I am sorry for the insults. I didn't mean to insult his way of thinking, just that one sentence. And I did try to answer what he said. No one person/entity invented science and it's laws. The laws exist because the universe exists.

But you are kinda prooving my point there. You could make a religion worshiping peanut butter, and it would be just as valid as any of the organized religions today. I think a peanut butter god would be even more valid, you can see, touch, smell, and taste a peanut butter god. None of out 5 sences and percive the chritian god.

~Dean~

What?!? A religion for peanut butter would not be more valid than Christianity. I'd say the same rules apply for your atheism. You didn't see these things happen, you have proof and we have proof, so nothing would make your view more valid. And are you saying that the universe just created laws out of the blue. According to you this vacuum in space that had to be eternal just made these laws? That doesn't make much sense to me at all! Once again I realize that atheism relies on coincidence and coincidence only. I don't think a big vacuum in space could create me. And I know you're gonna say Oh that didn't create you but evolution did. Evolution is also based on total coincidence.

--Dcaf--
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

Hello All,

It would take too long to read all the posts...but just to put my bit in...if you take a creator out of the equation, then there is nothing, we are born we live we die...end of story...no loss spiritually...but if there is a creator and it is the holy trinity...what harm is there in having a bit of faith in that holy trinity...in fact having faith that you are going to be judged probably makes you behave better in this life, which is a good thing...so you can't lose either way...if you believe and there is nothing, then you will never know you are wrong and if you believe and there is something, then you will hopefully be judged acceptable enough to get into heaven...a great reward...

On evolution versus creation, I think god is smart enough to want humankind to think and choose and work through the many options open to our intelligence, thus he gave us many options, science and evolution being one avenue...creationism and god another avenue and all the avenues in between...we have to work for the answer ourselves, within ourselves,not be given the answer...it is all very complex...yet very simple...

If you believe there is nothing, you are cutting off half of your options, if you believe there is nothing or there could be something...you have double the chance...as I said...all very complex...yet all very simple...

Love Light Peace and Positivity to you all...

Raine...


--raine
<mailto:thetheraine@yahoo.com.au>

Dcaf,

I will say again. Scientific theories are based on evidence, not coincidence. In Science evidence is key. Everything is based on the available evidence. And to make sure that no one person is just making thing up as they go, everything is up to peer review. If your assumptions are wrong, or your evidence faulty, it will be soon discovered. All the other scientists in your field of study will perform their own experiments to see if they get the same results that you did.

This is how science brings forth the truth. Where is the coincidence in that?

Evolution is based on random changes – I guess you could say coincidence, but personally I think that is the wrong word. A random change in the DNA code (mutation or other) causes a change in the individual, if that change proves to be advantageous then that change will be passed on to more offspring then those without the change. If that change is bad for the individual, then his genes will be passed on to less offspring (or none at all) and this change will not make it very far. This process playing out over millions of years gives us the world we see around us. Beautiful and complex, but simply explained with evolution.

The problem with religion is that you say you already have all the answers in this book. And this book is the end all and be all for all questions. Science comes up with different answers then what’s in this book, and because of that, you automatically say that science is wrong. That is the problem. There is no evidence gathering, there is no peer review, there is only a book.

As far as the physical constants in the universe – “the laws” you are talking about. The only reason we can debate them is because they are just as they are, if they were not we wouldn’t be here to discuss it. Why do you say that some all powerful entity had to set these laws? Why can’t you accept a natural explanation for them? If the multiverse theory is correct, then there are an infinite number of other universes, each with different physical constants, and we just happen to be in one that allows life as we know it. As far as I can see, this is the only place where the word coincidence would apply. We coincidentally happen to be in a universe where life (as we know it) can arise.

Raine,

You are such a gentle person, I don’t want to get into a huge debate with you, but…
There is no harm in faith – but there is harm in absolute faith. All we need to do is look to history to see what unwavering belief in god can do to people. The Crusades, the World Trade Centre, to just name two. Read Sam Harris’ “The End of Faith” for a more in depth account then I can give here.

The problem isn’t that I believe there is nothing, it’s that there is no evidence to lead me to believe there is something. I can’t be intellectually honest and put myself in the “maybe” position (as you suggest – so I can cover my bases). I am not saying that there is no god, no person can definitively say there is no god. I have no proof that there is no god. However, there is also have no proof that there is a god. What science teaches us is that there is a natural answer to everything that god is supposedly responsible for, so I am led to believe he doesn’t exist.

Deep belief in religion closes your mind to all the wonders that science has explained, and those that we are still working on. In religion, what is there? You read the bible, and you’re done. I guess, you can read it again, and get a new or different perspective, but that’s all you have to go on, one book. Science is constantly searching for new evidence, and new truths. We are constantly asking new questions, and going back to look at the old ones (to make sure we got them right). I am sorry Raine, but it is faith that cuts off your options. Science is the greatest way to expand the mind and reveal the truth about the natural world, and the wondrous universe!!

~Dean~

http://uploader.ws/upload/200710/sciencevsfaith_1.png

Dean,

Sorry it took me a bit to get back to you, my teacher wouldn't allow me to comment in class.

In response to your comment, coincidence can't be excused by using another word for it. Randomness means the same thing. When you talk about these random changes in the DNA and how they don't live on if they are bad changes, I notice something. The last time I checked DNA doesn't have a brain and would have no idea if a change were good or bad. If a "random" change happens the DNA gene wouldn't know it were bad and the people would still live on with the bad gene until they die. It's not like the DNA is going to say "Oh, I shouldn't have made the mammals with gills, lemme just fix that." You also rely on drastic adaptation too. When I say drastic I mean that for evolution to have happened the animal would have to adapt to an air filled enviroment, contrary to having gills. I believe we should test this and actually see if over time an animal can adapt like this. For an animal to change from gills to air-breathing, it would have to have these random changes too. Yet I don't see where the animal would get a gene that was so foreign to them since it would have to mate with a land mammal to have the gene. (Which is impossible) When the animals adapted, was it over millions of years or was it just one animal that took the change and then bred the rest?

--Dcaf--
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

Greetings to the vinerhyme. I'll keep this short.
Keep up the good work, there are many seeking to know truth. Jesus is the manifest word of God, the truth. Those who will not hear you are also not hearing the Lord. I look forward to the day when I will meet you and all who are like minded, in the presence of Jesus. May he keep you and all that is yours safe, unto that great and glorious day.
--JCJ
<mailto:jcj_316@yahoo.co.uk>

Thanks Dean for your answers...your the only one that has bothered to answer me... and thanks for being gentle...

I think you are a genuine seeker and I'm glad your not completely closed to the idea of something greater...I agree with you, there are many questions and religion isn't the answer, because it is man-made. I think we commune with our higher selves at night when we dream and we are given the answers then...I feel our subconscious understands more than our conscious minds...and it directs us in our waking lives...

Just keep an open mind and I wish you all the best Dean...I think you are a lovely guy and deserve good things...peace be with you...

Regards... Raine...
--raine
<mailto:thetheraine@yahoo.com.au>

Well Raine Christianity isn't a religion in it's own self, it is a lifestyle and it is definately not man-made. ( If that's what you're talking about) Higher Selves.. can you explain what that means. Exactly what religion are you?

