View allAll Photos Tagged Causing
there are 3 madonnas in there dare you to find them!!!
there's Mr T, David Bowie that guy that used to say: "the plane! The plane!" Barbie and Bob Marley playing soccer, there's Jem, Betty Boop, ET, Puss in Boots, Keith Karring.... and etc..
Also Maradona praying for the hand of god.
Copyright © 2018 Vic Bonilla All Rights Reserved.
Do not reproduce this image without expressed permission from the photographer.
Cause nothing lasts forever
And we both know hearts can change
And it's hard to hold a candle in the cold November rain
But lovers always come and lovers always go
And no one's really sure who's letting go today
Walking away...
Came across the UKs largest collection of ancient bones and skulls during a recent visit to the Crypt at St Leonards Church in Hythe, Kent. A fascinating collection which is believed to include bones from the fallen at the Battle of Hastings in 1066.
Cause' we all have a darker side
A place we keep where no one else will find
If you want to listen ..
Me Again Monday ~ a secret
HMAM
~❤️~
IF, THEN, AND THE ATHEIST DILEMMA.
All scientific theories are based on ‘if’ and ‘then’. The proposition being; IF such a thing is so, THEN we can expect certain effects to be evident.
For example: there are only two competing alternatives for the origin/first cause of everything.
A natural, first cause, OR a supernatural, first cause.
Atheists believe in a natural, first cause.
Theists believe in a supernatural, first cause.
IF the first cause is natural, THEN progressive evolution of the universe (cosmos) and life are deemed to be expected, even essential.
Conversely, IF the first cause is supernatural, THEN an evolutionary scenario of the cosmos and/or life is not required, not probable, but not impossible.
In other words, while evolution, and an enormous, time frame are perceived as absolutely essential for atheist naturalism, theism could (perhaps reluctantly) accept evolution and/or a long, time frame as possible in a creation scenario.
Crucially, if the evidence doesn’t stack up for cosmic evolution, biological evolution, and a long evolutionary time frame, atheist naturalism is perceived to fail.
For atheism, evolution is an Achilles heel. Atheists have an ideological commitment to a natural origin of everything from nothing - which, if it were possible, would essentially require both cosmic and biological evolution and a vast timescale.
Consequently, atheist scientists can never be genuinely objective in assessing evidence. Only theist scientists can be truly objective.
However, the primary Achilles heel for atheist naturalism is its starting proposition.
Because the ‘IF’ proposal of a natural, first cause, is fatally flawed, the subsequent ‘THEN’ is a non sequitur.
The atheist ‘IF’ (a natural, first cause) is logically impossible according to the laws of nature, because all natural entities are contingent, temporal and temporary.
In other words:
All natural entities depend on an adequate cause.
All natural entities have a beginning.
And all natural entities are subject to entropy.
Whereas a first cause MUST be non-contingent, infinite and eternal.
But, just suppose we ignore this insurmountable obstacle and, for the sake of argument, assume that the ‘THEN’ which follows from the atheist ‘IF’ proposition of a natural, first cause is worth considering.
We realise that both cosmic and biological evolution are still not possible as NATURAL occurrences.
The law of cause and effect tells us that whatever caused the universe (whether it evolved or not) could not be inferior, in any way, to the sum total of the universe.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So, we know that cosmic evolution from nothing could not happen naturally.
That traps atheists in an impossible, catch 22 situation, by supporting cosmic evolution, they are supporting something which could not happen naturally, according to natural laws.
It doesn’t get any better with biological evolution, in fact it gets worse. The Law of Biogenesis (which has never been falsified) rules out the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. Atheists choose to ignore this firmly established law and have, perversely, invented their own law (abiogenesis), which says the exact opposite. However, their cynical disregard for laws of nature, ironically, fails to solve their problem.
Crucially ...
An origin of life, arising of its own volition from sterile matter, conditions permitting (abiogenesis), would require an inherent predisposition/potential of matter to automatically develop life.
The atheist dilemma here is; where does such an inherent predisposition to automatically produce life come from? In a purposeless universe, which arose from nothing, how could matter have acquired such a potential or property?
A predisposed potential for spontaneous generation of life would require a purposeful creation (some sort of blueprint/plan for life intrinsic to matter). So, by advocating abiogenesis, atheists are unintentionally supporting a purposeful creation.
Following on from that, we also realise that abiogenesis requires an initial input of constructive, genetic information. Information Theory tells us; there is no NATURAL means by which such information can arise of its own accord in matter.
Then there is the problem of the law of entropy (which derives from the Second Law of Thermodynamics). How can abiogenesis defy that law? The only way that order can increase is by an input of guided energy. Raw energy has the opposite effect. What could possibly direct or guide the energy to counter the natural effects of entropy?
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life'
Suppose we are stupid enough to ignore all this and we carry on speculating further by proposing a progressive, microbes-to-human evolution (Darwinism).
Starting with the limited, genetic information in the first cell (which originated how, and from where? nobody knows). The only method of increasing that original information is through a long, incremental series of beneficial mutations (genetic, copying MISTAKES). Natural selection cannot produce new information, it simply selects from existing information.
Proposing mistakes as a mechanism for improvement is not sensible. In fact, it is completely bonkers. Billions of such beneficial mutations would be required to transform microbes into humans and every other living thing.
Once again, it would need help from a purposeful creator.
So, we can conclude that the atheist ‘IF’, of a natural, first cause, is not only a non-starter, but also every ‘THEN’, which would essentially arise from that proposal, ironically supports the theist ‘IF’.
Consequently ...
If you don't believe in cosmic evolution you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in cosmic evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
And...
If you don’t believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution, you (obviously) support a creator.
If you do believe in abiogenesis and biological evolution you (perhaps unintentionally) also support a creator.
Conclusion:
The inevitable and amazing conclusion is that everyone (intentionally or unintentionally) supports the existence of a creator, whatever scenario they propose for the origin of the universe.
No one can devise an origin scenario for the universe that doesn’t require a Creator. That is a fact, whether you like it or not!
The Bible correctly declares:
Only the fool in his heart says there is no God.
Theists have no ideological need to be dogmatic. Unlike atheists, they can assess all the available scientific evidence objectively. Because a long timescale, and even an evolutionary scenario, in no way disproves a creator. In fact, as I have already explained, a creator would still be essential to enable: cosmic evolution, the origin of life, and microbes-to-human evolution. Whereas, both a long timescale and biological evolution are deemed essential to (but are no evidence for) the beliefs of atheist naturalism.
Atheist scientists are hamstrung by their own preconceptions.
It is impossible for atheists to be objective regarding any evidence. They are forced by their own ideological commitment to make dogmatic assumptions. It is unthinkable that atheists would even consider any interpretation of the evidence, other than that which they perceive (albeit erroneously) to support naturalism. They force science into a straitjacket of their own making.
All scientific hypotheses/theories about past events, that no one witnessed, rely on assumptions. None can be claimed as FACT.
The biggest assumption of all, and one that is logically and scientifically unsustainable, is the idea of a natural, first cause. If this is your starting assumption, then everything that follows is flawed.
The new atheist nonsense, is simply the old, pagan nonsense of naturalism in a new guise.
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
What can I say I was arrested by the F.B.I (Flickr Bureau of Investigation) and thrown in prison for a week.
I was charged with
● Impersonating a proper photographer
● Posting pictures of myself on flickr, which caused distress to others
● Being an obstruction to low flying aircraft due to my height
The FBI have been watching me for a while apparently and using 600mm lenses to stay hidden.
They grew suspicious after looking at my pictures 199,000 times but wondered how I reached over 200,000 views.
Anyway I was interrogated at Flickr headquarters in San Francisco, they wanted to know how I got into Explore without using pictures of nails and nail varnishes, teddies, dolls with button eyes, dolls with large breasts, pictures with bokeh and oof shots.
I didn't crack even after 20 hours of lamps in my face down in the basement so they transferred me to flickr Penitentiary.
They chloroformed me for the 10 minute journey across the road, I woke up a few hours later in my cell but damn that chloroform stuff really makes your bottom hurt.
Flickr Penitentiary was one hell of a scary experience especially as I shared a cell with Mr Big.
Mr Big was great for getting stuff, and I mean the hard stuff, I'm talking about class 10 cards none of this class 4 crap, the read and write times of the class 10 stuff sent me dizzy and on a high helping me to get through this horrible experience.
The Penitentiary was separated into groups I was in the Nikon group called the Nikon Bad boys then there was the Canon group called the 'L' class maulers and it was these two groups who ruled the place.
Another group was formed of smaller groups to make them stronger, they contained Sony, Pentax and Fuji and thanks to their combined numbers they where 10 strong.
