the very presence of God the Father, the writer explains how Jesus our high priest took the sacrifice--himself--into the presence of God, thus completing the transaction. So in heaven now, as we may perceive it, ever before the gaze of the heavenly Father is that sacrifice that takes away the sins of the world.

Moreover, in the imagery of Leviticus, Jesus presented himself as a wave offering before the Father, the firstfruit of the dead, guaranteeing that a great harvest of resurrected saints would follow--he was the first (Lev. 23 and 1 Cor. 15). So Jesus opened heaven's gate, and entered as our eternal high priest, having made once and for all complete atonement in his blood. It is done. And so in Christ we have access into the presence of God.

Second, Jesus is also our living high priest who ever lives to intercede for us. Jesus interceded for us with his blood, and now continues to intercede for us as our advocate. In his incarnation he revealed the Father to us, so that we might see God in Christ; but in his ascension he reveals us to the Father, and God sees Christ in our place, so to speak (all we can do is try to describe a heavenly reality and divine omniscience in the limitations of earthly language).

As perfected, glorified human nature, and as the incarnate Son of God, Jesus has become the perfect mediator, the perfect high priest, the substitute for humans in the heavenly courts. As our high priest, Jesus presents our work, our prayers, our worship in an acceptable way to the Father. All that we do down here passes through our mediator to the Father and is thereby perfected. Without the presence of Christ in heaven, and the indwelling Spirit on earth, the worship and prayer and praise of the Church would be utterly inadequate. The high priest as our representative takes into the presence of God all that we do and offers it there for us. And God is satisfied. And when we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous One, who can declare that our sins have been paid for, once and for all.

B. The Significance

This point speaks of the heart of the faith we have through Christ Jesus. Because of the finished work of Christ as our sacrifice, and because of the continual ministry of our Lord as high priest, we have CONFIDENCE. Our consciences have been cleansed from dead works, our sins have been placed on the scapegoat, we have been justified by his blood, and we are righteous before God. Therefore we may come boldly before the throne of grace.

So Paul makes it clear that if we believe in Jesus we are "in him." We have died to sin in his death, and we have been raised to a new life in his resurrection. If we are in Christ, we must not let sin reign in our mortal bodies, but must live to righteousness. But if we sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ. Thus we have a high priest who is our mediator; and the glorious news is that there is abundant forgiveness for sins.

III. In his ascension Jesus sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on High

A. The Meaning

The Book of Hebrews (chapter 1) says that when Jesus made purification for sins he sat down. To be seated at the right hand of God the Father was the place of honor, power, and authority. In other words, the ascension meant Christ’s coronation; and his second coming will mean the beginning of his reign in actual fact. Paul in Ephesians 1 says that his exaltation was above all power and dominion and every title that can be given in this life and the life to come. Indeed, at his ascension Jesus declared, “All power is given unto me.” By this exaltation Jesus shares the universal rule of the cosmos with the Father. He especially directs all the affairs of his advancing Kingdom. But beyond that, he guides the events on earth according to his purposes. Hebrews 1 says that the whole world is being borne along by his powerful command, his spoken word.

But this is not yet the fullness of his authority. We do not yet see all things under subjection. Psalm 110 says, “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool’.” Jesus now awaits the fullness of the Kingdom; but soon the Father will say, “Ask of me and I will give you the nations for your inheritance” (Ps. 2). Then, Hebrews 1 says, when he (the Father) again brings his firstborn into the world, then his (the Son’s) exaltation will be seen by all, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is LORD (Phil. 2). Then the exaltation will be complete; then will be delivered unto him, as Daniel foretells, kingdom, power, glory, and dominion, for he alone is worthy (Dan. 7).

B. The Significance

Because the Lord Jesus Christ has been seated at the right hand of the Majesty on High, he has the auhtority and the power and the dominion of heaven, and he has given to his people AUTHORITY to advance his kingdom. At his ascension Jesus gave his commission: We are his witnesses to the ends of the earth, both by what we say and what we do. We who believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior have been given the authority to extend his kingdom throughout the world. We are ambassadors of the King.

In Ephesians Paul affirms that in Christ we have already been seated in the Heavenlies. It is as if the judgment is past and the transition completed--we are already there (this is a positional truth). And this is the guarantee that we shall reign with Christ. But in our earthly service we know that our position is safe; our victory secured. And we are more than conquerors in Christ Jesus. Therefore, we may go forth with confidence and boldness, proclaiming the Good News.

IV. At His ascension Jesus sent the Holy Spirit into the world.

A. The Meaning

Jesus said, if I do not go away, the Comforter cannot come. And when he left, he told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until the Spirit was sent to give them power. So the point here is ENABLEMENT.

The Holy Spirit was sent into the world to continue the work of Jesus; this was an integral part of the promises of the New Covenant (Jer. 31; Ezek. 36). The Spirit came bearing the name and the characteristics of Jesus to the disciples, to guide and lead them into the mind and way of Christ, so that they might do the will of God in the way that Jesus did. Therefore, the Spirit convicts of sin, regenerates, sanctifies, illumines, and empowers. In short, the Holy Spirit applies the work of Jesus to people (see John 16).

In continuing the work of Jesus the Holy Spirit employs people to carry out the various ministries. Thus, critical to the Spirit's work is the bestowal of gifts upon His loyal subjects. Psalm 68 tells how the LORD ascended Mt. Zion to his resting place. “You have ascended on high, you have received gifts.” Paul, in Ephesians 4, interprets this passage to say that Christ, the conquering king, has ascended on High, leading a host of captives--death, sin, evil, the grave. But as a magnanimous victor he divides the booty among his followers--he gave gifts to us. To some he gave this authority; to others that place of power; to others different responsibilities. Other treasures to different people. To each person different gifts and responsibilities, so that each can help him expand and govern his kingdom.

