Critically Important

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvFRLIjOLOU

INCREDIBLE AND POWERFUL

http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/stunning-video-flash-of-light-at-moment-of-conception/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33i_BAhuiE0&feature=youtu.be

KIDS KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK

Kids are often more logical in their thinking than adults because adults are overloaded with more distracting information that often clouds their reasoning. In other words...Occam's razor generally is more trustworthy than all the intellectual reasoning we may have..... or another way of saying this...KISS= "keep it simple stupid." Applying these "simple" solutions to the mechanism that created the beautiful and majestic diversity of life we see..... "Intelligent Design" is the ONLY possible explanation. The literal fundamental Creationist version of Intelligent Design requires a mechanism that encompasses something more than a simple solution.....it requires faith in fantasy......the "supernatural." The "supernatural" is the undiscovered natural and in the case of the creation of Adam, the first man, the "alleged supernatural" mechanism has been discovered by Science, however, BOTH Science and Religion, because of "information overload" are not aware of it. In addition, Religion fears Science because they believe it is incompatible with the Bible and Science rejects the wisdom and truth revealed in the Bible because they believe it is fantasy. (supernatural nonsense)
If both Science and Religion applied Occam's razor in explaining the Creation of Adam...they would realize that "Elohim" (God) Created Adam in God's Image from the "dust" of the Earth via Recombinant DNA hybridization of Simian stock...... "Let Us Create Man in OUR Image." (dust=C,H,O,N,P...the elements of DNA)   Understanding  this Hebrew plural reference to God is the "key" to understanding "rDNA Intelligent Design" and understanding the true God revealed in the "flesh" 2000 years ago in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) is the "key" to the Hebrew "Elohim" God.   The Doctrine of the Trinity is the Christian attempt at resolving the "plural" problem and still be monotheistic.  Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT three separate entities......"they" are three manifestations of the ONE GOD.  The following Scriptures reveal who God really is in the Trinity......NOT three Gods!...............  (Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16)

Children prefer Intelligent Design
ElysseBaumbachApril 16, 2016
DesignEducationEmail FeaturedEthicsEvolutionIn The NewsIntelligent DesignOriginsScience0 Comments
11
Share
Tweet
Pin
Plus
LinkedIn
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Digg
Email
Print
Writing in The Guardian, developmental psychologist Nathalia Gjersoe laments, “Although it is part of the compulsory science curriculum in most schools in the UK and the USA, more than a third of people in both countries reject the theory of evolution outright or believe that it is guided by a supreme being.” Her solution is simple.
According to developmental psychologists, children have an intuitive bent toward intelligent design. Thus schools should begin evolution education at younger ages — one advocate says five to eight years old. Disrupting this natural inclination will pave the way for greater scientific understanding.
This is indoctrination and the promotion of a one-sided view of evolution (for a summary of the theory’s weaknesses and links to scientific articles challenging the major mechanisms of neo-Darwinism, read Casey Luskin’s article, “The Top Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution“). What’s more, it simplistically conceives science as fact rather than a process of inquiry.
I also object to Gjersoe’s conflation of an intelligent design framework with some — obviously false — notions. She notes:
Under speeded conditions, even adults with PhDs in scientific disciplines tend to say that promiscuous teleological explanations like “Cows have udders so that farmers can milk them” are correct. The common-sense bias to believe that everything exists for a purpose underpins the intuitive attractiveness of intelligent design.
Wrong. Holding to intelligent design does not mean accepting such propositions.
Dr. Deb Kelemen, Developmental Science Program Director at Boston University, writes and publishes illustrated storybooks about natural selection. In research described by Gjersoe, Kelemen used a storybook to teach evolutionary concepts to children between ages five and eight. In her study, published in Psychological Science, Kelemen describes the book this way. It involves imaginary bug-eating animals called pilosas (apparently not to be confused with the non-imaginaryorder Pilosa, which includes anteaters):
The custom 10-page storybook used realistic pictures and factual narrative with nonteleological, nonintentional language to answer the question posed at the book’s beginning: Why did pilosas change from having highly variable trunk widths in the past to having predominantly thin trunks now? The explanation then unfolded, tightly causally connecting information on six natural selection concepts: trait variation within a population, habitat and food-source change in response to abrupt climate change, differential health and survival due to differential food access, differential reproduction due to differential health, trait inheritance, and trait-frequency change over multiple generations. Although multiple generations were depicted, most of the book focused on describing adaptation in the initial population and their immediate offspring.

PYKARYOTES OH MY!

