But we know that it was us who scorched the sky
Disney 1959 film about future use of chemtrails
Simpson (fan made)
Prince talks about chemtrails
At least we know what will happen soon with this weather manipulators (Daniel 2:44, Revelation 11:18).
God will replace the corrupt system of human rulership with an entirely new system. Before brushing off that idea as religious nonsense, consider this: Who would know more about the needs of earth’s environment than its Creator? Does he not have a vested interest in what happens to this planet? The Bible makes it clear that he does, saying at Isaiah 45:18 that Jehovah is “the true God, the Former of the earth and the Maker of it, He the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.” To fulfill that purpose, God can and will intervene.
God will do this by bringing in a new government, or kingdom, to manage the earth. When Christians pray the so-called Lord’s Prayer and say, “Let your kingdom come,” they are asking for this government to take over. (Matthew 6:9, 10) God’s Kingdom, or government, will demonstrate an understanding of earth’s intricate natural cycles. It will thus be able to restore areas of the earth that have been ruined by pollution and environmental abuse. Isaiah 35:1, 6 says: “The desert plain will . . . blossom as the saffron. . . . For in the wilderness waters will have burst out, and torrents in the desert plain.”
(Source: No More Weather Disasters!)
I personally think that all this weather manipulation thing represents a deep fear of the so called “kings” of this world for what will soon happen to them. As if this is their desperate attempt to hide themselves under a protective cloud. Fear and the mania to control everything are strongly related to each other.
Calcification of the pineal gland is typical (1% of study participants) in young adults, and has been observed in children as young as two years of age. The calcified gland is often seen in skull X-Rays. Calcification rates vary widely by country and correlate with an increase in age, with calcification occurring in an estimated 40% of Americans by their 17th year. Calcification of the pineal gland is largely associated with corpora arenacea also known as “brain sand”.
It seems that the internal secretions of the pineal gland inhibit the development of the reproductive glands, because, in cases where it is severely damaged in children, the result is accelerated development of the sexual organs and the skeleton.
Some studies show that the degree of pineal gland calcification is significantly higher in patients with Alzheimer’s disease vs. other types of dementia.
Pineal gland calcification may also contribute to the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease and may reflect an absence of crystallization inhibitors.
Calcium, phosphorus, and fluoride deposits in the pineal gland have been correlated with aging, showing that, as the brain ages, more deposits collect.
Source: Wikipedia – Pineal Gland
When Alexander Graham Bell Invented the telephone he also made a remarkable leap of imagination. He correctly foresaw how people would use his invention; that they would speak on the phone instead of writing a letter — an early form of electronic mail. Keen to sell his invention, Bell approached the Post Offices and commercial organisations responsible for carrying mail. The U.S. Post Office turned him down, as did Western Union. Then he approached the British Post Office, whose Chief Engineer, Sir William Preece was one of Britain’s most distinguished scientists. Preece was a Fellow of the Royal Society who had studied under the great Michael Faraday himself. Preece examined Bell’s invention, but he, too, rejected it on the grounds that, “England has plenty of small boys to run messages.” Preece later surpassed even this judgment.
When told that Thomas Edison was researching an incandescent electric lamp with a high-resistance filament, Preece described it as “A completely idiotic idea.” This rejection of the new by established science is not an isolated aberration. It is the normal course of invention and discovery. Michael Faraday was described as a charlatan by his contemporaries when he announced that he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet in a coil of wire. Stung by these accusations, Faraday wrote, “Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.”
This is the easier version of the previous post: Number 144 versus 666
Understanding is needed here: let every thinking man calculate the number of the animal. It is the number of a man, and its number is six hundred and sixty-six.
Ok, let’s calculate.
Chapter 14 of Revelation mentions another number of a perfect heavenly organisation: 144000 humans receive the glory to reign with Jesus Christ for 1000 years.
Genesis says that “in the day” in which Adam will sin he will certainly die.
But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will certainly die.
For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch during the night.
