First, read the story at the link . . .
Well, for those who have been on my friends list for over a year, or who have read through my early posts, you may well remember that I was working on a theory along this line – a theory where Atlantis existed as a pre-Biblical Flood society which was more advanced than we are today scientifically.
Another thing that I included in the soup for my theory was my idea that the real reason we only find fossilized remains of dinosaurs today is that they were not natural creations – they were, in fact, man-made. A product/s of genetic engineering. THAT was the sin of “making himself equal with god” which brought about God’s wrath and caused the great FLOOD. Dinosaurs didn’t survive the flood because they weren’t allowed on the ark – the Bible specifically, and repeatedly, says that the only creatures allowed on the ark were those “that God hath created”. This implies, due to the shear volume of repetition, that there were species of animals alive at the time which God had not put on the earth.
And, now, humanity is reaching for the brass ring again. We didn’t learn from the first time, so we’re going to force the hand and bring about the second Apocalypse – aka: Armageddon.
Damn it, I feel like I know how Noah felt 6,000 years ago. We’re surrounded by the foolishness and arrogance of humanity, and powerless to do anything short of watching it destroy itself.
I guess I was right. Again. What really irks me is being right about predicting humanity stooping down to the worst it is capable of. It’s time for anyone who doesn’t want to be brought down by this to start looking for a way to live outside the reach of “the mark of the beast.” Here are some links to kick start your search:
9 thoughts on “Watch OUT! This is very important . . .”
Brave New World, meet 1984!
The first part (the article re. DNA manipulation) is a biological nightmare. Everything mankind has ever made is imperfect and temporary at best, and causes more problems than it solves at worst!
Humankind’s (this applies to guys esp. — I should know, I live with them!) famous last words: “I know what I’m doing. Trust me.”
As to the latter part, do you mean verichips? I’ve heard about them a few times…
Jeeezzzz! Vernon, you are right. Leaping into this kind of experimentation sounds like folly. Although I have to do is to look around at the kudzu that was brought here as a “Bright idea” or think about other environmental blunders, and it is clear that we need to look many generations ahead before embracing some of these ideas.
For a long time, man could climb new mountains just because they are there. However, the more complex the technology, the greater the risks of climbing these new mountains.
I don’t think it’s so much a case of stupidity, as a bad context that we’re working in.
I think we’re being blindsided. We’ve almost abandoned cohesion in other areas of our lives such as maintaining the family, defining mutually supported roles in life, applying workable philosophy and spirituality. As a logical consequence, other areas–including scientific development–don’t naturally look ahead to how they fit into the broader picture.
In fact, I think that we have become more shortsighted while, at the same time, technology demands far greater vision.
Thanks for posting that link. I’m going to link to it as well .
Re: Brave New World, meet 1984!
Well, there are some people who think that verichips are “the mark of the beast.” I don’t, but I do think that they are an easy way for our governments to track us, monitor our activities and associations, and even know what we eat. Once they get that kind of power, what is to stop the FDA from wanting access to the information, to try to enforce our compliance with their idea of a “balanced diet.” Heck, the FDA is already trying to do away with OTC herbals/minerals/vits just because it cuts into the profitability of big medicine and big pharmaceutical companies. Do we really want them to have access to everything we do? With a verichip, they can!
But, the mark of the beast is something much different. Keep in mind that, in the time when the prophecy about it was written, the primary languages of the developed world were Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. The prophecy itself was written in Greek. The Greek alphabet is similar to the Roman numeral system, each letter has a numerical value. Got that?
Now, look at the prophecy itself. Rev. 13:16-18
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or on their foreheads: and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man: and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” King James Version
Ok, it says that the beast will force people to receive a mark on either their hands or foreheads – that could easilly apply to the verichips. However, the mark is not stated to be the number 666. That number is the number of a man – his NAME. Yeah, you got it – the prophecy actually tells us who the beast will be, if we can put the puzzle together, with all the pieces intact and arranged to fit. This piece, one of the last ones given to us, can’t be weighed without all of the others, but it must fit to work.
So, using the numbering system for the Greek/Roman alphabet, we just have to check names until we come up with one that adds up to the number 666, then check that name against all other prophecy about the beast to see if the match fits the puzzle.
Well, brighter minds than mine have already done all of that. I don’t remember the exact count, but they catalogued over 30 (I think nearly 60) different specific prophecies about the beast. One in particular tells us that the beast will receive a mortal wound to the head, yet survive. Another tells us that he will reign for a thousand years after sweeping enemies out of his way – before his mortal head wound. That one tells us that we aren’t looking for a specific individual, like Sadaam Husein or Osama binLaden, or even President Bush. It can’t be any of them, because none of them are even remotely close to 1000 years old. But, there are some TITLES that are now over 1000 years old. And one of those titles just happens to belong to an OFFICE that has fulfilled nearly every other prophecy about the beast.
Now, I’m going to pull a “Paul Harvey.” I’m going to make you ask for . . . “The rest of the story.” Mwuuhahahahahah
Re: Brave New World, meet 1984!
So I’m asking……
Give me the Titles..
Re: Brave New World, meet 1984!
Sorry I didn’t get right back to you. I injured my back about 2 weeks ago, and haven’t been sleeping much. As a result, my brain is pretty much turning to jello right now.
