Miracolul celulei

In cei 150 de ani care au trecut de la Charles Darwin, știința și tehnologia au făcut pași uriași pe calea cunoașterii. Cercetătorii au descoperit structura celulei. Au aflat cu surprindere că celula are un sistem atât de complex, încât ar fi fost de neimaginat pe vremea lui Darwin. Cu ajutorul unei grafici computerizate de excepție, acest film documentar te va purta într-o călătorie unică în măruntaiele mecanismelor celulei. Vei descoperi “calculatorul” central al celulei, mașina care fabrică mașini și paznicii care decid dacă intrusul este hrană sau inamic. Știința primitivă a lui Darwin nu ar fi putut anticipa niciodată așa ceva.

Trecuți prin sistemul educațional tradițional, odată desensibilizat, individul rămâne orb în fața miracolelor și evenimentelor extraordinare care îl înconjoară. Ajuns în acest stadiu, se zbate să răspundă la o singură întrebare: “Cum au luat ființă toate aceste vietăți?”. Iar aici, falsul salvator al teoriei evoluției speciilor îi vine în ajutor. Prezintă sub aparențe științifice ideea fără sens că tot ceea ce e viu există datorită unei coincidențe.

Documentarul –

The theory of evolution was advanced by Charles Darwin in the middle of the 19th century. That period greatly differed from today in terms of its extremely poor level of science and technology. 19th century scientists had to work in simple laboratories with quite primitive equipment. With the devices then available, it was impossible for them to view even bacteria.
Furthermore, scientists were still under the influence of many superstitious beliefs upheld since the Middle Ages.
One of these superstitious beliefs was that life had a simple form. Going as far back as Aristotle, this belief maintained that life could self-originate by the coincidental assembly of inanimate matter in a moist milieu.
While developing his theory, Darwin relied on the belief that life basically had a simple structure. Other biologists who adopted and defended Darwin’s theory thought the same way. For instance, the greatest advocate of Darwinism in Germany, Ernst Haeckel supposed that the living cell, which could only be viewed as a dark spot under the microscopes of that time, had a very simple structure. In one of his articles, he referred to the cell as „a simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon”.
The theory of evolution was based on assumptions such as these. The pioneers of evolutionary theory like Haeckel, Darwin and Huxley thought that life had a very simple form and that this simple form could originate by itself as a result of chance.
However, they were mistaken.
In the one and a half centuries that have passed since Darwin’s day, giant steps have been taken in science and technology. Scientists discovered the structure of the cell to which Haeckel referred as „a simple little lump of albuminous combination of carbon”. They saw with surprise that it is not simple at all as earlier supposed. It was revealed that the cell has a system so complex as to have been unimaginable in Darwin’s time.
A renowned molecular biologist, Michael Denton, makes the following analogy to describe what kind of a structure the cell has:
To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. (Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1986, p. 328)

What Darwin didn’t know

From Charisma magazine online  February 2009 issue  (via) Reasons to Believe (a great apologetics org.) Article written by by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana:

When Charles Darwin advanced his theory of biological evolution, there was a lot of biology he didn’t know. Some of it he recognized. But there was much he never even thought about.

During the 150 years since then, scientific advance has yielded important understanding about life’s origin, history and characteristics. These accomplishments provide the framework for modern biology. Even more, they are causing scientists to question his theory. Learning what scientists know will equip Christians with a response to the Darwin anniversaries and his theory of biological evolution that can change minds and lives.

Darwin didn’t address life’s start in his seminal work, The Origin of Species. However, in 1871, while writing to a friend, Darwin speculated that the first spark of life may have taken place in a „warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, so that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes.”

Mai mult

Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist (via) The Telegraph (UK)


Richard Dawkins & Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury)

Image via the BBC.UK

One perplexing thing I noticed in this discussion is that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who speaks on behalf of Anglicans as the Pope speaks on behalf of Catholics worldwide) does not believe in literal Creation or a historical Adam. He actually believes that the writers of the Bible did not know physics and so they wrote in their own understanding, yet even more troubling is the fact that he believes that „human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”. Dawkins pointed out to Archbishop Rowan that the Pope does take a literal understanding of Creation. Given the relationship between a literal belief in an Adam and Eve which affects the way one looks at the entire Bible, is it a wonder that the United Kingdom  slips into secularism more and more?

The video has now been posted here on Youtube:

Story by By , Religious Affairs Editor from the UK’s Telegraph Newspaper. Read entire story here.

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.

For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed „The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin” touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.

At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.

Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”

Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”

Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.

He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

 Watch a short clip from the debate (so far the only available video) and read entire story here.

Video of the Week – A Matter Of Time: How Dating Methods Work

Bruce Malone lecture from MediaFire.com

Most people realize that evolution requires the belief in billions of years of earth history. Yet few people are aware that majority of dating methods indicate the earth is too young for evolution to have happened.

The foundation of old age dating methods, upon which the assumption of an old earth (and evolution) rest, is radiometric dating. This lecture shows how radiometric methods are misinterpreted to give erroneously old dates. Sadly, you won’t find this evidence mentioned in your child’s textbook, science magazines, nor museums because science has been redefined to eliminate the consideration of God’s existence.

On a side note: There is a very, very interesting point made in this video by Bruce Malone. He points out that God worked at Creation for 6 days and rested on the 7th day. God then commanded man do the same when he established the Sabbath as one of His commandments. Malone then argues, if it took God billions of yeas to work i.e create then was God commanding that we ourselves work billions of years and then rest in the Sabbath?

Uploaded by 

Marvin Olasky moderates Creation/Evolution panel at Biola University Oct.2010

Marvin Olaski of World Magazine moderates a highly educational debate from the perspective of Young Earth Creationists at Biola University. This debate is highly recommended for adults and especially for high school and collegeage kids.