Then you had the bridge camera and compact camera group, everyone just felt sorry for them, at night when it was really quiet you could hear them crying themselves to sleep, only if they spent a bit more on a proper camera.
The last group was the film users who were lifers, they had been in there forever.
The film users walked around like mindless zombies talking to pigeons and the walls telling them how digital is the work of the Devil and how you can't beat breathing in the fumes of film chemicals. They also ran the library bringing photography books to our cells on a trolley.
You are probably wondering how I got the scar on my face well I was mopping the corridor along the cells when three Canon users came round the corner and grabbed me.
Two held me down whilst the other one threatened me, he must have been a 5D MKIII owner as he looked like the boss and was very confident, the two apes looked like 550d owners to me, just following orders as they lacked the proper equipment.
Boss man told me to stay out of Explore if I knew what was good for me then slashed my face with what looked like a sharpened class 10 sdhc card attached to a toothbrush.
I was in the infirmary for the rest of the day with a nasty scar for my troubles.
Not long after I was released on bail thanks to my lawer a very famous landscape photographer who really knows what he's talking about, very knowledgeable and methodical.
Thanks to my lawer I also got the the set up used by the FBI for my police mugshot.
Taken With
►Nikon D300s
►Nikon 16-85 @45mm
►Tripod + Cable Release
►Elemental Ultra Pro 600 studio lamp with 42 inch Beauty Dish + Honeycomb cover
►2x Jessops 360 AFD flashguns
►Yongnuo RF-602 trigger + receivers
I was really impressed with their equipment and how they used it.
The elemental lamp was to the side of the camera and pointing down at my face and set at 1/2 power, the honeycomb cover helped to channel the light at my face.
1x flashgun was placed behind me pointing at the wall and set at 1/4 power.
1X flashgun was placed in the same position as the main lamp but lower down and set at 1/8 power to add light to the mugshot board.
All fired off camera using Yongnuo RF-602 trigger + receivers.
Thanks for reading about my experience and press 'L' on your keyboard to view this prisoner on black.
Now I'm out I will try and pop past your streams soon.
P.s anyone who reads this, leaves a comment, adds this as a fav, is a contact or just visits out of curiosity is now an accessory to the charges and will be subject to investigation by the FBI.
Perhaps I should have told you that at the begining Doh !
Cause karma is my boyfriend
Karma is a god
Karma is the breeze in my hair on the weekend
Karma's a relaxing thought
Aren't you envious that for you it's not?
Sweet like honey
Karma is a cat
Purring in my lap 'cause it loves me
Flexing like a Vegas acrobat
Me and karma vibe like that
FACT.
ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are false. The conclusive proof is presented here.
The proof is categorised as follows:
1. Contingent
2. Temporal
3. Temporary
The fact that EVERY natural entity or event is all three
(contingent, temporal and temporary) definitively rules out a natural entity as the origin or first cause of the universe.
The universe cannot possibly be the result of purely natural processes as atheism requires.
_________________________________________
Contingent.
All, natural entities/events are contingent.
They all require causes, and the scope, extent and potential of their properties/abilities relies entirely on their cause/s.
Their effects/properties are limited to the adequacy of their cause/s. They cannot exceed, in any respect, the abilities or properties of that which causes them.
This is supported by the Law of Cause and Effect.
'Every natural effect requires a cause' AND ‘An effect cannot be greater than its cause/s’.
A first cause of everything cannot be contingent, it must be entirely autonomous and non-contingent. Not reliant on, nor limited by, any preceding cause or causes. It cannot be inferior, in any respect, to anything else that ultimately exists (entirely self-sufficient & self-reliant).
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity or event. This rules out every, proposed, natural origin of the universe scenario as a possible, first cause.
Logically, by virtue of the first cause being FIRST, it had to be uncaused (non-contingent). If it was caused it couldn't be FIRST, as it would be preceded by another cause..
_________________________________________
Temporal.
All, natural entities/events are temporal. They all have a beginning within a physical, time frame. They all begin to exist at some point in time. That which is temporal requires a cause. Therefore, a first cause of everything cannot be a natural entity of event.
A first cause of everything cannot be temporal, it cannot have had a beginning and cannot be subject to time. If any proposed, first cause began to exist at some time in the past, it would have required a preceding cause for its own existence, and therefore could not be the 'FIRST' cause. This rules out all natural scenarios, such as as a Big Bang explosion or a singularity, as possible, first causes. They are all temporal, and that is a fact.
The first cause has to be eternally and infinitely, self-existent, not temporal.
_________________________________________
Temporary.
All, natural entities/events are temporary.
As well as having a beginning within a physical time frame, they also face an eventual demise at some point in time.
This is enshrined in the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or more specifically, the law of entropy.
All, natural things deteriorate, and will ultimately come to an end.
Therefore, the first cause of everything cannot be a natural, entity or event. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything cannot be temporary, it cannot be subject to entropy and deterioration through the passage of time, because its powers and potential would have diminished and ultimately ceased to exist at some point in an eternal past. It could not have survived, or have had the sustained power, to be the first cause.
And an infinitely, long chain of natural causes and effects is impossible. Because, as each cause in the chain is subject to entropy, the chain as a whole would also be subject to entropy, thus deteriorating and diminishing in potential, over time.
_________________________________________
Conclusion:
Logic, supported by science, reveals that the first cause of everything cannot possibly be a natural entity or event. Therefore, ALL atheistic, natural origin of the universe scenarios are patently false. That is a fact.
The first cause of everything HAD to be a supernatural entity (a Creator God). There is no other logical or credible option.
The Biblical claim; the fool hath said in his heart “there is no God” (Psalm 14:1) is wholly justified and true.
Only a fool would attempt to claim otherwise.
_________________________________________
The implications of the Law of Cause and Effect clarified.
Consider this short chain of causes and effects:
A causes B, - B causes C, - C causes D, - D causes E.
'A, B, C & D' are all causes and may all look similar, but they are not, there is an enormous and crucial difference between them.
Causes B, C & D are fundamentally different from cause A.
Why?
Because A is the very first cause and thus had no previous cause. It exists without a cause. It doesn’t rely on anything else for its existence, it is completely independent of causes - while B, C, D & E would not exist without A. They are entirely dependent on A.
Causes; B, C & D are also effects, whereas A is not an effect, only a cause.
So we can say that the first cause ‘A’ is both self-existent and necessary. It is necessary because the rest of the chain of causes and effects could not exist without it. We also have to say that the subsequent causes and effects B, C, D and E are all contingent. That is; they are not self-existent they all depend entirely on other causes to exist.
We can also say that A is eternally self-existent, i.e. it has always existed, it had no beginning. Why? Because if A came into being at some point, there must have been something other than itself that brought it into being … which would mean A was not the first cause (A could not create A) … the something that brought A into being would be the first cause. In which case, A would be contingent and no different from B, C, D & E.
We can also say that A is adequate to produce all the properties of B, C, D & E.
Why?
Well in the case of E we can see that it relies entirely on D for its existence, E can in no way be superior to D because D had to contain within it everything necessary to produce E. The same applies to D it cannot be superior to C, but furthermore neither E or D can be superior to C, because both rely on C for their existence, and C had to contain everything necessary to produce D & E.
Likewise with B, which is responsible for the existence of C, D & E.
As they all depend on A for their existence and all their properties, abilities and potentials, none can be superior to A whether singly or combined. A had to contain everything necessary to produce B, C, D & E including all their properties, abilities and potentials.
Thus we deduce that; nothing in the universe can be superior in any way to the very first cause of the universe, because the whole universe, and all material things that exist, depend entirely on the abilities and properties of the first cause to produce them.
So to sum up … a first cause must be uncaused, must have always existed, without any deterioration, and cannot be in any way inferior to all subsequent causes and effects. In other words, the first cause of the universe must be eternally, self-sufficient, self-existent and omnipotent (greater than everything that exists).
It must be non-contingent, non-temporal and non-temporary. No natural entity can have those attributes, that is why a Supernatural, Creator God MUST exist.
_________________________________________
Polytheism? Why only one God?
What about polytheism, can there be more than one God or Creator.
It is obvious there can only be one, supernatural, first cause.
The first cause is infinite - and logically, there cannot be more than one infinite entity.
If there were two infinite entities, for example, A and B. The qualities and perfections that are the property of B would be a limitation on the qualities and perfections of A. and vice versa, so neither would be infinite.
If A & B had identical qualities and perfections they would not be two different entities, they would be identical and therefore the same entity, i.e. a single, infinite, first cause. So there can be only one infinite being or entity, only one supernatural, first cause and creator of the universe.
So when atheists keep repeating the claim - that there is no reason to believe the monotheistic, Christian God is any different from the multiple, gods of pagan religions, it simply displays their ignorance and lack of reasoning.
