Posts
Post 294
As you may have noticed I have repeatedly attempted to wrap up this section of work; I feel that I have run long enough, the message is adequately given, and few are going to read a tome of this size anyway. But in the spirit of Methuselah God will not let me stop, even though my message has run longer than any message could be expected to. The reasons are the same: At the end of Methuselah’s message, the flood came. My lengthy warning is similar; do not delay your turn to God because you are waiting for new material that seems to have no end. Yet just as the stiffnecked people in the time of the Judges, God’s mercy runs far longer than anyone could consider reasonable. The problem is that the people took that extended mercy for tolerance and so felt no need to work it out to success (II Peter 3:4 confirmed by the willfully missed perspective of v.v.5-7, Judgment will come much sooner than you perceive because of the appearance of delay: II Peter 3:9-10, Habakkuk 2:3).
And so although this lengthy message has appeared to end several times, the Lord yet offers you Micah with this key verse as it applies to modern Christianity:
“Arise ye, and depart (from your current standing of faith); for this is not your rest: because it is polluted, it shall destroy you, even with a sore destruction.
If a man walking in the spirit and falsehood…” Micah 2:10-11a.
"Wait! How does a man walk in the spirit and in falsehood?" I cannot urge you strong enough to read Micah’s early warning found in Chapters 1-3. Can you explain why Chapter 4 seems to come out of order? Can you identify the distinction between 1-3 and 5-7?
I may develop this post as I have time but you really need to read this for yourself and cry out to God to show you his heart in the matter.
* * * * * * *
Micah 1:1 tells us that this warning prophecy is a judgment not against all the wicked of the word but against Samaria and Jerusalem; the capitols of the divided nation of Israel.
Micah 1:2 tells us that this judgment prophecy is a warning to the rest of the world to learn by observation. Micah’s message tells us that what will pass on Israel is from God himself who is the witness against them, not from the polluted temple in Jerusalem but from his Holy Temple in heaven. The importance of this is to distinguish God’s perspective of righteousness from the people who think they are following God but are not.
Micah 1:3 expounds on His coming down from his holy place for the purpose of treading on the high places of the earth. We know that “high places” are where pagan gods were worshipped-- whether in Jerusalem or elsewhere. Again God is establishing his true position of God as opposed to the many confusions assumed to be God.
Micah 1:4 describes the affects on the Earth when God comes down: earthquakes that bring mountains down like water, valleys cut as the earth rips open like a knife through hot butter. What valley specifically? See Zechariah 14:4. This arrival of God to do his trodding sure sounds a lot like the pre-signs of his Matthew 24:5-8 coming that brings the end of the world.
That should get you started…
*
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Rejecting The "Creator" Theory
Post 029
Before I go on in this chain of logic I must plainly state that I am not under the notion that what I have written will change anyone's mind. A blog is not the place, nor does it have the space, to write the volumes of information and documentation needed.
My hope is that it simply sparks a curious thought of departure from what most people have been taught in school and accepted as truth without thinking it through. If you begin to look for it, the information is everywhere and the evidence is very clear.
Now to make my intended point;
Let's imagine I took you in a helicopter to fly over the city of New York. We see the buildings, the bridges, and the streets with all the cars and the people going their ways in their daily lives. If we focus on this amazing sight we can observe the function of an electrical system, water and waste systems, not to mention the details like the function of stores and shops and offices that keep this place working.
Now, suppose, in our helicopter ride, I offered you a fortune to come up with an explanation to how this city came to be... But be warned, I reject the "Creator Man" Theory, so don't try to feed me that trash. I want science! Science should be able to show how this city got to where it is today.