Mai mult

Was life begun by chance? Not a chance! via Beliefnet

I remember learning about the Big Bang theory,

Mai mult

Did Moses really write Genesis? Russell Grigg

Creation Ministries International via Apologetics315

A deadly hypothesis denying that Moses had anything to do with Genesis, based on spurious scholarship, is still widely being taught to future Christian leaders.

by Russell Grigg

Egyptian ruins

Egyptian ruins. Internal evidences in the text of the Pentateuch indicate that the author was familiar with Egyptian customs, as would be expected of Moses.

Nearly all liberal Bible colleges and seminaries, and sadly some which profess conservative evangelical doctrine, approvingly teach the ‘documentary hypothesis’, also known as the ‘JEDP hypothesis’.

What is the documentary hypothesis?

This is the liberal/critical view which denies that Moses wrote Genesis to Deuteronomy. It teaches that various anonymous authors compiled these five books (plus other portions of the Old Testament) from centuries of oral tradition, up to 900 years after Moses lived (if, in this view, he even existed). These hypothetical narrators are designated as follows:

  • J (standing for what the documentary hypothesists would term Jahwist) supposedly lived about 900–850 BC. He/she/they allegedly gathered the myths and legends of Babylon and other nations, and added them to the ‘camp-fire stories’ of the Hebrews, producing those biblical passages where the Hebrew letters YHWH (‘Jehovah’) are used as the name of God.
  • E (standing for Elohist) supposedly lived about 750–700 BC in the northern kingdom (Israel), and wrote those passages where ’Elohim is used as the word for God.
  • D supposedly wrote most of Deuteronomy, probably the book found in the temple in Jerusalem in 621 BC. (2 Kings 22:8).
  • P supposedly represents a Priest (or priests) who lived during the exile in Babylon and allegedly composed a code of holiness for the people.
  • Various editors R (from German Redakteur) supposedly put it all together.

The idea of multiple authorship of these books was first proposed by Jean Astruc in Paris in 1753. However, the foremost exponent was Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918), who ‘restated the Documentary Hypothesis … in terms of the evolutionary view of history which was prevalent in philosophical circles at the time’.1,2 He claimed that those parts of the Old Testament that dealt with sophisticated doctrine (one God, the Ten Commandments, the tabernacle, etc.) were not truth revealed by the living God, but were ideas that evolved from lower stages of thinking, including polytheism, animism, ancestor worship, etc.3 Hence the ‘need’ to find or fabricate later authors. One of the main arguments was that writing had supposedly not been invented yet at the time of Moses.

Thus the documentary hypothesis undermines the authenticity of the Genesis Creation/Fall/Flood accounts, as well as the whole patriarchal history of Israel. It presupposes that the whole of the Old Testament is one gigantic literary fraud, and calls into question not only the integrity of Moses, but also the trustworthiness/divinity of Jesus (see point 5 below). No wonder the critics have embraced it so warmly!

Was Moses J, E, D, P, or R?

Answer: He was none of the above. Rather, Moses himself was both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, and these five books were composed by him in about 1400 BC , not by unknowns at the time of the Exile. This does not mean that Moses did not use other written sources available to him (see later), or that he wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy 34 that record his death. Talmudic (Rabbinic Jewish) tradition has always been that these were added, under divine inspiration, by Joshua.

There is no external evidence at all in support of J, E, D, P, or R. What were their names? What else did these alleged literary savants write? History, both Hebrew and secular, knows nothing of them. They exist only in the fertile imaginations of the inventors of the documentary hypothesis.

Evidence for Moses authorship of the Pentateuch

Clay tabletsClay tablets like this were ideal for long-term written records. Far from ‘Flintstones’ clumsiness, these could be held in one hand.
Patriarchal records may have been carried on the Ark, later used by Moses in compiling Genesis (under inspiration).

The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming:

  1. Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Iraelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4
  2. The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.8
  3. The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.
  4. Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13.
  5. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
  6. Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28.

Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of
Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.

There are 11 verses in Genesis which read, ‘These are (or ‘This is the book of’) the generations of …’ The Hebrew word toledoth translated ‘generations’ can also mean ‘origins’, ‘history’, or even ‘family history’, and each verse comes either before or after a description of historical events that involved the person named.9 The most likely explanation is that Adam, Noah, Shem, etc. each wrote an account of the events that occurred either right before or during his lifetime, and Moses, under the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, selected, compiled, and edited these to produce Genesis in its present cohesive form.10

Genesis does not show a progress from idolatry to monotheism, as Wellhausen’s evolutionism requires. Rather, the Bible begins with an original revelation of God, which was later rejected to the point that the Hebrew nation itself descended into idolatry and so was given over to captivity by God.

What about the different words used for God?

Let us consider this in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. The word ’Elohim is used for God 25 times in Genesis 1:1–2:4a.11 It has the idea of an awesome and faithful Being, having creative and governing power, majesty and omnipotence, who is above the material world He created. It is a lofty title (= ‘God’) and is the appropriate word for Moses to have used for the first factual report of God’s creative activities.12

In Genesis chapter 2 from verse 4, the Hebrew uses the letters YHWH to refer to God. Sometimes translated ‘Jehovah’, it is more often translated ‘LORD’ (in small capitals), and is the most commonly used term for God in the Old Testament (6,823 times). It means ‘the One who always was, now is, and ever shall be’ and is the deeply personal name of God. It is therefore used in His personal and covenant relationships with people. Genesis 2:4b ff is the detailed account of how God made Adam and Eve, and of the setting He prepared for them.13 Here they were meant to live and work in loving covenantal fellowship with Him14 and with each other. It was entirely appropriate therefore that Moses should have used YHWH in writing this section of Genesis. In Genesis 2, YHWH is joined to ‘Elohim to form the compound name YHWH-’Elohim (= the Lord God). This identifies the covenant God YHWH as being one and the same as ’Elohim, the almighty creator. There is no logical reason (particularly any based on the term used for God) to ascribe this account to any other author(s).

The same principles apply in the rest of Genesis and throughout the Old Testament.