For this reason the Christian Trinity is not 3 gods, but rather 3 aspects or facets of the same, single God:
"I am in the Father and the Father is in me" John:14-20
_______________________________________
Supernaturalism, naturalism or magic?
Does the first cause of everything have to be a supernatural one? Or is this idea (as atheists claim) just a desperate attempt by ignorant people to fill a gap in scientific knowledge, by saying - God did it?
What does 'supernatural' mean? It means something outside of nature. Something which cannot be explained by science or by natural processes.
The origin of the Universe must be a supernatural event.
The origin of the universe cannot be explained by genuine science, natural laws or by natural processes. And that is an undeniable FACT.
Why?
Because EVERY possible explanation by natural processes (naturalism) violates both the fundamental principle of the scientific method - the Law of Cause and Effect - and other natural laws.
Hence, the first cause, by virtue of the fact that it cannot be explained by science or natural processes, automatically qualifies as a supernatural entity/event (supernaturalism).
To insist that the first cause must be a natural entity or event is to invoke a magical explanation, not a scientific one. The only choice, therefore is between a supernatural first cause or a magical one? A natural event that is purported to defy natural laws and scientific principles can only be described as MAGIC. And that is exactly what atheists propose. They cynically dress up their belief - that nature can evade natural laws - as science, but genuine science certainly cannot contemplate a causeless, natural event or entity, genuine scientists do not look for non-causes.
_______________________________________
Is atheist naturalism science or just paganism naturalism re-invented?
No one has ever proposed a natural explanation for the origin of the universe that does not violate the law of cause and effect and other natural laws. But, whenever atheists are challenged about this fact, they always make the excuse that the laws of nature/physics somehow DID NOT APPLY to their proposed, natural origin scenario.
The most, well known case of this excuse is the alleged 'Singularity' which, it has been claimed, preceded the Big Bang. Remember, it is claimed to be a "one-off event where the laws of physics did not apply." A natural event that defied natural laws! - That used to be called 'magic', before atheist, so-called 'scientists' hi-jacked science with their religion of naturalism - the worship of an All Powerful, autonomous, Mother Nature.
Excuses aren't science. A natural event that violates natural laws is by definition, not possible. There are no ifs, buts or maybes, natural things are bound by natural laws, without question.
Natural laws describe the inherent properties of natural entities and how they react according to those properties. They cannot exceed, in any way, the scope of behaviour dictated and limited by their properties. The whole basis of science is that every natural entity/event is contingent - has to have an ADEQUATE CAUSE.
The idea of 'laws not applying' to a natural event, is not science. It is just fantasy.
The Law of Cause and Effect is more than just an ordinary law, it is an overriding, fundamental principle of existence, not just a property of matter/energy like the Law of Gravity. It has been called the law of laws, because it applies to everything temporal; i.e. everything which begins to exist. Which means it applies to everything, except the single, first cause of everything.
If the origin of the universe is inexplicable to science, within the accepted framework of normal, natural processes and natural laws, then it is a supernatural event.
You cannot claim something as a natural event that violates natural laws, (i.e. exceeds the scope of its potential based on its own intrinsic properties). For that reason it is inexplicable to science.
In fact. to claim that something natural can defy natural laws is anti-science.
Those who promote such nonsense are enemies of science.
ALL NATURAL explanations for the origin of the universe violate the Law of Cause and Effect and other natural laws.
Conclusion: the atheist belief in a natural explanation for the origin of the universe (i.e. that Mother Nature did it) is impossible - according to science.
______________________________________
Did natural laws exist at the beginning?
An argument, often used by atheists, that we don’t know what natural laws existed at the beginning of the universe is a desperate attempt to evade the fact that natural laws are fatal to a natural origin (or natural, first cause) of the universe.
It is a nonsensical argument because, as I have already stated, natural laws describe the operation/behaviour of natural entities, according to their inherent properties, those properties don’t change.
The Law of Cause and Effect is exceptional. Nothing can evade the law of cause and effect.
Even if we accept the bizarre possibility that some natural laws could have been different at (or prior to) the beginning of the universe, it is irrelevant to the Law of Cause and Effect. That law is an exception.
Why?
Because, as previously explained, the Law of Cause and Effect is in a different category from all other laws, which are based solely on the inherent properties of natural things.
It would be better described as an eternal truth and fundamental principle, rather than just a law.
It is a unique and overriding principle of existence, different from other physical laws which are just pertinent to, and properties of, natural entities. It has rightly been called the ‘law of laws’.
Science (which deals exclusively with natural things), quite rightly, accepts the principle of causality as a natural law, and the scientific method itself is dependent on it being true.
We know the Law of Cause and Effect cannot be different, or non-operational, under any circumstances. That is a fact, because it necessarily applies to ALL temporal things.
Unlike other laws, it is not based on any particular, physical properties of nature, it is based only on the temporal character of nature.
Natural things are all temporal and nothing that is temporal can ever escape from that overriding principle. That would also include any temporal, spiritual entities, such as angels or demons.
Everything with a temporal character, wherever and whenever it exists, is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect, . There cannot be any exception to this, and that is why we can rely 100% on the scientific method, which depends on seeking and exploring causes.
Everything that has a beginning is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, even if the argument that "we don't know what laws existed at the beginning of the universe" is correct, it cannot apply to the principle of causality.
The principle of causality had to exist at the beginning. It is an eternal principle and truth, which can never be different, under any circumstances.
FACT: To reiterate; if something is temporal, then it is subject to the Law of Cause and Effect.
So, it is not possible to propose a natural, origin scenario that can escape the Law of Cause and Effect. All natural entities and occurrences are temporal and, therefore, are all subject to cause and effect.
The only thing not subject to causality is the first cause, because the first cause is not temporal, it has to be non-contingent, that is - infinite and eternally self-existent.
The first cause is the ONLY exception to causality, nothing else can be an exception, everything else (including other supernatural entities, such as angels) is contingent and owes its existence to a cause, which ultimately originates with the uncaused, first cause (God).
Conclusion: A Creator God MUST exist. It is not sensible, and certainly not scientific, to deny that fact.
The poison in our midst - progressive politics.
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/47971464278/in/pho...
Dr James Tour - 'The Origin of Life' - Abiogenesis decisively refuted.
youtu.be/B1E4QMn2mxk
'Cause I see only darkness around me...
On Explore, thank you! ♥
© All rights reserved. Do not use without permission.
SUN VALLEY - Nearly 100 Los Angeles Firefighters battled a greater alarm fire that ravaged a 14,000 square foot building in the 11600 block of Tuxford Street on September 25, 2017. The inferno caused cause $4 million damage to a deluxe door and hardware business and sent one LAFD firefighter to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries. © Photo by Mike Meadows
LAFD Incident: 092517-0883
Connect with us: LAFD.ORG | News | Facebook | Instagram | Reddit | Twitter: @LAFD @LAFDtalk
Sir George Hubert Wilkins (known as Hubert), Military Cross and Bar, MiD
Hubert Wilkins was born 31 October 1888 in an outback cottage on his parents’ property named Netfield, Mount Bryan East, South Australia. He was the youngest of 13 children, born to Henry and Louisa Wilkins.
He was war correspondent and photographer, polar explorer, naturalist, geographer, climatologist, ornithologist and aviator. As a child, Hubert experienced the devastation caused by drought and developed an interest in climatic phenomena.
If hardship moulded the character of Hubert Wilkins, so also did his passion for nature, music and a desire for knowledge. Enrolled in both the South Australian School of Mines and the Elder Conservatorium School of Music simultaneously, he studied electrical engineering, and singing, playing the organ, flute and cello at the Conservatorium.
It was in a number of part time jobs he learnt the art of blacksmithing, and gained a sound knowledge of the workings of both steam and internal combustion engines. On a trip to Sydney he became interested in photography. Returning to Adelaide he found employment with a travelling cinema and travelled in both South Australia and the Eastern States showing films.
When he was 20 years old (1908) he decided to leave Adelaide and see something of the world. At this time in his life a number of thoughts were forming in his mind, thoughts based upon his past experiences and that were to lead him to follow fixed courses of action. One of the most important of his ideas was to attempt to discover how and why the weather could so dramatically affect people’s lives, as it had done his own. Two forces now took over his life: the need to discover things concerning the world about him, and the need to travel to places that would provide him with the answers to the many questions forming in his mind.
His travels began by stowing away on a ship at Port Adelaide. The ship deposited him in Sydney and he soon found employment as a projectionist, then later as a cinematographer.