The PROBLEM with attempting to demonstrate  in the lab how living systems  evolved from non-living systems is that Biogenesis is a Universal Law and "breaking this Law" is not just impossible..it is a non-sequitur.  The Law is simplicity in itself......"All Life MUST come from pre-existing Life" and ironically it supports the most recent cosmological hypothesis that "existence always existed and always will" and that the 'Big Bang" Inflation of space-time, matter and energy was NOT a single event but ONE of an infinite number of "Big Bangs" in a "Bubble Theory Cosmos......a Multiverse where "life" always existed.....NOT a "single" Universe where "spontaneous generation"  occurred just once.   Ironically,  the ancient writings of "inspired writers", that eventually, over thousands of years, was compiled into a "library" called the Bible,  reveals this reality of eternal existence that has no beginning and no end when it states that "God" existed before what mortal men call "Creation."    Since God was NOT Created ....existence DOES NOT HAVE A BEGINNING. (The word Bible means "library.")  Creation is NOT an event...it is an "eternal process."

The Law of Biogenesis was discovered by French Chemist Louis Pasteur over 142 years ago in his simple  "S" shaped flask experiment that disproved Spontaneous Generation "once and for all" and ALL of Science celebrated this awesome discovery yet they continue to attempt to find a series of events that started life the first time.  I call this futile and an oxymoron and "inventing" an intermediate stage of biomolecular  evolution called  a "Pykaryote" does NOT resolve the problem that the Laws of Thermodynamics would have to be "broken" to "get to the first Karyote" BECAUSE protein enzymes are REQUIRED to form stable protein enzymes!  The Law of Biogenesis is preserved!   "What came first...the chicken of the egg?" THE answer IS....neither! 

The diversity of life on planet Earth AND  throughout the Cosmos (all of them!) is the result of only two processes.....Darwinian Natural Selection and "Intelligent Design" via Recombinant DNA and CRIPSR “gene design.” The “Intelligent Design” of the religious is based on the violation or suspension of God’s PERFECT Laws, the “supernatural”, a non-sequitur, … because the “supernatural” is the UNDISCOVERED natural.   (Quantum entanglement is a good example of the supernatural being NATURAL.)

Since Science rejects ANY concept of a God and the wisdom and truth revealed in the Bible…..they too “needed” a purely secular mechanism to explain the diversity of life and the ONLY one they accept is Darwinian Natural Selection. The problem, however, is they then “needed” a mechanism to “get to the first cell.”  The famous Miller/Urey “primitive atmosphere flask”  experiment  set the incentive for atheistic scientists to search for a mechanism to the first prokaryote hence Haarsmah’s Pykaryote hypothesis.    Again…..ANOTHER problem because the primitive Earth atmosphere experiment of Miller.Urey  produced amino acids the, basic molecular unit of proteins.  The PROBLEM why this does NOT lead to molecular evolution of proteins and “other” polymers of biological compounds is polypeptide and PROTEIN molecules are REQUIRED to catalyze the reactions (lower activation energy)  to make these stable polymers that I referred to in my second paragraph above.   The complexity of the reactions to get to polysaccharides, lipds and polynucleotides acids (DNA/RNA) is frankly a non-sequitur  as well, like the supernatural referred to in my third paragraph.

Until Religion truly understand the TRUE God revealed in the “flesh” 2000 years ago in the Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) ….they will never understand REAL “Intelligent Design” AND they will never understand the plural Hebrew word for God…”Elohim”… and  Genesis 1:26….. “Let Us Create Man in OUR Image.”   The Christian Doctrine of the Trinity does NOT resolve the plural problem because Father, Son and Holy Spirit are NOT three “gods” but three manifestations of the  ONE GOD.  The Christian interpretation actually supports the muslim claim that Christianity is a polytheistic religion.  The following Scriptures reveal who God is and verifies that Christianity is a monotheistic religion…….  Genesis 1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians 3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 1 John 4:11-16.

It is ironic that Science HAS discovered how God Created Adam in His Image from the “dust” of the Earth but because they reject Biblical wisdom they are “clueless!”  (“dust” = carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and phosphorous….the elements of DNA)

In Christ…David

Haarsma’s Pykaryotes — Another Failed Evolution Simulation

ElysseBaumbachApril 18, 2016

BiologyCell BiologyChemistryDesignEmail FeaturedEvolutionGeneticsIn The NewsMathematicsMicrobiologyPhysicsScience0 Comments

10

Share

Tweet

Pin

Plus

LinkedIn

Reddit

StumbleUpon

Digg

Email

Print

Loren Haarsma is a member of the physics faculty at Calvin College. If his name sounds familiar that may be because he is the husband of BioLogos presidentDeborah Haarsma. Writing in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Dr. Haarsma recently published a paper with an intriguing title, “Simulating evolution of protein complexes through gene duplication and co-option.” In the paper he presents a model of evolution name Pykaryotes. The name is a play on the Python programming language and prokaryotic/eukaryotic cells.