The spiritual gifts are a direct result of the Ascension, because the ascension resulted in the sending of the Spirit. The Church must have these gifts to do the work of Christ; and it must have all of them, the routine as well as the spectacular. In the body, not every part can be an eye; there must be the leg, and the foot, and the ear. But all one body. So to in the Church, the mystical “body” of Christ. Christ's program cannot thrive without the power of the Spirit enabling the people of God to participate in his kingdom, all of the members using their gifts in the process.

B. The Significance

The lesson here is simple: We must live by the power of the Holy Spirit. Just before Jesus ascended to heaven he announced that his followers would receive power, so that they might be his witnesses (Acts 1). The ENABLEMENT comes from the risen Christ through the Holy Spirit. Paul in Ephesians says that that power is like his own mighty strength. It is so important to emphasize the power of the Holy Spirit today--but in line with the purpose of the ministry of the Holy Spirit. It is not power for power’s sake. The focus must go beyond the Spirit to the exalted Christ. He must have the pre-eminence (Col. 1:18). And the work of the Spirit is often not seen, but gradually changing lives and bringing them into conformity with the living Christ.

To live by the power of the Holy Spirit we must be rightly related to the Spirit. That is what it means to be “spiritual.” To do this we must yield ourselves to him (make that total commitment), be obedient to his Word (make every effort to live by the Word), and be controlled by the Spirit (make spiritual perception the means by which we live out our lives). And the promise is that God's Spirit will bear fruit in our lives--the fruit of the Spirit. Then he will use us mightily in our Lord's kingdom, in whatever capacity he has given to us.

V. By his ascension Jesus demonstrated how he will come again

A. The Meaning

Acts 1:11 records the words of the angels that this same Jesus whom they saw go up into heaven will so come in like manner as they have seen him go up (Zech. 14). It will be an actual return of Christ into space and time; but, of course, it will be more glorious. He will come in the clouds of glory; and we who remain will ascend, along with those who are raised from the dead, all changed, to be with the Lord.

Why is He coming back? Scripture offers several reasons: (1) He will raise the dead, some to honor, and some to dishonor. Just as his resurrection was part of his ascension, so shall be that of the dead in Christ. He will not abandon their bodies to this world. The work of redemption is not complete yet. (2) He will come to receive the homage. Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is the Lord God of the universe (Phil. 2). They shall look on him whom they have pierced (Zech. 12). Kings will shut their mouths (Isa. 52, 53). (3) He will come to judge, putting down all evil and all enemies. All judgment is given over to the Son of Man (John 5). (4) He will renovate his creation, establish universal peace and righteousness, remove the curse, and fulfill all his promises (Isa. 11). When he completes his restorative work and demonstrates what God had intended, then he will deliver the kingdom up to the Father, and he will resume his place in the triune Godhead, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. 15).

But the ascension prepares for the second coming in glory. It will be in answer to the prayers of the ages: “Even so, come quickly Lord Jesus!” Or, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth, as in heaven.” He will not abandon this world to chaos.

B. The Significance

And here is our HOPE. The point here is that we must live in the expectation of his coming in glory. How differently we would live, how differently we would serve, if we lived with this hope as a daily reality. For, the apostle says, those who have this hope, purify themselves.

Conclusion

So in his ascension, Jesus went home; and that is our home. He finished the redemptive work; and we have confidence in his blood. He sat down in the place of authority; and we have been commissioned to represent him. He sent the Spirit; and we have been enabled to do his work. And he will come again; and we look in hope for that glorious time.

The Ascension declares for all time that Jesus is the eternal Son of God and perfected and glorified man. The event was not an after-thought or an adjustment by God. It was part of the eternal plan of God that was established before creation. God determined to create human beings, enable them to triumph over evil, and to exalt them to glory. This is the glory of Christianity, that in Christ Jesus we have access into the heavenlies, now by faith, but in the future in reality. What a glorious faith! Because he ascended, so shall we; we shall stand in the presence of God, complete and perfect.:yh_star:yh

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

For Mikael

for further consideration on lucifer:

Christ first speaks of the person who "shall exalt himself." The –alt in the word exalt is related to the word altitude and has the idea of height. To exalt is to lift up to the heights. The man who lifts up himself is filled with pride. He is guilty of self-exaltation. He promotes himself and promotes his own agenda. He is full of his own importance.

Pride, or haughtiness, is the original sin of Satan. The story of his fall in Isaiah 14:12-15 is peppered with five "I will’s:" "I will ascend into heaven¦I will exalt my throne¦I will sit also upon the mount¦I will ascend above the heights¦I will be like the most High." In his pride, he exalted himself. Only that which he wanted was important. Nothing else mattered.

Another example of self-exaltation is found in the story of Nebuchadnezzar. He walks in his palace in Babylon and says, "Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?" (Daniel 4:30). Notice how his thoughts are totally filled with himself and his accomplishments.

But, you say, I do not have that kind of pride. I know that all glory belongs to the Lord. But do you? Paul complained of his fellow laborers, "For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's" (Philippians 2:21). Thankfully, he then gives Timothy as an example of an exception to this rule. But can we think to beat the general rule of the apostolic age? If most of those workers selfishly sought their own good above the cause of Jesus Christ, how can we hope to rate better?

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300351 wrote: For Mikael

for further consideration on lucifer:

Christ first speaks of the person who "shall exalt himself." The –alt in the word exalt is related to the word altitude and has the idea of height. To exalt is to lift up to the heights. The man who lifts up himself is filled with pride. He is guilty of self-exaltation. He promotes himself and promotes his own agenda. He is full of his own importance.

Pride, or haughtiness, is the original sin of Satan. The story of his fall in Isaiah 14:12-15 is peppered with five "I will’s:" "I will ascend into heaven¦I will exalt my throne¦I will sit also upon the mount¦I will ascend above the heights¦I will be like the most High." In his pride, he exalted himself. Only that which he wanted was important. Nothing else mattered.

?




The person in Isaiah 14 is a man, verse 16 proves that," Is this THE MAN who made the earth tremble." This being is clearly a man, satan is not a man. There are absolutely ZERO scriptures that describe satan as being Lucifer, none!