On reaching London he obtained work with the Gaumont Company as a cinematographic cameraman and with the Daily Chronicle as a reporter. It was then (1910) that he learnt to fly at Hendon. He did not sit for any of the flying exams, which would have made him a qualified pilot, through lack of money. But his interest in flying was to remain with him for the rest of his life. So too was his passion for photography. Photographs of the time (1911) show him performing photographic stunts. One popular photograph shows him astride the fuselage of a Deperdussin monoplane hand cranking his camera. Despite these promotional stunts Hubert Wilkins was perfecting the art of taking aerial motion pictures. In his autobiography he believed he was the first person to take a movie camera into the air and film the scenes around him.
As a war correspondent and photographer, in 1912 he covered the fighting between the Turks and Bulgarians. From 1913 to 1916 he was second-in-command on Vilhjalmur Stefansson's Canadian Arctic expedition: Wilkins became adept in the art of survival in polar regions, added to his scientific knowledge and conceived a plan to improve weather forecasting by establishing permanent stations at the poles.
Returning to Australia, on 1 May 1917 he was commissioned as second lieutenant in the Australian Imperial Force (Australian Flying Corps). By August he had been transferred to the general list and was at I Anzac Corps headquarters on the Western Front. Appointed official photographer in April 1918, he was tasked with providing 'an accurate and complete record of the fighting and other activities of the A.I.F.' as a counterpart to Captain J. F. Hurley's propaganda work. In June Wilkins was awarded the Military Cross 'for bringing in some wounded men'. With Hurley's departure, he was promoted captain on 11 July and took charge of No.3 (Photographic) Sub-section of the Australian War Records unit. His routine was to visit the front line for part of each day that troops were engaged in combat and periodically to accompany infantry assaults. During the battle of the Hindenburg line, on 29 September he organized a group of American soldiers who had lost their officers in an enemy attack and directed operations until support arrived. Awarded a Bar to his M.C., he was also mentioned in dispatches. He is the only Australian official photographer to have been decorated.
In January 1919, as photographer, Wilkins joined Charles Bean’s mission to reconstruct Australia's part in the Gallipoli Peninsula campaign. He entered the England to Australia air race that year, but his aircraft, a Blackburn Kangaroo, experienced engine failure and crash-landed in Crete; he arrived in Australia by sea in July 1920 and his A.I.F. appointment terminated on 7 September. Engaging in further polar exploration, in 1920-21 he made his first visit to the Antarctic, accompanying J. L. Cope on his unsuccessful voyage to Graham Land. Wilkins next took part in Sir Ernest Shackleton's Quest expedition of 1921-22 on which he made ornithological observations.
Sir Hubert’s adventures continued from his home base in America. On one occasion he gleaned information from the Japanese Consul-General about Japan's intention to destroy Pearl Harbour and invade Singapore. Sir Hubert passed the information to the Allies but was not believed.
He died suddenly at Massachusetts, on 30 November 1958 and was cremated: four months later his ashes were scattered from the ‘Skate’ at the North Pole. Lady Wilkins survived him and wrote affectionately of a husband whose only contact with her for extended periods had been through his letters.
Ref: Australian Dictionary of Biography Vol 12 (MUP) 1990
South Australian Aviation Museum
Flinders Ranges Research
Ignite for CAUSE Magazine
Photography: Takeuchis
Model: Bianca Pettenati @ Ford Models SC
MUA: Vinícius Martins
Europe, France, Languedoc-Roussillon, L'Hérault, Montpellier, Antigone, Place de Nombre d'Or (uncut)
Antigone is a new living quarter in Montpellier. It's realized on former industrial and military terrains.
and is a good example of urban renewal. Some 4,000 apartments (mainly public) and 20,000 sq. meters of commercial space were realized. It's morphology is neo-classicist / post modern, the architect was Ricardo Bofill.
When we first visited Antigone, it was just finished and it looked kind of sterile and as someone who in general isn't really fond of post modern architecture, it was easy for me to dislike and dismiss it as an empty and dysfunctional gesture with fascist overtones. When last weekend W and I returned some 15 years later the morphology was of course still there ....but the quarter had become alive - the trees now significant in size, many little shops, restaurants and bars and a great and lively diversity of people walking, socializing and lounging. And maybe 'cause of this I began to see the humour in the extravagant design choices of Antigone....and in the expression and relative dimensions of the sculptures placed in fountains and in the choice to use flowered streetcars for public transportation. The gestalt seems to really work – you can never be sure wat will work and what will not in a city -strange beasts they are;-)
By the way: this seems to be a copy of the famous 'Poseidon of Artemision', found in Evia (Greece). There's no consensus about this statue actually portrays Poseidon (the god of the seas) - some art historians state that its actually Zeus (the upper god). Was it a clever post-modernistisc plot to play wtih this confusion ? ;-)
More info about the urbanistic background of Antigone is here
The Rabbis taught: Four [Sages] entered the Pardes [literally "the orchard."]. Rashi explains that they ascended to heaven by utilizing the [Divine] Name [i.e., they achieved a spiritual elevation through intense meditation on G‑d's Name] (Tosafot, ad loc). They were Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, Acher [Elisha ben Avuya, called Acher— the other one — because of what happened to him after he entered the Pardes] and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said to them [prior to their ascension]: "When you come to the place of pure marble stones, do not say, 'Water! Water!' for it is said, 'He who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes' (Psalms 101:7)." Ben Azzai gazed [at the Divine Presence - Rashi] and died. Regarding him the verse states, "Precious in the eyes of G‑d is the death of His pious ones" (Psalms 116:15). Ben Zoma gazed and was harmed [he lost his sanity — Rashi]. Regarding him the verse states, "Did you find honey? Eat only as much as you need, lest you be overfilled and vomit it up" (Proverbs 25:16). Acher cut down the plantings [he became a heretic]. Rabbi Akiva entered in peace and left in peace. Ramak now cites the Tikunei Zohar which adds some details not mentioned in the Talmud. The ancient Saba [an old man] stood up and said [to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai], "Rabbi, Rabbi! What is the meaning of what Rabbi Akiva said to his students, "When you come to the place of pure marble stones, do not say, 'Water! Water!' lest you place yourselves in danger, for it is said, 'He who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes.' But it is written, "There shall be a firmament between the waters and it shall separate between water [above the firmament] and water [below the firmament]" (Genesis 1:6). Since the Torah describes the division of the waters in to upper and lower, why should it be problematic to mention this division? Furthermore, since there are [in fact] upper and lower waters, why did Rabbi Akiva warn them, "do not say, 'Water! Water!'"