With Pykaryotes, Haarsma seeks to demonstrate the evolution of irreducible complexity and provide a compelling model for the evolution of complex structure by co-option and gene duplication. Broadly speaking, however, there are three issues with his paper and model. First, he gives a false history for a key term, “interlocking complexity.” Second, the model assumes that co-option is easy, and bypasses simulating any actual co-option. Third, it allows even a random collection of proteins to be functional.

Now to the details. The job of the Pykaryotes is to collect chemicals from their environment. The more chemicals collected, the more fit the Pykaryote and the more offspring the Pykaryote has. The Pykaryotes may also combine a string of chemicals to create a protein. Most of the time this is useless, and a waste of the chemicals used to create the protein. However, approximately 3 percent of the time (the percentage can actually be modified, this is simply the default), the protein is functional. It acts to accelerate the Pykaryote’s chemical collection, thereby improving its fitness.

The proteins can themselves be combined into complexes. Any two proteins have a 5 percent (again, the default) probability of binding together and thus forming a complex. The complex itself has a 3 percent default probability of being functional. That is, 3 percent of complexes will improve the chemical collection twice as much as that of a single protein. Thus, by forming a complex, the organism can perform even better than with a protein.

Proteins can also bind to existing complexes. This happens with the same 5 percent probability. This produces even bigger complexes of three, four, or five proteins. Haarsma limited the maximum size of a complex to five to reduce the computational costs of his simulation. A complex with three proteins is three times as effective a single protein, a complex with four proteins four times as effective, etc.

In the runs shown in Haarsma’s paper, over the course of a thousand generations the Pykaryotes are able to evolve complexes of five proteins. Evolution gradually builds up the larger complexes by adding onto the smaller complexes in a model demonstrating co-option.

Haarsma presents this as demonstrating the evolution of “interlocking complexity,” as he writes:

In living cells, many protein complexes are made from several different proteins, and all of the parts must be present in order for the complex to function, a term which Hermann Muller (1918) called “interlocking complexity.”

What is “interlocking complexity”? This definition sounds a lot like irreducible complexity. Haarsma attributes the term to geneticist Hermann Muller in a 1918 paper, but Muller does not use the term “interlocking complexity,” and the word complexity does not even appear in the cited paper. Haarsma is incorrectly attributing this term to Muller.   The term actually derives from a 2006 page at the website Talk Origins: "The Mullerian Two-Step: Add a part, make it necessary." The author of that page, Douglas Theobald, proposed the term "Mullerian interlocking complexity," in place of irreducible complexity. Theobald was proposing a new term to replace irreducible complexity, but this has since "devolved" into a claim that Muller coined the term "interlocking complexity," which is not the case.

Haarsma initially gives the above definition for interlocking complexity, but he quickly replaces it with another:

Thus in our model the interlocking complexity of a protein complex is defined as the number of proteins in the complex which do not, themselves, have functions.

This definition, used throughout the rest of the paper, has nothing to do with irreducible complexity. Whether or not the parts of a system have alternate uses is orthogonal to whether or not a system is irreducibly complex.

If Haarsma is attempting to address irreducible complexity, there is a simple reason why his model cannot be an example of irreducible complexity. The first half of the definition of irreducible complexity states that is "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function." It is common, especially amongst critics, to ignore this half of the definition, but no system can be claimed to be irreducibly complex unless it fulfills both halves of the definition.

An irreducibly complex system functions because the various parts of the system each interact, fulfilling a particular role in bringing about the basic function of the entire system. We can see this interaction in various simulations, such as the interactions of instructions in an Avida program, the interaction of a perceptron with binding sites in Ev, etc. The functionality of those systems exists due to that interaction. But in Haarsma's case, there is no interaction -- functionality is simply randomly assigned.

Why does this matter? In Haarsma's model if you take any protein complex and try to add a random protein, .15 percent of the time the protein will bind and produce a brand new function increasing the chemical intake of the Pykaryote. This probability remains the same regardless of how large the complex is. That figure, .15 percent, may sound small, but it is more than one in a thousand, an event that will easily occur repeatedly in the timeframe of the simulation. This means that in the Pykaryotes model, co-option is easy, and that is why evolution is able to evolve these large complexes.