If I am wrong, simply show the verses.

Lucifer is a ficticious name created by people like yourself who tried to sneak it into the translation of Isaiah 14:12. Give me a list of all the scriptures that even mention a Lucifer, there are absolutely none, he's just another Christian myth.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

If it really is a man then who is this lucifur person? Where did he live and grow up? who is his family?

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300423 wrote: If it really is a man then who is this lucifur person? Where did he live and grow up? who is his family?


There is no lucifer, its a religious myth, thats all it is. If we cannot find correct evidence in scripture, why formulate our own. This Lucifer characther is not formulated in scripture or you could produce the scripture, you know how to do that. But you ignore the danger of formulating characthers on your own, you know how to do that as well.

The man in Isaiah 14 could well be the King of Babylon and Israel is just taunting him in these verses in chapter 14. It could be the King of " Tyre" or Medo-Persia, its just not clear enough, but it is clear he was a King and a man, not this Lucifer or even Satan. People have just traditionally translated it as being Satan, because of their false belief that Satan was once a Good Angel who turned evil. This was a man who said in verse 13, " I will ascend to Heaven", because he was NOT already in Heaven, but he wanted to be God, because the humans worshipped him as god on earth, a common practice back then.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Ok here is a few references for you:

Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.

( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )

Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will.

Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17)

Ezekiel 28:12 (KJV)

"Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty."

13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.

14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire."

This is not an earthly king, as the word "cherub" is only used in references to angels.

15 "Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee."

16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.

The word "covering" is from the Hebrew word cakak, and means: to entwine, to fence in, cover over, protect, defend, hedge in, (source "The complete word study Old Testament")

Was Lucifer’s job to protect the very earth he corrupted? Was this one of his duties that gave him so much pride?

17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.

0 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.

Issiah 14.12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Satan wanted to be God. The Bible tells us in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 that Satan has become the "god of this world". And Revelation 20:10 tells us that he will be eternally punished for it.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

When Lucifer was cast out of Heaven, one third of all the angels were cast out with him. (Rev.12:4,9)

Revelation 12:4-9 (King James Version) "And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.

(5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

(6)And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

(7)And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (8)And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

(9)And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him."

Lucifer became Satan, and the fallen angels became Demons.

Why didn't God just destroy Satan?

Because sin had entered the world, and into the very nature of man through Adams transgression, then for God to destroy Satan, he would also have had to destroy the man he loved. But God had a better way. A way of Redemption.

And Christ the Redeemer was on His way !

The Book of "Ezekiel" tells us what Lucifer really looked like before he sinned.

Lucifer was a being "of perfect beauty". He was covered in every precious stone. He had pendants and jewels of gold...

Lucifer was beautiful before he sinned. An expression of Gods own beauty and power. But like man, Lucifer’s very nature changed when he sinned. His (Lucifer’s) physical appearance may have as well.

Ezekiel 28:13 (KJV)

“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created."

and consider this from a website:

Lucifer and Satan are the same. The problem comes from making the beginning mentioned in John 8:44 the same as the time of the creation of Satan. Satan was a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44) and he sinned from the beginning (1John 3:8). However, there is no reason to think that this beginning is identical with his creation. There are numerous beginnings in the Bible. Philippians 4:15 speaks of the "beginning of the gospel." In Acts 11:15, Peter refers to "the beginning." However, from the context it is clear that he is referring to the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.

One of the most common beginnings in scripture and probably the one referred to in John 8:44 is the beginning of this present world. That is, it refers to the six-day creation of Genesis, chapter one. However, we have good reason to believe that Satan was created before the beginning of our present world and that he fell into sin before that time. Therefore, the devil was created perfect but fell because of sin and was a liar and a murderer from the beginning of creation as we know it. Yet, he was not a murderer and a liar from the time of his own creation. That would make God the source of iniquity. The absolute holiness of God would not allow this to be the case.

This is one of the main reasons that I believe in a gap of time between the original creation and the six-day creation. It was during this gap that Satan/Lucifer rebelled against God. If there was no original creation and destruction, then the devil could predate man by no more than five days. This means that the following events must have occurred between the first day of the six-day creation and the fall of Adam and Eve:

* Lucifer’s service to God as “the anointed cherub that covereth (Ezekiel 28:11-15).

* The fall of Lucifer because of his pride (Isaiah 14:12-15).

* The fall of the angels who followed Satan (Matthew 25:41).

The preparation of everlasting fire for the devil and his angel (Matthew 25:41). NOTE: This fire must have been prepared after the fall of Satan created the need for it yet before the fall of man condemned him to the same place. Otherwise, it would have been created for Satan, his angels, AND man.

Satan’s Claim on the World

Satan is called “the prince of this world by Christ (John 12:31) and “the god of this world by Paul (2Corinthians 4:4). What gives him a claim on this world and when did he get this claim?

In Luke 4:5-6, Satan told Christ that all the kingdoms of the world had been delivered unto him (“for that is delivered unto me). Christ did not deny his claim but rather answered that only God Himself deserved worship (Luke 4:7-8). The devil’s claim of having the kingdoms of the world delivered unto him is allowed to stand. But when could this have been done? When Satan shows up in the Garden of Eden before the fall of man, he is already the serpent and is in opposition to God. If Satan had some previous rule over the world, when did he practice this rule?

In Isaiah 14:12-15, where Satan’s original rebellion against God is recorded, the devil desired to exalt his throne above the stars of God (Isaiah 14:13). In order to exalt his throne, he had to have a throne. A throne indicates a place of rule and dominion as well as a kingdom to rule over. Yet, this kingdom which was ruled by Satan before the fall was below the stars of God and below the heights of the clouds. What is left? The earth is left. Satan had a throne on the earth before he rebelled against God. This would explain how he got his claim to earth. The earth before Genesis 1:2 was Lucifer’s original domain. It was his original commission from God.

Satan’s Character From the Beginning

The devil was “a murderer from the beginning (John 8:44) and he “sinneth from the beginning (1John 3:8). To what beginning does this refer? It must refer to the beginning of the six-day creation. Nothing else makes sense.