(Psalm 90:2, 4)
But you should never lose sight of this fact, dear friends, that time is not the same with the Lord as it is with us—to him a day may be a thousand years, and a thousand years only a day.
(2 Peter 3:8)
So a day is 1000 years for God, because Adam sinned and he died before reaching 1000 years. It means imperfection not to reach completeness of something.
So all the days of Adam’s life amounted to 930 years, and then he died.
For example take away just 0,1% from 144000, which results in 144. This makes 143856. Now divide it by 6, again by 6 and again by 6 and you get the number of the beast = 666.
Why divide by 6 you may ask?
Because 6 is one less than 7 and represents imperfection. By removing just one from 1000 you get 999, likewise if you remove 144 from 144000 you render the purpose of it futile.
Then you may note that it is called the number of the “beast” (or animal) and it is a number of a man. This indicates humans lacking divine guidance. In contrast the 144000 are guided by God. They are bound to an heavenly organisation. The number 10 symbolize a human or earthly organisation and the number 12 a heavenly organisation. Multiplying 12 x 12 x 10 x 10 x 10 you get 144000. The “animal” instead, which are the governments of the earth, they lack spiritual guidance from our father in heaven and so they could try to reach perfection by multiplying their efforts, like a symbolic calculation of 6 x 6 x 6 x 666 (turbo-mode), but they will always lack one of 1000.
Calculating the number of the beast you just get a confirmation of it’s symbolic meaning (human governments are imperfect and will fail) and that indeed the heavenly government composed of 144000 sealed ones are perfect and able to govern the earth for all eternity.
James de Meo points out a curious semantic footnote to this affair. The name for the hypothetical medium through which light was thought to travel has been spelled in two ways: as ‘ether’ and also as ‘aether’. In late medieval times when the word was coined it was spelled aether. In the period 1850-1920 when the topic was current in physics and used regularly by physicists such as Sir Oliver Lodge, Michael Faraday, Nicola Tesla, Michelson and Morley, and even by Einstein, the term was spelled ‘ether’. In the 1950s, after Miller’s death, when a concerted effort was being made to denigrate his work, the medieval ‘aether’ spelling suddenly re-appeared. On the face of it, the use of this spelling was to avoid confusion with the anaesthetic fluid ether. But it also appears to have been part of an attempt to ‘relegate the ether of space into ancient history, as an unproven speculation similar to Aristotlian elements of “fire, air, water and earth”.’
Although difficult to prove in a way, I do believe that the healing of one individual creates an energy shift in others. We see this most easily in the shifts observed in the proximate family of a patient, but we can see this also on a larger scale. I have at least 2 cases where an orphan patient, immediately following the remedy, was contacted by his birth family living on another continent, after several decades of searching for their roots without any success. This clearly indicates an effect on a larger scale, not just the immediate surroundings of the patient, and this effect is bound to reflect some healing occurring at the level of the birth family.
When someone heals, I believe that something in the group heals, because we all participate in the energetic make-up of the universe, so the shift in one's energy is bound to be experienced by others, without limitations of time and/or space.
An interesting related question is whether each successful or accurate prescription of a remedy decreases the need for that particular field of consciousness to express itself through human experience. If that were the case it might help us understand why some homeopaths are perceiving fewer cases of the well known “polycrests”, and working on perceiving the fields of consciousness of up-til-now little known remedies.
I will say that it has been clear to many of us that some groups of remedies have appeared when there was a new need for humanity. I can think for example of bird remedies a few years back, then radioactive remedies, and now lanthanides. This evolution indicates that humans are facing new challenges at the level of the vital force, and that we need to continue investigating homeopathic answers to these challenges, and maybe this is the area where previously little-known remedies become important, and become relatively big remedies. Whether polychrests or other well-known remedies are less required or less recognized by homeopaths, I cannot say this. I believe that there will always be an important role for these remedies and I see them daily in my practice. In my opinion they constitute the backbone of our prescribing, and we simply add additional options to this backbone with newer remedies in order to be able to face new challenges and modern diseases.