But is this realistic? Whether or not Haarsma has irreducible complexity in mind, whether or not his model is workable depends on whether or not co-option really is this easy. Intelligent design proponents have argued the opposite, that co-option is actually rather difficult. When you have several well-matched parts that interact with each other to produce a function, simply adding a new part is not going to produce a brand new functional system. Instead, creating a new function will require rearranging and adjusting the existing parts in order to create a new system with new functionality.

Pykaryotes simply assumes that co-option is easy. Other models that assign functionality based on the actual interaction of parts can claim that they show co-option working in a real problem. Those problems may not correspond to real biological problems, but at least they are real problems. They may be harder or easier than real biological problems, but they give some indication of how well co-option works in a real problem space. Because Pykaryotes do not exhibit real functionality produced by interaction of parts, they tell us nothing about how feasible co-option is to produce such functionality.

Thus far we have looked at a single complex and attempted to add a single protein to it. But in fact, the Pykarote model works with collections of proteins. If an organism already has twenty proteins, then when a new protein arrives it will bind to an average of one of them. However, those proteins may also bind to each other. The resulting complexes may again bind to any of the other proteins, possibly producing larger complexes which might again bind to other proteins.

Intuitively, one would expect larger complexes to be rarer. However, there are many more ways to produce a large complex than a small one. As a result, given the relatively high level of binding and sufficient proteins, there will be more large complexes in a completely random selection of proteins than small ones. Given enough large complexes, some of them will be functional.

This means that in the Pykarotes model, even a random collection of proteins is likely to contain large functional complexes. The problem is that for evolution to do what it claims, it has to do much better than random chance. Most evolution simulations seek to solve a problem far beyond the reach of random chance. The entire point of the exercise here is to show that natural selection can do what random chance cannot. But in Pykarotes, gene duplication and co-option manage to do what could have been done by random chance.

That's evolution not doing better than random chance. That is, in short, not a success. It's a failure.

TO GO OR NOT TO GO, THAT IS A MAJOR QUESTION

With the passing of the new laws on restrooms in NC and Miss......a new controversy has exploded in the news and has become a new factor in the campaign and is affecting a lot of entertainment groups and even visitors from the UK.     I make comment........

Sent: Fri, Apr 22, 2016 6:44 pm
Subject: Re: MAJOR Retailer " TARGET" Announces Transgenders Can Use Bathrooms With Little Girls

Article follows my comments........PLEASE READ ALL OF MY COMMENT

Possible solution to the "transgender public restroom  issue"....make all restrooms "single occupant restrooms" labeled "unisex" for use by any person at a time  and where there are "multiple occupant restrooms"....make it a requirement that there be THREE restrooms, a  men's room, a women's room AND a "unisex" room.  The new laws recently passed by two states that transgender people be forced by law to use their "original biological sex" restrooms will not stop perverts from inappropriate use of restrooms any more than before the new laws were passed but is DOES show insensitivity and lack of understanding and compassion to transgender citizens.

I understand how complicated this issue is because I have two VERY dear friends who are transgender. One friend I met AFTER their transition so I never "knew" them in their previous sexual identity so I am very comfortable when I am with them. They are "what they are now" and I had no clue they did live as an opposite sex before I met them.....there was no way of noticing it.   I learned later that they were transgendered and for me it has not affected my relationship with them one tiny bit.  However, I will admit that I have not revealed to them that I know this.   I have no clue how to deal with it and I do not want to place our relationship in jeopardy. 

My  second friend however is more difficult for me to deal with my emotions in relating to them because I have known them for a very long time BEFORE their decision to transform their sexual identity.  My respect, love and support I have for them has NOT changed a bit, however,  this is emotionally difficult for me to learn how to
relate to their transition......it is very different to know someone before the transition than meeting a person who has already been transgendered for a long time when you meet them.

I,..... and I submit that ALL of us need to learn a lot more about transgender people......it is a LOT different than the social and emotional  changes we have been going through with the gay liberation movement.   I have many gay friends and I have learned to respect them and accept them as my equal and as close friends.   Their personal sexual behavior is none of my business and mine is none of their business and judging them that way is way above my "pay grade." The only one I know that has that "pay grade position" for judging is GOD Himself!  Respecting and showing compassion to gays does NOT mean you are accepting and endorsing gay marriage or condoning their personal sex life.  AND it's the same with transgenders who are NOT gays. Who are we to say that transgender people are wrong and immoral because they feel they identify with a sex different than what they were born with.  I'm a retired biology teacher, I know that a person's biological gender is determined by the genetic information in the sex chromosomes. (XX=female XY=male) HOWEVER....I  sure don't understand the  feelings of the "person" in either body so how can I judge and condemn them.  We ALL have our "crosses" to bare  and I suspect that the way we relate to gays and transgenders is a greater "test" of "our own" character than it is for the lifestyle that they choose.   I choose to accept God's command below........ 

