Space Forum / Astronomy / April 2006

Scientific evidence proves that pre-historic man had some sort of
belief in supernatural deities:

"A growing number of anthropologists and archeo-mythologists argue
that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much
of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who
was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among
all living things." - Al Gore (Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the
Human Spirit)

"Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion
comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial
sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the
notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous throughout much of the
world until the antecedents of today's religions - most of which still
have a distinctly masculine orientation - swept out of India and the
Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige
of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity" - Al Gore
(Earth in the Balance; Ecology and the Human Spirit)

Yet around 600 B.C. (before the birth of Jesus) and in the name of
"science" men began to employ themselves idiotically in the futile
attempt to remove the notion of the existance of supernatural beings
from the fabric of their current culture...

"The early Greek, or Hellenic, culture marked a different approach to
science. The Ionian natural philosophers removed the gods from the
personal roles they had played in the cosmologies of Babylonia and
Egypt and sought to order the world according to philosophical
principles. Thales of Miletus (6th cent. B.C.) was one of the earliest
of these and contributed to astronomy, geometry, and cosmology. He was
followed by Anaximander, who extended Thales' ideas and proposed that
the universe is composed of four basic elements, i.e., earth, air,
fire, and water; this theory was also taught by Empedocles (5th cent.
B.C.) in Sicily."

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?method=4&dsid=2222&dekey=Science&gwp=8&curta
b=2222_1&linktext=science

Enter Charles Darwin whom many of you think fathered the theory of
evolution. In fact, Darwin pilfered his notions from other scientists,
some who had come before him (such as his grandfather for one):

"Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was one of the leading
intellectuals of eighteenth century England, a man with a remarkable
array of interests and pursuits. Erasmus Darwin was a respected
physician, a well known poet, philosopher, botanist, and naturalist.
As a naturalist, he formulated one of the first formal theories on
evolution in Zoonomia, or, The Laws of Organic Life (1794-1796). He
also presented his evolutionary ideas in verse, in particular in the
posthumously published poem The Temple of Nature."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/Edarwin.html

For your reading convenience, I dug up that poem. Here it is:

"Organic life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin and feet and wing."
- Erasmus Darwin. (The Temple of Nature, 1802)

And here, Darwins grandfather clearly (and falsely, in true false
scientific fashion) suggests that all living things "evolved" from a
common ancestor. And I admit being startled myself upon discovering
this tidbit of history since I'd previously blamed Darwin (Charles)
for single handedly corrupting science and everything good about
Biology (which is my secular profession). Professors will not tell you
this stuff. Anyhow here it is. This quote from Charles Darwins
grandfather  proves that Darwin himself does not deserve all the
credit (blame) for coming up with the theory (lie) of human evolution
a.k.a...  the lie concerning the "common ancestor" theory:

"Would it be too bold to imagine that, in the great length of time
since the earth began to exist, perhaps millions of ages before the
commencement of the history of mankind would it be too bold to imagine
that all warm-blooded animals have arisen from one living filament,
which the great First Cause endued with animality, with the power of
acquiring new parts, attended with new propensities, directed by
irritations, sensations, volitions and associations, and thus
possessing the faculty of continuing to improve by its own inherent
activity, and of delivering down these improvements by generation to
its posterity, world without end!" Erasmus Darwin (Zoönomia, 1794)

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Erasmus+Darwin

Did you see what he said? Independent organisms which need no God
atall.

So from grandpaw to grandson was the torch to passed in order to
attempt to remove supernatural concepts and possibilities from the
minds of men... all under the disguise of "science":

The lie began to spread (as a tool of the devil) under the name of
"science":

"Ernst Haeckel, much like Herbert Spencer, was always quotable, even
when wrong. Although best known for the famous statement "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny", he also coined many words commonly used by
biologists today, such as phylum, phylogeny, and ecology."