You might, because of the enticement of money or an absence of conscience, be willing to look for items and events that could be used to create a plausible idea. Perhaps billions of years of wind and elements, volcanic activity, and the action of the sea combined with Happen Chance may have brought about the structures we see. Water run off may have created the ancient "streets" and underground systems eventually evolving into what we see today. Electrical storms during this time of molten elements could have, by slow and gradual processes, been attracted into the metallic elements we now know as power-lines. We can see that a slow evolution is in fact true by looking at younger, smaller towns still in their evolutionary process. Yes, I can see plainly now, by the evidence, that there was no "creator man" in the Evolution of New York city.
Let's come back to reality.
It takes very little investigation to see that there is design, intelligence, and intentional assistance in the making of what we now call New York. In one sense of the word, the city has evolved, but in no way as the word is being used today (*1). No, it is clear that the city was created by intelligent, thoughtful intent, and furthermore, it's continued survival is dependent upon constant maintenance by the creators.
But if I have already rejected the "creator man" theory, what have I left to draw from? Nothing but pure foolishness, no matter how scientific I try to make it.
Foolishness built on foolishness is stupidity.
But if science leads to the evidence of a Creator, why is that not science? Think about it.
* * * * * * *
*1 Define Evolution:
There is a very distinct line of demarcation between the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. That line is the available information already locked in the DNA of the entity. A small town in the planes of Kansas already has the logical potential to become a city. This is micro-evolution. That small town does not have the potential to become a space station. That would be macro evolution.
Evolution: [Latin evolutio an unrolling. See EVOLVE] 1. An unfolding; a process of opening out what is contained or implied in something; a development, esp., as leading to a definite end; as, the evolution of the tragedy...- Webster's 1948 (The biological ‘addition’ to this completely abandons this definition foundation!).
*
Before I go on in this chain of logic I must plainly state that I am not under the notion that what I have written will change anyone's mind. A blog is not the place, nor does it have the space, to write the volumes of information and documentation needed.
My hope is that it simply sparks a curious thought of departure from what most people have been taught in school and accepted as truth without thinking it through. If you begin to look for it, the information is everywhere and the evidence is very clear.
Now to make my intended point;
Let's imagine I took you in a helicopter to fly over the city of New York. We see the buildings, the bridges, and the streets with all the cars and the people going their ways in their daily lives. If we focus on this amazing sight we can observe the function of an electrical system, water and waste systems, not to mention the details like the function of stores and shops and offices that keep this place working.
Now, suppose, in our helicopter ride, I offered you a fortune to come up with an explanation to how this city came to be... But be warned, I reject the "Creator Man" Theory, so don't try to feed me that trash. I want science! Science should be able to show how this city got to where it is today.
You might, because of the enticement of money or an absence of conscience, be willing to look for items and events that could be used to create a plausible idea. Perhaps billions of years of wind and elements, volcanic activity, and the action of the sea combined with Happen Chance may have brought about the structures we see. Water run off may have created the ancient "streets" and underground systems eventually evolving into what we see today. Electrical storms during this time of molten elements could have, by slow and gradual processes, been attracted into the metallic elements we now know as power-lines. We can see that a slow evolution is in fact true by looking at younger, smaller towns still in their evolutionary process. Yes, I can see plainly now, by the evidence, that there was no "creator man" in the Evolution of New York city.
Let's come back to reality.
It takes very little investigation to see that there is design, intelligence, and intentional assistance in the making of what we now call New York. In one sense of the word, the city has evolved, but in no way as the word is being used today (*1). No, it is clear that the city was created by intelligent, thoughtful intent, and furthermore, it's continued survival is dependent upon constant maintenance by the creators.
But if I have already rejected the "creator man" theory, what have I left to draw from? Nothing but pure foolishness, no matter how scientific I try to make it.
Foolishness built on foolishness is stupidity.
But if science leads to the evidence of a Creator, why is that not science? Think about it.
* * * * * * *
*1 Define Evolution:
There is a very distinct line of demarcation between the concepts of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. That line is the available information already locked in the DNA of the entity. A small town in the planes of Kansas already has the logical potential to become a city. This is micro-evolution. That small town does not have the potential to become a space station. That would be macro evolution.