Matthew 7:1-5..................

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

NOTE: some Christians claim this Scripture applies only to other Christians and that it is perfectly acceptable and even a commandment to judge those who have not accepted Jesus as Savior.  God forgive them because they are have no clue who God really is. 

ARTICLE.............................(I assume Target restrooms are "multiple occupant.")

http://madworldnews.com/retailer-transgenders-bathrooms/

http://www.today.com/news/target-takes-inclusive-stand-transgender-bathroom-debate-t87381

TARGET ANNOUNCES ALL GENDER BATHROOMS....So Make Sure Your Kids Go Before You Go Shopping! The LGBT Community Needs To Pee Where They Want are Much More Important Than Your Child's Safety...Always Remember That! And Remember Ladies Just Because That Big Hairy Beast in Jeans and a TeeShirt is Oogling You in the Stall...He Is Feeling "Inside" Like a Lady While He/She Does!

Target Also Hopes Its Lagging Sales in Women's Fashions Will Dramatically Increase Due To Strategically Locating Ladies Rooms AND Changing Rooms in Female Shopping Areas Near Large Dress Sizes to Accomodate 'Supposedly (- at least for that day) Transgender Declared MEN" !

MONISM vs DUALISM vs ROBOTS

The following is a comment I made to an article on “robots” taking over the world.

Article site……http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/meaning-word-robot_us_5706b66de4b0537661891e54?

Article follows comment……………..

I suspect that the "fear" we have of AI robots is based on our understanding OR misunderstanding of what "consciousness" is.  There are two basic schools of thought on this issue......"monism".......the idea that cognitive consciousness is a product of the complex neural interactions within the brain......and....."dualism".....the idea that "consciousness" is the result of an "external force" that "directs" the neural interactions..."the soul."   Most humans believe in "free will."  Some claim there is no "free will." 

If "monism" is the reality of our conscious existence, then there is no real "free will" because we are "slaves" of random neural activity and this would also mean AI robots could be created and eventually evolve on their own and be no different than carbon based human life and the "fear" of them "taking over" would be frighteningly real.

However.....if "dualism"is the reality then there is “free will” and there are positive and negative consequences for the choices we make in life before and AFTER biological death.   With “monism”  there are only consequences during “life.”   If indeed dualism is reality….AI robot fear is reduced to simple “programming.”  Robots would be nothing but machines  programmed with the “will” of the human programmer.  Ironically, the “choices” made by the robot would be an extension of the human programmer’s choices!

If the robot were to kill a human being… the “programmer” would be guilty of the crime NOT the robot!  Destroying the robot for the crime would be equivalent to when we kill a predatory animal for killing a human.  Predation is not a moral choice for an animal...it is their nature.  “Unplugging” the robot is not necessary….all that is needed is “reprogramming!”

The big question is …which “school” represents reality?  If we are to rely on our own understanding it is essentially impossible to determine which represents reality.  Basically, what you believe to be reality is your personal opinion.  Each side can claim the “other” is wrong but resolving the issue is futile.

However…there is a source external to human thought that might possibly reveal which “school of reality” IS the valid one.   That source is the ancient writings of man that became compiled into a library called the Bible. Obviously, we would not expect the “monists” to even consider the possibility that the Bible could reveal anything that resembles reality.   The Bible itself reveals that the writers has no idea they were writing the alleged Words of God and merely states they were “inspired” by some external source to write the Scriptures.  These Scriptures were written at a time when man knew very little about the true nature of existence so the idea they had a diabolical “agenda”  to “control” other humans is in my humble opinion non-sequitur if not ridiculous.

I therefore believe the wisdom and truth written in the Bible reveals information that does tell us that “dualism” is the true nature of  all LIFE everywhere in the Cosmos…not just for Homo sapiens on planet Earth!  The mainline Christian belief that only humans have a “soul” I believe is an illusion and ironically is unbiblical.

There is no question that believing the Bible is the absolute and inerrant Word of God requires “trust and faith” and  that  God has revealed reality to us in the Bible.  However…..the  Bible itself is its’ own evidence by virtue the of its’ fulfilled prophecy, that the authors were not contemporaries (Old Testament)  and had no idea they were writing God’s Word and in recent times by archeological evidence. 

