The Living-Cell

[ippy]

The Iron Chicken rules.

As one scientist to another Anchor_______________


Regards ippy.

[NicholasMarks]

Well, believe it or not, I have read quite a bit of the Bible. And I've certainly read the first pages many times. There it simply says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". What it does not say is "God took ownership of the universe"' let alone "he broke open the code of nature".
You're totally misrepresenting both the Bible and science. If you want to be taken seriously as a spiritual teacher, you would do well a) to get a reputable translation of the Bible b) not to deliberately misquote it.
And last but not least c) Learn some real science.

I will help you...In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Picasso created a few things but he didn't create  the brushes the canvas or the paints. He may have contributed towards the making of his tools but only in as much as they were already there. Almighty God qualifies this point in John...In the beginning was the 'word'...the science that endorsed and proved God's creation. The subtle difference between God and Picasso's creativity though is that by refining his science God made himself an indestructible, living limb...the Holy Voice, behind all he had created. How is this done, you might ask? Well Jesus Christ showed us how God's conversion from flesh to spirit was achieved...so that we have two accounts of the same science behind resurrection...Once in Heaven and once on Earth.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

I will help you...In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Picasso created a few things but he didn't create  the brushes the canvas or the paints. He may have contributed towards the making of his tools but only in as much as they were already there. Almighty God qualifies this point in John...In the beginning was the 'word'...the science that endorsed and proved God's creation. The subtle difference between God and Picasso's creativity though is that by refining his science God made himself an indestructible, living limb...the Holy Voice, behind all he had created. How is this done, you might ask? Well Jesus Christ showed us how God's conversion from flesh to spirit was achieved...so that we have two accounts of the same science behind resurrection...Once in Heaven and once on Earth.

Assertion 2, Science 0

[Anchorman]

I will help you...In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. Picasso created a few things but he didn't create  the brushes the canvas or the paints. He may have contributed towards the making of his tools but only in as much as they were already there. Almighty God qualifies this point in John...In the beginning was the 'word'...the science that endorsed and proved God's creation. The subtle difference between God and Picasso's creativity though is that by refining his science God made himself an indestructible, living limb...the Holy Voice, behind all he had created. How is this done, you might ask? Well Jesus Christ showed us how God's conversion from flesh to spirit was achieved...so that we have two accounts of the same science behind resurrection...Once in Heaven and once on Earth.

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."
There you go. John 1:1 from a REAL translation; translated by those skilled in the SCIENCE - repeat SCIENCE - of linguistics.
The chapter goes on to show that the Logos - the Word - God - became flesh and lived among us.
No pseudoscienti
fic trash.
The ACCURATE teaching of Jesus Christ - the Word - God Incarnate.
There you go, NM.
Ditch the neoGnostic gloop, would you,please?

[NicholasMarks]

In the Beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."
There you go. John 1:1 from a REAL translation; translated by those skilled in the SCIENCE - repeat SCIENCE - of linguistics.
The chapter goes on to show that the Logos - the Word - God - became flesh and lived among us.
No pseudoscienti
fic trash.
The ACCURATE teaching of Jesus Christ - the Word - God Incarnate.
There you go, NM.
Ditch the neoGnostic gloop, would you,please?

The accurate word or teaching or the following thereof, of Jesus Christ, is my complete and absolute message...anyone  following these principles are following the science of righteousness. There is no hatred or ridicule or besmirching in that message, so how come many who claim to be following Jesus speak with forked tongue.

The science is there for all to see and we are playing into the hands of the antiChrist when we use their arguments to justify the oppression of truth. The truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of Almighty God who was resurrected  and the reason he did it was to show us a science that, until now, defied our understanding. A single electric force that was churned up into a massive cloud of energy hurtling and spirelling through space cannot possibly be sterile...void, without a massive scientific story to tell...and what does the magnificent author of that story say...he humbly states...In the beginning He created the heavens and the Earth.

The universe is filled with science and uncovering that science in the time allowed has proven to be impossible without Biblical teaching and in particular  the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ...and if we refuse to believe Jesus we are refusing to be saved.



 

[Anchorman]

The accurate word or teaching or the following thereof, of Jesus Christ, is my complete and absolute message...anyone  following these principles are following the science of righteousness. There is no hatred or ridicule or besmirching in that message, so how come many who claim to be following Jesus speak with forked tongue.