Evolution: [Latin evolutio an unrolling. See EVOLVE] 1. An unfolding; a process of opening out what is contained or implied in something; a development, esp., as leading to a definite end; as, the evolution of the tragedy...- Webster's 1948 (The biological ‘addition’ to this completely abandons this definition foundation!).
*
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Reverse Evolution
Post 028
There are two, and only two, theories of how life originated.
These two theories are as diametrically opposed as conceivably possible, which is the natural result of the nature of the two forces sponsoring each view.
The first and most accepted view by modern man, is the theory of Evolution. In a nutshell, this baseless, science-less theory suggests that all matter known in the entire universe, somehow began from nothing, and then from the most basic elements, is now the result of a series of many thousands of millions of minor biological successful accidents. Each purposeless accident made a slight improvement on the subject object resulting in the most complex forms present today beginning from the simplest elements.
This success was not just with a singular life form, but branched into the plethora of variations in life we see today, all varieties of plants, bugs, birds, fish, animals, germs, amoeba, etc. In other words; everything has gotten better and better over time.
So many amazing successful changes, I wonder if there is room in evolution for the occasional accident with an unfavorable result, or are all random accidents typically improvements in this theory?
Scientifically, there is not one known element in the entire known universe that left to itself becomes better over time. Fact; all observable matter is in the state of decay. Yet the theory of evolution defies all known scientific reality, and is so baseless it cannot even accurately be called a serious theory.
The opposing view, accepted by most of the men of recent past (those ignorant fools like our founding fathers), is the theory of Creation.
In a nutshell, this theory says God has always been, and is a force outside the constraints of our known space/time dimension. This God created from nothing everything that is, perfect from the beginning. Since then, things have progressively deteriorated over time.
This theory conforms to all known science, though there are elements that are still a mystery, they do not defy science.
Just as the re-awakening of Christianity in recent history gave light to bring back the “round earth” idea (3 laws of planetary motion, by Yohannes Kepler 1600s... who also wrote 2 books on the star of Bethlehem), and history today now thinks that was the first time that idea was developed, in spite of the fact that the bible over 3000 years ago already declared that (Psalm 19:1-6).
One day a Christian society will bring back the “Creator Theory” by scientific evidences and the world will think they invented the concept in their modern wisdom. They will look back on us and wonder how a people could be so ignorant of science as to believe in evolution, yet travel to the moon!
What am I saying?
That each generation has progressively gotten dumber over time, not smarter.
As in any trend, there are always minor forward and backward movements, but the overall progression is that of less intelligent not more so. The Greeks were performing brain surgery, the Egyptians built structures that we today have no idea how they accomplished it. Rome had sophisticated plumbing. Yet we always look back on those of the past as barbaric and ignorant.
Yes, there were cave men in the past, but no different than the Aborigines of Australia today, Mankind as a race was never in a “caveman phase” as a part of the evolutionary process of betterment. The first man was the most perfect man, each generation, like copies, have progressively degenerated little by little.
What we have in observable reality is Reverse Evolution.
This theory conforms to all science.
What does this mean to us today?
If you accept the idea that man is constantly evolving in a direction of improvement, you must do so with your imagination, because science does not support this idea. If truth, history, logic, and science are not required to come to a line of thinking, then there is nothing to stand in the way of any form of insanity you choose to believe. The idea of evolution is so mathematically impossible that to believe it removes the word Impossible from the vocabulary. Webster’s dictionary definition should then read;
Impossible: An unused, archaic word of our ignorant ancestors, [describing a now rejected idea that] 1. Evidence could show that something could not occur. 2. The nature of reality demands limits and boundaries associated with all things, therefore something beyond that scope was once considered impossible.
Our Nation was once, not long ago, a wise, benevolent, wealthy, powerful, safe place to live. Through a dynamic departure from our National foundations, our nation has become a confused, greedy, corrupt, weak, selfish nation mocked by the other nations of the earth.