The Holy Lamp [a title accorded to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai] replied, "Saba, it is proper that you reveal this secret that the chevraya [Rabbi Shimon's circle of disciples] have not grasped clearly." The ancient Saba answered, "Rabbi, Rabbi, Holy Lamp. Surely the pure marble stones are the letter yud — one the upper yud of the letter aleph, and one the lower yud of the letter aleph [an aleph in script is formed by an upright yud at the top to the right, and an upside-down yud at the bottom to the left, joined by a vav, the diagonal line between them]. Here there is no spiritual impurity; only pure marble stones, and so there is no separation between one water and the other; they form a single unity from the aspect of the Tree of Life, which is the vav in the midst of the letter aleph. In this regard it states, "[lest he put forth his hand] and if he take of the Tree of Life [and eat and live forever]…(Gen. 3:22) Ramak now begins to analyze these passages. The meaning of Rabbi Akiva's exhortation is that the Sages should not declare that there are two types of water. Since there are not [two types of water] one would be causing a separation. This is the meaning of "do not say, 'water, water'" — do not say that there are two types of water, lest you endanger yourself because of the sin of separation. For this reason the old man asked two questions, both of which are real questions: "There shall be a firmament between the waters and it shall separate…" (Genesis 1:6). Thus there are two types of water and a separation between them. In this case, does it not appear to be permissible to refer to two types of water? Even more problematic is that the Torah itself states, "It shall separate between water and water" — the water above the firmament and the water below the firmament. This is a complete separation. The marble stones represent the letter yud. The old man asked a second question — the waters are in fact of two types: water of the firmament and water below the firmament [in rivers, lakes and seas]. Why then did Rabbi Akiva exhort them not to say "water, water, lest they endanger themselves?" On the contrary; it should be permitted to mention two types of water, for this is no worse than the language used by the Torah, and this is also the situation in fact! Now Rabbi Shimon did not wish to explain this matter himself; he wanted his disciples to hear it from the old man. The old man explained that each of the marble stones represents the letter yud. As we have explained elsewhere this means a yud at the beginning, and a yud at the end, according to the mystical explanation of "I am first and I am last" (Isaiah 44:6). The first yud represents chochma, and the second yud represents malchut, which is also chochma according to the mystical explanation of the light that returns from below to above (called or chozer). The upper yud is the yud of the Tetragrammaton (Yud-Hei-Vav-Hei) while the lower yud is the yud of the Name Alef-Dalet-Nun-Yud. The latter is the concept of "female waters" (Mayin Nukvin), and the former the concept of "male waters" (Mayin Dechurin). They are called "female waters" because they receive from below, from the performance of the commandments, and through them a person has the ability to affect the higher worlds so that the light will shine forth and become clothed in them, as in a palace. Thus the light that is elicited [by the performance of the commandments is like] a king in his palace. These are also the keys to the inner and outer aspects. The inner aspect is the light of the Tetragrammaton, which undoubtedly descends as or yashar from above to below. The outer aspect is that which returns according to the mystical explanation of or chozer. This is the meaning of the statement in regard to the sefirot "from below to above, and from above to below," as explained elsewhere. This is signified by the top and the bottom yuds of the aleph. This is also the secret of the intertwining (shiluv) of the two Names --Yud-Alef-Hei-Dalet-Vov-Nun-Hei-Yud — with the upper yud at the beginning and the lower yud at the end. These two yuds are referred to in the passage "pure marble stones." Each of the yuds is a stone because its shape is round like a stone. It is called "marble" because marble is generally white, which is indicative of the attribute of Mercy (in Hebrew rachamim). In this sense it is also similar to water [which represents kindness]. Now since these two yuds are the aspect of compassion, just like water, which is called "waters of kindness," they are therefore referred to as "marble," as we just explained. We can also explain this by way of [the science of] tzeiruf (letter combinations and permutations): The sefira of chochma is called yesh — "being" [since it is the first immanent sefira], spelled Yud-Shin in Hebrew. The lower chochma [i.e., malchut] is called shai [Shin-Yud — the identical letters, but in reverse order]. When both words are combined they form the word shayish — Shin-Yud-Shin ("marble"). The yud is chochma, the source, and the shin is the emanation of its branches [i.e., the branching out into sefirot according to the mystical explanation of or yashar]…Malchut is called shai according to the mystical explanation of the light that reverses (or chozer). When these two words, signifying these two types of light, are combined to form the word shayish (the two yuds combine into one). They are the letter yud...the upper and lower yuds of the aleph are joined by a diagonal vav
They are called "pure," for there are a number of different types of water [mentioned in the Torah]; one of these is mei nida — literally waters of impurity [because they are used to purify a person after he became contaminated by contact with the dead. Water from a living spring is mixed with the ashes of the red heifer and is then sprinkled upon the impure person]. Separation and division is mentioned in regard to this type of water, as will be explained. These waters [of the pure] marble stones are completely pure and pertain to Atzilut.
"They are the letter yud — one the upper yud of the letter aleph…" We already explained above that the Name Yud-Alef-Hei-Dalet-Vav-Nun-Hei-Yud has the upper and lower aspects of chochma [represented by the two yuds] and six letters in between, alluding to the letter vav [which has a numerical value of 6. Note that the upper and lower yuds of the aleph are joined by a diagonal vav. This is the way a scribe traditionally writes the letter א]. This symbolizes tiferet, which branches out into six extremities [tiferet is the central sefira of the six sefirot of Zeir Anpin]. The vav is situated between the yuds in order to join them. That is to say, through tiferet the daughter [malchut] is able to ascend "to her father's house as in her youth."
It is for this reason that Rabbi Akiva warned them not to say that those two marble stones were separated from one another, G‑d forbid, for this is not true. On the contrary, the firmament between them, which is tiferet, actually unites them and through it they are joined together. There is no separation other than in a place of spiritual impurity, as it is written, "to separate between the impure and the pure" (Leviticus 11:47). But in a place of purity — pure marble stones — "do not say, 'water, water." This is what the old man was explaining, "Here there is no spiritual impurity… they are from the aspect of the Tree of Life…" These waters are in Atzilut and therefore there is no separation between them… on the contrary, the firmament unites them….
The tree of life. It is arguably one of the most popular symbols in the Bible. It’s too bad that so many people read Genesis, discover the tree of life, and think it’s literal. To do so robs the mind of this ancient symbol’s true beauty and essence! Sometimes called the cosmic or world tree, the tree of life did not originate with the authors of Genesis. For thousands of years it has been used in sacred literature to describe man’s connection with the divine. Although different cultures have known this tree by different names, the essence of this tree’s significance is essentially the same; it represents both divine and natural man, the spiritual and natural world. And just as the tree of life symbolically spans all the worlds of existence, so does man. I know the above sounds super spiritual, so what does it really mean for all of us down here on earth? Simply put, the tree of life is about the evolution of subjective consciousness from the lower planes to the higher planes—the world of physical matter to the world of energetic spirit. And consciousness is the center of it all! Consider the Buddha. He was enlightened under the great Bodhi tree. Is it really just a coincidence that Odin gained supernatural abilities (enlightenment) under the branches of Yggdrasil, the mythological tree of the ancient Scandinavians? How about the fact that ancient Mayan kings, including Pakal Votan, were portrayed on stone monuments with the world tree emerging from their headdress (more enlightenment imagery)? I apologize in advance to the fundamentalist that believes the concept behind the tree of life is unique to Biblical literature, but I don’t think all this imagery is coincidental. In fact, we can easily connect enlightenment with the Biblical tree of life. Consider the scripture from Revelations: “…To him that overcometh [achieves enlightenment] will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God” (Rev. 2:7). The seven seals being opened throughout the course of the Book of Revelations corresponds to the opening of the seven chakras, the cause of enlightenment, and eating from the tree of life is symbolic of the fruit one gains after traversing the many planes of consciousness. They key to understanding the above statement must include a knowledge of both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. ,Let’s review the scripture from genesis that references both trees. Unveiling it will reveal some heavy esoteric knowledge . “And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:9). Why do you think the Genesis author implies that both trees are in the midst of the garden? It is because together they represent different aspects of ONE tree! The world tree is comprised of both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the realm of duality you cannot have one tree without the other. The experience of man includes both trees, from limited individual consciousness to the liberation gained through cosmic consciousness. When consciousness (spirit) incarnated on the physical plane, man began living out his existence among hardship and pain. This is part of the growing process, and there is going to be some wounds to lick. But to he who overcomes by continuing to grow consciously will be given to eat of the tree of life.
The key is in the fruit! Within the experience of duality lies consciousness evolution and moving up the tree of life to partake of its fruit. Again, we can prove all this with scripture. Review Genesis 2:9 again. God said the trees in the garden were for food. This has nothing to do with physical food. It’s a about spiritual food. Let’s compare the fruit of each tree from Gaskell’s Dictionary of Scripture and myth. Fruit of the tree of life: “Symbolic of the higher emotions and faculties of the buddhic [Christ] nature laid up for the soul when perfected.” In Revelations Jesus states that the tree of life on either side of the river bears twelve fruits that provide healing. What causes us to express the higher emotions and mental faculties of the Christ? It is through the acquisition of wisdom, which brings healing. “She [wisdom] is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her…” (Proverbs 3:18). How does anyone gain wisdom? It starts with obedience to God on the physical plane. It ends when one truly learns the lessons (on the soul level) that experience in duality provides. Now consider the other side of this coin: Fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil: “A symbol of the experience acquired through the activities of the lower nature and the development of the moral nature.” How does the Bible explain how man acquired experience and learned to develop the moral nature? By being kicked out of the garden (spiritual existence) to live life among “thorns” and “thistles” (duality). This is the fruit of the knowledge of the tree of good and evil! Sometimes the tree of life is inverted in Kabbalah. The inverted tree of life has its roots firmly established in heaven (spiritual planes) and the rest of the tree emanates into the physical world. Likewise, man originated in the Eden, a spiritual plane, and ended up in the physical world, earth. The inverted tree depicts this process. Now it is up to us to climb back up the spiritual worlds. I like to picture the inverted tree as the tree of life and the right-side up tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. It makes sense for me to picture the two in this way because remember that the true world tree contains both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Picturing one tree as inverted and the other right-side up helps me to get a clear picture for the functions of both trees. Tree of LifeThe tree of life then is the ultimate motif of the evolution of consciousness. Its branches reach into heaven, the spiritual planes. The trunk resides on the material plane, and the roots grow into the earth, or underworld, which represents many subconscious aspects of our soul.
The consciousness of man then can be likened unto a tree itself. The ultimate goal is to become complete and whole, which is the true meaning of Biblical perfection. This is accomplished through following and understanding the deeper esoteric meanings of God’s commands.
“And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf [true ideals] shall not wither; and whatsoever he does shall prosper” (Psalm 1:3).
Returning to the tree of life is to gain enlightenment. It is guarded by Cherubim because we must go through the planes of existence and experience duality in order to raise consciousness before we can gain access. It’s that simple.
