2018 07 04/ 5:07pm preamble: im edtng ths post as to clarify th thots tht i had at th initial postng...i shall plan to keep th context as close to it's orgnl ntent as possible...ths, evn as many of my undrstndngs hv drastcly changd... ...............................................................................
i shall begin this blog by stating that my belief and understanding of the necessity of a Supreme Being/Supreme Spirit led me to question the notion that anatomical resemblance necessitates relational evolutionary descendancy. This relational evolutionary descendancy has been most asserted as being between humans and primates, and more specifically, between humans and chimpanzees. in a continual, albeit seemingly desperate attempt/desire to find 'the missing link', it is my opinion that science has been corrupted into what amounts to a religious system of incoherent assertions, illogical presumptions, and misleading premises.
there is no evidence that humans and primates ever shared mating compatibility, an uniquely close genetic compatibility or organ-tissue transplant compatibility...why is this?
i do hold to the logic & belief that all that exist is ultimately connected and comes from one original Source-God. i believe that there is ultimately 1 path that leads to God. it is apparent to me and most apparent that God made everything from 1 source of ingredient, God. in the process of creating, God created several processes; pathways by which each kind of created entity came forth. light in contrast to dark, a firmament to separate waters above from waters below, the appearance of dry ground, as the waters gather to 1 place underneath the firmament. it is from th dry ground and gathered seas that life is created and formed. there are distinct & several "trees of life"; just as the scientific evidence demonstrates. therefore, my question is this, since cars generally have a fuel combustion-production device, some type of ignition, wheels, and a steering device, does that make them all necessarily come from the same factory/plant? in other words, does similar structure alone determine/necessitate same branch and or tree of origin?
when i understood the basic concept of "the single tree of everything from nothing" put forth by darwin & his evolutionism supposing, it seemed very illogical, premature, presumptuous and biased. i had these questions:
-how does everything come from nothing?
-can this supposing b modeled without the use of human beings or anything that already exists for that matter?
-where has it been observed?
-if it's based on "survivor of the fittest" who determines the definition of "surviving" and the "fittest"?
-are there greater consideration with respect to "tree and or branch" origin similarities, other than anatomical consideration? could we just as well claim evolutionary relationship primarily based on intellectual processing capabilities, language complexities, socialization, tool use, mating, genes distribution, genetic quantity, genetic compatibility or tissue compatibility...?
below is a link of an example of current categorizing of living things.
if i were asked to categorize living things based on what i understand today, i could come up with various systems based on the data available today. one system would considered primarily water based living entities, primarily land based entities, and those living entities which are equally based in both water and land. i could also categorize by similarities and differences of biological content. i could categorize by how living entities use/process light or by mobility, reproduction, social behavior, habitat preference, tool use, microscopic vrs. macroscopic size, by communication/exchange of information complexity or by genetic and dna considerations and etc. the question would still remain as to which of these consideration would provide for the most accurate and thus be most indicative of evolutionary relationship? what would the tree or trees of life look like if living things were categorized by being primarily of water or land or both, by language usage/complexity, social structure, mating practices, intelligence gene distribution, genetic composition or transplant capabilities?
in genesis 1 the earth and heavens (what i classify as infrastructure) are "created" and 1 could described the indicated process as a divine/God initiated process of evolving. these particular created entities (by God's Words-Voice) seem to remain in a dynamic/kinetic state of development; "pregnant" with the potential energy for what will be and who will be considered as being life. there is a specific sequence of major events, seemingly out of order with what seems intuitive today.
the earth is spoken of first and is ostensibly developing before the sun and moon and stars...? it is stated that the earth was void and formless and the darkness covered the deep. light is "spoken" into existence first. with regards to "science language" i might describe the biblical text process as follows. in the beginning, God initiated the universe by enabling individual electrons to come together to form their various microscopic groupings; pions, neutrons protons and their individual electrons bounded by proximity. from this process, God enabled the sea of grouping electrons to produce vacuums of space-single electrons yet to be grouped. such relative states of difference of numbering close electrons and isolated single electrons, thus forming differential gradients of motion and dark matter.