The JEDP system is self-contradictory, as its proponents need to break verses into sections and even credit parts of sentences (that use more than one term for God) to different writers. Such a hotchpotch would be unique in ancient Middle Eastern literature.

The ‘scholarship’ used to promote the documentary hypothesis would be laughed out of court if applied to any other ancient book!

Computer agrees: Genesis had only one author

The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982:

‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’


Ultimately, the author of Genesis was God, working through Moses. This does not mean that God used Moses as a ‘typewriter’. Rather, God prepared Moses for his task from the day he was born. When the time came, Moses had all the necessary data, and was infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit as to what he included and what he left out. This is consistent with known history, and with the claims and principles of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15–17; 2 Peter 1:20–21).

On the other hand there is no historical evidence, and no spiritual or theological basis whatsoever for the deceptive JEDP hypothesis. Its teaching is completely false; the ‘scholarship’ that promotes it is totally spurious. Propped up by the theory of evolution, it exists solely to undermine the authority of the Word of God.

Related articles

References and notes

  1. Josh McDowell, More Evidence that Demands a Verdict, Here’s Life Publishers, 1981, p. 45. Return to text.
  2. Notable exponents of Wellhausenism were Samuel R. Driver in England (1891), and Charles A. Briggs in the USA (1893). Since Wellhausen’s time, other liberal critics have ‘found’ up to 40 alleged contributors to the Pentateuch, including an Edomite source S and a Canaanite source K — there are almost as many subdivisions as there have been ‘experts’ finding sources! Return to text.
  3. Adapted from Dave Breese, Seven Men Who Rule the World from the Grave, Moody Press, Chicago, 1990, pp. 89 ff. Return to text.
  4. Adapted from Gleason Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, Michigan, 1982, pp. 51–52. Return to text.
  5. In Genesis 13:10 the Jordan valley is compared with ‘the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar’—appropriate only for readers unfamiliar with the Jordan Valley in Palestine but acquainted with Egypt. Hence written near the time of the Exodus from Egypt, not many centuries later. Return to text.
  6. The crop sequence in Exodus 9:31–32 is Egyptian, not Palestinian. The trees and animals referred to are mostly indigenous to Egypt or the Sinai Peninsula, not Palestine, e.g. the acacia tree, used for the tabernacle furniture, is native to Egypt and Sinai, but is hardly found in Canaan, except around the Dead Sea. The skins prescribed for the outer covering of the tabernacle in Exodus 26:14 (Hebrew tachash), were most likely those of the dugong or sea cow (Zool. Sirenia)—found in the sea adjacent to Egypt and Sinai but foreign to Palestine. See ref. 4, p. 46 ff. Return to text.
  7. More Egyptian loan words are found in the Pentateuch than anywhere else in the Bible, as would be expected if the author was Moses ‘learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians’ (Acts 7:22). The very name ‘Moses’ is Egyptian not Hebrew (Exodus 2:10). Return to text.
  8. There is no mention in the Pentateuch of the temple, or that Jerusalem would be its future location — the only centre of worship mentioned was the tabernacle, a tent. Return to text.
  9. Genesis 2:4; 5:1; 6:9; 10:1; 11:10; 11:27; 25:12; 25:19; 36:1; 36:9; 37:2. The first of these, ‘These are the generations of the heavens and the earth’ (Genesis 2:4), does not mention a human name, as no man was present during Creation Week until day six. The information was probably revealed by God to Adam, who then recorded it (ref. 10). Return to text.
  10. Henry Morris, The Genesis Record, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1976, pp. 22–30; also Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee, personal communication, April 1998. Return to text.
  11. ’Elohim is a Hebrew plural form meaning ‘two or more’. In Genesis 1:1 it occurs with the verb ‘created’ (Hebrew bara’) in the singular form. It is thus a plural noun with a singular meaning, suggesting the uni-plurality of the Godhead. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is thus foreshadowed in the Bible right from the very first verse. See also the use of the word ‘us’ in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7. Return to text.
  12. Note that the power of God associated with the use of this word is seen much more clearly in His having created the vast contents of space, as well as the astounding complexities and minutiae of life on Earth, in the short timespan of Creation Week, rather than in any long-drawn-out evolutionary timetable. See C.V. Taylor, The First 100 Words, The Good Book Co., Gosford, NSW, Australia, p. 3, 1996. Return to text.
  13. There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. In Matthew 19:3–6, Jesus quoted from both accounts together, 1:27 and 2:24, showing them to be equally authoritative and fully supplementary. See also D. Batten, ‘Genesis Contradictions?Creation 18(4):44–45, 1996; R.M. Grigg, ‘Should Genesis be taken literally?Creation 16(1):38–41, 1993. Return to text.
  14. Cf. Hosea 6:7: ‘But they like men [Hebrew: literally ‘like Adam’ or ‘in Adam’] have transgressed the covenant …’ Return to text.

(Also available in Greek)

Man, Crown of Creation | Omul, cununa Creatiei – subtitrare in Limba Romana

Unlocking the mystery of life | Dezlegand misterul vietii

Albert Mohler on Richard Dawkins and the Limits of Reason

…a horrible, sterile and empty worldview (Dr. Mohler)

From Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog Wednesday, April 6, 2011:

Dawkins really believes (or at least really claims) that those who disagree with him are insane, deluded, intellectually perverse, and unintelligent.

Evolution by natural selection is “the only game in town, the greatest show on Earth,” asserts Richard Dawkins. We have come to expect claims like this from Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous defender of Darwinian evolution alive today. Unlike many intellectuals, Dawkins manages to stay singularly focused and on message. He is the planet’s foremost evangelist for evolution, and he is absolutely certain that the evolutionary worldview is indeed “the only game in town.” He is clearly frustrated that so many dwellers of the Earth refuse to accept his message.

In The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Dawkins sets out to present his most compelling case for evolution. He is — make no mistake — an ardent enthusiast for his argument. Seldom do we read a book written with such fervor and certitude, with an amazing amount of condescension and anger added to the mix, as well.