Every day that you wake up, consider it your day to experience something that brings you one step closer to again gaining access to the tree of life, or enlightenment! And it’s all Biblical! I especially want Christians who are questioning orthodox interpretation to know this, so I’ll say it again. It’s all Biblical! Don’t fret the fact that the Bible is truly a book with eastern concepts woven throughout. Doing so only limits the truths provided through this great book. It certainly isn’t of isolation.
Did the Tree of Life mentioned in the book of Genesis, have power to impart immortality to mortal man, as might be deduced from Genesis 3:22?’
The Tree of Life stood in the centre of the Garden of Eden which elsewhere is called ‘The Garden of the LORD’.1 It was a real tree, to be sure, but let me suggest that it was also symbolic of the fact that God was, and is, the source of eternal life and blessing. Adam and Eve were to have their life centred in Him, even as the Tree was in the centre of His Garden. Other parts of the Bible also mention The Tree of Life. In Ezekiel 47:12 (NASB) we read of trees whose ‘fruit will be for food and their leaves for healing’. This image is taken up also in Revelation 22:2. It is clear particularly in Proverbs where a number of things are referred to as ‘a tree of life’ (wisdom (3:15), the fruit of the righteous (11:30), desire fulfilled (13:12), and a soothing tongue (15:4)) that the Tree of Life in these references symbolises that which brings joy and healing to people. This, I suspect, was what the original, the real Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden symbolised. It was material, yet it stood for the blessing of eternal life which God would give to Adam and Eve, and their descendants, if they were to pass the test of obedience. They were permitted to eat of any tree in the Garden except the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil on pain of death.2 Now, use a little lateral thinking. What else in the Bible is real and material, yet at the same time symbolises the life which is in Christ and points us repeatedly to Him? Something in which Christians share, and which reminds them that Jesus’ death brings us life? It is the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
IF ADAM PASSED THE TEST OF OBEDIENCE, IT WOULD BE THE MEANS OF GOD’S IMPARTING ETERNAL LIFE TO HIM. Now, let us return to the Garden of Eden. I want to suggest that the Tree of Life was there to perform such a sacramental function. If Adam passed the test of obedience, it would be the means of God’s imparting eternal life to him, not by magic, but by the working of his Spirit ‘by, with and under’ the fruit of the Tree. But Adam sinned. He failed the test and lost his right to eat from the Tree. As one commentator puts it, ‘that he might understand himself to be deprived of his former life, a solemn excommunication is added; not that the Lord would cut him off from all hope of salvation, but, by taking away what he had given, would cause man to seek new assistance elsewhere.’3 Just as Christians who profane the Lord’s Supper are subject to judgment, so Adam would have been further condemned if he had presumed to eat the fruit to which he was not now entitled. In doing so, he would have been trying to rob life from God, a grave blasphemy. The implication of Genesis 3:22 (NIV) ‘And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live for ever,”’ is that he, and us with him,4 would have been plunged into a condition of absolute lostness. He would have lived eternally cut off from God without hope of escape from the terrible consequences of sin. This would have been God’s just punishment for such a presumptuous sin, not merely a ‘magical’ effect of the Tree of Life. Mercifully, God did not permit this to happen.5 Adam was cast out of the Garden of Eden. No longer could he even contemplate eating from the Tree of Life. It was beyond his reach. Physical death now began to enter the human race. Adam began to die! The last Adam (Christ) later came to Earth to die so that through faith in Jesus, we may now inherit the eternal life Adam forfeited. Indeed, Jesus says to those who persevere in faith, ‘To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the Tree of Life which is in the Paradise of God.’6 The Genesis account of the Tree of Life reminds us there is only one way to attain to an eternal life of blessedness—the way God has appointed. That is through His Son, the Creator of heaven and Earth—the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He alone who can say, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life.’
The Muslim man explained that probably the most fundamental difference is that the Koran2 speaks of Jesus as a prophet—definitely not the Son of God. That evening, the Australian-born student told her father of the encounter, and asked, ‘Dad, I’ve been thinking … our bodies are unclean! Why would God, who is pure, sully himself by coming down to Earth in human form?’ After her father failed to give a reasoned answer, she turned her back on the church, converted to Islam and later married a Muslim.3. Such a question requires only a basic understanding of the Atonement to answer. Salvation required a sacrificial ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45) to shed His blood in death, one who was a physical descendant of the first, yet sinless. This could be fulfilled only through God incarnate, Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:12, 22). Notice, though, how all this is built upon the foundational Genesis truths of the first Adam bringing in sin and death, and the first shedding of blood as a covering for sin (Genesis 3:21). The increasing confusion caused in the church by long-age compromises (which, by putting suffering, death and bloodshed before Adam, undermine these truths) is a major reason why so many today cannot give reasoned answers to basic Gospel-related questions (contravening 1 Peter 3:15). This leaves young people in the church vulnerable to being tossed by winds of false doctrine (Ephesians 4:14).
Following September 11, 2001, the increased prominence of Islam in the media, and public declarations by government (and many church) leaders that Islam is a ‘great’ religion, will likely raise further questions in the minds of many young people in the churches. E.g. ‘Do Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God?’ and ‘What does the Koran say about the Bible?’ Many Christian commentators have sought to raise awareness of fundamental doctrinal differences between the Koran and the Bible (see below), but few people are aware of how the Muslim’s holy book starkly contradicts the Biblical account of our origins. Genesis provides a unified description of Creation; the Koran does not. Creation, The Fall, Flood and Babel . Genesis provides a unified description of Creation; the Koran does not. Instead, fragmented passages are scattered across many of its 114 chapters (‘Sura’). The tables (below) attempt to assimilate these fragments for a clearer picture of what the Koran says, compared to the Bible. The many contradictions highlighted in these tables surely demolish any claims that the ‘revelation’ given to Muhammad is not a corruption of, but reliably builds upon, Judeo-Christian history. Eve’s distorted view, obviously wrong, is portrayed as truth in the Koran. For instance, the Koranic account prohibits Adam from going anywhere near the Forbidden Tree, while Genesis says that God only commanded Adam not to eat its fruit (see Table 2). (Man had been placed in the garden to tend it (Genesis 2:15), which seems to require physical access to each tree for e.g. pruning.) Interestingly, the Bible relates that Eve, who was deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), had misconstrued God’s instruction to not eat of the fruit from the tree to instead also mean not to touch it (Genesis 3:3). Yet Eve’s distorted view, obviously wrong, is portrayed as truth in the Koran [update: see Did Eve lie before the Fall?—Ed.]. The Biblical account of origins also makes more sense of today’s world than does the Koran—e.g. the presence of sin, violence, death and the origin of languages (and concomitant minor ‘racial’ differences). The Bible explains why the whole creation is so obviously groaning, in bondage to decay (Romans 8:19–22). In contrast, the Koran makes God responsible for death and suffering (see Tables 1 and 2), in common with long-age and evolutionary Christian views, and Eastern religions.
The Koran and evolution
With the increased adoption of evolution-based curricula, some Muslim leaders and scholars began to recognize the threat to Islam from a rising tide of evolutionary thinking. Their response has been either to attack evolution, or, more commonly, to blend it with Islam.
New Scientist reported that Islamic creationist books cite and copy Christian creationists, but with Biblical references deleted.
1. The Islamic creationists
The creationist Muslims claim that ‘The theory [of evolution] and the holy Qur’an are in direct conflict with each other and no compatibility is possible anywhere.’4 New Scientist reported that Islamic creationist books cite and copy Christian creationists, but with Biblical references deleted.5
2. The Islamic evolutionists
Evolution-believing Muslims seem to be far more numerous, and vocal, than creationist Muslims.
They have a substantial strategic advantage precisely because the Koran is so vague, nebulous and seemingly open to various interpretations.6 They delight in pointing out that, in contrast, ‘There is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in the Biblical description of the Creation in six days followed by a day of rest, the sabbath, analogous with the days of the week.’7 These evolution-accommodating Muslims are adamant that the ‘days’ of Creation in the Koran ‘mean in reality “very long Periods, or Ages, or Aeons”?’.7 Muslim apologists gleefully point out that the Koran is compatible with evolution where the Bible is not. Muslim apologists gleefully point out that the Koran is compatible with evolution where the Bible is not, e.g.: ‘Neither here nor anywhere else in the Holy Qur-án is it affirmed that Adam was the first man, or that there was no creation by God before Adam, nor that Adam lived or man was created, or the earth made, only six thousand years ago.’8,9 Long-age Muslims exploit the Bible’s explicit detail of the Flood, too. They say that because the Bible clearly says there was a recent global Flood, while ‘science’ says there was not, the Bible is wrong and the Koran is thus confirmed to be right!10 Some of the Muslim literature even claims that the Koran shows that Allah revealed to Muhammad details about the ‘big bang’, ancient universe and evolution long before scientists began to ‘discover’ such ‘facts’.11
Christian awareness: In the same way that being aware of evolutionary challenges to our faith helps us to be ready with answers,12 so, too, we need to be aware of what religions, including Islam, actually say, in order to be better prepared to answer our children’s questions.13 When men teach things that are contrary to the Bible, we are commanded to actively oppose such ideas (2 Corinthians 10:5). Christians need to be ready to help guide young people through the kinds of ‘intellectual crisis of faith’ that many confront in their teenage years—whether because of exposure to evolutionary teaching, or to other religions.