However, if there is no gap and the devil was created on the first day of the six days of creation, he must have been created as a sinner and a murderer—since he was these things from the beginning. But this is impossible for two reasons.

* First, this interpretation would make God the author of sin.

* Second, the Bible clearly states that the devil was perfect from his creation and that iniquity was not found in him until a later date (see Ezekiel 28:15).

He was perfect at the time of his own creation, but was a murderer and sinner at the time of the beginning or creation as we experience it. Therefore, the devil had to fall in sin somewhere between the time of his creation and the beginning of the world as found in the first chapter of Genesis. Only the gap provides a time for this. There is no other option.

Then there is this from a Bible dictionary:

Literally the Shining One; also Lightbringer or Son of the Morning. Lucifer is also known as Satan or the devil. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isa. 14: 12, but cf. Luke 10: 18). Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall. Latter-day revelation clarifies the fall of Lucifer and equates him with Satan (D&C 76: 25-38; cf. Rev. 12: 1-17; 2 Ne. 9: 8; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4).

Peace BE WITH YOU

[Mickiel]

Lucifer is not mentioned in Ezek. 28, not at all. Vs. 17 states that this being, whoever it was, was " Placed before Kings that they may SEE him", What Kings have seen satan? In vs. 18, this being is turned to " Ashes on the earth", which again is seen by humans-- how can this be satan? In vs. 15, this being was blameless in his ways, Jesus said satan was a murderer from his beginning, how could that be satan? Vs. 12 literally calls this being " The King of Tyre", satan was never the King of Tyre. 28:2 comes right out and says " You are a man and not God!" How can that, a man, be satan? In vs. 4, this being has acquired riches for himself, gold and silver, now come on, whats a Spirit being going to do with Gold and silver? Vs. 9 repeats that this being " IS A MAN".

But YOU say differently, and I don't believe in your interpitations.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

I see your point Mikael but you also need to be aware that some of the phrophecies in the Old testament tie into the end times referred to in the book of revelations and the antichrist does indeed appear as a man just before the tribulation. as the leader of one false Global religion on earth and one goverment, The saints - that is those who have accepted Jesus into thier lives will be lifted up to heaven prior to this but all other people and demons will endure the tribulation.

God bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1299839 wrote: In my belief, the Devil was never anything but evil from his creation. He was a liar and murderer from his beginning, according to Christ. Once Christ has made a statement like that, it matters not to me what men say differently, I believe Jesus.

Also I disagree that the first sin was pride, and the second rebellion. The first sin was a woman listening to a devil instead of God. The second sin was a man listening to a woman instead of God.

Peace.


On this issue, I ask you to consider that Everything is created by God but everytging God creates is Good. God.s nature is Love and cleanliness how could God have created evil? It makes no sense

Peace to you Brother

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

DusanS;1299414 wrote: Well "written", I see you learned how to "Copy", and "Paste" text on internet, but you can't prove any point beyond fairy tales stories, you have no proof to any asumption that something called "God" exist at all.

maybe we are sooo "marvelous" creation, wonderful, complicated, intelligent, but just our very existence does not prove existence of some imaginary god that you try so hard to show he, or she, or it, created us.

Its ridiculous to even believe in such a thing.

We evolved from cave men, and that is a fact.


Well you have become quiet Dusan, here is a little more on how hard it is to beloeve there is nothing in this universe Bless you to find life interesting and consider this:

There is no such thing as a simple organism

What may be the most thorough study ever of a single organism has produced a beta code for life’s essential subroutines, and shown that even the simplest creatures are more complex than scientists suspected.

The analysis combined information about gene regulation, protein production and cell structure in Mycoplasma pneumoniae, one of the simplest self-sustaining microbes.

It’s far closer to a “blueprint than a mere genome readout, and reveals processes “that are much more subtle and intricate than were previously considered possible in bacteria, wrote University of Arizona biologists Howard Ochman and Rahul Raghavan in a commentary accompanying the findings, which were published last Thursday in Science.

M. pneumoniae has just one-fifth as many genes as E. coli, the traditional single-cell model organism. That makes it an ideal target for systems biologists who want to understand how cells function. To them, genome scans are just a first step. They don’t explain when or why genes are turned on and off, or how different genes interact at different times, or how cellular “machines use proteins produced by gene instructions.

In the new studies, German and Spanish researchers documented almost every single protein used by M. pneumoniae. They looked up the known functions of each of its genes, and made recordings of gene activity. They documented all the chemical reactions inside M. pneumoniae and mapped its physical structure. Then they put all this together.

What emerged was a picture of surprising complexity. M. pneumoniae needs just eight gene “switches to control its molecular activities, compared to 50 in E. coli — a number so low that it implies other, as-yet-unknown regulatory processes. Groups of genes thought to work in unison did so only intermittently. At other times they worked in isolation, or in unexpected configurations.

The findings also showed that chromosome topography — the actual, three-dimensional arrangement of an operating genome, rather than its linear laboratory readout — plays an important part in determining how genes interact.

In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.

Eventually, the thorough analytical approach used to study M. pneumoniae could be applied to other microbes. The findings could also be used by synthetic biologists trying to synthesize microbial life. But for now, they show just how much work remains to be done before life’s essential processes are understood.

“Linear mapping of genes to function rarely considers how a cell actually accomplishes the processes, wrote Ochman and Raghavan. “There is no such thing as a ’simple’ bacterium.

And here is a list of the essential components of cells:

Microtubule

Cylindrical structure supporting the cell and allowing organelles and substances inside the cell to move about.

Cilium

Filament-like extension of the cytoplasmic membrane allowing the cell and certain substances on its surface to move about.

Microfilament

Rod-shaped structure supporting the cell and giving it its shape.

Peroxisome

Organelle containing enzymes that neutralize the cell’s toxic substances.

Cell membrane

The cell’s flexible outer casing; it separates the cell from the surrounding environment and works as a filter to control the entry and exit of certain substances.