“Evolution is a fact,” he asserts. “Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.”

Note that this means, by obvious implication, that all objections to evolution are insane, unintelligent, and uninformed. Read his words carefully. Richard Dawkins is so bold as to assert that anyone who disagrees with him on such a controversial issue is insane, unintelligent, and uninformed, because any sane, intelligent, and informed person would have to agree with him.

He minces no words. “It is a plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips … continue the list as long as desired.”

Bananas and turnips?

Read the rest of this post here…

Atheists lose science card,by Dinesh D’Souza

Dinesh D’Souza, the author of this post and author of What’s So Great About Christianity served as senior domestic policy analyst in the White House in 1987-1988. D’Souza speaks at top universities, business groups, civic groups, and churches across the country

This article is posted from info@tothesource.org a website with a large archive of  Science and Religion and Secularism in America articles.

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science.  It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists.  The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence.  One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC.  Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, „There’s probably no God.  Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”  Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital.  „Why believe in a god?  Just be good for goodness sake.”  And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: „Imagine…no religion.”

What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them.  There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation.  We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional „argument from design.”  There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

Instead, we are given the simple assertion that there is probably no God, followed by the counsel to go ahead and have fun.  In other words, let’s not let God and his commandments get in the way of enjoying life.  „Be good for goodness sake” is true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far.  The question remains: what is the source of these standards of goodness that seem to be shared by religious and non-religious people alike?  Finally John Lennon knew how to compose a tune but he could hardly be considered a reliable authority on fundamental questions.   His „imagine there’s no heaven” sounds visionary but is, from an intellectual point of view, a complete nullity.

If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer.  The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled „Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.”  The article begins by noting „an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.”  As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, „We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

Too many „coincidences,” however, imply a plot.  Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life.  Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called „dark” matter and „dark” energy.  Even the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.

Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that „this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.”  And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: „The universe in some sense knew we were coming.”

Folger then admits that this line of reasoning makes a number of scientists very uncomfortable.  „Physicists don’t like coincidences.”  „They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea.”

There are two problems here, one historical and the other methodological.  The historical problem is that science has for three centuries been showing that man does not occupy a privileged position in the cosmos, and now it seems like he does.  The methodological problem is what physicist Stephen Hawking once called „the problem of Genesis.”  Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena, and what could be more embarrassing than the finding that a supernatural intelligence transcending all natural laws is behind it all?

Consequently many physicists are exploring an alternative possibility: multiple universes.  „Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”  Folger says that „short of invoking a benevolent creator” this is the best that modern science can do.  For contemporary physicists, he writes, this „may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation” for our fine-tuned universe.

The appeal of multiple universes—perhaps even an infinity of universes—is that when there are billions and billions of possibilities then even very unlikely outcomes are going to be realized somewhere.  Consequently if there were an infinity of universes, something like our universe is certain to appear at some point.  What to us seems like incredible coincidence can be explained as the result of a mathematical inevitability.

The only difficulty, as Folger makes clear, is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of any universes other than our own.  Moreover, there may never be such evidence.  That’s because if there are other universes they will operate according to different laws of physics than the ones in our universe, and consequently they are permanently and inescapably inaccessible to us.  Andrei Linde comments, „In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics.  They will not see our universe.  They will see only theirs.”

The article in Discover concludes on a somber note.  Some scientists are hoping that their multiple universes theory will gain plausibility if it can produce predictions about our universe that can be empirically tested.  „For many physicists, however, the multiverse remains a desperate measure ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation.”

No wonder atheists are sporting billboards asking us to „imagine…no religion.”  When science, far from disproving God, seems to be pointing with ever-greater precision toward transcendence, imagination and wishful thinking seem all that is left for the atheists to count on.

David Robertson on the state of the Church in Scotland and Europe and ‘The Dawkins letters’ a response to Richard Dawkins

David Robertson - Free Church of Scotland

At the bottom of this post, is an article from the Christian post, about a man named Richard Morgan, who became an atheist through the writing of Richard Dawkins and then found his faith in God again after interacting with David Robertson on the Dawkins website where he eventually printed out over fifty pages of Robertson’s posts. Morgan read through all the posts again and found no lies, as the atheists were charging Robertson. What he discovered instead was humility, intelligence, sensitivity, and several references to the Bible. At one moment in his reading of the printout,  Morgan’s instinctive response conjured up to his memory,  the verse, “We love because he first loved us.” And in that instant, Morgan understood the expression “amazing grace.” “I was certain without having any rational explanation that God existed, that he loved me without waiting for me to love him, that he loved me unconditionally without waiting for me to deserve it.”

This is a story of hope for folks struggling with their beliefs or looking for answers, and I highly encourage you to read it.  Find a church that loves God and preaches Christ and by all means, don’t give up! This life is not all there is! This is the only aspect of life that we cannot be wrong on-Our eternal destiny!

But now, back to a little intro: I have been enjoying lectures and sermons by David Robertson for a few years now (online of course).  He is the Pastor of the historic St. Peter’s Free Church of Scotland, in Dundee, which was once pastored by Robert Murray McCheyne, who took charge of it in November 1836 and the church eventually grew to seat 1,100 parishioners. However, the Scotland that was once a hub of the Reformation is in a different state today.

David Robertson on the Church in Scotland –

Scotland was once the most ‘Reformed’ nation of the Reformation. The Scottish Reformation of Knox and his colleagues was through and revolutionary. Much of modern Scotland, the law,

education and the church owe their origins to this time. Sadly the Scottish nation and people have to a large extent neglected and abandoned the heritage of our fathers. Today the Church in Scotland is in a weak state. 90% of Scotland’s population seldom if ever darken any kind of church door.