the electron groupings and the single electrons produce relative motion as tiny spirals begin to form larger groups of electrons. electrons forming into their respective atoms, atoms into their respective elements, and elements into their respective molecules and molecules into their respective kinds. the properties of centrifugal and centripetal force are developing to later form the beginnings of the "heavenly bodies". the ignition of light marks the "1st period/day" of the exchange between dark and light. a "day" is defined by this exchange, not by a synchronized interaction between the earth and the sun, as there is not a sun at this point. this is the first major act/event...
the waters are then separated perhaps by a developing expanse, liken to molten glass, spread out & flatten-the second day. as these events may be in dynamic development from a human perspective, for God, all is present time simultaneously-there is only relative cause & effect. to us, these events could be described as a type of divine "evolving". each subsequent day, seemingly feeding off the previous days. thus, the third exchange/day commences. the waters gather to one place and dry ground appears. this ongoing, dynamic evolving like process "cooks" together in water, light, chemical reactions and heat, becoming entities, new and distinct.
could the term "waters" simply be describing the relative but vast "nothingness" of individual electrons? could "the light" spoken into existence, simply be these individual electrons being forced together and could light/fire/heat be the "natural" effect/reaction to this forced grouping of electrons? could it be that as these "primal electrons" continued to group together in various quantities, still microscopic, but nonetheless constantly (or not so constantly) expanding as demonstrated by mark mccutcheon in his book, "the final theory, rethinking our scientific legacy? mark mccutcheon demonstrates that the micro atomic expansion process and rate is more analogous (and this according to my understanding) to how the rays of the sun radiate and bounce off the atmosphere of the earth back to the sun. this expansion process is the "engine" that powers the macro expansion (currently referred to as "gravitational effect". this macro expansion, which is actually universal expansion, has effectively been demonstrated by einstein's famous elevator experiment. going up in an elevator (expanding out) has the same feel/effect as being pulled down/in.
the continued action and reaction of these microscopic collisions produced/caused/evolved into microscopic swirls of centrifugal and centripetal forces producing microscopic vacuums of dark space/matter? can u imagine this dynamic...all the while expanding...? the expansion rate may have been what it is today or it may not have. the specialist in the fields of cosmos may have some idea.
could individual and necessarily dark electrons be that "primal gook", which The Cause always begin with. that is, could dormant electrons be God's "base" ingredient"? could dry ground appearing as "earth", be a reference to the developing process of this "water/gook of individual dark electrons" coming together; thus reacting and producing "light/heat/fire"? these elements, eventually producing expanding balls of fire, gas, very hot liquid fluid and eventually with the process of intermittent cooling, become solid matter-dry ground of any heavenly body?
in short, according to the biblical text, plants, all land animals and humans were produce or were formed out of the dust of the ground, respectively speaking. in contrast, birds and sea creatures were produce from the liquid water/seas. can such information, be set as a criteria for genetic relationship? even if this were applicable, the biblical text, emphatically repeats and insist that within the large or primary grouping of water or land based entities, each subgroup only had potential to develop according to their specific kind/species. i agree with this assertion. i believe that God imprinted each kind/species with it's very own unique genetic blueprints; qualities. these species specific qualities, no matter how seemingly similar, are fixed in divine law and may not be viably transcribed.
another major question i had was how can the established finite physical produce nfinite life/soul/spirit?
how can something considered physical/finite/subject to the acknowledged limits and restrictions of physicality produce life, a soul-that physically immeasurable notion that is present n our bodie when our bodies are living but is not present n th body when our bodies are dead. it has been determined that the body contains all matter when it is alive as when it is dead. the body virtually weighs the same when it is alive as when it is dead.
below are some food for thought with respect to "dead weight" .
What is the difference between a dead body and a live body? Discerning the difference between a living body and a dead body was the topic of deep debate by the Greek philosophers. The existence of a living force separate from the body was promoted by many, including Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Socrates, Hippocrates, Pythagoras, Origen and many others. Hippocrates professed that the life within the body was due to a “vital spirit” within, which acted through four different humors, for example.