The science is there for all to see and we are playing into the hands of the antiChrist when we use their arguments to justify the oppression of truth. The truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of Almighty God who was resurrected  and the reason he did it was to show us a science that, until now, defied our understanding. A single electric force that was churned up into a massive cloud of energy hurtling and spirelling through space cannot possibly be sterile...void, without a massive scientific story to tell...and what does the magnificent author of that story say...he humbly states...In the beginning He created the heavens and the Earth.

The universe is filled with science and uncovering that science in the time allowed has proven to be impossible without Biblical teaching and in particular  the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ...and if we refuse to believe Jesus we are refusing to be saved.



 

If you claim to follow Christ accurately, you mustaccept an accurate translation ofScripture.
Whichever way you try to dodge it, any accurate reading of John chapter one shows Jesus identified as God.
To deny this is to divorce yourself from Christian thinking....those 'millions of Christians' you bang on about recogninse Christ as God Incarnate, and Scripture as set down without pseudoscientific tripe and neoGnostic witterings for which you provide not one single link to verifiable, peer reviewed evidence.
Is it any wonder that, since you cannot - or will not - provide such substantiating evidence, that we treat your fantasies with disdain?
How many times have we asked you for evidence, only to receive yet more unsubstantiated witterings?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

The accurate word or teaching or the following thereof, of Jesus Christ, is my complete and absolute message...anyone  following these principles are following the science of righteousness. There is no hatred or ridicule or besmirching in that message, so how come many who claim to be following Jesus speak with forked tongue.

The science is there for all to see and we are playing into the hands of the antiChrist when we use their arguments to justify the oppression of truth. The truth is that Jesus Christ is the son of Almighty God who was resurrected  and the reason he did it was to show us a science that, until now, defied our understanding. A single electric force that was churned up into a massive cloud of energy hurtling and spirelling through space cannot possibly be sterile...void, without a massive scientific story to tell...and what does the magnificent author of that story say...he humbly states...In the beginning He created the heavens and the Earth.

The universe is filled with science and uncovering that science in the time allowed has proven to be impossible without Biblical teaching and in particular  the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ...and if we refuse to believe Jesus we are refusing to be saved.

Still not one scrap of science in your speculations then I see. Ah well.

Assertions 3, Science 0.

[NicholasMarks]

If you claim to follow Christ accurately, you mustaccept an accurate translation ofScripture.
Whichever way you try to dodge it, any accurate reading of John chapter one shows Jesus identified as God.
To deny this is to divorce yourself from Christian thinking....those 'millions of Christians' you bang on about recogninse Christ as God Incarnate, and Scripture as set down without pseudoscientific tripe and neoGnostic witterings for which you provide not one single link to verifiable, peer reviewed evidence.
Is it any wonder that, since you cannot - or will not - provide such substantiating evidence, that we treat your fantasies with disdain?
How many times have we asked you for evidence, only to receive yet more unsubstantiated witterings?

If we read Jesus accurately we find there is a bigger truth wrapped up in his teaching...

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 1 (Corinthians 3:2)

I am feeding you with the 'meat'...the science behind righteousness...The structure behind the entire Book of Almighty God, using modern science for my observations, calculations, anticipations, and expectations...if the meat is too bitter I suggest we follow Jesus Christ accurately and thereby temper the full meaning of the science, in an honest, respectable, righteous way...but please avoid iniquity...that is a mill-stone inflicted by Satan.

It should never be a burden to follow Jesus accurately other than reading his word and interpreting it honestly, openly, and righteously. Ignoring him breeds the world that we are living in today and frankly, it is deplorable.

 

[NicholasMarks]

NM,

Still not one scrap of science in your speculations then I see. Ah well.

Assertions 3, Science 0.

Read the above post...My science sits on top of the worlds sciences. That means that I have researched their observations and find it fits in nicely with Biblical teaching if we look at it all righteously. How you can be surrounded by energy and say it didn't exist in a purer state beforehand defies all logic as well as all science. Even renowned scientists have agreed. No...your denial indicates to me that you are supporting a dogmatic reasoning that doesn't fit in with righteousness or science.

 

[Anchorman]

If we read Jesus accurately we find there is a bigger truth wrapped up in his teaching...