"Although trained as a physician, Haeckel abandoned his practice in
1859 after reading Darwin's Origin of Species. Always suspicious of
teleological and mystical explanation, Haeckel used the Origin as
ammunition both to attack entrenched religious dogma and to build his
own unique world view."

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html

On my exact birthday 95 years ago Charles Darwins "Origin of the
Species" was actually published as "On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle for Life". So here am I, 95 years later finding myself trying
to correct al these lies as if it were my divine duty.

"First published on 24 November 1859, The Origin of Species (full
title On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the
Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life) by British
naturalist Charles Darwin is one of the pivotal works in scientific
history, and arguably the pre-eminent work in biology. In it, Darwin
makes "one long argument" for his theory that "groups" of organisms,
(which we now call populations) rather than individual organisms,
gradually evolve through the process of natural selection—a mechanism
effectively introduced to the public at large by the book. The work
presents detailed scientific evidence he had accumulated both on the
Voyage of the Beagle in the 1830s and since his return, painstakingly
laying out his theory and refuting the doctrine of "Created kinds"
underlying the theories of Creation biology which were then widely
accepted."

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/The+Origin+of+Species

Of course. Darwin fell to (pseudo) "science" and became an
X-christian. Formerly, he was a Bible quoting Christian....

"During these two years I was led to think much about religion. Whilst
on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being
heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves
orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some
point of morality." - Charles Darwin (The Autobiography of Charles
Darwin)

However, the devil has finally conceded that man will never easily
relinquish his belief in the supernatural and will never surrender his
God given rights of "faith".  

And thus "science", in this modern day and time reverts to mans
earlier primordial superstitions of goddess worship in a last ditch
effort to deceive him:

"In science, a Gaia theory is a class of scientific models of the
biosphere in which life fosters and maintains suitable conditions for
itself by affecting Earth's environment. The first such theory was
created by the English atmospheric scientist James Lovelock in 1969.
He hypothesized that the living matter of the planet functioned like a
single organism and named this self-regulating living system after the
Greek goddess Gaia."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_theory_%28science%29

Lovelock was no insignificant scientists seeing that he was employed
at NASA's Jet Propulslsion Lab:

"A lifelong inventor, some of his inventions were adopted by NASA in
their program of planetary exploration. It was while working for NASA
that Lovelock developed the Gaia Hypothesis."

"James Lovelock is the author of approximately 200 scientific papers,
distributed almost equally among topics in Medicine, Biology,
Instrument Science and Geophysiology. He has filed more than 50
patents, mostly for detectors for use in chemical analysis. One of
these, the electron capture detector, was important in the development
of environmental awareness."

"For me, the personal revelation of Gaia came quite suddenly - like a
flash of enlightenment. I was in a small room on the top floor of a
building at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. It
was the autumn of 1965 ... and I was talking with a colleague, Dian
Hitchcock, about a paper we were preparing ... It was at that moment
that I glimpsed Gaia."

http://www.gaianet.fsbusiness.co.uk/gaiatheory.html

However, this is no great surprise seeing that the Bible perfectly
explains that "evolution" is not the problem, but that "devolution" is
the culprit of the latter days of civilization as we know it. The
"devolution" of mankind is simply summarized as being a state of being
of men by which they have somehow (by democic influence) lost "faith".

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some
shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils" (1 Timothy 4:1)

comments welcome, as always

Jd A.D. 2006

Anno Domini" is Latin for "in the year of Our Lord", referring to Our
Lord Jesus Christ. That is, "AD 1996" literally means "in the 1996'th
year since the birth of the Christ." Now not all the world is
Christian, so it makes no sense for a Jew, a Moslem, a Hindu, a Witch,
a Druid, or an atheist to refer to the date as being in the year of
"their Lord" when they don't follow him. So "CE" is a more considerate
way of labeling dates in the Gregorian calendar without rubbing
non-Christian's noses in the fact that so much of the world is using a
calendar based on the alleged birth-year of the man we Christians
believe to be the Messiah.

http://www.radix.net/~dglenn/defs/ce.html