Knowing that the Word of God accurately explains our world ahead of all opposing ideas not only strengthens our own faith, but gives us the confidence to reach out in love to challengers—including Muslims. In Koran 6:91, the Book given to Moses is described as ‘a light and guidance to man …’
Using Genesis to reach Muslims?
Just as the Apostle Paul used Athenian beliefs to draw his Greek listeners to the truth of the Gospel (Acts 17:22–23, 28), Christians could use a similar approach when talking with Muslims. One could start by reminding the Muslim that the Koran says that the Scriptures of Jews and Christians were given by God, e.g. Koran 2:87—‘We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.’ Similarly, in Koran 6:91, the Book given to Moses is described as ‘a light and guidance to man …’ . So why so many irreconcilable differences between Genesis 1–11 and the Koran? A Muslim might say that today’s copies of the Bible have been corrupted. But the earliest Biblical manuscripts (e.g. in the British Museum14) date from before Muhammad, demonstrating the reliability of our current copies. The Bible explains that death, violence, pain and decay entered a once-perfect Creation as a result of Adam’s sin in the garden of Eden. A further challenge for the Muslim would concern the presence of death, suffering, grief, etc., in the world. Consider the following exchange between American TV host Larry King and Georgetown University’s Islamic professor of theology, Maysam Al-Faruqi:
KING: Maysam, if you believe in heaven and paradise, then dying is good?
AL-FARUQI: Absolutely. And dying is perfectly natural, it’s the end of things.
KING: Why do we treat it tragically? … …
AL-FARUQI: Well, there is the pain …15
So in this Muslim (also theistic evolutionary) view of death as ‘perfectly natural’, why grieve and wail at the death of a loved one? The Islamic professor’s answer, ‘Well, there is the pain …’ begs the question: ‘So pain and suffering are a “natural”? part of God’s good (Koran 32:7) creation, too?’ Clearly, Muslims have no satisfactory answer.But the Bible explains that death, violence, pain and decay entered a once-perfect Creation as a result of Adam’s sin in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17, 3:19; Romans 5:12–17; 8:19–22; 1 Corinthians 15:21–22). Thankfully, this situation is only temporary, as God gave his Son, Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Trinity, that those who believe in Him can look forward to the coming restoration, to a world with ‘no more death, mourning, crying or pain’, i.e. no more Genesis Curse (John 1:18, 3:16; Acts 3:21; Revelation 21:4, 22:3).
In Islam, Adam (Ādam; Arabic: آدم), whose role is being the father of humanity, is looked upon by Muslims with reverence. Eve (Ḥawwāʼ;Arabic: حواء ) is the “mother of humanity.” The creation of Adam and Eve is referred to in the Qurʼān, although different Qurʼanic interpreters give different views on the actual creation story (Qurʼan, Surat al-Nisaʼ, verse 1).
In al-Qummi’s tafsir on the Garden of Eden, such place was not entirely earthly. According to the Qurʼān, both Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit in a Heavenly Eden (See alsoJannah). As a result, they were both sent down to Earth as God’s representatives. Each person was sent to a mountain peak: Adam on al-Safa, and Eve on al-Marwah. In this Islamic tradition, Adam wept 40 days until he repented, after which God sent down the Black Stone, teaching him the Hajj. According to a prophetic hadith, Adam and Eve reunited in the plain of ʻArafat, near Mecca. They had two sons together, Qabil (Cain) and Habil (Abel). There is also a legend of a younger son, named Rocail, who created a palace and sepulcher containing autonomous statues that lived out the lives of men so realistically they were mistaken for having souls. The concept of original sin does not exist in Islam, because Adam and Eve were forgiven by God. When God orders the angels to bow to Adam, Iblis questioned, “Why should I bow to man? I am made of pure fire and he is made of soil.” The liberal movements within Islam have viewed God’s commanding the angels to bow before Adam as an exaltation of humanity, and as a means of supporting human rights; others view it as an act of showing Adam that the biggest enemy of humans on earth will be their ego. The Garden of Eden is spoken about prominently in the Quran and the tafsir (interpretation). This includes surat Sad, which features 21 verses on the subject, surat al-Baqarah, surat al-A’raf, and surat al-Hijr. The narrative mainly surrounds the expulsion of Iblis from the garden and his subsequent tempting of Adam and Eve. After Iblis refuses to follow God’s command to bow down to Adam for being his greatest creation, Allah transforms him into Satan as a punishment. Unlike the Biblical account, the Quran mentions only one tree in Eden, the tree of immortality, which Allah specifically forbade to Adam and Eve. Satan, disguised as a serpent, repeatedly told Adam to eat from the tree, and eventually both Adam and Eve did so, thus disobeying Allah.These stories are also featured in the Islamic hadith collections, including al- Tabari. The Tree of Immortality (Arabic: شجرة الخلود) is the tree of life motif as it appears in the Quran. It is also alluded to in hadiths and tafsir. Unlike the biblical account, the Quran mentions only one tree in Eden, also called the tree of immortality, which Allah specifically forbade to Adam and Eve. Satan, disguised as a serpent, repeatedly told Adam to eat from the tree, and eventually both Adam and Eve did so, thus disobeying Allah. The hadiths however speak about other trees in heaven.
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image of Comet (C/2012 S1) ISON was photographed on April 10, 2013, when the comet was slightly closer than Jupiter's orbit at a distance of 394 million miles from Earth.
Even at that great distance the comet is already active as sunlight warms the surface and causes frozen volatiles to boil off. Astronomers used such early images to try to measure the size of the nucleus, in order to predict whether the comet would stay intact when it slingshots around the sun -- at 700,000 miles above the sun's surface -- on Nov. 28, 2013.
The comet's dusty coma, or head of the comet, is approximately 3,100 miles across, or 1.2 times the width of Australia. A dust tail extends more than 57,000 miles, far beyond Hubble's field of view.
This image was taken in visible light. The blue false color was added to bring out details in the comet structure.
Credit: NASA/ ESA/STScI/AURA
--------
More details on Comet ISON:
Comet ISON began its trip from the Oort cloud region of our solar system and is now travelling toward the sun. The comet will reach its closest approach to the sun on Thanksgiving Day -- 28 Nov 2013 -- skimming just 730,000 miles above the sun's surface. If it comes around the sun without breaking up, the comet will be visible in the Northern Hemisphere with the naked eye, and from what we see now, ISON is predicted to be a particularly bright and beautiful comet.
Catalogued as C/2012 S1, Comet ISON was first spotted 585 million miles away in September 2012. This is ISON's very first trip around the sun, which means it is still made of pristine matter from the earliest days of the solar system’s formation, its top layers never having been lost by a trip near the sun. Comet ISON is, like all comets, a dirty snowball made up of dust and frozen gases like water, ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide -- some of the fundamental building blocks that scientists believe led to the formation of the planets 4.5 billion years ago.
NASA has been using a vast fleet of spacecraft, instruments, and space- and Earth-based telescope, in order to learn more about this time capsule from when the solar system first formed.
The journey along the way for such a sun-grazing comet can be dangerous. A giant ejection of solar material from the sun could rip its tail off. Before it reaches Mars -- at some 230 million miles away from the sun -- the radiation of the sun begins to boil its water, the first step toward breaking apart. And, if it survives all this, the intense radiation and pressure as it flies near the surface of the sun could destroy it altogether.
This collection of images show ISON throughout that journey, as scientists watched to see whether the comet would break up or remain intact.
The comet reaches its closest approach to the sun on Thanksgiving Day -- Nov. 28, 2013 -- skimming just 730,000 miles above the sun’s surface. If it comes around the sun without breaking up, the comet will be visible in the Northern Hemisphere with the naked eye, and from what we see now, ISON is predicted to be a particularly bright and beautiful comet.
ISON stands for International Scientific Optical Network, a group of observatories in ten countries who have organized to detect, monitor, and track objects in space. ISON is managed by the Keldysh Institute of Applied Mathematics, part of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center enables NASA’s mission through four scientific endeavors: Earth Science, Heliophysics, Solar System Exploration, and Astrophysics. Goddard plays a leading role in NASA’s accomplishments by contributing compelling scientific knowledge to advance the Agency’s mission.