Chromatin

Mass of very fine filaments of DNA, the genetic material of the cell; it is compressed into chromosomes during cell division.

Nucleus

Organelle containing a cell’s genes and controlling its activities.

Ribosome

Organelle, free or attached to the endoplasmic reticulum, producing proteins essential to the constitution and functioning of living beings.

endoplasmic reticulum

Organelle formed of walls to which the ribosomes are attached.

Mitochondrion

Ovoid organelle that produces the energy necessary for cell activity.

Cytoplasm

Clear gelatinous substance surrounding the various cellular structures.

Vacuole

Spherical cavity containing water, waste and various substances, required by the cell.

Lysosome

Small spheroid organ containing enzymes that breaks down food, spent cell components and other harmful substances that have been absorbed.

Nuclear envelope

Envelope formed of two layers surrounding the nucleus and pierced with small holes, which allow exchanges between the cytoplasm and the nucleus.

Nucleolus

Small spherical body located inside the nucleus, within which the ribosomes, or protein-synthesizing structures, are produced.

Centriole

A Structure consisting of small rods that play a major role in cell division. Each cell usually contains two.

Golgi apparatus

Organelle composed of a series of pockets that receive proteins produced by the ribosomes and either transport them outside the cell or to other organelles.

Now if all these components are essential, then how on earth did they assemble together? Particularly from a so called primordial soup? The chances of this happening are as likely as a helicopter being thrown together by a tornado!



bless you

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300632 wrote: I see your point Mikael but you also need to be aware that some of the phrophecies in the Old testament tie into the end times referred to in the book of revelations and the antichrist does indeed appear as a man just before the tribulation. as the leader of one false Global religion on earth and one goverment, The saints - that is those who have accepted Jesus into thier lives will be lifted up to heaven prior to this but all other people and demons will endure the tribulation.

God bless you


Men can be antichrist as well as demons.

Peace.

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300633 wrote: On this issue, I ask you to consider that Everything is created by God but everytging God creates is Good. God.s nature is Love and cleanliness how could God have created evil? It makes no sense

Peace to you Brother


God does not always make sense to me, but that does not change what he has done.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

When you invite Jesus into your life, over time God will make sense to you and you will know that God does not have anything to do with evil

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Mickiel;1300727 wrote: Men can be antichrist as well as demons.

Peace.


Yes but the real antichrist from the Bible will manifest as a man in the end times which will soon come

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

DusanS;1298473 wrote: How can universe be a" closed system"?

it goes into infinity in all directions

spirituality, and evolution are all tied to planet earth, and all other "God" stories, it is all imagined here among people, but that is nothing in comparison to greater space in which we live, no matter how you put it, just to prove your convictions, it is all for domestic consuption.

Once you leave out solar system, at least in your mind, nothing matters what happens far away on some planet earth...

everything diminishes, looses any point, and disipates into darkness of great cold universe....

Look at little ants down into grass, for them their world is everything to them, maybe they too have some God they worship, to which they are grateful they exist, but to us...they are nothing...

same thing with us, we are nothing to great universe...


Physics is jst mans attempt to understand God's amazing creation, but consider this

I believe there is no good excuse not to believe in God. Everything that we see around us in nature points to His Majesty (see “Majesty: C-6, P-II) and awesome creative ability; God alone is able to create something out of nothing. “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible (Heb. 11:3). Things did not “just happen on their own without His direction.

Christian astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross expresses many views concerning God, the universe, and Creation, which I feel help repair the often strained relationship between Christian theology and science. Appealing to scientists, he scientifically explains that “...the universe is at least ten billion orders of magnitude (1010,000,000,000 times) too small or too young for life to have assembled itself by natural processes. (1)

There are a number of parameters, defined and analyzed by scientists in recent years, indicating that the fact that life has formed at all in this universe, and that our planet exists in its present form, is not an accident. It is, rather, by purpose. In The Fingerprint of God, Ross lists seventeen “coincidences (2) pointing out that life as we know it is the result of a careful design, rather than a haphazard formation, of the universe. This “design requires a Designer to have fine-tuned every detail of the universe. For instance, if the ratio of the mass of an electron to that of a proton were any less or greater than it is, the necessary molecules of life could not form. If the universe were expanding at a slightly slower or more rapid rate, stars like our sun could not have assembled, and life would not be possible. If the mass of the universe were only a little smaller or larger, or if the average distance between stars in our region of the Milky Way Galaxy were slightly less or more, it would have been impossible for any planet like earth to exist.

Ross lists twenty more parameters (3) indicating that, left to chance, we would expect to find no planet capable of supporting life anywhere in the universe! As examples, if any of the following factors pertaining to a planet and its sun are even slightly different from the factors regarding our earth and our sun, that planet could not support carbon-based life: the planet’s axial tilt in relation to its sun, the planet’s rotation period, its magnetic field, the levels of carbon dioxide and ozone in its atmosphere, the seismic activity on the planet, the distance between the sun and the planet, the sun’s distance from the center of its galaxy, and the sun’s mass and color. The fact is,

...much fewer than a trillionth of a trillionth of a percent of all stars will have a planet capable of sustaining advanced life. Considering that the universe contains only about a trillion galaxies, each averaging a hundred billion stars, we can see that not even one planet would be expected, by natural processes alone, to possess the necessary conditions to sustain life. (4)

Most people do not even realize the importance to our planet of the outer planets in our solar system. In fact, these larger planets were designed by God, among other things, to deflect or even take direct hits from many comets and asteroids which otherwise might strike the earth. (5) (Recall that Jupiter was bombarded by numerous fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy 9 Comet July 16-22, 1994—see “Trumpet Judgments: C-12, P-IV, S-1). In addition, Jacques Laskar of the Bureau des Longitudes in Paris has stated, “f the outer planets were less regular [in their orbits], then the inner planets’ motion would be so chaotic that...Earth would suffer changes too large in its own orbit to ensure climatic stability on its surface. (6)

God, the personal Creator

The implication of the previous section is that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a Creator (see “Creator, Sustainer: C-6, P-III) crafted and shaped the universe and, in particular, the earth—a unique planet on which life (which subsequently would be created) could exist in a suitable environment.