How we see the cause that got us here, and what must be done to fix the problem will depend on which of the two theories you believe.
* * * * * * *
There are two, and only two, theories of how life originated.
These two theories are as diametrically opposed as conceivably possible, which is the natural result of the nature of the two forces sponsoring each view.
The first and most accepted view by modern man, is the theory of Evolution. In a nutshell, this baseless, science-less theory suggests that all matter known in the entire universe, somehow began from nothing, and then from the most basic elements, is now the result of a series of many thousands of millions of minor biological successful accidents. Each purposeless accident made a slight improvement on the subject object resulting in the most complex forms present today beginning from the simplest elements.
This success was not just with a singular life form, but branched into the plethora of variations in life we see today, all varieties of plants, bugs, birds, fish, animals, germs, amoeba, etc. In other words; everything has gotten better and better over time.
So many amazing successful changes, I wonder if there is room in evolution for the occasional accident with an unfavorable result, or are all random accidents typically improvements in this theory?
Scientifically, there is not one known element in the entire known universe that left to itself becomes better over time. Fact; all observable matter is in the state of decay. Yet the theory of evolution defies all known scientific reality, and is so baseless it cannot even accurately be called a serious theory.
The opposing view, accepted by most of the men of recent past (those ignorant fools like our founding fathers), is the theory of Creation.
In a nutshell, this theory says God has always been, and is a force outside the constraints of our known space/time dimension. This God created from nothing everything that is, perfect from the beginning. Since then, things have progressively deteriorated over time.
This theory conforms to all known science, though there are elements that are still a mystery, they do not defy science.
Just as the re-awakening of Christianity in recent history gave light to bring back the “round earth” idea (3 laws of planetary motion, by Yohannes Kepler 1600s... who also wrote 2 books on the star of Bethlehem), and history today now thinks that was the first time that idea was developed, in spite of the fact that the bible over 3000 years ago already declared that (Psalm 19:1-6).
One day a Christian society will bring back the “Creator Theory” by scientific evidences and the world will think they invented the concept in their modern wisdom. They will look back on us and wonder how a people could be so ignorant of science as to believe in evolution, yet travel to the moon!
What am I saying?
That each generation has progressively gotten dumber over time, not smarter.
As in any trend, there are always minor forward and backward movements, but the overall progression is that of less intelligent not more so. The Greeks were performing brain surgery, the Egyptians built structures that we today have no idea how they accomplished it. Rome had sophisticated plumbing. Yet we always look back on those of the past as barbaric and ignorant.
Yes, there were cave men in the past, but no different than the Aborigines of Australia today, Mankind as a race was never in a “caveman phase” as a part of the evolutionary process of betterment. The first man was the most perfect man, each generation, like copies, have progressively degenerated little by little.
What we have in observable reality is Reverse Evolution.
This theory conforms to all science.
What does this mean to us today?
If you accept the idea that man is constantly evolving in a direction of improvement, you must do so with your imagination, because science does not support this idea. If truth, history, logic, and science are not required to come to a line of thinking, then there is nothing to stand in the way of any form of insanity you choose to believe. The idea of evolution is so mathematically impossible that to believe it removes the word Impossible from the vocabulary. Webster’s dictionary definition should then read;
Impossible: An unused, archaic word of our ignorant ancestors, [describing a now rejected idea that] 1. Evidence could show that something could not occur. 2. The nature of reality demands limits and boundaries associated with all things, therefore something beyond that scope was once considered impossible.
Our Nation was once, not long ago, a wise, benevolent, wealthy, powerful, safe place to live. Through a dynamic departure from our National foundations, our nation has become a confused, greedy, corrupt, weak, selfish nation mocked by the other nations of the earth.
How we see the cause that got us here, and what must be done to fix the problem will depend on which of the two theories you believe.
* * * * * * *
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)