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Greenbelt-MD/NASA-Godd
My "new" Weston light meter (1935) and a test shot using the readings from it. Not too bad for a 78-year-old, eh? The meter, by the way - not me!)
Ok so this took me forever no lie, like 2 days and u can ask Andy lol. Like seriously he helped me sooo much on it, its ridiculous lmaoo. Im really stressin cause her makeover. In my opinion makes her looks soo fug. ben said its dark brown, but when edit off the original makeover hair from the pic. It comes out black whatevs lol.
But I actually really like this, took me a long time but it payed off. I really like her face and her legs... hopefully she makes it. I think her face is too chub chub for this hair lol... and its too dark on ehr. And And look at her bling bling lmaooo... o and dont furgetz the superhero shoess haha.
I really like it.... i forgot who gave me the idea for the arm. I think it was Andy again. lol. XD. Thanks soo much for puttin up wit me seriously and helpin so much.... dis pic shall be urs. *liek magikz ahaha*
But Seriously I likes... lol. And Baja will be a copycatz... and like Brandy will dedicate this song below to Seb. Ehehe. Permanent Monday. Jordin Sparks love the song and the singer haha,
here it is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFNoXAM8nTk
And I will sooo be reusing this song for a title... lol. When the moment needs it ahaha. Tell me u guys what I can better on, if u like this, And how u think Baja will do. Oh and Baja Fanclub peepz... show her some luv when the group shot airs hehe.
OMGG dont her jugs be lookin huge lol. I luvs wee. And thanks to all of the other people who gave me opinions u all make my pics, and inspire me thanks again. :) And thanks for the comments everyone. :)
AND OMGGG Adam Lambert is liek mah hero.... Dude. He is amazing. He is the next idol. And Mah Boy Jorge nunez was good. Eff the judges lmaoo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Permanent Monday"
Falling leaves like a blanket at my feet
There's a canopy of stars
And I just miss you like crazy
Suddenly the world's too big
And the hours move too slow
And I just wish that you were holding me near
Seven days, it feels like a year
You whisper through the line
You know I miss you like crazy
So baby can you steal a plane
A boat, the fastes train
You know it just don't feel the same when you're gone
[Chorus]
'Cause everytime you go away
The sunshine starts to fade
Frozen by the hands of time into a
Permanent Monday
Take me back into your arms
And don't ever let me go
'Cause when I see you walk through that door
I'm not lost anymore
I'm home
I'm home
I won't sleep until you're finally next to me
Can't wait to breahe you in
Don't wanna waste my time dreaming
I just wanna treat your name like
A whipser on my skin
And never have to say goodbye again
[Chorus]
'Cause everytime you go away
The sunshine starts to fade
Frozen by the hands of time into a
Permanent Monday
Take me back into your arms
And don't ever let me go
'Cause when I see you walk through that door
I'm not lost anymore
I'm home
'Cause when I feel you right here close to me
Everything is where it's supposed to be, baby
[Chorus]
'Cause everytime you go away
The sunshine starts to fade
Frozen by the hands of time into a
Permanent Monday
Take me back into your arms
And don't ever let me go
'Cause when I see you walk through that door
I'm not lost anymore
I'm home
I'm home
Yes I am
And I miss you like crazy
The Original entry no BG. :) i43.tinypic.com/xduzif.png
Imagine living caged. Imagine a huge wall being built around your home. Imagine this wall destroying trees and causing homes to be demolished. Possibly yours. What would you do?
The Israeli Wall has been comdemned by the UN, and yet it is still being built. The Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign’s most recent map of the Wall’s path, finalized November 2003, reveals that if completed in its entirety, nearly 50% of the West Bank population will be affected by the Wall through loss of land, imprisonment into ghettos, or isolation into Israeli de facto annexed areas .
Israel maintains that the Wall is a temporary structure to physically separate the West Bank from Israel and thus to prevent suicide attacks on Israeli citizens. However the wall’s location, (in some places reaching up to 6km inside Palestinian territory), and projected length, (currently 750km, despite a border with Israel of less than 200km), suggest it is more realistically an additional effort to confiscate Palestinian land, facilitate further colony expansion and unilaterally redraw geopolitical borders all the while encouraging an exodus of Palestinians by denying them the ability to earn a living from their land, reach their schools or work places, access adequate water resources, or reach essential health care. (http://www.palestinemonitor.org/factsheet/wall_fact_sheet.htm/)
A DYING GHETTO
(Exerpt from Chris Hedges' Wall of Horrors)
Qalqiliya is a ghetto. It is completely surrounded by the wall. There is one Israeli military checkpoint to let people into the West Bank or back home again. Only those with special Israeli-issued permits can go in and out of Qalqiliya. It is not the Lodz ghetto or the Warsaw ghetto, but it is a ghetto that would be recognizable to the Jews who were herded into walled enclaves by Pope IV in 1555 and stranded there for generations. Qalqiliya, like all ghettos, is dying. And it is being joined by dozens of other ringed ghettos as the serpentine barrier snaking its way through up and down two sides of the West Bank gobbles up Palestinian land and lays down nooses around Palestinian cities, towns, villages and fields.
Construction began on the barrier in 2002 with the purported intent of safeguarding Israel from suicide bombers and other types of attacks. Although it nominally runs along the 1949 Jordanian-Israeli armistice/Green Line that demarcates the boundary between Israel and the Palestinian-held West Bank, around 80 percent of the barrier actually cuts into Palestinian territories --at some points by as much as 20 kilometers.
If and when the barrier is completed, several years from now, it will see the West Bank cut up into three large enclaves and numerous small ringed ghettos. The three large enclaves will include in the south the Bethlehem/Hebron area and in the north the Jenin/Nablus and Ramallah areas.
B'tselem, a leading Israeli human rights organization that documents conditions in the occupied territories, recently estimated that the barrier will eventually stretch 703 miles around the West Bank, about 450 of which are already completed or under construction. (The Berlin Wall, for comparison, ran 96 miles.) B'tselem also estimates that 500,000 West Bank residents will be directly affected by the barrier (by virtue of residing in areas completely encircled by the wall; by virtue of residing west of the barrier and thus in de facto Israeli territory; or by virtue of residing in East Jerusalem, where Palestinians effectively cannot cross into West Jerusalem).
I stand on Qalqiliya's main street. There is little traffic. Shop after shop is shuttered and closed. The heavy metal doors are secured to the ground with thick padlocks. There are signs in Hebrew and Arabic, fading reminders of a time when commerce was possible. There were, before the wall was built, 42,000 people living here. Mayor Maa'rouf Zahran says at least 6,000 have left. Many more, with the unemployment rate close to 70%, will follow. Over the tip of the wall, in the distance, I can see the tops of the skyscrapers in Tel Aviv. It feels as if it is a plague town, quarantined. Israeli officials, after a few suicide bombers slipped into Israel from Qalqiliya, began to refer to the town as a "hotel for terrorists."
There are hundreds of acres of farmland on the other side of the wall, some of the best farmland in the West Bank, which is harder and harder to reach given the gates, checkpoints and closures. There are some 32 farming villages on the outskirts of Qalqiliya, cut off from their land, sinking into poverty and despair. Olive groves, with trees that are hundreds of years old, have been uprooted and bulldozed into the ground. The barrier is wiping out the middle class in the West Bank, the last bulwark in the West Bank against Islamic fundamentalism. It is plunging the West Bank into the squalor that defines life in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinians struggle to live on less than $ 2 a day. It is the Africanization of Palestinian land...
If the barrier is being built for security, why is so much of the West Bank being confiscated by Israel? Why is the barrier plunging in deep loops into the West Bank to draw far-flung settlements into Israel? Why are thousands of acres of the most fertile farmland and much of the West Bank's aquifers being seized by Israel?
The barrier does not run along the old 1967 border or the 1949 armistice line between Israel and the Arab states, which, in the eyes of the United Nations, delineates Israel and the West Bank. It will contain at least 50% of the West Bank, including the whole of the western mountain aquifer, which supplies the West Bank Palestinians with over half their water. The barrier is the most catastrophic blow to the Palestinians since the 1967 occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
The barrier itself mocks any claim that it is temporary. It costs $ 1 million per mile and will run over $ 2 billion by the time it is completed. It will cut the entire 224-mile length of the West Bank off from Israel, but because of its diversions into the West Bank to incorporate Palestinian land it will be about 400 miles in length. A second barrier is being built on the Jordan River side of the West Bank. To look at a map of the barrier is to miss the point. The barrier interconnects with every other piece of Israeli-stolen real estate in Palestinian territory. And when all the pieces are in place the Israelis will no doubt offer up the little ringed puddles of poverty and despair and misery to the world as a Palestinian state.