David Robertson wrote a response to Richard Dawkins book ‘The God delusion‘ in 2007, which Dawkins posted on his personal website, and atheists bombarded Robertson’s own site with comments and diatribes, soon after. Robertson’s responses were subsequently published in a book titled ‘The Dawkins Letters – Challenging atheist myths’.

and here is the new year’s stance (2011) that David Robertson puts forth through a post from his Chairman of his organization Solas (Centre for Public Christianity) – Gordon Wilson:


January 12, 2011
The Lord Jesus Christ never offered us fame or glory or for that matter an easy life if we followed Him and His teachings. Take up my Cross, He said, and follow me. And so it was for the apostles, other disciples and saints in the early life of the Christian church. Through the ages, men and women have suffered for their faith.
It is happening today. In Pakistan, Egypt, Christian churches are being bombed and worshippers killed. In Iraq, the community of Christians there for millennia are being hunted by Al Quaeda. Now these believers are forced to become refugees for their faith. In Khartoum, hundreds of thousands of Christians from the south of Sudan face a pogrom if they are marooned there as a consequence of a move towards independence by South Sudan in the referendum.
All this puts into perspective, the depression that many in Scotland and Europe feel about the closure of Christian churches and the flight of members, under the pressures of a secular society. We have seen 50 years of decline, first gradually and then a torrent as life ebbed away. We have to face the reality that Europe, which so long gave the lead is now in apostasy as a consequence of movements within society and the advance of materialism and individualism, polite words for greed and selfishness.
We forget at our peril that in this World, all changes and little remains the same. Just as the Soviet Union crashed and America begins its long slide from world domination, so already there is change at work. When Christianity failed to be exciting and to keep the teachings of the Lord, it suckled apathy so that members just gave up and the general population was not stirred. Now we are no longer in that world of apathy. Our faith is being harassed by militant, intolerant secularists who wish to destroy all religious faiths – not just ours although we are currently a soft target. The challenge is to use this hostility to make more Christians active and to train them so that they can have confidence in their ability to take on the ‘sneerers’ and doubters. Fighting aggression is much easier than battling apathy. And out there, are many who have spiritual needs but have no knowledge of what Jesus can offer them.
Will we begin to turn the tide in 2011. It must start some time, some place. Why not Scotland this year?

Gordon Wilson Chairman
There is a related story in the Christian post that might be of interest to my readers. Richard Morgan turned atheist through Richard Dawkins and then found faith in God again during the time he interacted with David Robertson through Dawkins’ site:

Former Dawkins Atheist Richard Morgan Continues to Praise God

Three years later and still going strong, one man continues to prove to atheists that his conversion was not a “temporary brain infarction.”

Nominal Christian, Mormon missionary, atheist, and now a born-again Christian, Richard Morgan recently spoke to Apologetics315 about his life-changing, or saving, experience on none other than Richard Dawkins’ infamous website.

Having been through his share of religious inquiry at a young age, Morgan realized that he was constantly in search of something, whether it be spiritual or not.

Embracing answers in whatever shape they took, he found himself a Mormon at one point in his life after meeting two Mormon missionaries. But after becoming a missionary, he began to have some serious doubts about his beliefs, which later caused him to abandon that religion altogether.

Blindly searching still for something to hold on to, Morgan shared in his interview, “I was aware that probably much more than seeking God I was seeking a social context where I would be accepted. I think basically all of us deep down, we’re all looking to be accepted in some way or another.”

Having grown out of the need for that kind of moral support however as he aged, Morgan one day began to read Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker which revolutionized his life and made sense of everything he had been experiencing.

The book made one thing clear: There was nothing to look for, so stop looking and get on with your life.

“This was a real epiphany experience… to realize of course all those years of searching for something spiritual or God-like were bound to be completely frustrating because God didn’t exist.

“I didn’t feel like I became an atheist, the feeling was more that I realized I always had been,” expressed Morgan. “I had a feeling that I never actually believed in God but I was looking for some unhealthy psychological reason [to believe]… coming out as an atheist was really a hallelujah experience for me.”

Morgan’s interest in evolution increased dramatically after reading the book, redirecting his attention towards understanding the nature of living things around him more than trying to understand things that were above.

More than the religious debate, it was his interest in evolution that led him to follow Richard Dawkins. Upon finding the author’s actual website, Morgan was excited to communicate with scientists and philosophers who could offer more insight into evolution.

But rather than discussing the nature of evolution in the “oasis of clear thinking,” Morgan was horrified to discover in his first forum that more than half of the people devoted their time saying rude things about believers using extremely foul language.

Click here to read the rest of the story from the Christian Post.

And here is a 47 minute video of David Robertson talking about his book to a group of people at a Border’s bookstore in Edinburgh, afterwards he fields some questions.

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.
1st collector for Challenging_Atheist_Myths, David Robertson
Follow my videos on vodpod

Louie Giglio – Indescribable tour & How Great is our God (subtitrare in Limba Romana) Ce Mare e Dumnezeul Nostru (Prezentare a Universului si Galaxiilor)

Louie Giglio travels the country speaking to University students. Read an interview by Christianity Today, featured on Josh Harris’s blog, directly below these two outstanding videos that have been working their way around the world.

Indescribable (English only/fara subtitrare)  Video begins with an awesome 6 minutes of footage of our universe.

Louie Giglio and Passion Church


From Josh Harris’s blog.                    Today I got a letter in the mail that Louie and Shelley Giglio sent out to friends of Passion. It was a report of all that God has been doing through the Passion World Tour. It sounds like it’s been incredible. But then the letter ended with an announcement that completely shocked me: Louie is planting a church in Atlanta. Here’s what he wrote:

If you haven’t heard by now, Passion is taking a massive turn as we head into the future. At the heart of the shift is a sense of fresh calling that God has made unmistakably clear to Shelley and me over the past eighteen months or so. Though for many reasons it looked like we might never lead a local church, all that has changed as God has placed in our hearts a huge passion to do just that. So in the coming months, by the grace of God, we will be planting a Passion Church in Atlanta as a local expression of the Kingdom of God for our rapidly growing and diverse city as well as a base for our influence throughout the nation and world.