Many will claim that the Bible is fantasy because it is alleged to be incompatible with Science.  I submit that the literal, fundamental Creationist interpretation of the Scriptures does appear to be incompatible however,  many Scriptures were not to be understood until a “time” in the future when knowledge of what is real revealed through God’s “gift” of the Scientific Method .  I suspect that this “time”coincides with the Biblical promise of the restoration of the planet to God’s Family upon the return of the “hybrid Starman” Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) EXACTLY the same way He left 2000 years ago. (Acts 1:8-11)   In fact the Book of Daniel is VERY clear that it would not be understood until the “time” of restoration.   I believe we are near this “time” and I am convinced that the  “key” to understanding the “real” Truth in God’s Word is revealed through Scientific interpretation of the Scriptures.   Atheists all claim the Bible is full of errors, contradictions and fantasy, however, all such claims are eliminated when interpreting the Scripture Scientifically.

(Some examples….. Jesus is a hybrid “Starman”…23 human chromosomes from His Virgin Mother Mary and 23 “Divine” chromosomes from God’s Family via artificial insemination.   Adam was the first man created in God’s Image from the “dust” of the Earth via Recombinant DNA and CRISPR.  No question that the elements of DNA, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorous is “dust of the Earth”  AND Eve by modified “cloning of Adam.”  see below) 

So…..should we worry about AI robots taking over our planet?   I am very confident that we don’t….we need to focus instead on the evil  Novus Ordo Seclorum (Secular New World Order)  influenced by the “dark entities” revealed in Ephesians 6:12.

“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”

(Creation of Eve……..God created Eve by placing Adam into a “deep sleep”, removed a “rib” and covered it with “flesh and bone.”  The Science…..Adult stem cells extracted from the marrow of the “rib”,  a rich and easily accessible source of these cells. The cells are “reset” to an earlier embryonic state called Induced Pluripotency.  Two IPS cells are involved….the “Y” chromosome from the first is removed and discarded, the cell is saved.  An “X” chromosome is removed from a second IPS cell and is inserted into the nucleus of the first. The second cell is discarded. The first cell is induced to start cleavage and form a blastocyst and is placed into a “surrogate womb (probably in vitro) where morphogenesis –gestation is completed in 9 months and “little baby Eve is born.”   Obviously the  “deep sleep” was a form of biological suspension because when Eve was presented to Adam she was a sexually mature young women.  Adam exclaims…”At last...this is flesh of my flesh and bone of my bone…I will call her women because she comes from man.”   Fantasy becomes reality!)

The Dark Meaning Behind The Word ‘Robot’

The English term first appeared in the 1920s.

04/09/2016 09:00 am ET

946

• ·                                
• ·                                
• ·                                
• ·                                
• ·                                
• ·                                

·                                 Casey WilliamsEditorial Fellow, The Huffington Post

Peter Sherrard via Getty Images

Robots have arrived. They’re sorting your packages, deciding what you see on Facebook and might be coming for your job.  

But have you ever wondered where the word “robot” comes from? 

It traces its roots to the Czech word “robotnik, which means “slave,” according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. “Robotnik” comes from “rabota,” the Old Church Slavonic word for servitude. 

In English, the word “robot” first appeared in a translation of Czech playwright Karel Capek’s 1920 sci-fi drama “RUR,” or “Rossum’s Universal Robots.” In his play, Capek describes a company that manufactures and sells workers that look and act like humans, but lack souls. 

“The Robots are not people. Mechanically they are more perfect than we are, they have an enormously developed intelligence, but they have no soul,” says the play’s human protagonist, Harry Domin. (His surname, it’s worth noting, is also a Latin prefix meaning “master.”).

In Capek’s story, the intelligent servants rebel against their human masters. It’s a tale that’s been echoed again and again as artists and writers grapple with rapid technological change. Books and films like “Frankenstein,” “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “i, Robot” and “2001: A Space Odyssey” all depict mechanical beings struggling to throw off the yoke of human mastery.

These books and films express the deep, nagging human fear that our uniqueness, and our dominance, will be threatened by our own creations. 

We fear, in other words, the battle cry of the robot Radius in Capek’s play: “You will work! You will build for us! You will serve us!”

NAIL IN THE COFFIN

NAIL IN THE COFFIN

MAIN article follows my comments…………………………

The one more "nail in the coffin" is TRUTH'S coffin "driven in" by the "Secular New World Order." (SNWO) "They" know all too well how to apply the Josef Goebbels' syndrome........"Tell a like BIG enough and LONG enough and it becomes TRUTH to the masses." AND the biggest lie of the whole bunch is the pseudoscience "green house effect."