The ancient Jewish prophet Isaiah, who certainly was not a brilliant scientist nor astrophysicist, concurred with the idea that the earth was created specially by God for life:

For this is what the Lord says—he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited—he says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other (Isa. 45:18).

All of this points to a personal God, who has demonstrated great care and concern for His living creatures through an elaborately-drafted and exquisitely-crafted universe. Who could be more personal and concerned about His Creation than this God, as described by the psalmist?

From heaven the Lord looks down and sees all mankind; from his dwelling place he watches all who live on earth—he who forms the hearts of all, who considers everything they do (Psalm 33:13-15).

God not created

God, the all-powerful Creator of everything seen and unseen, is separate and distinct from His Creation. It is the Lord God who

...created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it (Isa. 42:5).

Furthermore,

This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God (Isa. 44:6).

Since God existed in eternity past and will exist throughout eternity future, independent of time as we know it (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2), and since there is no other “God who can create, then God Himself could not have been created. He always did, does, and always will exist in and of Himself. Thus, in this sense, a perfect description of Him simply is “I AM (see “YHWH or Yahweh, the ‘I AM’: C-2, P-I). So, while God is the Power (see “Power: C-6, P-IV) giving life to and governing everything in existence, He Himself is subject to no one because He alone is not a creation.

increase in knowledge

God has allowed us to receive a vast, almost “logarithmic increase in all types of knowledge in these last days (Dan. 12:4), particularly in the past 50 or so years. I believe this is because we are the generation of humanity which will witness the unfolding of “end-time events (see C-11 and C-12).

Within this very recent time period of mankind’s existence on earth, the television, the satellite, and the computer all have been invented—providing for world-wide communication, as well as for the capability of obtaining vital information on almost any one of billions of people, in only moments of time. People have flown into space and walked on the moon. We now have sharp, detailed pictures of all the planets (other than Pluto) and many of their moons in our solar system, and we even have seen virtually to the edge of the universe. We understand how the stars generate power and what basic particles compose an atom. And the increase in knowledge will continue—limited only by what God permits and enables us to know and discover.

Now, I cannot imagine why God would let us attain such knowledge without its being helpful to us in learning what He is like and in discovering more about His glorious Creation. After all, Jesus did encourage us, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you (Matt. 7:7). A wealth of answers is still locked up in nature; we just have to figure out how to pry them out—with God’s help.

Although refinements still need to be made in dating techniques (for instance, carbon 14 dating is only accurate for objects a few hundred to a few thousand years old, and significant errors are still made), I believe that if we knew “all the answers through science, we would see that nature completely supports what the Bible teaches (and vice versa). That there are discrepancies between science and the Bible simply means that our technology has not advanced far enough to be able to observe or discover all that the Bible describes. (I am not saying that the Bible describes everything in nature, but rather that not all of what the Bible explains has been discovered or observed.)

I feel strongly that God has “spoken to us through His Creation, so that all we need to do, to see and know what He has done, is to (correctly) observe what He has shown us in nature.

The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world (Psalm 19:1-4).

Other examples of God’s “speaking to us through nature are Job 12:7-9; Psalm 50:6, 97:6; and, as mentioned before, Job 9:9,10; and Rom. 1:20.

nature and the Word of God not contradictory

I do not look upon the Bible itself as being a “god to be worshiped, something of which I might be incorrectly accused by some. Rather, I see the Bible as the written Word of our Creator and the method by and through which He has chosen to reveal to us Himself and His great Plan (see “God’s Plan: C-15, P-I) for mankind and for other creatures, the earth, and universe.

God revealed through the prophet Isaiah,

I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please (Isa. 46:10).

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching... (2 Tim. 3:16), and God does not and cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). Therefore, I feel that there is no contradiction between what we are capable of learning from nature (if our methods are error-free) and what the Bible teaches about what God has done, is doing, and will do—all of which (past, present, and future) are equally important in explaining His great Plan of the ages. Seeming contradictions must be a result of human ignorance or error in the observation of nature, or else in the interpretation of the Bible.

I believe it is important to note here that there are often enormous errors in dating things in nature:

Although scientists are prepared to stake their credibility on the absolute accuracy for dating volcanic materials of unknown age, it is interesting to note that when the age of formation for volcanic materials is known, huge discrepancies are a certainty. For example, lava rocks formed in Hawaii in 1800 and 1801 have been dated by radiometric techniques as 160 million to 3 billion years old. Other volcanic materials dated radiometrically also show erroneous results. Perhaps because of some of these observed inconsistencies, radiometric dating labs, before dating samples, require the researcher to fill out a form which specifies the estimated age for the sample in question. (7)

scientific confirmation of the Bible

Much information in the Bible, heretofore not known for certain to be factual, is only relatively recently being scientifically confirmed, supporting the validity of God’s Word. That is, historical evidence is continually “catching up with the facts in the Bible. Following are only a few such examples.

Darius the Mede: In the Book of Daniel is mentioned Darius the Mede, a person about 62 years of age, who took the Babylonian Kingdom away from King Belshazzar (Dan. 5:31). Now, “Darius, meaning “holder of the scepter, has been a title of honor for many throughout history. But, since evidence of a person of Median descent to fit this man’s description had never been found, many have said that the Book of Daniel is not valid historically and could not possibly have been written in the sixth century B.C. as claimed.