I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 1 (Corinthians 3:2)

I am feeding you with the 'meat'...the science behind righteousness...The structure behind the entire Book of Almighty God, using modern science for my observations, calculations, anticipations, and expectations...if the meat is too bitter I suggest we follow Jesus Christ accurately and thereby temper the full meaning of the science, in an honest, respectable, righteous way...but please avoid iniquity...that ia a mill-stone inflicted by Satan.

It should never be a burden to follow Jesus accurately other than reading his word and interpreting it honestly, openly, and righteously. Ignoring him breeds the world that we are living in today and frankly, it is deplorable.

 

Using modern science?
Where?
Where's your evidence?
Where are the links?
You have posted falsehood after falsehood, with not one single link to substantiate your 'research'.
Real research depends on using the available evidence to create a theory.
OK....where's your evidence?
Post it, or stop writing stuff which has no basis  in either science or theology.

[NicholasMarks]

Using modern science?
Where?
Where's your evidence?
Where are the links?
You have posted falsehood after falsehood, with not one single link to substantiate your 'research'.
Real research depends on using the available evidence to create a theory.
OK....where's your evidence?
Post it, or stop writing stuff which has no basis  in either science or theology.

If the research wasn't so huge, so diversified, and so technical...I would indeed break it down into elements of easier to understand parts...but the Holy Bible says that time is against us...and there is a deep and scientifically satisfying teaching hidden in plain sight...It is the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and reading about it honestly, openly, individually and realising it is all truth is a much more constructive way of doing things. The only exception to this are the innocent who are automatically considered righteous by default.

[torridon]

If the research wasn't so huge, so diversified, and so technical...I would indeed break it down into elements of easier to understand parts...but the Holy Bible says that time is against us...and there is a deep and scientifically satisfying teaching hidden in plain sight...It is the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and reading about it honestly, openly, individually and realising it is all truth is a much more constructive way of doing things. The only exception to this are the innocent who are automatically considered righteous by default.

There isn't any research to support your wilder claims.  Do yourself a favour, stop lying and start engaging honestly with people.

[Anchorman]

There isn't any research to support your wilder claims.  Do yourself a favour, stop lying and start engaging honestly with people.

Wot Gordon said.

[NicholasMarks]

There isn't any research to support your wilder claims.  Do yourself a favour, stop lying and start engaging honestly with people.

I think you are doing a bluehillside on me...but even so here is the truth. Science calls it a big-bang but cannot justify how all the energy contained in the universe sprang from their singularity. I say, we must look beyond the big-bang. That there is a superabundant energy that has always been and always will be. It drifted around space...gathering into huge, dense galaxy bearing clouds, of light-year proportions. Before the big-bang there must have been a static universe...same space...same energy but no time what-so-ever...this all changed when neighbouring clouds drifted into each other...their extremely dense cores set upon claiming the centre position causing a massive collision which split the universe into two dimensions and from this all science sprung into life and the supporting evidence is contained within the Holy Bible.

 

[Anchorman]

I think you are doing a bluehillside on me...but even so here is the truth. Science calls it a big-bang but cannot justify how all the energy contained in the universe sprang from their singularity. I say, we must look beyond the big-bang. That there is a superabundant energy that has always been and always will be. It drifted around space...gathering into huge, dense galaxy bearing clouds, of light-year proportions. Before the big-bang there must have been a static universe...same space...same energy but no time what-so-ever...this all changed when neighbouring clouds drifted into each other...their extremely dense cores set upon claiming the centre position causing a massive collision which split the universe into two dimensions and from this all science sprung into life and the supporting evidence is contained within the Holy Bible.

 

WHERE'S
YOUR
EVIDENCE?

[torridon]

I think you are doing a bluehillside on me...but even so here is the truth. Science calls it a big-bang but cannot justify how all the energy contained in the universe sprang from their singularity. I say, we must look beyond the big-bang. That there is a superabundant energy that has always been and always will be. It drifted around space...gathering into huge, dense galaxy bearing clouds, of light-year proportions. Before the big-bang there must have been a static universe...same space...same energy but no time what-so-ever...this all changed when neighbouring clouds drifted into each other...their extremely dense cores set upon claiming the centre position causing a massive collision which split the universe into two dimensions and from this all science sprung into life and the supporting evidence is contained within the Holy Bible.

Fantasy with no basis in science or scripture. An honest reading of scripture without exaggeration or distortion reveals an understanding of cosmology that is consistent with the times and culture of the ancient Hebrews.  They believed in a static and flat Earth with heavens above, a geocentric cosmological model. We now know, this is wrong, of course.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

Read the above post...My science sits on top of the worlds sciences. That means that I have researched their observations and find it fits in nicely with Biblical teaching if we look at it all righteously. How you can be surrounded by energy and say it didn't exist in a purer state beforehand defies all logic as well as all science. Even renowned scientists have agreed. No...your denial indicates to me that you are supporting a dogmatic reasoning that doesn't fit in with righteousness or science.

First your repeated howlers about even primary school-level science tells us that you don't have the first clue about what science actually tells us. You have researched nothing, and certainly you have understood none of it even if you have.

Second, science isn't just an accumulation of knowledge - it's a process that I've explained several times to you now but about which you seem to be blissfuly unaware nonetheless. If you want to claim your speculations and assertions to be science, then you have to apply that process to them. Just saying "it's science" is ludicrous.

Third, actual science doesn't "fit with" bible teaching at all. Rather science is indifferent to biblical claims (as it is to the claims of other supposedly holy texts) because none of them offer anything with which the tools of science can engage.

Fourth, "righteous" is just a vapid term you like to use but it has no part to play in science (or in epistemology for that matter). Facts and evidence are facts an evidence regardless of how "righteous" you may tell yourself you are.

Fifth, accusing me of "supporting a dogmatic reasoning that doesn't fit in with righteousness or science" is just more lying. Nothing can "fit with righteousness" because that's just a piece of stupidity you like to throw around without bothering to define it, and telling me that I don't "fit in with science" is a bizarre reversal of the facts as it's me who's explaing to you what that term actually entails and you who proceeds in your profound ignorance of it nonetheless.

Apart from all that though...

Assertions 4, Science 0.   
 
   

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

If the research wasn't so huge, so diversified, and so technical...I would indeed break it down into elements of easier to understand parts...but the Holy Bible says that time is against us...and there is a deep and scientifically satisfying teaching hidden in plain sight...It is the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ and reading about it honestly, openly, individually and realising it is all truth is a much more constructive way of doing things. The only exception to this are the innocent who are automatically considered righteous by default.

You haven't done any research. Stop lying.

Assertions 5, Science 0.

[NicholasMarks]

WHERE'S
YOUR
EVIDENCE?

The evidence begins with sciences complete fabrication of the facts. That their singularity, from which they elevate their own reasoning and authority, has no justification...which makes my honest rendition, extracted from the Holy Bible, more plausible. By bhsR's reasoning, me (1) Science (0).

No...the propagation of intense shock-waves pervaded the static universe and these mass-less clouds of dense energy were quickly spinning away from the epicentre...internally swirling up into many multi-headed tornado forces, of galaxy size, and proportions, and every eye of every tornado was sucking in even denser balls of energy and swirling them up their columns, one after the other, before, centrifugally, releasing them out into space and into the galaxy formation they exist in today...and science can't argue against it because all the evidence says the same thing. There are two types of galaxy which means that some were constructed in this way, and some by colliding into neighbouring clouds...just as the original forces did.

[Anchorman]

The evidence begins with sciences complete fabrication of the facts. That their singularity, from which they elevate their own reasoning and authority, has no justification...which makes my honest rendition, extracted from the Holy Bible, more plausible. By bhsR's reasoning, me (1) Science (0).

No...the propagation of intense shock-waves pervaded the static universe and these mass-less clouds of dense energy were quickly spinning away from the epicentre...internally swirling up into many multi-headed tornado forces, of galaxy size, and proportions, and every eye of every tornado was sucking in even denser balls of energy and swirling them up their columns, one after the other, before, centrifugally, releasing them out into space and into the galaxy formation they exist in today...and science can't argue against it because all the evidence says the same thing. There are two types of galaxy which means that some were constructed in this way, and some by colliding into neighbouring clouds...just as the original forces did.

 


This is not evidence, this is assertion.
On what EVIDENCE do you base your assertion?
Links, please.