--Dcaf--
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

Hello, I mean religion is influenced by the government and society of the time, so to me, in someways, it is man made. I worry that the bible may have been edited a bit too much for its time. I'm not really any religion, but I was brought up in the anglican church. The higher self stuff in just some new age talk, just another facet of trying to work it all out, piece it together. I feel our soul or spirit or higher self understands a lot more than our conscious mind and directs us in some ways...just a spiritual connection sort of thing...to the universe or god/jesus...whatever light you want to put on the word...

Regards Raine...


--raine

Hello, I mean religion is influenced by the government and society of the time, so to me, in someways, it is man made. I worry that the bible may have been edited a bit too much for its time. I'm not really any religion, but I was brought up in the anglican church. The higher self stuff in just some new age talk, just another facet of trying to work it all out, piece it together. I feel our soul or spirit or higher self understands a lot more than our conscious mind and directs us in some ways...just a spiritual connection sort of thing...to the universe or god/jesus...whatever light you want to put on the word...

Regards Raine...


--raine

sorry...it was the computer stuffing me round again...lol...
--raine

Well yes people can mess with the Bible's message but it will always be the same. The government doesn't have much to do with religion since..it's one of the amendments and all. Society can mess with it sure but it we should still look to the Bible for answers and trust it.

--Dcaf--
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

Oh Dcaf, Where do I begin…

First of all they are not the same thing:
Coincidence: a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance.
Random: proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.
(source: www.dictonary.com)

I won’t fault you on you incorrect reasoning, because I assume you know little about evolution. You are right when you say that DNA does not have a brain. Again you are correct, DNA does not say “oops, let me fix that”. When DNA makes a random change, if the change is bad, then the individual(s) with the bad change will not have as many offspring as the unchanged individuals, therefore, the undesirable DNA change will pass away in a few short generations. A favorable change in the DNA will allow those individuals to have more offspring then the unchanged individuals, and therefore spread the favorable change among the entire species in a several generations.
Egsample: 1) A giraffe is born with a slightly longer neck then the rest of the giraffes. He is able to get the nice juicy leaves at the top of the trees that all his friends can reach. This allows him to grow strong, and win any fights he has with other males to mate with the females. This new long neck giraffe has more offspring then those with regular necks. He passes on his long neck gene to all his children and they pass on their long neck genes to their children, and so on and so forth.
2) A giraffe is born with a slightly shorter neck, he can’t reach many leaves at all. He does not grow strong, and looses all battles with other giraffes for mating rights. He has no children. He does not get to pass his short neck gene onto any offspring.

You see the DNA did not know that long necks were good, and short necks were bad, it produced both changes, but because long necks are good(for giraffes), the DNA with the long neck gene gets passed on an preserved, and the short neck gene gets weeded out.

Now let’s go on to your drastic adaptation. DNA does not do well to drastic adaptation, look what’s happening to polar bears right now. Their environment has drastically changed and they can’t adapt, so they are becoming extinct. In your example you are using a false assumption. You are assuming that a fish jumped out of the water, and all of a sudden its DNA knew that it no longer needed gills, and had to grow lungs. There are many intermediate species still alive to day that can live happily both in and out of water. Look at a frog, or a mud skipper. Now a frog has lungs, but a mud skipper has gills, but is able to survive out of water for many hours. I’m sure that air breathing organisms started out by leaving the water to escape predators. Then one individual received a gene RANDOMLY that allowed him to stay out of the water just a little longer then the rest, and therefore, he did not get eaten. He had more offspring due to the fact that he lived longer then other males. He passed on his gene to stay out of the water longer. Then over millions of years and millions of small cumulative changes we end up with organisms with lungs instead of gills.

Doesn’t that sound like a more plausible explanation then, some entity up in the sky going *poof* and everything is there, finished, done.

It is also almost impossible to test this. How do you test something that takes millions of years? How do you study a change that takes longer then humans have had language? What we can do is study the fossil record, and see the changes. What we can do is study organisms that have very short life spans, and therefore, several thousand generations can be witnessed over a single human life span. And we are doing both these things.

JCJ,

What does that stand for Jesus Christ Jr.? Man, you need to read more books then just the bible. Open your eyes man!!

~Dean~

Dean,

Okay I get your reasoning and it is very good. But as I always I can defend what I believe in. First of all, stop saying that when GOD made everything it was like *poof* it gets annoying. And that's not at all how it happened to. Now onto the more important stuff. Fine, Randomness isn't the same but there is one thing that is made known in THeVineRhyme's vid.(English as and Illustration) DNA does not just produce these random changes in it. The first modern llama is born. (By modern I mean the kind of llamas we have today) The llama is made up of millions of DNA. DNA is shown as a type of alphabet to us. DNA is made up of billions of letters then. The llama has 260 letters in his DNA.(Just an example) Now, the "letters" are each a characteristic of the llama. If the llama is born/made with a letter that are his lungs, that will always be the same throughout his offspring, the alphabet cannot be added to, like adding foreign languages to the llama's DNA. It is impossible for a llama to produce a totally different "letter" in it's DNA. Subtracting from the llama's DNA is another story which I'm sure does not happen or else the llama would lose characteristics of itself, and could die off. So hopefully you understand my reasoning. Why not take a look at Jeff's vid to. :D

--Dcaf--

P.S. If you haven't noticed, I like llamas.
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

To Dean,

Your theory on the giraffe is far out there in the least. Where did you get that dumb idea.
If one can't reach the top of a tree then he goes else where to another tree that is shorter.
And why would you assume that all trees have better leaves at the top, and what would that have to do with a better gene? And if animals have been around for millions of years then why is there still short necked giraffes that had bad genes, what in the world would bad genes have to do with shorter necks when there are shorter trees? Also what if by some chance your right about longer necked giraffes getting better leaves at the top then it would only be sensible that all giraffes would have the same size necks and then they would simply fight for the better leaves and the strong would survive which would have nothing to do with a bad gene but a fight for survival to eat!! The way your viewing it your simply stating that all tall trees have better leaves at the top, if that is the case then the taller the trees the better the leaves. That is the most ridicules statement I've ever heard. Then tell me how could a young giraffe ever make it to get a longer neck to pass on a better gene when the older giraffes would have eaten all the top leaves before he even had a chance to grow up to pass on the better gene!!! You need to think about what your saying before you say it, you have really fell for the evaluational theory hook line and sinker. I won't debate with you anymore about the fossil record because there is no fossil record proofing your evaluational theory it is not there so quit saying it there are no links in fossils that prove evolution IT IS NOT THERE!!!! I want to say one thing to all evolutionist, tell me if all animals evolved from species to species then it would only be plausible by all means that at one point those species would have had to change in their reproductive system in order to make a species like itself but if one thing was wrong with that reproductive system then they couldn't reproduce and would simply die out and that species would no longer exist!! How could they change in reproductive system with out that happening. If they evolved then their reproductive system would evolve to and that change would stop their reproductive system before that change or link could reproduce!! Evolution is biologically impossible!!!!
--Gary

Well said, Gary.