Recently, though, archaeological evidence has revealed that a Mede, named Gubaru, born in 601 B.C., was appointed by King Cyrus to be governor of Babylon in 539 B.C. This made him about age 62 at the time the events in Daniel 6 occurred, and it confirms that he is the person described in this passage. (8)

a spherical earth: Isaiah indicated that the earth has a circular shape when viewed from space (Isa. 40:22a). Although Eratosthenes of Alexandria closely estimated the circumference of the earth in the third century B.C., (9) the fact that the earth was round was not generally accepted until about 2,200 years after Isaiah wrote his words.

whirling winds: King Solomon wrote how winds blow in cyclonic patterns (Eccl. 1:6). This fact was not confirmed until the late 18th Century by Benjamin Franklin, and only relatively recently has this phenomenon been observable in satellite photos. (10)

the hydrologic cycle: Elihu (an acquaintance of Job who reprimanded him) described how water evaporates from the oceans, forms into clouds, and drops as rain on the land—the hydrologic cycle (Job 36:27,28). This cycle was not really understood until Edmund Haley discussed it in the late 17th Century; a mathematical explanation did not arise until the 19th Century. (10)

Hezekiah’s tunnel: The Bible briefly mentions that King Hezekiah of Judah had a tunnel dug in Jerusalem to bring water into the city (2 Kng. 20:20). It was not until 1880 that a mere school boy accidentally came upon an engraved plaque at the end of the lost tunnel, describing it. Archæologists uncovered the tunnel and found it to be 1,700 feet long and cut through solid rock. (10)

oceanic pathways: King David of Israel indicated that there are pathways in the seas (Psalm 8:8). Oceanographer Matthew Maury read this in the Bible and set out to find and explain them, maintaining in 1855 that all water movements except tides were caused by convection. His subsequent discoveries relating to the great sea currents and trade winds made sailing faster and safer. (10)

astronomical facts: Several astronomical concepts found in the Bible were not conclusively, indisputably confirmed until this century. A few examples are that the stars, like the sand on the seashore, are too numerous to count (Gen. 15:5a, 22:17a, 26:4a; Exo. 32:13b; Heb. 11:12); that each star differs from all others in brilliance (1 Cor. 15:41b); and that the earth is suspended in space, not physically connected to anything else (Job 26:7b). (10)

Old and New Testament verification by ancient scrolls: The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the Qumran caves in Jordan in 1947 and 1952, are Hebrew and Aramaic documents dating from the second century B.C. to about 70 A.D. They include fragments of all the books of the Old Testament, excluding Esther. They were released for public scrutiny in September, 1991. (Remember: in the time of the end, knowledge will be increased—Dan. 12:4.)

New light also has been shed by the scrolls on many historical events which occurred in the first part of the first century A.D. In fact, there are references to events in the New Testament Gospel accounts written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (see “Dead Sea Scrolls and “Scrolls #4Q521 and #4Q246: C-3, P-III).

rediscovery of Mount Sinai: Bob Cornuke and the late astronaut, James Irwin, uncovered evidence possibly indicating that the true Mount Sinai actually may be in western Saudi Arabia rather than in the eastern Sinai Peninsula, as traditionally believed. (This would conform to Paul’s indication that Mount Sinai is in Arabia—Gal. 4:25a.) A thorough, detailed discussion of this was aired on Trinity Broadcasting Network’s live “Praise the Lord Show, hosted by Hal Lindsey. To obtain an audio cassette, one may write to TBN, P. O. Box A, Santa Ana, California 92711-2101; or call (714)832-2950, and ask for tape #1218-91.

Not to mention the fact of the earth's perfect 23 degree tilt to the sonthat gives us a beutifully livable and variable climate and the only planet that sees a perfect eclipse of the sun - co-incidence???

Bless you

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

Dear Mikael

I have often read from you that you feel christian churches are wrong for you, can you tell me to which churches you have been as I too have issues with several christian churches but nbot by all, lets compare nbotes?

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1301051 wrote: Dear Mikael

I have often read from you that you feel christian churches are wrong for you, can you tell me to which churches you have been as I too have issues with several christian churches but nbot by all, lets compare nbotes?




Greetings,

I have been to nearly all of them over the years in my youth, and have found that none of them are for me. But thats just how Life is, our path is our path. As for me, I best walk alone, such is my destiny. I have come to understand and accept that this is Gods will for me. I don't know why, but I know that it is.

And theres nothing I can do about it, I have tried that. Once God has placed you within a situation, only he can release you. He is the beginning and the end of any situation he wants you in.

He does not want me in any religion.

Peace.

[freethinkingthuthseeker]

I hear what you are saying but if you do not know God how do you know he has put you in this position?

I do not go to a religious church, I go to one which is a spiritual worshiping realtionship with God church.

Which city country are you based in?

[Mickiel]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1301142 wrote: I hear what you are saying but if you do not know God how do you know he has put you in this position?

I do not go to a religious church, I go to one which is a spiritual worshiping realtionship with God church.

Which city country are you based in?




I am in Warren, Michigan. I believe that all of human life has been Predestined by God, thus all positions humans have been in, and are in now, is Preordained by him, not just me, but everyone. No one can come to Christ, or have the mind of Christ, unless God so wills it. Those in the Light, are in it because of God, conversely, those in the Dark, are there by Gods will also. Such is my belief, which I draw from my study of Gods Word. Our position from God, is not based on our knowing him. Its based on him, his will, not ours.

I am what I am, because of God, I understand what I understand, because of God. It is in him, that all humans have their being.

Peace.

[DusanS]

freethinkingthuthseeker;1300634 wrote: Well you have become quiet Dusan, here is a little more on how hard it is to beloeve there is nothing in this universe Bless you to find life interesting and consider this:

There is no such thing as a simple organism

What may be the most thorough study ever of a single organism has produced a beta code for life’s essential subroutines, and shown that even the simplest creatures are more complex than scientists suspected.

The analysis combined information about gene regulation, protein production and cell structure in Mycoplasma pneumoniae, one of the simplest self-sustaining microbes.

It’s far closer to a “blueprint” than a mere genome readout, and reveals processes “that are much more subtle and intricate than were previously considered possible in bacteria,” wrote University of Arizona biologists Howard Ochman and Rahul Raghavan in a commentary accompanying the findings, which were published last Thursday in Science.