[jjohnjil]

Well done, Sparky!

Now that you've proved that every scientist in the world is lying through his and her teeth and none of the internationally acclaimed cosmologists know anything and are taking their salaries under false pretenses, you will go down in history as the greatest mind of them all!

Or maybe not.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

The evidence begins with sciences complete fabrication of the facts. That their singularity, from which they elevate their own reasoning and authority, has no justification...which makes my honest rendition, extracted from the Holy Bible, more plausible. By bhsR's reasoning, me (1) Science (0).

So now you're accusing the scientists working in the field of "complete fabrication" despite the fact that they rely on facts and evidence and observation and testable theories, whereas all you have is mindless assertion.

Oh, and you've completely misrepresented my reasoning too.

Nice.

No...the propagation of intense shock-waves pervaded the static universe and these mass-less clouds of dense energy were quickly spinning away from the epicentre...internally swirling up into many multi-headed tornado forces, of galaxy size, and proportions, and every eye of every tornado was sucking in even denser balls of energy and swirling them up their columns, one after the other, before, centrifugally, releasing them out into space and into the galaxy formation they exist in today...and science can't argue against it because all the evidence says the same thing. There are two types of galaxy which means that some were constructed in this way, and some by colliding into neighbouring clouds...just as the original forces did.

Total gibberish. Seek help.

[NicholasMarks]

NM,

So now you're accusing the scientists working in the field of "complete fabrication" despite the fact that they rely on facts and evidence and observation and testable theories, whereas all you have is mindless assertion.

Oh, and you've completely misrepresented my reasoning too.

Nice.

Total gibberish. Seek help.

I know that there is no appeasing you...The more I say, the more you will snarl and bluster, with rhetorical hostility. It is obeying emotional laws which Jesus Christ guides us away from because it is harmful. But I have a job to do...and, perhaps, those teetering on the edge, and who are hearing what I am saying will know that the accidental nature of space, and the not so accidental nature of man, are preparing for a huge Biblically prophesied event, and repentance is the best advice on offer.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NM,

I know that there is no appeasing you...

Of course there is. You could easily “appease” me (and anyone else possessed of a functioning intellect) if you’d just listen to what’s being explained to you and act on it. You could for example finally try at least to demonstrate some application of the scientific method to your claims and assertions

The more I say, the more you will snarl and bluster, with rhetorical hostility.

I do none of those things – I simply dismantle your idiocy and hopelessness with reason.

It is obeying emotional laws which Jesus Christ guides us away from because it is harmful.

There's no such thing as “emotional laws” – that’s just more nonsense that you’ve made up.

But I have a job to do...and, perhaps, those teetering on the edge, and who are hearing what I am saying will know that the accidental nature of space, and the not so accidental nature of man, are preparing for a huge Biblically prophesied event, and repentance is the best advice on offer.

Only if those people are very credulous – the rest of us though can identify that you’re either delusional or dishonest. Or both.

[NicholasMarks]

NM,

Of course there is. You could easily “appease” me (and anyone else possessed of a functioning intellect) if you’d just listen to what’s being explained to you and act on it. You could for example finally try at least to demonstrate some application of the scientific method to your claims and assertions

I do none of those things – I simply dismantle your idiocy and hopelessness with reason.

There's no such thing as “emotional laws” – that’s just more nonsense that you’ve made up.

Only if those people are very credulous – the rest of us though can identify that you’re either delusional or dishonest. Or both.

Hmmm...No such things as emotional laws? Tell that to all those who are bullied on a regular basis...How it leaves them drained and defenceless. How the bully tricks and deceives to appease an inner emotional need. The same emotional laws that are often portrayed as being more painful than serious physical injury.

Your reluctance to accept the science because you don't understand it just tells us how divorced you are from Biblical speak. Jesus alone talks of the genetic response that a healthier attitude breeds...he says ignore the injury but safeguard your emotional strength...not in those words, but in these words, that if someone hits you in the face, turn the other cheek.

Now...religion perpetuates Christian love, caring and kindness whilst those with no interest make silly quotes like the footnote about Arthur C Clarke's which says religion isn't required for a good attitude, but, without Jesus Christ's teaching why is there a global congregation, a global, cancerous tumour, of the most appalling attitudes conceivable.