--Dcaf--
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

First of all science is not a religion. Religious people would love it, if that were true, but it’s not. A short definition of religion is “blind faith – belief without evidence”. All beliefs in science are based on evidence, if there is no evidence to support a theory, it is not science, and it is thrown out. Therefore, science is the antithesis of religion. In all but one area of what people are calling science, i would have to agree with you. But when it comes to evolution, there is not a single shred of such evidence. The reason for not discarding it is obvious, the only other viable explanation is a God, and that my friend makes those who are living in rebellion spiritually from that God just too uncomfortable. So, to quell there fears and quite their conscience, the cling to beliefs such as evolution, and insit it is a fact, without a single shred of hard factual evidence to base it on. Keep in mind both the evolutionist and the creationist have the exact same evidences. It is not as if, evolution has one set of evidence and creation another set. NO we both have the same earth, heavens, plants, animals, cells, chemicals, historical finds, ect. The argument is not about the evidences at all, but the specific meaning and interpretation of those evidences. The problem i see with evolution with the evidence is that they go far beyond what the data actually would allow, and they interpret these evidences as absolutely solid proof evolution is a fact, while at the same time ignoring outright, any other possible interpretations of those evidences, even when other explanations are clearly warrented. In other words, for the evolutionist, any evidence must support evolution and any other interpretation of that evidence is immediately rejected in favor of the evolutionary explanation, without giving any serious scientific examination to the other possible meaning or intrpretations, even when it is clearly justifible. That is not unbias and it is also not science.
--TheVineRhyme
<mailto:hemlockjuice@gmail.com>

Thevinerhyme,

I agree with you about "science" not being a religion because it is based on actuality of something provable as in infallible proof. And if anyone whether it be religious people or any other says otherwise then that person ignores facts! But when some people say evolution and NOT use science as proof because science in all reality doesn't support evolution, it then becomes something else all together! It is easy for evolutionist to use evolution and call it science because they claim they don't have any religious beliefs. But the fact is that evolution and science falls into separate categories. I could claim aliens put us here on earth, but with on evidence it is considered religion. The only difference between evolutionist and religion is that religion claims a higher entity, or a higher power to explain our existence, it doesn't actually mean it is right but that it claims it, and therefore it's religion. Evolutionist on the other hand claims chance and natural selection for our existence and thinks it is not religion when they have yet to proof it. So that in turn puts chance and natural selection as that higher power! You don't have to claim something being a religion for ones beliefs to point to one! Most people don't see evolution as being a religion because evolutionist use science as a shield to justify it. I know what the dictionary says about what a religion is but this explanation of it deals with it in a direct way and IS a biased based interpretation.
When did religion become a belief that had to have a claimed higher authority? I totally agree with you that "SCIENCE" is not a religion, but evolution is! The dictionary doesn't interpret subconsciously but in a direct manner, therefore it can't be used in a indirect interpretation. Evolution is a subconscious belief in a higher authority, that being chance and natural selection as that higher authority!! How many people have claimed a religion of some kind when subconsciously don't really believe it, are they religious because they claim it, NO because they really don't believe it!! Being the case of that it would only make since to me that on a reverse order it applies. That if some really believes in evolution and yet NOT claim to be religious are they really not? It is on a subconscious level that one is religious not in a direct way!!
--Gary

Thank you for making this site. I would just like to thank you for being a voice for me. This site is an inspiration and I am sure you will be blessed.
--a christian

hello mr. jeff mason

thank you for your videos as they are very helpful to those who are unethically been targeted by hidden hypnosis such as destructive
cults use. Some of my friends are doctors of
psychology and psychiatry and do profess the
use of hypnotherapy in an ethical way with client and i have a general hypnosis register of code of ethics to use myself. Your wonderful expanation as how the mind works with
hypnosis is extraordinarily lucid an easy to comprehend. if you wish to contact me or send
a snail mail the address is p.o. Box 1231, Northampton, Mass 01061

Thank you for your time

Be well! and that goes for your family



sincerly


Maurice DuBois of Northampton, Massachusetts
--Maurice DuBois
<mailto:glorioussun2004@yahoo.com>

Hello Mr. Jeff Mason


this is maurice dubois again, and I had forgot to tell you that i too am christian and forgot
to mention the uses of mediums which can occur
with the use of hypnosis. my friend Dr. Jack
Laforte of Northampton, Mass and associate My other friend Dr. Peter Titleman who have a practice in Nothampton, Massachusetts refer
to me some valuable information and will mention
your web site to them.

Have nice upcoming holiday with your family

Thank you

Be well


Sincerely


Maurice DuBois of Northampton, Massachusetts
--Maurice DuBois
<mailto:glorioussun2004@yahoo.com>

Dcaf,

Sorry for the late response – busy, busy…

Thank you for saying my reasoning is good. This tells me that I wrote a good post and you understood what I was saying. I’m sorry about the *poof* reference, but that’s the only way I can think to put it. How would you put it?

I will have to watch the video you speak of, because I’m not quite getting your point. Yes extra letters and not be added or taken away, but why can’t a letter be changed? This is called mutation and it happens all the time. I think you are still going on the assumption that evolution happens in large steps – gills to lungs, fins to feet, type changes. This is not how it happens at all. Evolution happens on a much smaller level, like being able to stay out of water a second longer. These small incremental changes accumulate over vast periods of time. Like I said, I’ll have to watch the video before I can comment further. I have looked for it, but I can’t seem to find it (can you post a URL I can plug in?)

Gary,

Oh Gary, what must I do? You continue to astound me with your refusal to see things in a clear way. The giraffe example is perfect. The reason they can’t just go to a shorter tree and eat is because evolution is happening in the trees as well. Do you have any idea what the trees in Africa look like? Have you seen these thorn trees? The trees have evolved so that there are no leaves on the bottom, all the leaves are at the top, and baby giraffe’s nurse off their mothers, then their mothers pull leaves off of the trees for them to eat because they can’t reach them.

Let me see if I can deal with your points one by one.
1) “If one can't reach the top of a tree then he goes else where to another tree that is shorter.”
- No can do, the trees have evolved to avoid being eaten – no leaves available to short animals.
2) “And why would you assume that all trees have better leaves at the top, and what would that have to do with a better gene?”
- First of all, if you knew anything about photosynthesis, you would know that the more sunlight a leaf gets the better off it is. Leaves at the top of the tree get more sun light, because there are no other leaves to get in the way. I don’t know why you brought genes up here…
3) “And if animals have been around for millions of years then why is there still short necked giraffes that had bad genes, what in the world would bad genes have to do with shorter necks when there are shorter trees?”
- What? I don’t really know what you’re getting at here. The trees and giraffes evolve in parallel – as the trees grow taller, so do the necks of the giraffes – that’s evolution!
4) “Also what if by some chance your right about longer necked giraffes getting better leaves at the top then it would only be sensible that all giraffes would have the same size necks and then they would simply fight for the better leaves and the strong would survive which would have nothing to do with a bad gene but a fight for survival to eat!!”
- Now you’re getting it!!! All animals fight for survival, but why would giraffes have to fight over food? Oh I’m sorry, I forgot there is only one tree in Africa, and all the giraffes have to fight over who gets the leaves!! Rest assured, Gary, there are plenty of trees to go around, but the bigger stronger giraffes will still win the fight for survival – win mating rights, etc…
5) “The way your viewing it your simply stating that all tall trees have better leaves at the top, if that is the case then the taller the trees the better the leaves. That is the most ridicules statement I've ever heard.”
- Ridiculous eh? Well not really. Why do you think trees (all threes) are as tall as they are? A fight for sun light. If you can be taller then the guy next to you, you are going to get more light, therefore, be stronger, therefore, have more offspring.

Cont...
~Dean~

6) “Then tell me how could a young giraffe ever make it to get a longer neck to pass on a better gene when the older giraffes would have eaten all the top leaves before he even had a chance to grow up to pass on the better gene!!!”
- That backwards logic my friend. How would all the adults eat all the leaves if they don’t have long necks? This young giraffe is one of the few with a long neck gene. He’ll have plenty of opportunity to grow up, and eat more leaves then his short neck cousins!
7) “You need to think about what your saying before you say it”
- Always do. I would say you need to think a little deeper before just saying the first think that flies out of your mouth.

Now, on to your claim about evolution and reproductive systems. Look around you. Almost every animal on the planet reproduces using sperm and egg. The delivery system (though inconsequential) is also very similar across species. The egg and sperm just need to be together in order for reproduction to take place. Where is the inconsistence here? How is evolution “biologically impossible”?

All I have to say is, if ID is true, the designer wasn’t very intelligent. There are many “flaws” or “mistakes” that any engineer can point out in living creatures. Flaws that would only exist through evolution. If everything were intelligently designed, you think the design would have been better.

One example, an onion. Why would god design a food for us to eat that emits fumes that react with the liquid in our eyes to produce hydrochloric acid!! That’s a pretty bad design!! I have a bunch of others, but this post has gone on long enough.

~Dean~

DEAN

I read your comment on reproduction. How is evolution impossible. Well think about the of life spring from non living chemicals to begin with. Even some of your most noted evolutionary scientists have admitted that the odds are so astronomical as to be for all relative purposes to be impossible. But rather than going with that logic, the extrapolate that if the universe is infinite then it could possibly happen given enough time and chance. But even Fransis Crick and Fred Hoyle estimated the odds of non-living chemicals comming together to produce even the simplest life, would be about 1 in 10 to the minus fourty thousand. You can't even imagine what that number is. So to give you an example, pluck a particular adom out of the universe by chance of the first try, thats only one in 10 to the minus 40. Now take that adom and make 100 new universes and at random shoot it into one of those universes without knowing which one. Now what is your odds to randomly pluck that same adom out of those 100 universe by pure chance, that's 1 in 10 to the minus 185! Well, 1 in 10 to the minus 40,000 forget it, it just can't happen. And now in addition to this stagarringly impossible situation NOW we are going to throw reproduction into the mix, where most kinds on this planet must reproduce through a combination of male and female individuals coming together. If one simple celled life by chance suddenly evolved into a male, you would have to have another simple cell evolving into a female also at the same time, otherwise reproduction could not occur, and the species dies right there! What are the odds, that two individual creatures would suddenly, and accidently, by random chance mutate one into male, and another into a female, and do it at the same time, by chance random selection, and then not only evolve into two distinct individuals of the opposite sex, but also be in that sex able to breed successfully with each other, and when you think, this had to occur, if evolution is true millions of times, and also re-occur each time there was a supposed evolutionary jump from one kind into a totally new kind....What are the odds on that by pure chance, random accident?!
--TheVineRhyme
<mailto:hemlockjuice@gmail.com>

Thevinerhyme,

I know I couldn't have said that better even if I wanted to!! Yes the odds of evolution by chance in the way you described would have to be impossible. If you take the odds in your description in which staggers the mind, it would most certainly by all logical means put chance in a god like category. The odds alone by any thinking person with a open mind would only point to the fact that there had to be a God to make such chance even began to happen even if given evolution!! It in a nutshell would be like having a lottery in which no one played, and thus making the odds impossible for someone to win the lottery considering that no one played it. And even in the lottery odds are established by the fact that, first because someone started it, second it's played by chance. You can't even have chance if there wasn't someone to put it in motion! What good is it that evolutionist split hairs with biology when they have yet to even began to explain the origins of life. If you want to know how a car got in your drive way you aren't going to find out by taking it apart to see how it works!! Now if evolutionist would just come right out and admit that they only want to find out how life works then so be it. But it all started with the concept with Darwin's theory of the origins of life, and that mere title alone has yet to be explained by any science. But evolution in the minds of most is equated with the fact that God is not real because they believe evolution, just ask Richard Dawkins and see what he says. I hope Dean reads this, and without directly commenting to his post, he has made what almost sounded like a plausible theory on the Giraffes and trees and made it even worse! Now he is basically saying that some how trees and Giraffes are in some kind of contest to see who can grow taller than the other. In his theory of the trees, trees have a mind in which they know their being eaten and refuse to be. The giraffes also know this and grow with them. It makes me wonder what size they were when they first started out, two inches? After all they had plenty of time to be in this contest of growth. I know when you point out to a evolutionist a contradiction in their theories, the only thing they say is that you don't know how evolution works, and thus began to explain some off the wall idea that only makes them look worse than before. The fact is they don't even know, PERIOD.
--Gary

TheVineRhyme,

You make the same mistake that you accuse evolutionists of making. You take the one statement that backs up your claim, but then you fail to look past it, and really investigate the issue.

I assume you are referring to the book Evolution From Space, written by Fred Hoyle and N.C. Wickramasinghe. The statistic 10^40,000 is calculated on p. 24. A twenty-amino-acid polypeptide must chain in precisely the right order for it to fit the corresponding enzyme. Although Hoyle does not state it, this would entail that there must have been a minimum specificity, of one specific possibility, for the first enzymic life, of 10^20, a value to which Hoyle himself says "by itself, this small probability could be faced" (and this statistic even fails to account for that fact that any number of "first enzymic organisms" are possible, and not just one as his calculation assumes). Hoyle then goes on: "the trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes," (in "the whole of biology," p. 23), "and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10^20)^2000 = 10^40,000..."

There are three flaws in this conclusion: he assumes (1) that natural selection is equivalent to random shuffling, (2) that all two thousand enzymes, all the enzymes used in the whole of biology, had to be hit upon at once in one giant pull of the cosmic slot machine, and (3) that life began requiring complex enzymes working in concert.

As for 1, To put it in a nutshell, natural selection is not random, but selective, a distinction that is not trivial. As for 2, Hoyle leads you to believe that every living organism requires or uses all two thousand enzymes, but he leaves himself an out, he uses the words "for the most part" (p. 23). In other words, some life, probably the simplest, uses less. Since biologists consider all present life to be far more advanced than early life, even if all presently living organisms required two thousand enzymes it would not follow that the first life did. As for this point and (3), The current scientific view of the origin of life holds that DNA was a late development in the tree of life, and that probably some form of RNA-based life, or something similar, preceded it. Alan W. Schwartz, author of "Biology and Theory: RNA and the Origin of Life", writes that, based on protein-sequence analysis alone, it is clear that "all life on earth is descended from a single common ancestor," and "that ancestor...was certainly not the first form of life. It is probable that another, unseen phylogenetic tree preceded the one we can now reconstruct, and led from the first form of life to the progenote" (p. 325). Schwartz notes a few important facts that are significant about this. For instance, "in contrast to the multiple enzyme systems needed to carry out DNA replication, RNA replication can be performed by a single enzyme" (p. 326).

Schwartz then describes an experiment where random RNA replication produced observable evolution in the lab. A population of molecules which were vulnerable to hydrolytic reagents, when immersed in those reagents and allowed to replicate at random, evolved into a population of molecules which were not only invulnerable to the once-poisonous environment, but were dependent upon it for survival (p. 327). He also describes the Nobel-prize-winning work of Cech and Altman, who discovered catalytic RNA, a form of RNA capable of replicating on its own without assisting enzymes.

As for sexual reproduction, the variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently.

Continued...

~Dean~

Continued...

Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.

Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000).

~Dean~

To all and or Dean,

A God believing 12 year old boy kept telling his science teacher that evolution isn't possible. Of course the teacher knowing that he was just a boy said son, evolution is true your just to young to understand. Believe me son when you grow up you'll see that what I'm saying is true, and there is no God. That day the science teacher gave the class a science project, they were to make a model of the solar system and had a week to do it. So the 12 year old boy spent most of his spare time creating this solar system, did his research on the solar system and put much effort in it. The day the project was due, the 12 year old boy got to class early, set his project on the teachers desk and sat down in his chair ready for class to show up and start. When the teacher finally got to the class, he noticed someone had put their project on his desk. The teacher looked at it, he studied it, and said wow who did this. This project is real good I'm impressed, who in this class made this, of course no one answered. He then asked the class can someone raise their hand and tell me who made this. Again no one answered, the teacher then said now, will someone please tell me who made this project it didn't get here itself. The 12 year old boy finally stood up and said I made it, I told you things don't get here on their own.
--Gary

hello mr jeff mason


i believe in christianity and i think they put
that evolved from a monkey in a fuit can!


--Maurice DuBois
<mailto:glorioussun2004@yahoo.com>

Thought this was very interesting. I invite everyone to watch.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html

~Dean~

To Dean,

You posted a URL, and I after viewing it, was somewhat hesitative in giving any assessment to it in regards to its content. Which in turn leads me to the question on why you posted it, considering you have made it fully known what your opposition is. I'm not sure what your intentions where that you pointed out the URL, but it has left much controversy. I'm incline to even though I gave it much thought, to tell you my non-biased view on this 12 clip video. First the trial itself is from a program, edited for TV, if you know anything about TV programs you'll soon discover that not all the facts are presented, considering it's edited! Second, the court trial if you paid attention to it was a dramatized reenactment, mixed with interviews from actual people who were involved. What the audience was given to its regards of the content of the trial and interviews is what the TV program wanted you to see. That is the way TV programs work Dean, if you think for once we could get any proper information from this program your solely mistaken! The media from a viewing prospective is never the same as actual facts involved and rarely ever is. If I were to put this on a scale of balance, the scale would most always tilt towards the programs view, that's the intentions of the program. Now whether the programs is biased based that is left to the interpretation of the viewer. And what facts that are presented is still left up to the viewers discretion. So from my prospective since in that I am considered a viewer, I tend to tip the scale more towards a programs interpretation of what the facts are, not that they were actual facts, but that the only real fact presented was that there was a trial and that's it!! You might think by now that I may be supporting evolution since in that by now I haven't mentioned it, but don't think to soon. As I have stated the facts of the court trial where a dramatized reenactment but the facts itself were not fully explained and couldn't be since the program was edited. Don't think for once Dean that this video proofs evolution. All this video clip really shows is that there are still people in this world, and no matter what you present, if the presentation is edited content, how can one make a clear interpretation. If I were to make an assessment to this in a personal view, considering what was presented, I would have to say that nothing in this video shows evolution being true, and nothing of ID being factual either, it's faith vs faith!!! Let me first ask this question, take the so-called missing link that they found,
the link is one out of millions of years of so-called evolution, it was missing half of the bones, now you would have to have faith in scientist to believe that they could reconstruct that link for you to believe it was a link, and yet you say you need proof, that's a contradiction in your very beliefs Dean! Don't you know by now that people from all walks of life can and do pull stings to tip the scales their way. It doesn't matter whether their scientist or the pope himself, that's human nature Dean. Look around you Dean see with your heart not with your eyes and it's crystal clear, humans are sinful and refuse to be wrong, even though they are. No one is immune to sin and sin is not a concept either. Humans are born with a sinful nature, you don't have to teach a child to do wrong it comes automatically, but you do have to teach it to do right. So to me all this video proves is that humans are and can be self centered, and no matter what you believe there and will always be those who will fight and lie and manipulate facts in regards to their beliefs.
That in my prospective and is not a biased based view, I have simply told you how people are, without even debating the content. You can't debate the content of this video, because it's not all laid out on the table!!

--Gary

Hey everyone, I've been gone for a long time but im back.I can tell I've missed alot!

-Dcaf
--Dcaf
<mailto:CenaRightNow@AIM.com>

WOW – Gary, excellent post!!!

Now that is the way you write a post. It was well put together and well thought out! By far your best post yet.

Now, my response. I was not posting the link as proof of evolution, not at all. I just wanted everyone here to know about the trial, and especially, the outcome of the trial. Again, just wanted you to know that ID is not science, and the first amendment forbids religion in any government institution. The forefathers of your country were really on the money they wrote that one!!

Yes I know that TV is edited, and this being a NOVA program it was skewed toward the secular side. I will freely admit that, but that does not change the fact the a republican judge appointed by G.W. Bush was so persuaded by the prosecutors, as to ensure that ID was kept out of the public school system.

~Dean~

To Dean,

Thanks for the comment, I can see that there is some honesty in your view on the program. Most wouldn't even think about being that honest. Yes I do believe that ID is not science, but God never intended it to be. I know God being who I believe he is, is well able to make it crystal clear if he so chose to do so. But God requires faith, and it was him that impressed our fore fathers to design separation from church and state. He fore knew that man would drift from the truth and turn it into religion. I myself have made no bones about me not being religious, because religion is destructive, just look at the Muslims from the middle east! The only problem with separation from church and state is not the original concept of it, but the misinterpretation of what separation of church and state is. And to be honest with you evolution is a violation of separation from church and state. At the same time ID is also a violation of church and state. They both are taken by faith, the only difference is that one admit it's faith and the other one doesn't. And that alone is enough to blind even the most educated people. I personally have yet to find any idea or science that has yet to give me any reason to let go of my faith in believing God exist. The first cause is what I look at and that isn't science and I don't believe ever will be to our knowledge, and is taken by faith alone!!!

--Gary

Hi, Thought you would be interested in hearing what Waterman has in his podcast.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/RemnantCall/2007/12/01/Endtimes-Mysteries-Revealed-One

It is quite simple ! science depends upon observation and the scientist has been able to observe nothing to support the claim of evolution and they have no proof at all. Radio pulonium halos sinks their boat and they simply do not want Jehovah God involved anyway. they simply repeat satans question hath God said. the scientific evidence that is available conclusively points to a creator. They cannot provide fossile proof and have no missing link! evolution is in direct opposition to the third law of thremaldynamics. where do you get order out of chaos? doesn't occur. They expect us to not research and stay stupid .
--r harper

Are you familiar with what is known at the "blue beam project"? Also, concerning natural remedies, what would be a good remedy for tendonitis in the wrist? There is a knot there, but the doctor tells me that it is tendonitis. Any natural remedy would be appreciated.
--anonymous

Okay here's what ya do for the rendonitis. First get some fluid extract of horsetail. Take every day as directed on the bottle. This will help your tendons to heal. Now, for both killing the pain as well as promoting healing, you must also get the following herbs in dry bulk form. Lobelia Herb, Mullein Leaf, and comfrey root. Once you have these herbs, buy a large jar of vasoline and heat it in a pan on low heat until it is completely melted. Then put in five heaping tablespoons of the comfrey root, and or leaf. Allow to cook down for 20 minutes on low heat, stirring often. Then, in a sperate jar put two heaping handfuls of the lobelia herb, and the mullein leaf in equal parts. Strain out the comfrey root from the melted vasoline, and pour the liquified vasoline into the jar with the lobelia/mullein mix, cover and allow to steep (sit) for 15 more minutes. Strain the herbs out after the alotted time and then cover a clean jar with panty hose to filter the still liquid vasoline. Filter into the jar and set it to cool and set up in the refrigerator or on a counter top. Once it is set up and cool, rub the ointment into the area that is afflicted by the tendonitis. This will take away the apin within about 5 to 15 minutes, and it will also deliver substances topically absorbed, to repair the danaged and inflammed tendons. Highlight and paste these instructions into a word document and save for future use. This natural treatment may seem complicated, but it is actually quite easy. I don't think you'll have any problem making this ointment. But, keep it out of the reach of children as Lobelia if ingested can be toxic in large amounts. Also if thre ointment causes nausea, apply less of it to the affected area. Only apply it every 4 to 6 hours and NO closer together. This ointment is usually very effective both at controling the shapr pains associated with tendonitis as well as actually healing the condition when applied over time. I hope this helps. Keep me posted on how it works out for you.
--TheVineRhyme
<mailto:hemlockjuice@gmail.com>

Thank you, very much, for the reply. I will try it. I would also like to thank you for the great videos you do. May God richly bless you.
--Anonymous

www.thegethsemanechurch.com

I love Jesus Christ! Because He first loved me
--Nathan
<mailto:nathannoyes@yahoo.com>

Here's an oldie but goodie:

Does god love something because it's holy, or is a thing holy because god loves it?

Hopefully you can recognize the implications of each explanation of god's nature.
--Seth Crownover
<http://sethcrownover.blogspot.com>

i got a question,
Long before i ever researched for Mephilim, i thought that aliens were phisical forms of demons. because there is too much proof God Created this world. and if someone els believes this then. could someone explain to me why God would remain in the fog (i know he does this so we still have a choice to believe in him or not) while Satan reviels himself to the world. a few months ago i was in Scheveningen (holland) a city thats at the beach i saw a bright orange ligh in the sky and it was moving towards the see it took about 10 min before it was to small to see when i saw it it was as big as a 1 euro coin. soo it so strange than we as Christians are forced to use the Bible as proof (dont get me wrong the bible is a powerfull book) and satan uses phisical proof (which people prefer) as his proof and lies about what it is ofcourse (lyer of all lyers). What can we do about this!!!
--Johan

and one more thing if aliens come to this world and contact anyone. Do we have the option to drive them away like The Lord Jesus did in the desert by using the bible?

does someone have experiance with this

I gave some one the opportunity to read the article you wrote, concerning Chromosome II. They read it and a message was sent back to me that it had been called bologna. It is disturbing and sad. Any suggestions? Most do not realize it, but evolution is a religion...is it not? It is a belief and appears to be tax-funded.

On another note, I would like some comments, concerning the book of Enoch.

Thank you, in advance, for comments.
--Anonymous

Thanks for placing "Expelled" on your website. I was unaware of the movie. It could help the one that I directed to read your article "Chromosome II". They may have referred to it as bologna, but I think it shook their resolve. They are still making comments, so that tells me that maybe God is working on them. Keep them in your prayers. Thank you for your efforts of combating the believers of evolution. Although you do not do it for glory, imo, I believe that God will bless you for it.

As always,
Anonymous

I just watched the piece you did on new age and the new world order...

Bravo...

You are a true inspiration to a man who holds firmly to the truth and inerrancy of the word of the living God...

I think your work has been guided by the Holy Spirit to educate the scripturaly knowledgeable believer to a deep insight into the signs of the "fig tree" that are in our mist...

Keep up the good work, and I will continue to visit...

Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Father for His grace in our salvation for all of humanity by the work at the cross...

Know that I am praying for you and for all those you are trying to help...

--Your brother in Crist, Thomas
<mailto:tommyboy762002@yahoo.com>

Scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin (Jesus Christ)...
Check out the video and then do your own investigation...
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Proof+for+Jesus+Christ+resurrection+by+shroud+of+Turin+&sitesearch=


Hope you get this posted on all of your sites James...
Your brother in Christ,
--Thomas

Jeff,
You really let me down...
I saw the video on your my space page about God f-ing you up...
Enough said...
Please remove this filth from your site...
No matter what others do it doesn't justify our degrading ourselves with malicious foul speach and imagry...
For He who is completely righteous and washed you white as snow does not deserve your depicting him speaking in such vulgarity as you have...
You have pornographic material on this clip for goodness sakes...
If you intend to be a light in the dark as you clearly are trying to be, remove this from your site and serve the Lord our God in truth and righeousness...
Eventhough we are in no way righteous we must beat our bodies into submission and pray for God to conform us to the image of Jesus...

Your brother in Christ,
--Thomas

About this last post I want to say that I may have made a mistake thinking you posted this, and I definately called you by the wrong name in my first post.
I watched the first video you have on your myspace page on natural and herbal medicine, and after it was over there came a selection of seven video clips to choose from on the bottom...
If this is not in your control I appologize. If indeed you posted it please pray about what God would have you do, and either way please get it off your page.

Your brother in Christ,

--Thomas

Please pray for Kent Hovind. I don't know the reasons(true) of his predicament. However, the mockers are all over youtube showing their venom.
--Anonymous

Hello,
I hope you are planning on responding to this video on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArCr-vnugbw&watch_response

"Evangelists stop ignoring the ancient church, you know-nothings, false representatives of a false god!! Learn the ancient languages and read the ancient documents and not the European interpretations and translations indeed, for Jesus sake king of nascent Atheist Christianity. Amen"
-LOJ sermon # 45, 2004
"Jesus, king of non-gods and champion over that evil Demiurge, never existed. The true Jesus / Mithra / Horus exists within the tradition the myth, and is son of Isis. Knowledge of the true Lord Jesus will shatter the hearts of the faithful and bring about the end of "Christendom" and the start of nascent Pagan Atheist Christianty!!! Woot my brothers, woot to him, Jesus-Mithra our non-existent Lord and Savior, Amen"
-Order of the Bronze Rhino LOJ Sermon (aka the truth of The Gods (AAAAAAAHHHHH) as humans with time travel capabilities)

Hello Jeffery, this is the Order of the Heron (Ardeidae family), wee see you have responded to Lions of Judases message and respect your contribution. However we feel this action was in line with the information and lies you peddle on you tube. You are one of the main voices that deny the true pagan origin of Christ on the web and thus have insulted the truth of Jesus. Our account has been deleted ,as expected, but we will return. Our aims are for you to remove all your videos from you tube. expect us!
--Order of the Heron

Hey Jeff, I was wondering if you know this planet nibiru to be fact or fiction. I am a Christian but this new info has tested my faith i asked for guidence from the spirit but i guess it is busy , I know you follow the Lord so i was hopping you could help me with this problem i have, any material you may have or links would be greatly appreciated .i have heard some crazy things and its messing up my walk .
--John Y.rr
<mailto:johny@priveproducts.com>

Claim CD000:
Response:
"... There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules."