M. pneumoniae has just one-fifth as many genes as E. coli, the traditional single-cell model organism. That makes it an ideal target for systems biologists who want to understand how cells function. To them, genome scans are just a first step. They don’t explain when or why genes are turned on and off, or how different genes interact at different times, or how cellular “machines” use proteins produced by gene instructions.

In the new studies, German and Spanish researchers documented almost every single protein used by M. pneumoniae. They looked up the known functions of each of its genes, and made recordings of gene activity. They documented all the chemical reactions inside M. pneumoniae and mapped its physical structure. Then they put all this together.

What emerged was a picture of surprising complexity. M. pneumoniae needs just eight gene “switches” to control its molecular activities, compared to 50 in E. coli — a number so low that it implies other, as-yet-unknown regulatory processes. Groups of genes thought to work in unison did so only intermittently. At other times they worked in isolation, or in unexpected configurations.

The findings also showed that chromosome topography — the actual, three-dimensional arrangement of an operating genome, rather than its linear laboratory readout — plays an important part in determining how genes interact.

In short, there was a lot going on in lowly, supposedly simple M. pneumoniae, and much of it is beyond the grasp of what’s now known about cell function.

Eventually, the thorough analytical approach used to study M. pneumoniae could be applied to other microbes. The findings could also be used by synthetic biologists trying to synthesize microbial life. But for now, they show just how much work remains to be done before life’s essential processes are understood.

“Linear mapping of genes to function rarely considers how a cell actually accomplishes the processes,” wrote Ochman and Raghavan. “There is no such thing as a ’simple’ bacterium.”

And here is a list of the essential components of cells:

Microtubule

Cylindrical structure supporting the cell and allowing organelles and substances inside the cell to move about.

Cilium

Filament-like extension of the cytoplasmic membrane allowing the cell and certain substances on its surface to move about.

Microfilament

Rod-shaped structure supporting the cell and giving it its shape.

Peroxisome

Organelle containing enzymes that neutralize the cell’s toxic substances.

Cell membrane

The cell’s flexible outer casing; it separates the cell from the surrounding environment and works as a filter to control the entry and exit of certain substances.

Chromatin

Mass of very fine filaments of DNA, the genetic material of the cell; it is compressed into chromosomes during cell division.

Nucleus

Organelle containing a cell’s genes and controlling its activities.

Ribosome

Organelle, free or attached to the endoplasmic reticulum, producing proteins essential to the constitution and functioning of living beings.

endoplasmic reticulum

Organelle formed of walls to which the ribosomes are attached.

Mitochondrion

Ovoid organelle that produces the energy necessary for cell activity.

Cytoplasm

Clear gelatinous substance surrounding the various cellular structures.

Vacuole

Spherical cavity containing water, waste and various substances, required by the cell.

Lysosome

Small spheroid organ containing enzymes that breaks down food, spent cell components and other harmful substances that have been absorbed.

Nuclear envelope

Envelope formed of two layers surrounding the nucleus and pierced with small holes, which allow exchanges between the cytoplasm and the nucleus.

Nucleolus

Small spherical body located inside the nucleus, within which the ribosomes, or protein-synthesizing structures, are produced.

Centriole

A Structure consisting of small rods that play a major role in cell division. Each cell usually contains two.

Golgi apparatus

Organelle composed of a series of pockets that receive proteins produced by the ribosomes and either transport them outside the cell or to other organelles.

Now if all these components are essential, then how on earth did they assemble together? Particularly from a so called primordial soup? The chances of this happening are as likely as a helicopter being thrown together by a tornado!



bless you


Well "truth seeker" if you wish to seek truth,

We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear, truth seeker, what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

Also, you don't have any proof, evidence whatsoever, that anything "alive" exist outside our planet, in Universe, all believs comes from people living on this planet, stories perfected over centuries, sounding so "believable", yet, so imaginary.

If scientists ever discover life on another planet, that would be life seen under microscope, there is nothing out there, but cold, dark universe that goes into infinity in all directions, and we are not center of that universe, or anything for that matter, enormity of that huge space can put us anywhere, if that could be described in words at all, we are just a bunch of not completely evolved crazies traveling on this planet with no direction, no time until sun looses heat, and cools off, and we flame out into infinity, disposed, and recycled into other space junk...

We came from nothing, and we will return to nothing... everything that happens in between, well, we can philosophy as much as we like, it would not matter much.

Nothing last forever, with god, or without god, same thing... puff, and we are all gone...

"Heaven", "Hell" means nothing, soul does not feel pain of hell, soul does not feel any pleasures of "paradise"...only body can do that, and when body rot... decay, nothing matters any more.

Enjoy while you are alive, that is the real paradise.

[Mickiel]

The bible has shifted many gears in my mind. I used to think that it meant something to give money to a church, now I understand how meaningless that really is. The curse of the Tithes, the greed of religious leaders, the infintile effort to stress the worth of money to God, the way God looks at the heart, and the fact that there is no true church of God on earth now.

So I want to go into this meaningless association that religion has established with the giving of money, and what the bible really says about it.

Peace.

[DusanS]

Bible is too small of a book, to shift a human minds, since human minds can be extremely huge, and complicated, it takes something much larger to shift such a mind...

Universe is something that shifts my mind, it goes into infinity in all directions, of which we are extremely small part...

It distance can not be measured by any measure ever created by man, time means nothing, temperature means nothing, sound means nothing, light means nothing...

It is very cold, dark and quiet place...

From our perspective, we are big people, our achivements are great, technology, poetry, science, art, but from perspective of Universe, all this, means nothing, neither we are going to make any impact on forces of deep space....

We are just going with self improvement, until self destruction caused by very technology we created.

After that, we are going to be recycled into rest of cosmic dust.

And everything is going to be the same as before in our Universe...cold, dark, and quiet.

We might leave traces that we existed once, pieces of sattelites, space junk, floating through the space, until they too, rot and decay...and stories about god, by that time, will be long forgotten, like it never happened.

[beowulf]

Attached files