I went online and found a video interview with Louie about his plans. One of the things I’ve always appreciated about Louie is his readiness to listen to the Lord’s leading and do something totally different. Most of the times „totally different” for Louie seems to require bigger faith and bigger risks for God’s glory. But Louie always takes them and never looks back. I pray this new venture will be more God-exalting than anything that has come before. There’s something very cool about the ultimate „conference guy” becoming the pastor of a local church.I’ll be praying for you, Louie.

Louie Giglio Interview: The following is a portion of an interview Louie did with Christianity Today:

Why are you planting a new church in Atlanta?
In my heart something has been changing and turning for about the last five years. Christ died for the local church. While I’ve spoken at many of them, and Passion has influenced them around the world, I want to be able to lay down at the feet of Jesus and say I gave it a shot–I tried to build into the local community of faith that he gave his life for, that he loved, and that he believed is the best agent for change in the world.It’s about a man who wants to be obedient to God. It’s about me, at 50, hearing the voice of God and saying yes, I will follow that.

How have you recruited the staff for your church?
I’ve never recruited one person. Most of the people I know and respect are already involved in local churches. All Shelley and I did was start saying to our friends, „This is what God has done in our hearts. We think we’re crazy, but we feel like we want to pastor a local community of faith with the DNA of Passion.”

Our friends said, „Tell us when and where and we will be there.”

With you as the senior pastor, and Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin leading worship, many have been calling this a „superstar church.” What’s your take on that?
All I say to [criticism] is, well, you’ll have to take that up with God. There is some history on the side of God putting gifted people in the same space at the same time. The purpose is not to congregate ability but to foster a movement that will reach the cities of the nation and the world. History is on our side and Jesus is on our side because he is the one who promised to grow the church. I’m not starting anything. Jesus started the church. This is not going to be Louie’s church. This is Jesus’ church. To the degree that we can let it be his and not ours–then it will be amazing.

What will happen to the Passion conferences? Will they still continue?
Right now we’re going to hold it all together as best we can, by the grace of God. God has given us a platform, a footing with university students that we cannot relinquish. It’s been a gift of God that somehow we have had the favor to gather people and propel them out for God’s kingdom agenda around the world. Passion 2010 will be back in Atlanta. We’re expecting somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 university students here from around the world.

Right now there isn’t a home, a foundation, for us. We’re excited about a local expression of faith, a local community of believers who have the same DNA as Passion. To be able to go to Stockholm and come home and have home be us is an awesome thought for us. And to be able to launch back to Tokyo and know we have a church community behind us, moving with us–I think it all can happen.

I know you are from Atlanta, but the city has almost 7,000 churches. Did you ever consider another location for your new church?
Atlanta is a city of five million plus people, and it will experience the largest percentage growth of all cities in the United States in the next ten years. To say that Atlanta doesn’t need another church is crazy thinking to me. The church I used to attend (North Point Community Church) has three locations in the city. When they opened Buckhead in its new location, (senior pastor) Andy Stanley said they were getting a lot of flak. But he said the research shows there are 300,000 people who don’t go to anybody’s church on any given Sunday. Andy said that the truth of the matter is, there could be ten more Buckhead churches, and we would still only be scratching the surface.

We said to God, „What do you want to do?” It seemed like God just led us here.

You’ve said Andy Stanley, your pastor, was one of the first to know about your new church. Was he surprised? Was it difficult for him to hear?
He was shocked. Andy was the first person I told, before rumors of this even got to anybody else. I said, „This is what is in my heart.” He looked at me like, „Are you sure you want to do that?”

Andy and I have talked in a lot of detail about what this journey looks like and it’s so amazing. Andy is an incredible leader–the best leader I know. He has been so gracious. I believe North Point will continue to flourish, I believe Passion City Church will flourish, and there will still be hundreds of thousands of people in the city who have not yet encountered the grace of God. We’re going to be friends through the whole process.

Some people ask me, „How could you put a church in Andy’s backyard?” But whose backyard is it? God’s. The church and city don’t belong to Andy or to me or to anybody else.

What would you tell people in Atlanta about attending Passion City Church?
They should go to their own church and serve well in the position that they’re in. I wouldn’t say anything to them about Passion City Church. If they say, „I know about Passion; I’ve been to some of the events and I’ve been waiting for something like this to come along,” then great. How other people find their way to Passion City Church is really about the Holy Spirit.

Will this be a seeker church?
We are not using any kind of descriptive contemporary church adjectives to help us shape what Passion City Church is. When our core team meets, we don’t use the common words that are defining churches. We are looking at the simplicity of the body of Christ and the presence of God.

We’re concerned about whether the presence of God is noticeable and active in our gathering because people don’t need an event, they don’t need a show. People don’t need famous worship leadership. They need a life-changing transaction with their Creator. That’s what people want.

Our church is a church where people have life-changing encounters with God. When you come to Passion City Church, you’ll know that we’re here to exalt God, to paint a picture of him, to be people who are humbled before him, to express him to the city and to the world.

What will be the biggest difference between inspirational conference speaking and preaching on a regular basis?
For me, there’s not a lot of difference. For ten years, in our student ministry at Baylor, I spoke every week. You have to come with something fresh every time. In Atlanta, every Tuesday night I stood in front of young single adults for 11 or 12 years. The speaking is going to be the same, the message is going to be the same. Now I’m back to my 21-year history of getting on my knees, my eyes open, the word of God open.

Passion is geared toward college students, and you’ve said Passion City Church will have the same DNA. Do you expect your parishioners to be largely young adults?
We’re a church for all ages already. Passion isn’t going to be a university church, although there are 160,000 university students in Atlanta and we’d love for them to come.

We’d like to be a church where the people who are 50 always are leaning toward the people who are 18. I know that biblically, it’s our place to lead and their place to respect their elders. But the church grows when we embrace them. I hope it has a youthful vibe.