The pseudoscience used by the SNWO is that carbon dioxide (CO2) , released by man's use of fossil fuels to "drive" industry and transportation, is the MAIN cause of global warming by the alleged "green house effect." . The most obvious reason CO2 does not cause MAN MADE global warming is that one volcano releases more CO2 than all the cars, trucks, trains, factories and airplanes since the Model "T" Ford!

The "real" science reveals that it is impossible for CO2 to cause global warming by the green house effect.  The "ice cores" used to support global warming that shows CO2 fluctuations in the past that is tied to climate change is nothing but bad interpretation of the data........the facts are clear.....CO2 is a BUFFERED gas. When there is an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere there is an increase in biomass by photophosphorylation and limestone formation by chemical deposition.  The green house effect is that the CO2 acts like the "glass"  in a green house that insulates and holds the heat that is generated inside the house by the infrared energy that passes through the glass.  Note that the "glass" is the ceiling of the house!  If CO2 is the supposed "glass" equivalent it would have to held at high altitude to capture the heat like the glass ceiling in a green house.  The problem is the density of CO2 (44 grams per mole)  causes it to "SINK" to the surface where it enters the biological carbon cycle and limestone chemical cycle ..the "buffering agents"  preventing it from "trapping" heat from the sun. I taught biology in New York State for 35 years and the carbon cycle was a core topic in the syllabus. There were many optional topics that could be covered at the discretion of the teacher but the carbon cycle was a mandatory core for all teachers I retired in 2000 right at the time the New York Regents instituted the "new" Living Science curriculum.   One GLARING change was the moving of the core carbon cycle to the alternate optional topics! I'll let the reader "connect all the dots!" 
 
In addition, I suspect that the apparent rapid changes in climate over the last 30 years may not be the just the "natural cyclic" phenomena referred to in this article but may very well be manipulated by the clandestine DARPA HAARP geoengineering "chemtrail" project and "they" conveniently blame the apparent climate instability on "man made global warming." AND....to the guy who commented there is no "nail" in the global warming coffin...I say......FOLLOW THE MONEY! The scientists who claim the science supports carbon driven manmade global ARE supported by government grants! CONNECT the dots! "Money talks crap walks." SIMPLE....those who support manmade global warming GET THE MONEY and sadly.....the news media's "ears!"

Folks...we all have been SNOW'd by SNWO. Man made global warming is NOT science..it is POLITICAL and VERY evil.

WHY is this "lie" necessary? The last obstacle to the final implementation of the SNWO is the United States and CO2 is their "nail in America's coffin."

RADIO

'1 more nail in coffin of global-warming deception'

Climate 'experts' wrong again! Weather extremes predate fossil-fuel economy

Published: 4 hours ago

 

    

Greg Corombos is news director for Radio America.

   

A new, exhaustive study on precipitation levels over more than 1,000 years shows the assumptions made by the United Nations and other climate-change activists are badly flawed, suggesting human activity may not be having the impact on global climate that so many insist it’s having.

The report from Stockholm University in Sweden examined Northern Hemisphere rainfall statistics over a 1,200-year period. Researchers concluded that extremes between heavy rainfall totals and droughts were more severe centuries ago, before the fossil fuel-based economy ever existed.

“Hopefully, this will be one more nail in the coffin of the great deception that is the global-warming deception,” said Dr. Tim Ball, a former climatologist at the University of Winnipeg who taught classes on global precipitation for some 25 years.

Ball is also the author of multiple books, including “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science.” He told WND and Radio America this report comes as no shock to him. In fact, he wrote about the very same issue just five months ago. Ball said the problem amounts in part to willful ignorance on the part of climate-change proponents.

“They list three major greenhouse gases: water vapor, CO2 and methane,” he said. “They then ignore water vapor. They just say the amount humans produce is of no significance, so they just assume it’s constant. That’s a problem.”

He continued, “The second problem is there is inadequate temperature data to build their computer models. The weather data covers only about 25 percent of the world’s surface. How do you build your models on that? The answer is you don’t.”

Don’t be fooled any longer — it’s just a power grab. Read “The Greatest Hoax: How the Global-Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.”

He said reality has proven the experts wrong at every turn.

“Every single prediction they’ve made with temperature, starting in 1990, has been wrong,” Ball said. “Every one has been wrong. One simple word definition of science is prediction. If you can’t predict, you haven’t got science.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Tim Ball: 

Tim Ball says rainfall and drought extremes predate fossil-fuel economy

01:19

09:24

But as lacking as the data is on temperature levels, Ball said the scientists are even further behind on precipitation.