An often-repeated claim is that disease organisms, such as tuberculosis, are ‘evolving’ to become resistant to antibiotics such as penicillin. There’s no doubt that antibiotic-resistant strains of disease organism are becoming prevalent – but is this Darwinian evolution or simply Darwinian myth making? The talk.origins “FAQ” makes repeated reference to the ‘evolution of antibiotic resistance.’ A representative example is the essay entitled ‘The Evolution of Improved Fitness By Random Mutation Plus Selection’, in which Dr Edward E. Max says:
However, the experiments necessary to demonstrate a beneficial mutation can be done with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur. For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance. In this case (in contrast to the situation with the peppered moth populations described above) origin of the population from a single bacterium allows comparisons of the mutated genes with the corresponding genes from the original bacterium, verifying that the variant sequences were not present before the culture with antibiotics and therefore arose as de novo beneficial mutations.
On the face of it, claims such as this seem to be strong evidence for Darwinian processes. There is a beneficial genetic mutation; the mutation makes the bacterium better adapted so enabling it to survive and flourish giving rise to offspring that also possess the beneficial mutation; natural selection is seen in action.
And because the appearance of resistance to antibiotics is essentially a modern phenomenon — antibiotics being a twentieth century discovery — it also seems on the face of it to be strong evidence of rapidly breeding organisms evolving a brand new characteristic within the space of a single human lifetime.
For the moment, let us accept that the facts as given by Dr Max are the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth (although I shall show later that this is far from the case). If the facts are as presented, then isn’t the case of acquired antibiotic resistance by bacteria strong evidence in favour of Darwinism?
The answer turns out to be ‘no’, even on the facts as given. Darwinism is a theory accounting for speciation — Darwin’s book is concerned with ‘The origin of species’ and it proposes that the species of plant and animal in the world today have arisen gradually from previous species by mutation and natural selection, a process also known as speciation.
Does the acquisition of antibiotic resistance shed any light on the process of speciation? No it does not, because a bacterium (such as E. coli, for example,) which acquires antibiotic resistance remains the same species, E coli.
Some humans have natural disease resistance, some don’t. The same is true for dogs, horses and plants, but this natural resistance hasn’t made them into new species. An aardvark that is tuberculosis-resistant is still an aardvark; a zebra still only a zebra. The acquisition of such resistance provides no evidence on speciation.
It can, of course, be argued that the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by spontaneous mutation is one step on the long road from one species to another. But such an argument is of no use here because whether speciation occurs at all is the very question that is to be proved, scientifically.
Darwinists believe that speciation can and does occur. But when pressed to provide examples of speciation they have signally failed to do so (for a detailed critique of the talk.origin “FAQ” on Speciation, click here).
This is more than mere semantics. It cannot legitimately be argued by Darwinists that the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by mutation is a step along the road to speciation, if they have failed to provide concrete evidence for the existence of such a road in the first place.
Perhaps, then, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by spontaneous mutation helps Darwinists make the case that advantageous genetic mutations of the Darwinian kind occur? This is more promising for the Darwinist case, but again doesn’t entirely make the grade as evidence. Noone who is in possession of the facts — whether Darwinist or not — doubts that genetic mutations occur. Such mutations are merely DNA copying errors and it would be surprising if they did not occur — since all copying systems are fallible. Many diseases are known, all of which result from genetic mutation — including Down’s syndrome, Huntington’s Chorea and Achondroplasia or dwarfism.
If we accept that the acquisition of antibiotic resistance does open the door to the possibility of beneficial genetic mutations, does this materially assist Darwinists? I do not think so. My reason for saying this is that the feature in question is almost trivial in comparison with the kind of beneficial genetic mutations that would have to happen for speciation to occur: mutations such as the feathered wing, the mammalian eye or even the human hand. At best, therefore, antibiotic resistance provides only weak circumstantial evidence for the kind of genetic mutation that is necessary to sustain Darwinian processes.