It seems logical to expect that a church led by a team of Louie Giglio, Matt Redman, and Chris Tomlin will attract a lot of attendees. How will you be sure your congregation is growing spiritually?
The practicality is that it has to be fleshed out in small groups, one-on-one relationships. There isn’t a blueprint yet, but it can absolutely be done. There isn’t a dichotomy between having a big church and a successful community. There are some gigantic churches in the world who are doing an amazing job of fostering community.

It depends on what are you trying to do. Are you are trying to get the most people possible in the church, or trying to get the deepest possible community connection possible? When you read the New Testament, the beginning of the church was explosive. We are all reaching back to the New Testament community. Everybody is talking about Acts 2 church or community as if that wasn’t important five or ten or fifteen years ago, when everybody was talking about how to get the unchurched through the door. We lose the focus when we begin to think first about people.

So we try to first think about God. The Holy Spirit is amazing; he will lead people who are following him to help build community. It’s possible to have an explosive, movement-oriented church that has unbelievable down-deep community. And if I had a blueprint for that right now, I would be writing a book.

We aren’t afraid at Passion City Church of being incredibly large. We’re not intimidated by the thought of, „What if x number of people come?” We’re also not afraid of being incredibly small. We just want to be a place where the presence of God rests and moves out to help this city and the cities of the world.

We have high confidence in God. When you take steps that look a little crazy, he has a way of doing things that blow your mind. We are just trying to position ourselves, to be ready.

Read the full interview.

Posted on the Josh Harris blog August 13, 2008

Nebulas…(beauty for ashes) stars creating their most artistic displays as they die

What are nebulas?

M2-9: Wings of a Butterfly Nebula
Credit: B. Balick (U. Washington) et al., WFPC2, HST, NASA

Explanation: Are stars better appreciated for their art after they die? Actually, stars usually create their most artistic displays as they die. In the case of low-mass stars like our Sun and M2-9 pictured above, the stars transform themselves from normal stars to white dwarfs by casting off their outer gaseous envelopes. The expended gas frequently forms an impressive display called a planetary nebula that fades gradually over thousand of years. M2-9, a butterfly planetary nebula 2100 light-years away shown in representative colors, has wings that tell a strange but incomplete tale. In the center, two stars orbit inside a gaseous disk 10 times the orbit of Pluto. The expelled envelope of the dying star breaks out from the disk creating the bipolar appearance. Much remains unknown about the physical processes that cause planetary nebulae.

Many nebulae or stars form from the gravitational collapse of gas in the interstellar medium or ISM. As the material collapses under its own weight, massive stars may form in the center, and their ultraviolet radiation ionises the surrounding gas, making it visible at optical wavelengths. Examples of these types of nebulae are the Rosette Nebula and the Pelican Nebula. The size of these nebulae, known as HII regions, varies depending on the size of the original cloud of gas. These are sites where star formation occurs. The formed stars are sometimes known as a young, loose cluster.

Some nebulae are formed as the result of supernova explosions, the death throes of massive, short-lived stars. The materials thrown off from the supernova explosion are ionized by the energy and the compact object that it can produce. One of the best examples of this is the Crab Nebula, in Taurus. The supernova event was recorded in the year 1054 and is labelled SN 1054. The compact object that was created after the explosion lies in the center of the Crab Nebula and is a neutron star.

Other nebulae may form as planetary nebulae. This is the final stage of a low-mass star’s life, like Earth’s Sun. Stars with a mass up to 8-10 solar masses evolve into red giants and slowly lose their outer layers during pulsations in their atmospheres. When a star has lost enough material, its temperature increases and the ultraviolet radiation it emits can ionize the surrounding nebula that it has thrown off. The nebula is 97% Hydrogen and 3% Helium with trace materials.

Hubble telescope image known as Pillars of Cre...

Pillars of Creation

Read more here…

Bible Verses About Stars

Infinite in number  Ge 15:5;Jer 33:2

Revolve in fixed orbits  Jdj 5:20
Shine in the firmament of heaven  Da 12:3
Appear of different magnitudes  1Co 15:41
Appear after sunset  Ne 4:21;Job 3:9

When grouped together called constellations  2Ki 23:5;Isa 13:10
Exhibit the greatness of God’s power  Ps 8:3;Isa 40:26
Made to praise God Ps 148:3

The Crab Nebula is a remnant of an exploded st...

Image via Wikipedia

Mentioned in scripture

One of extraordinary brightness appeared at Christ’s birth  Mt 2:2,9
Idolaters worshipped  Jer 8:2; 19:13
The Israelites forbidden to worship  De 4:19; 17:2-4
Punishment for worshipping  De 17:5-7
False gods frequently worshipped under the representation of  Am 5:26;Ac 7:43
Astrology and star-gazing practised by the Babylonians  Isa 47:13
Use of, in navigation, alluded to  Ac 27:20
Illustrative Of Christ.  Nu 24:17
Of angels.  Job 38:7
Of ministers.  Re 1:16,20; 2:1
Of princes and subordinate governors.  Da 8:10;Re 8:12
(Bright and morning star,) of Christ.  Re 22:16
(Morning star,) of glory to be given to faithful saints.  Re 2:28
(Shining of,) of the reward of faithful ministers.  Da 12:3
(Withdrawing their light,) of severe judgments.  Isa 13:10;Eze 32:7; Joe 2:10; 3:15
(Setting the nest amongst,) of pride and carnal security.  Ob 1:4
(Wandering,) of false teachers.  Jude 1:13

Space-related Portals

Astronomy Star Spaceflight
Portal:Solar System
Space Solar System Mars

Quasars…region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding a supermassive black hole

What are Quasars ?