When one of Socrates’ students asked him how he wanted to be buried, Socrates gave them a clear reply: They could do whatever they wanted with the body, because he would be long gone by then. By any physical observation made during the death of the body, the living force suddenly leaves. When we see a living body full of life, movement, energy, personality, and purpose, we understand these symptoms of life are residing within the body. When death arrives, suddenly those symptoms of life leave: There is no movement, no energy, and no personality remaining within the dead body. The body becomes lifeless. There is no growth, no will, no personality and no purposeful activity. For centuries, doctors, scientists and philosophers have autopsied, dissected and otherwise examined millions of dead bodies. No one—not even modern researchers with highly technical instruments—has been able to find any chemical or physical element missing from a dead body that was previously present when the body was alive. The dead body has every physical and material component the living body had. All of the cells are still there. The entire DNA is still there. All the nerves, the organs, the brain and central nervous system—every physical molecule and cell—are still resident in the cadaver.
The one and only claim of a difference, reported in 1907 by Massachusetts physician Dr. Duncan MacDougal, proposed a 21-gram weight difference between a dead and live body. He could not identify the substance of the difference, however. Dr. MacDougal’s results were also inconsistent, and were never corroborated.
MacDougal’s experiment consisted of monitoring six patients as they died upon a table rigged with a beam scale. Of the six, two were eliminated because of technical issues. Three subjects died of tuberculosis. Two of these were losing weight before and after death by “evaporation and respiratory moisture.” One subject died from “consumption” and seemingly lost ¾ of an ounce in weight as he was dying—later converted to 21.3 grams. Dr. MacDougall admitted that it was difficult in some cases to know at what point the patient had died (MacDougall 1907). A fellow doctor in Massachusetts, Dr. A. Clarke, debated Dr. MacDougal’s hypothesis and conclusion. Dr. Clarke argued that the typical sudden rise in body temperature before and subsequent cooling without circulation upon death could account for slight weight changes due to evaporation. Especially noting some of the patients had lethal tuberculosis. While Dr. MacDougal assumed the moment of death occured when the patient convulsed a bit and then lay still without breathing, modern research tells us that brain death must also occur—something Dr. MacDougal was not monitoring for. Until his own death in 1920, Dr. MacDougall tried to repeat the results and could not confirm his findings. In one test, he cruelly killed fifteen dogs while weighing them and found no weight loss. No other study has substantiated such a theory of weight loss upon death. The 21-gram concept is now relegated to urban myth.
With the exception of these weak findings, many centuries of cadaver research and autopsy have carefully examined organs, bones, nerves, brain, blood, neurochemistry and other vital body parts. None has found any structural or biochemical difference between a live and dead body. The dead body is simply missing an immeasurable element of life that once animated the body: An invisible force that gives the body personality, energy, motivation, and the will to survive. The life force of the body has never been seen under a microscope or by any other physical instrument. Furthermore, since this living force separates from the body at death—leaving the physical body with no life—it is obvious that this life force is not part of the body.
As the Greek philosophers promulgated, since the personality is also gone when this life is gone from the body, it would also be logical that our personality is part of this life force, and not part of the physical body. The physical body—including all the DNA and neurons—remains intact. Just as a car's driver is not the car: The driver can step out of the car at any time.
Therefore, the driver has an identity separate from the car—just as we have an identity separate from this physical body.] ..............................
genesis 2:1-7 and were finished the heavens and the earth and all their vast array. and ended God on the day seventh God's work which God had made and God rested day on the seventh from all God/'s work which God had made. and blessed God day the seventh and consecrated it because in it God had rested from all God's work which in creating God had made. these the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created in the day that made the Lord God the earth and the heavens.
and every plant of the field before it was in the earth and every plant of the field before it grew for not caused to rain the Lord God on the earth and a man there was not to cultivate the ground. and a mist there went up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. and formed God man of the dust the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and became man a being, living.