“The data for precipitation is even worse,” he said. “Measuring rainfall and measuring the water content of snow are some of the most difficult things to do in the weather and climate business.”

Ball said a perfect example of the weak precipitation data could be seen five years ago when scientists tried to predict the impact of monsoons on Africa during the growing season. Half the models predicted a wetter season, and the other half concluded it would be drier.

“Their conclusion was that there weren’t enough precipitation data stations to even meet the minimum requirement of the World Meteorological Association,” he said. “So the lack of data is the serious problem that supports what these people (in Stockholm) are finding.”

According to Ball, this new study also puts the lie to the climate-change premise that temperature is the most important factor when examining where the climate is trending.

“Temperature variation is an issue, but it has to change quite a bit before it comes difficult,” Ball said. “For example, they talk about a two-degree Celsius warming. All you’ve got to do is look at a city that’s just south of you that’s two degrees warmer, and they get along very nicely, thank you.”

Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

He said precipitation is far more important.

“But when you get precipitation change, that impacts flora and fauna and humans tremendously,” he explained.

Ball said 200 climatologists were surveyed in the year 2000 to select the 20 worst natural disasters in the 20th century. Of those 20, scientists picked 11 droughts and five floods.

“So the knowledge of precipitation and its impact is actually more important,” he said.

Ball said the Stockholm report also erodes the credibility of climate-change scientists on another front, namely their contention that rising global temperatures lead to more and more severe droughts.

“They said with global warming, there’ll be more droughts, but that’s counter-intuitive. If you’ve got warmer temperatures, you’ve got more evaporation, more water in the air, therefore fewer droughts,” he said. “Again that illustrates how wrong their thinking is.”

Scientists who believe in human-triggered climate change admit the Stockholm study will intensify the existing debate.

“Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modelers, and present major research opportunities both for modelers and climate scientists,” wrote Matthew Kirby of California State University’s Department of Geological Sciences in response to the study.

Another researcher, James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington, stated the new data suggests the wet-dry extremes will come this century instead of the last one.

That leaves Ball shaking his head.

“They will look for some way around the evidence. They’ll say this is wrong, that’s wrong and so on,” Ball said. “They’ve done that every time. They had a hypothesis, and they accepted it as proven right from the start. Every time evidence came out that contradicted it, they found ways of blunting that.”

He said the most egregious example was after 1998, when temperatures began leveling off but carbon dioxide levels kept rising, in contrast to the belief that the two factors were linked.

“Instead of correcting their science, they changed from global warming to climate change,” Ball said. “This is what they constantly do. They try to blunt the evidence and deflect the evidence because it’s not fitting with their political agenda.”

It’s also apparently not fitting with their financial agenda. Ball contends so many scientists swear by man-caused climate change simply to keep the research dollars pouring in.

“These people, I guarantee you we’ll find out, are very heavily funded by government in this research,” Ball said. “Of course, if you look at Paris and how much money was put into the Green Climate Fund. It’s all driven by money, not by science and the truth.”

He said this was proven by the Australian government in recent years.

“What the Australian government said was, ‘You’re telling us the science is settled. Well fine. We’ll cut off all the funding to the research.’ Of course everybody scrambled, ‘Oh, no no no. Hold on a minute here,'” Ball said.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/1-more-nail-in-coffin-of-global-warming-deception/#olozc5gbvqPtCgvA.99

CHARITY vs SOCIALISM

Unlike Bernie Sanders who admits to being a secular socialist, Pope Frances has been unfairly accused of being a Marxist Socialist by both the secular world and sadly many Christian groups. However, it must be understood that there is a HUGE difference between human socialism and the socialism revealed in the Gospel that Frances is bound to.  The difference is that Jesus Christ is the head of the Gospel...NOT the government! 

Charity is a suppose to be a basic characteristic and obligation of those who claim to be followers of Christ's teachings. When the government steps in and takes over that Christian obligation of charity, (socialism) it robs the believer of his character.   When a Christian relinquishes their "charity obligation and  character" to the secular government...the Spirit of God begins to wither and die in that believer. Charity is the "life blood" of a person who has been purchased with the Blood of Christ.   We ARE our brother's keeper...NOT the government.   Our society is in shambles because Christians relinquished their charity obligation to the secular  government. We WILL be held accountable on Judgement Day!  When our founders stated we must separate Church and State it wasn't about public expression of faith..it was about CHARITY.