I don’t want to try to give you the answer, and misspell it, and then get called a liar. So, I’m going to give you a good hint:
Find the latin version of the title “Vicar of Christ” and then apply the Roman Number system to each letter of that title, then add all the values together.
Uhmmmm. . . . let’s see. Who is “The Vicar of Christ”?
Re: Brave New World, meet 1984!
Oh, and another thing:
I don’t want anyone to think that because I’ve put this on the internet that I’m somehow “anti-Catholic”. I’ve met many very fine people who are practicing Catholics. As with most of the religions I’ve ever studied or been a member of, the problems aren’t at the bottom, among the rank and file, they are at the top. This is especially true in the Roman Catholic Church. I mean, really – what can you say about a person who would even allow other people to call him by a title that ebmodies the phrase “the person Jesus would have to confess sin to, if he’d ever sinned.” Nobody walking this planet EVER qualified for such a position.
Re: Text of the article – part 1
I remembered that one other time I posted a link to an article, the article got pulled after a few days, and the link became dead. So, I’ve decided to post the article here, reprinted in it’s entirity as copy/pasted from Iwon.com’s website.
– – – – – – – –
Aug 18, 9:43 PM (ET)
By PAUL ELIAS
BERKELEY, Calif. (AP) – They’re called “synthetic biologists” and they boldly claim the ability to make never-before-seen living things, one genetic molecule at a time.
They’re mixing, matching and stacking DNA’s chemical components like microscopic Lego blocks in an effort to make biologically based computers, medicines and alternative energy sources. The rapidly expanding field is confounding the taxonomists’ centuries-old system of classifying species and raising concerns about the new technology’s potential for misuse.
Though scientists have been combining the genetic material of two species for 30 years now, their work has remained relatively simplistic.
Scientists might add one foreign gene to an organism to produce a drug like insulin. The technique is more art than science given the brute trial-and-error it takes to create cells that make drugs.
So a new breed of biologists is attempting to bring order to the hit-and-miss chaos of genetic engineering by bringing to biotechnology the same engineering strategies used to build computers, bridges and buildings.
The idea is to separate cells into their fundamental components and then rebuild new organisms, a much more complex way of genetic engineering.
The burgeoning movement is attracting big money and some of the biggest names in biology, many of whom are attending the “Life Engineering Symposium” that begins Friday in San Francisco.
“Synthetic biology is genetic engineering rethought,” said Harvard Medical Center researcher George Church, a leader in the field. “It challenges the notion of what’s natural and what’s synthetic.”
Already, synthetic biologists have created a polio virus and another smaller virus by stitching together individual genes purchased from biotechnology companies.
Now, researchers are getting closer to creating more complex living things with actual utility.
In Israel, scientists have created the world’s smallest computer by engineering DNA to carry out mathematical functions.
Re: Text of the article – part 2
J. Craig Venter, the entrepreneurial scientist who mapped the human genome, announced last month that he intends to string together genes to create from scratch novel organisms that can produce alternative fuels such as hydrogen and ethanol.
With a $42.6 million grant that originated at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Berkeley researchers are creating a new malaria drug by removing genetic material of the E. coli bacterium and replacing it with genes from wormwood and yeast.
“We’re building parts that can be assembled into devices and devices that can be turned into systems,” said Jay Keasling, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Berkeley synthetic biology department, which was created last year.
Keasling, who doubles as a chemical engineering professor at the University of California, Berkeley, hopes to create never-before-seen living molecules by fusing genes from the three species – a new breed of bacteria capable of spitting out malaria-fighting artemisinin, a chemical now found only in small traces in the wormwood plant.
Artemisinin has been extracted from finely ground sweet wormwood for more than 2,000 years as a treatment for a variety of ailments, but the method is expensive, time consuming and limited by access to wormwood, which is found mainly in China and Vietnam.
Keasling has a similar project in the works to synthetically create a compound now found in Samoan trees, one that shows promise in fighting AIDS.
Such efforts are attracting more than grant money.
A group of topflight venture capitalists led by Vinod Khosla of the Menlo Park-based Perkins, Caufield & Byers invested $13 million in Codon Devices of Cambridge, Mass., which was co-founded by Keasling and Church. Keasling also co-founded Amyris Biotechnologies of Emeryville to build microbes that will produce novel or rare drugs.
Venter, meanwhile, has launched Synthetic Genomics Inc. with Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith and will compete with Codon and several other recent startups to commercialize the technology.
But with success also comes ethical questions.
For example, national security experts and even synthetic biologists themselves fret that rogue scientists or “biohackers” could create new biological weapons – like deadly viruses that lack natural foes. They also worry about innocent mistakes – organisms that could potentially create havoc if allowed to reproduce outside the lab.
“There are certainly a lot of national security implications with synthetic biology,” said Gigi Kwik Gronvall, a researcher at the University of Pittsburgh’s Center for Biosecurity.
Researchers are casting about for ways to self-police the field before it really takes off. One solution could be to require the few companies that sell genetic material to register with some official entity and report biologists who order DNA strains with weapons potential.
The Arthur P. Sloan Foundation in June awarded the Venter Institute, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Center for Strategic and International Studies a $570,000 grant to study the social implications of the new field.
“There are a cascade of ecological issues,” said Laurie Zoloth, a bioethics professor at Northwestern University. “Synthetic biology is like iron: You can make sewing needles and you can make spears. Of course, there is going to be dual use.”