Now, the Watchtower and Bible tract Society are well researched and we see many misleading circular arguments used to rebut simple facts.
Here The Awake Magazine would have been confirming the correlation between original Hebrew text translations in the NWT edition and basic scientific observation that life only comes from life. This does not exclude surely, the appearance of life, however basic even at the molecular level.

Circular arguments that tie the 'scientific community' up in knots abound and do not succeed in misleading researchers. It is highly popular for Christian groups to be at one another's throats on the issue of who has it right.

But it is more common for so called scientists to be behaving as high Priests of the Temple extolling pointless circular arguments as a means of exercising their presumed superiority, their command of a subject, and a rod for other's backs. The Biblical interpretation is I believe both complex enough to need interpretation by the scientific mind whilst also reflecting the reality as preferred by so-called 'Creationists.' I believe the point of the Watchtower & Bible tract society despite their shortcomings as humans, is to prove the validity of Bible texts, both regarding prophecy and fulfilment thereof.

--El Hick

Dec 12, 2012 is the year to watch according to the Mayan
calendar, the I Ching, Nostradamus, and other pertinent information
sources as being the END as we know it. From now until that time
the Earth will continue to be cast into catastrophe. Why? So glad
you asked. The Destroyer aka The Planet of the Crossing aka Planet
X aka Nirubu is on its return journey into the inner solar system.
Its orbit is approx. 3600 years and watch out, it can be seen
already. NASA being the organization dealing with things in the
solar system has taken an interest in the ancient Mayan ruins....!
Ask yourself why a space based organization is concerned about old
buildings??? Why is there a new telescope in the Antarctic? It is
for observing the changes in the sun and to observe the approach of
Nirubu, which by the way is supposed to be the home of the
Nephilim. What is a Nephilim you ask.......go find out I say to
you! Ok, here is a clue...Goliath. All the things of Revelations
and other prophetic sources IS come to pass....hmm! If you are not
a spiritual or religious person....thats your problem, keep flying
your kite and eating popcorn off the ground! The big problem
is....why does the govt. and other agencies continue to keep
information away from us peons? The answer is simple....control and
save only the elite! Did is say save the elite such as in the
underground facility that EXISTS already for those that are deemed
vital to humanity.....WHAT A CROCK OF SHYTE! Something BIG is
coming down the path in our lifetime. Dont believe that....thats
your problem, keep your head buried in the sand and keep acting
like your shyte dont stink! I implore those of you reading this and
have any amount of intelligence.....investigate what is going on
around us. The information is there, just have to know where to
look. I am not going to tell you everything, get off your pasta
stuffed behind and open your eyes!


--Anton
<mailto:pokitrokitt@hotmail.com>

Well...how many of you out there are Biblical, Spiritual, Intelligent, or at least keep an eye on what is going on around us? If you are aware of history, regarding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and how that factors in with Prophecy...did you know that plans are and have been underway to reuild it? Dont take my word for it, go check it out for yourself. Time is growing VERY short for us all!
--Anton
<mailto:pokitrokitt@hotmail.com>

Did a little more digging and made another interesting discovery....

The Cherokee Indian prophetic and regular calendars end in.....take a wild guess.....2012, but is looked upon as NOT being the END, it is renewal and the Hopi Indian also see this time as renewal, 'the 5th era', which also coincides with the prophetic return of The Creator, God, Yehovah, Dude, Yshua, Jesus or whatever you prefer to call Him...

Interesting huh!

--Anton
<mailto:pokitrokitt@hotmail.com>

In Gen.1, we are shown that God made men and women in THEIR image to REPLENISH the Earth. *Replenish means refill, repopulate, etc. which is an action to fill a void left by "previous usage".* The 7th day came and went. In Gen.2, we are shown God had not caused any rain to fall and found he had NO ONE to tend to matters so He created man from the dust of the Earth and made him a LIVING SOUL, then came EVE. *Eve means RIB in ancient Sumerian language. In addition, we do not have this item called an internal soul because we ARE LIVING SOULS according to text. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you very carefully read from Gen 1:20ish thru 2:10ish. You will clearly see that Adam and Eve were not the first. They may have been the first 'special' ones IN the garden, but not the first humanoids. More evidence is when Cain was sent out of Eden to FIND a wife in the east where people already were. So ask yourself...how could he be concerned about being killed by folks if it was only Adam, Eve and Cain living at the time?
--Anton
<mailto:pokitrokitt@hotmail.com>

Obama, a person that claims Christianity but has Muslim roots! and....my personal touch....Hmmmm...



1. Most of the Muslim world thinks the US is a cesspool, I have nothing against Muslims, just... The Jihad Think Tank

2. Obama says his family roots were NON PRACTICING MUSLIMS...okay

3. Most of America is filled with NON PRACTICING CHRISTIANS and both have gray areas of/for consideration!!!

4. Jesus aka Yshua(Hebrew pronouced) was just that, Hebrew, and Christianity was created AFTER his death by....men...think about that one and (3) and get that chip off your shoulder

5. Obama tries to hide his roots and to what end?

6. There is a saying, 'once a Muslim, always a Muslim', even Christians B A C K S L I D E from time to time

7. His roots can be either helpful or harmful to the US and global matters

8. Obama attended Muslim schools and a Catholic school

9. "I attended Catholic school and then I was freed from that mindtrap...can you spell R E F O R M E D, so his attendance there means absolutely nothing except good grades on his report card!"

10. I rcvd a forwarded EM saying his real name in addition to Barack Hussein Obama is Barack Hussein MOHAMMED Obama, I dont know what truth there is to that as I am unable to confirm or deny that one

11. Obama wants Universal (FREE) healthcare, the same thing Hillary fought for 'for years' but got pimp slapped and kicked in the groin for

12. Hillary, along with Bill and the late Rockafeller fella wants the govt. to release all information regarding UFO's, USO's, ET's, EBO's, Roswell, Mars, the Moon and everything about what is going on

13. I dont know what Obama wants outside of healthcare reform and I really dont care. I DONT VOTE ANYWAY! I voted once in my life for Bill Clinton. Dont like that....sue me! You wont get me on jury duty! Its all in OUR CREATORS HANDS anyway! Besides...they still corrupted the vote and Bush got in anyway....so....there you go!



14. Thats enough for now, you fill in the rest with YOUR OWN research and study!


--Anton
<mailto:pokitrokitt@hotmail.com>

Hello.

My name is Adrian and i really like your videos. I find paranormal a really interesting subject. I have one question though, what are your thoughts on Nibiriu and 2012?

Also my aspiration is to become a programmer/web designer(i have some experience with html, php and java), so if youll ever need a site update i could do that in my spear time.(including dvd downloads as purchase, no need to mail them)

Anyway keep up the good work,
Adrian - razvanadrian252@gmail.com
--Adrian
<mailto:razvanadrian252@gmail.com>

I appreciate the offer Adrian and I'll keep that in mind. As for Nibiru and 2012 I do not concern myself with it that much. It does play into endtime deceptions i feel as was prophecied. Refer to my youtube account and look up Nephilim Rising to get my view on that general subject. Thanks!
--TheVineRhyme

some of your info sounds quite logical. i find quite curiou though your use of the cross which is not only idolatry but also not representative of what CHRIST DIED ON.

in addition the cross is an egyptian symbol honoring the god tau check it out

u never answered my question on your use of a pagan cross on your sword

yes anonymous yes it the cross is pagan and was incorporated into christianity under false pretenses to represent Christs instrument of death. to use it is idolatry.