But, in any case, there is a far more serious objection to acquired antibiotic resistance than this. Darwinists do not have even this slim comfort, because there are a number of things scientifically wrong with Dr Max’s account — in fact, three things wrong with it.
First, there are objections to the idea of novelty, second, objections to the idea of Darwinian mutation being involved at all and, third, objections to the idea that the process can be demonstrated experimentally in the laboratory with any certainty.
The first objection is that antibiotic resistance is not new. Antibiotics such as penicillin, from the Penicillium spore, and similar organisms, have existed for millions of years in natural form. It is only their discovery by mankind in the twentieth century and their medical use to combat organisms harmful to humans that is new. So there is no question of disease organisms suddenly evolving natural resistance to antibiotics — there must be microorganisms that have been resistant to Penicillium for millions of years. This in turn means that antibiotic-resistant genes of various kinds must already be present in some, perhaps many strains of microorganism.
The second objection is that, although many common disease microorganisms, such as the tuberculosis bacterium, may be killed off by antibiotics, there are often a few individual organisms that are genetically resistant to the antibiotic — just as in any community of humans there will be a minority who possess natural resistance to tuberculosis and other disease organisms.
When such a colony of tuberculosis bacteria is exposed to an antibiotic, it will kill off all the bacteria except those who possess natural resistance, and it is these few who will remain and recolonise.
Despite Dr Max’s denials, the case of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms is exactly the same in principle as that of so called ‘industrial melanism’ in the peppered moth. It is simply a case of one variety of the species flourishing while another variety dies off, because of changed environmental conditions.
If Darwinists wish to claim that this is natural selection in action, they are free to do so. But they cannot claim this as a credible mechanism for evolution.
The third objection takes a little more explanation. Some scientists, such as Dr Max above, insist that laboratory experiments have been conducted which prove scientifically that antibiotic resistance was not genetically present in the microorganism used to culture the experimental colony, thus proving conclusively that it must have arisen by spontaneous genetic mutation, de novo — as an entirely new genetic feature.
This claim is scientifically flawed for two reasons.
As pointed out earlier, resistance to antibiotics is nothing new. It is perfectly possible that genes for such characteristics are present in all or many microorganisms but are merely ‘switched off’ or unexpressed. The genes can be ‘switched on’ by environmental pressure such as an antibiotic environment.
Dr Max also makes the claim, frequently repeated by Darwinists on the Internet, that (the emphasis is added by me);
from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance. In this case (in contrast to the situation with the peppered moth populations described above) origin of the population from a single bacterium allows comparisons of the mutated genes with the corresponding genes from the original bacterium, verifying that the variant sequences were not present before the culture with antibiotics and therefore arose as de novo beneficial mutations.
This claim can never be strictly true. In order to do what Dr Max describes here, the experimenter would necessarily have to both culture the new population from his single experimental bacterium AND fully sequence the DNA in that same single bacterium for later comparison. But, of course, analysing the DNA of the experimental bacterium must necessarily destroy it, making it impossible to culture from.
Instead the experimenters do the next best thing: they select a number of individuals from the same culture, which they assume to be genetically identical and they analyse the genes of one (or more) and use the others to culture the new colony. If the bacterium they select to analyse appears not to have any genes for antibiotic resistance then they assume that the same must be true for its close relative they are using to breed.
Now if the experiments always worked as Dr Max claims, if the new culture always exhibited antibiotic resistance, then one might be inclined to give some credence to their interpretation of the results. But that is not what happens. Sometimes the new culture develops antibiotic resistance; sometimes it doesn’t.
What happens to the experiments which do not develop antibiotic resistance? The experimenters put the failed experiments into the waste bin, while reporting the experiments that do work. So how do they know the true cause of experimental success and experimental failure? For it is possible that their experiments are succeeding when they choose a progenitor that already has antibiotic resistance and failing when they choose one that does not possess those genes — regardless of what their genetic analysis of the sacrificial bacterium shows.