the following references speak to the origin of human beings. does the science support the singular tree evolutionism process supposd & proposed by darwin or is there a much more logical consideration/explanation? could there have been multiple trees of origin specific to the actual definition of species-no viable offspring reproduction cross species...what if science supports that there is a single primal/basic blueprint/recipe used for all the various trees but each tree is initiatd by God either by being producd from its medium (watr or earth) or formd by God utilizing its medium (watr or earth)... let's say n general, each kind was formd as follow; insects, birds, sea creatures, domesticating herds, felines, canines, field beasts and humans. would we need billions or even millions of years for living creatures/things to have evolved in this way? couldn't the fossils and bones indicating some "human like primates" simply be an ancient variation to the modern primates but not a genetic "cousin" to humans? hasn't all so-calld "missing link' suggestions been cited as frauds for various reasons...? is there any dating technique ancient remains & fossils, that is scientifclly reliable & veriable passd 6000 yrs...? tht answer is no, none whatsoevr...
question: isn't the statd & constant reference to th genetic similarities between chimps & humans misleading... since it has been discovered tht we r n other genetc aspects/ways more similar to pigs, mice & dolphins...?
.......................................................................................................................... the following is one of my obvious-to-me-bias speculations based on a article that i link to farther down. my bias is based on the possible connection of the garden of eden to the true meridian line of the earth at 30 degrees east and just about 30 degrees north (the site of the giza great pyramids). im speculating that there is a global connection between all pyramids but anchor by the most technological advanced pyramids. i hypothesize that the pyramids in effect form a pyramid if seen from the sky/heavens. the great pyramid may have been the top/apex of this topographical design. one of the objectives/ purpose of such an advance and intricate architectual system would have been to represent the heavens in their spiraling array of expansion. another objectives would have been to house the descendents of the 'sons of God and daughters of men" (the naphillin) when they died. another objectives would be to demonstrate for generations to come that they in fact existed, hence the use of stone. the most inticate pyramids and stone structures were have probably been made by the 'sons of God" themselves and their most immediate offsprings. the lesser structures were probably made by the descendents of increasing diluted angel material and more human dna. these descendants were still however, no less considered "royal" blood.
the following posts seem to make such an hypothesis plausible if not probable.
Nile River | river, Africa britannica.com Nile River, the father of African rivers and the longest river in the world. It rises south of the Equator and flows northward through northeastern Africa to drain into the
here's the jist of my speculation... could the source for the nile river be the indicator of the actual garden of eden? could the nile river be that single river that flowed out of the garden of eden as chronicled in the biblical txt (the region/area now called rhwanda, congo and tanzania)? could the nile river be the single river flowing up into egypt that eventually divided into 4 head waters across the continental ridge of the eastern border of the mediterranean sea? could the nile have been the source of the ancient and now disappeared pison river perhaps flowing across southern saudi arabia, and the source for the second river being the gihon encompassing the whole of what was the land of cush, but also now not apparrent? could the nile river be the actual source for the euphrates, and the hiddekel/'tigris" river?
are these the possible or perhaps probable sites where the biblical txt rivers originate from; the pishon, euphrates, "tigris" and the ?. if so, does that make the region of rawanda, the congo and tanzania the biblical txt; garden of eden?
what if the current understanding that human beings (homo sabiens sabiens, first populated that region south of ethiopia, and migrated from there, in relatively small numbers to other parts of the global land masses was in fact true?
does the region/the triangle including the nile from its source (thru the congo-uganda-rawanda-tanzania-zambia-malawi-mozambique region) up n2 its (unique) downstream flow into cairo, egypt, splitting across the eastern mediterranean sea fault/ridge across to jerusalem (possible the area where all 4 biblical rivers flowed thru) back down into the southern eastern region of africa, the source of the nile, have any substantial, unique, or hidden significance of spiritual, scientific and or social-political implications/knowldge/understandings. the sides of the triangle being cornered by point a of the source of the nile, point b being the giza great pyramid and point c perhaps the temple of jerusalem or the site of Jesus Christ crucifixtion. therefore segment ac would be the height of this triangle, segment bc would be the base of this triangel and segment ca would b the hypotanus.
what of the region within the borders of the nile, the mediterranean sea where it meets jeursalem or even the entire region of lebanon including the tigris river down to the persian gulf back west and south to the mozanbique source of the nile, is there any significance to this region with respect to the rest of the global area?