Evolution is a lie, Jesus is Lord

I have a question, where in the bible does it tell about Isreal becombing a nation and the generation born in that year will see the second coming of christ?

P.S., I really enjoy your videos and I would like to see the passages that say that(above) for myself to check with the bible. I am a born again christian, and eagerly await the rapture. Gods Peace.

Anonymous,
The scripture of Israel becoming one nation is in the book of Ezekiel chap 37:19. I think the answer your looking for about people born in that generation is in Mt.24:34 and Mk. 13:30.
--fewer195

Anonymous,

Exodus 20 vs.4 Thou shalt not make unto thee
any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heavan above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water beneath.Idolatry is usually defined as worship of any cult image, idea, or object, as opposed to the worship of a monotheistic God.
The cross is a graven image(Idolatry). Whether or not Christ was crucified on a cross or not it should not be on our churches or around our necks or used to show we are "Christians" when we hit a homerun or make a touchdown. The cross dates back to Pagan roots and symbolizes Tammuz a sun g-d. Read Ez. chap. 8
--fewer195

Hello Vine, I was wondering, what do you think about time travel and other stuff you see on science fictions shows.

What is your opinion on how possible some of these conceptse like what you see on star trek.

Thanks I would greatly apriciate your input, God bless.
--Robin Lyones (RJL738)
<http://www.myspace.com/RobinLyons317>

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under, the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under, the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens, generally used in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word used for "firmament" is "raqiya`" (pronounced rä•kē'•ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground …


Having watched *NEW* A Sequence of Events Part 19/12/2008
I do fully agree with our brother Jeff Mason.
I think I do have some additional information to this.
As mentioned above there was waters above the sky orbiting our planet in a misty form so that you could still see the stars.
I believe this is the reason why before Noah and including Noah lived a longer lifespan that us today.
All the aging rays from the sun would have been at a slower rate than that of today. Reason why before the flood the populance lived 600 to 900 years.
Then after the flood we are told the life span is gradually reduced to about 120 years. When the father beheld his son die of old age before him.
The reason? After the flood there was more intensity of the sun’s rays bombarding the planet, therefore the aging process is accelerated.
The point is all the waters or most of the waters above orbiting our planet in the stratosphere came crashing down.
As well as what our brother Jeff Mason described.



--setrak
<mailto:setrak@optusnet.com.au>

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under, the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under, the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


Firmament is a name for the sky or the heavens, generally used in the context of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the word used for "firmament" is "raqiya`" (pronounced rä•kē'•ah) meaning an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the ground …


Having watched *NEW* A Sequence of Events Part 19/12/2008
I do fully agree with our brother Jeff Mason.
I think I do have some additional information to this.
As mentioned above there was waters above the sky orbiting our planet in a misty form so that you could still see the stars.
I believe this is the reason why before Noah and including Noah lived a longer lifespan that us today.
All the aging rays from the sun would have been at a slower rate than that of today. Reason why before the flood the populance lived 600 to 900 years.
Then after the flood we are told the life span is gradually reduced to about 120 years. When the father beheld his son die of old age before him.
The reason? After the flood there was more intensity of the sun’s rays bombarding the planet, therefore the aging process is accelerated.
The point is all the waters or most of the waters above orbiting our planet in the stratosphere came crashing down.
As well as what our brother Jeff Mason described.



--setrak
<mailto:setrak@optusnet.com.au>

What are peoples opinions on this; I saw a video about the rapture and this guys opinion was that it happens on Rosh Hashana of this year 2008 on sept 29-oct -1. He had alot of other stuff backing his prophecy. The videos name is, Rapture will happen on Rosh Hashana. Its a gut in a track suit in jeruselam. Any way, Im looking for other peoples opinions about this. Do you think its possible? Is this guy a false prophet? Let me know. My opinion so far is that if it is next week, Great! Lord Jesus come quickly! If it doesn't happen then, it will eventually. Whats your ideas?

I didn't mean to write "gut in a track suit, its supposed to be "guy"" And Im not making fun of him, Im trying to describe him so you know what to look for if you want to watch it

I didn't mean to write "gut in a track suit, its supposed to be "guy"" And Im not making fun of him, Im trying to describe him so you know what to look for if you want to watch it

to all of the believers who refuse to believe in Our Savior, I pray for you! You do not know the joy and pure love you are missing out on. To try to explain human beings and the earth and everything in it is impossible, our mind cannot conceive or fathom all of creation. Nor can we conceive God for we are worthless creations without Him. To think that we just exist because is harder to believe than there isn't God. To understand that Our Creator is also Our Savior is the most beautiful thing to ever exist. You may read your books and educate yourselves on the make-up of every gene,atom,molecule, and so on, but what does your human knowledge prove? Nothing! For everything you do is meaningless without God. You mock creation because your hearts are convicted, and you refuse to surrender because of your pride. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit can be explained in one word Love. Pure Love, love we as christians have only had a taste of, an action so powerful it takes your breath away.God is not a tyrant for he gave us choice, tyrants don't give you choice sweet girl, for without The Almighty we are lost and for those of you who refuse to believe In God, but everyone in the world Knows of Him and Jesus I might add, you are missing out on the greatest Love ever!

just watched your 6 part docu. on nephilim and it was fabulous. exactly what i believe. setting us up for project blue beam. not to crazy about utube or how it works. my wife is a Christian artist and the LORD has really anointed her with her sculptures. check out the TETELESTAI CROSS at www.amariahart.com. first time in Christian history that the atoning work of Christ has been made personal utilizing mirrors. be sure to read the plaque that goes with each piece.
i have been into alternative therapy for many years. looking forward to talking to you. send me your phone number. mine is 772 834 8812

kindest regards in HIM,

monte perini

Hello, I watched your videos called "Nephilim Rising". You warn about demonish deception apprearing as visitors from outer space, and about our world leaders serving them.
As it was stated in these videos, even traditional christianity is serving those fallen angels.
My question is: what kind of christians are you? What is your doctrine? Do you also keep the feasts of traditional Christianity like Christmas, Eastern, Sunday as day of the Lord?
Do you recognize that "Babylon the Great" in Revelation is the Vatican? That the Beast Power to come very soon is United Europe lead by Germany?
Thank you in advance for clearing what your beliefs are.

Kind regards
Nepank
--Nepank
<mailto:nepank@hotmail.com>

A comment about Noah and the flood and the 120yrs some believe is the life span God limited man to after the flood.

Once Noah received the warning of the impending flood that was to come,Gods word tells Noah that his spirit will not dwell with man any longer then 120yrs then the flood will come and he (God) will destroy man from the face of earth(except Noah and his family)!This doesn't mean mans life span will be limited to 120yrs,mans life span is limited to less yrs because the change that took place when the old or first world was destroyed.

Noah was the last remaining human from the original stock (adam) as all others were tainted with the mixture of the serpent's seedline, Only Noah was found without blemish, meaning his family lineage (bloodline).after Noahs death mans life span (years) then became limited..for after the flood Noah and his sons lived almost as long as people did before the flood. From there mans life span slowly became shorter through all other generations after Noah and his sons deaths.
--RC
<mailto:mystery.express@gmail.com>