Perhaps Dr Max and other convinced Darwinists might say that choosing one bacterium for genetic analysis and a very close relative for culturing is as close as one can get to experimental certainty, and is almost scientific proof. But the whole point of science is that ‘almost’ isn’t good enough. Either the lab proves what Dr Max claims, or it doesn’t prove it, in which case he cannot make the claim. There is already enough sloppy thinking and bad science in Darwinism without deliberately introducing more.
And as we have already seen, there are other possible explanations for their pattern of success and failure. Most importantly, antibiotic resistance is not a modern phenomenon, it may have been around for millions of years. So it is perfectly feasible that many bacteria possess genes that can provide resistance — whether or not those genes are currently expressed, and whether or not they have even been identified by geneticists as genes for providing antibiotic protection.
Such unexpressed genes are known to be sometimes ‘switched on’ by environmental pressures of just the life-threatening kind that are applied to bacteria in the lab. So, even if antibiotic resistance were genuinely arising during the experiment, it is not necessarily arising de novo, as Dr Max claims, but may merely be a genetic throwback.
It isn’t only Dr Max who perpetuates the scientific urban myth of the ‘evolution’ of antibiotic resistance. Other talk.origins “FAQs” make similar false claims.
For example, In the “FAQ” entitled ‘Are Mutations Harmful?’ Richard Harter says;
In modern times antibiotics, drugs that target specific features of bacteria, have become very popular. Bacteria evolve very quickly so it is not surprising that they have evolved resistance to antibiotics.
And in the “FAQ” entitled ‘Publish or Perish’ by John Catalano, he baldly asserts that ‘Drug resistance is biochemical evolution’ and cites an article in Scientific American entitled ‘The Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance.’
All of these “FAQs” are scientifically flawed and Messrs Max, Harter and Catalano should be asked to provide detailed concrete evidence in place of mere assertions.
If they fail to provide such detailed concrete evidence, then their “FAQs” should be amended to remove any reference to the ‘evolution’ of antibiotic resistance in microorganisms, or of the acquisition of such resistance providing supporting evidence of Darwinian evolution.
Update – 1st September 2006
A number of visitors to this site have pointed out to me a second important conclusion that can be drawn from the scientific facts reported above. The failure of Darwinists to demonstrate the evolution of acquired resistance to antibiotics actually casts considerable doubt over the entire theory. The reason is as follows.
Microorganisms multiply very rapidly. Under the right conditions of temperature and nutrients, a single bacterium can reproduce in minutes, giving rise to more than 4 million offspring in 8 hours. This rate of reproduction is more than fast enough to demonstrate the Darwinian process of mutation and natural selection happening in real time. In thousands of laboratories all over the world, literally billions and billions of reproductions take place under controlled conditions. The DNA of these microorganisms can be analysed as a matter of routine. Yet no microbiologist has so far announced observing the appearance of a new species of bacteria through the Darwinian process of the natural selection of genetic mutations (other than the bogus claims described above.)
If the natural selection of genetic mutations really were the primary driver of evolution, then there should be hundreds, or even thousands of new species appearing on an almost daily basis. Schoolkids should be able to breed new species on their classroom window sill. Yet far from such profligate innovation, what is actually found in the laboratory is stability and resistance to change – what Ernst Mayer called genetic homeostasis.
What is true for rapidly breeding microrganisms is likely also to be true of much slower breeding multi-celled creatures; that far from being the driver of evolution, the natural selection of genetic mutations has a neglible effect on inheritance.
For eight years, from 1875 to 1883, a German biologist named Albrecht von Herzeele conducted several hundred experiments in his Berlin laboratory which so outraged the scientific community that his books were removed from libraries and his writings banned.
The subject that so outraged his colleagues is today a taboo question that can scarcely be mentioned in polite scientific circles. It is the apparently innocent question: where do the minerals in plants come from? Von Herzeele grew plants without soil, using solutions whose mineral content he measured and controlled. Like scientists before him in England, France and Germany he found that there were elements in the ashes of the plants he grew that could not have got in from the growth medium. He concluded that ‘plants are capable of effecting the transmutation of elements.’