A Primordial Quasar
Drawing Credit: Wolfram Freudling et al. (STECF), ESO, ESA, NASA

Explanation: What did the first quasars look like? The nearest quasars are now known to be supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies. Gas and dust that falls toward a quasar glows brightly, sometimes outglowing the entire home galaxy. The quasars that formed in the first billion years of the universe are more mysterious, though, with even the nature of the surrounding gas still unknown. Above, an artist’s impression shows a primordial quasar as it might have been, surrounded by sheets of gas, dust, stars, and early star clusters. Exacting observations of three distant quasars now indicate emission of very specific colors of the element iron. These Hubble Space Telescope observations, which bolster recent results from the WMAP mission, indicate that a whole complete cycle of stars was born, created this iron, and died within the first few hundred million years of the universe.

A quasi-stellar radio source („quasar”) is a very energetic and distant active galactic nucleus. Quasars are the most luminous objects in the universe. Quasars were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.

While there was initially some controversy over the nature of these objects—as recently as the early 1980s, there was no clear consensus as to their nature—there is now a scientific consensus that a quasar is a compact region in the center of a massive galaxy surrounding its central supermassive black hole. Its size is 10–10,000 times the Schwarzschild radius of the black hole. The quasar is powered by an accretion disc around the black hole.

Quasars show a very high redshift, which is an effect of the expansion of the universe between the quasar and the Earth.[1] They are the most luminous, powerful, and energetic objects known in the universe. They tend to inhabit the very centers of active young galaxies and can emit up to a thousand times the energy output of the Milky Way. When combined with Hubble’s law, the implication of the redshift is that the quasars are very distant—and thus, it follows, objects from much earlier in the universe’s history. The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output of average galaxies, equivalent to one trillion (1012) suns. This radiation is emitted across the spectrum, almost equally, from X-rays to the far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays. In early optical images, quasars looked like single points of light (i.e. point sources), indistinguishable from stars, except for their peculiar spectra. With infrared telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope, the „host galaxies” surrounding the quasars have been identified in some cases.[2] These galaxies are normally too dim to be seen against the glare of the quasar, except with these special techniques. Most quasars cannot be seen with small telescopes, but 3C 273, with an average apparent magnitude of 12.9, is an exception. At a distance of 2.44 billion light-years, it is one of the most distant objects directly observable with amateur equipment.

More than 200,000 quasars are known, most from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Quasars have all the same properties as active galaxies, but are more powerful. You can read more here and enter the Astronomy portal here.

Space-related Portals from Wikipedia

Astronomy Star Spaceflight
Portal:Solar System
Space Solar System Mars

Uriasii Bibliei (via) Semnele Vremurilor + English video, re: God, DNA and UFO’s, the Biblical perspective

Pe blogul Pastorului Daniel Branzai, Semnele Vremurilor, veti gasi resurse biblice;  domeniul principal al studiului fiind pe linia profetica.

Pastorul  Branzai a postat un nou articol  in care aduce in discutie versetul din Geneza 6:4:

„Uriașii erau pe pământ în vremea aceea, și chiar și după ce s-au împreunat fiii lui Dumnezeu cu fetele oamenilor.”

Pastorul Daniel Branzai defineste Nefilim:

Cuvântul folosit în originalul ebraic este Nefilim, un derivat al verbului nafal, care înseamnă a cădea, cădere. Uriașii sunt deci cei „căzuți”, sau am zice noi astăzi „cei decăzuți” , „cei degenerați”. Ce fel de făpturi au fost ei putem afla doar din relatările aluzive din Scriptură. Este evident că „uriașii” au fost mari în dimensiuni și la fel de mari în răutate. Ei au fost un fel de supra-oameni, niște anomalii genetice și morale, care au trebuit șterse de pe fața pământului pentru prezervarea sănătății planetei și pentru perpetuarea planului mesianic (Gen. 3:15). Aceasta a fost motivația potopului (2 Petru 2:5), după profeția rostită mai dinainte de Enoh (Iuda 14).

Iar apoi arata ca dupa potop, iar au aparut „uriasi”:

Ceea ce este surprinzător este faptul că citim iarăși despre existența uriașilor și după potop. Iată ce găsim în Numeri 13:33:

„Apoi am mai văzut în ea (țara Canaan) pe uriași, copiii lui Anac, care se trag din neamul uriașilor; înaintea noastră și față de ei parcă eram niște lăcuste.”

Întrebarea firească este: de unde au apărut acești uriași dacă toate ființele decăzute au fost distruse de apele potopului.

Pentru raspuns, cititi aici articolul intreg aici. Subiectul este unul foarte interesant pentru cei pasionati de istorie si arheologie, si la sfirsitul Pastorul Branzai intreaba:

Oare asta să fie invazia de OZN-uri din ultimii ani? Oare aceștia să fie „veghetorii“ despre care vorbesc cei din meditațiile oculte de tot felul? Oare un asftel de Nefilim să fie și viitorul antichrist?

Pastorul Branzai a postat un video (1 of 6) de Chuck Missler in Limba Engleza in care trateaza subiectele DNA,Nephilim si UFO’s.

Click here to read about who is Chuck Missler. Short bio-Master’s in engineering, Congress appointed him to the U.S.Naval Academy, Air Force division, conducted projects for the intelligence community and the Department of Defense,ecruited into senior management at the Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Michigan, Chuck established the first international computer network in 1966.

This is part 1 of 6. At the end of video you will have the option to select the next part in the series of 6.

Here is a second video Pastor Daniel Branzai refers to on his blog, also by Chuck Missler: Days of Noah, Nephilims, and UFO’s http://wp.me/pouJr-tX

Miracolul formarii Universului (cu subtitrare)

Journeys to the edge of Creation by Moody Publishers 

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

From Ravi Zacharias – 2 short lectures, Alvin Plantinga.1)Does God have a nature and 2)What is a properly Basic Belief?

Ravi Zacharias presents these 2 short videos (approx 20 minutes each) through his ministry RFZIM: Alvin Plantinga is John A. O’Brien Professor of Philosophy University of Notre Dame and author of (among other books) ‘Warranted Christian Belief’.

Does God have a nature?

What is a properly Basic Belief?

Previous Older Entries

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari