Extatosoma Tiaratum
FIG. 1      Stick Bug or Walking Stickleaf [Extatosoma Tiaratum]
Photo taken at the Brookfield Zoo (no copy permision needed)
stick insects
Stick Bug or Walking Stick
Photo permission from www.brisbaneinsects.com

Illusions in Nature

We struggle with deception and illusiveness in our perceptions and desires, but all of nature shares in this struggle because the world is controlled by fear and death. There appears to be mimicry among some creatures which either gives them advantage to gain something or keeps them from becoming vulnerable. So not only does one have to deal with their preconceived imaginings but there is also much more to nature than mere appearance. One might look at a stick bug and conclude the sticks are evolving into bugs under the right conditions. Although I can't cross reference this because I don't remember where I read it, in an ancient Greek superstition fossils seemed to be interpreted as the rocks slowly evolving into life in the secrecy of the night from the energy of moon light. The ancient Greeks saw the fossils as being hard evidence (pun intended) of spontaneous life coming from stones, but they could never see it happen and relied on mystery. Our imaginations can play tricks on us and sometimes our lack of understanding and misperceptions may seem somewhat reasonable because there is mimicry in nature. But there is more to a creature's identity than appearance. And thankfully one does not have to accept any thesis without a true observational witness or one may regret the company they keep and what they promoted. However one does need to establish a boundary for trust if they want to promote real discovery.

Our deep external interests combined with how we value the day of our conception affects how we interpret the world around us. And perceptions will be awakened and transformed when a reality becomes evident in the light of recognizing a determination reflected in nature, but the stumbling stone is that there are two sides to reality. So trust becomes a great desire when one perceives a reality because reality is linked to becoming vulnerable to a hidden intelligence. And so a reality has to make sense before one will want to labor for someone or something true; there has to be genuine, intimate, and mutual interest, because the world is engulfed by illusion and enslaved by affliction! Otherwise reality and an identity will be denied or traded off for a perversion to keep life a mystery in order to find some comfort in death. A person will be into something way bigger than them self that will cost those involved vulnerability and going through some pain if they want something much greater than money. Are the treasures worth the risk of knowing? There are three possibilities: a glory that may cover one in life, a glory that may cover one in death, or no glory at all in order to eat, watch, and lie down in mystery. But all possibilities have to be proved by what one labors for and we have to serve someone's purpose even if it's not a shared dream, because there are determined forces at work in the world to see a dream give birth into reality. A person will also find that people are capable of self-deception or denial in order to be justified in death, but regardless it is important to note that what we trust in influences our interpretation of life. But the person who looks to death to find worth has a tendency to not value or truly seek what is really true; the whole/full truth is really redundant to them and they will reinterpret it to avoid any convictions that error is harmful.

Evolution in a scientific sense

There are errors in life, but do errors lead to giving life – Life, or is it proof something went wrong and corruption is slowly flooding life and promoting death because there is a broken breach? Principia Cybernetica Web (Heylighen, F., 1993) references The Red Queen Principle which in evolutionary thought states, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place ( Van Valen L., 1973, "A New Evolutionary Law", Evolutionary Theory 1, p. 1-30). And there is evidence that evolution in a physical and scientific sense is going in the wrong direction, that is the building blocks of life are slowly breaking down.

All species have an remarkable array of error correction mechanisms that "devote large resources to suppressing random genetic variation" [as said by James Shapiro]. Many diseases are now known to be a result of faulty error correction mechanisms that allow proteins to mis-fold. Yet it works remarkably well preventing changes evident in stasis and living fossils throughout the entire fossil record and conserved elements in DNA & RNA . All species will have their own separate and distinct error correction mechanisms to prevent mis-folding and the many systems of homeostasis. (Intelligent Design Central on youtube.com, under subheading: About Intelligent Design Central, Why Evolution is Impossible [linked to his Hub Page, para.9] )

Darwin's theory of evolution implied creatures change by being in need within their environment; such as that giraffes grew long necks to reach trees over time by environmental pressure and natural selection, commonly referred to at that time as Lamarckism. Darwin did not know about cell programming of DNA and did not base his theory on errors or mutations, but really to the lack of seeing the Creator. So today we have a revision of Darwin's theory in order to better explain how macro-evolution might seem reasonable based on mutation or the accumulation of errors with natural selection sorting out favorable ones. This revision of Darwin's original theory is referred to as the Neo Darwin Theory (NDT). Because many errors cause extinction or deformity, NDT assumes that if errors accumulate slowly they can lead to beneficial new information and result in a new creature over millions of years; thus macro-evolution. Macro-evolution's only premise for trust is micro-evolution.

Macro Evolution is a change of identity in a creature due to new information in the cell programming DNA, in other words The production during the course of evolution of new forms of life treated as distinct species (Macroevolution.net, biology dictionary, retrieved Dec.2011, "Macroevolution"). Macro-evolution can never be proved or disproved because it happened to long ago to where no one could observe it or record it; therefore it is not science because new indentities from former ancestors are not demonstrated. Macro-evolution is a theory that is not a modern philosophy! Micro-evolution is based on the observable evidence that creatures have a variety of different offspring and have a certain amount of adaptability to environment and is truly science. But are differences due to random errors?

Some scientists are reconsidering their theories on how errors are dealt with in the cell because they can to some degree see how corrections are being done. Much like a computer scan works to detect error, there are quick scans and in depth scans only this system seems to be way above our technology, ScienceDaily.com reports:

"How this system works is an important unanswered question in this field," he said. "It has to be able to identify very small mistakes in a 3-dimensional morass of gene strands. It's akin to spotting potholes on every street all over the country and getting them fixed before the next rush hour."

The researchers now are exploring the possibility that the complexes sample the shape or chemical configuration of DNA by interacting with it; an error could alter the local DNA structure, changing its handshake with the repair proteins and perhaps triggering a corrective response. (Houten & Cyert as cited by sciencedaily.com, Mar.2010, Quantum Dots Spotlight DNA-Repair Proteins in Motion, retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311123522.htm ).

Dr. Lee Spetner (1998) notes in his book "Not By Chance," Error rates are as low as they are only because the cell has a proofreading mechanism which corrects most of the errors made in transcription (p92).

The rarity of copying errors is a problem for the NDT. The average rate of copying errors depends on the kind of organism. In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between .1 and 10 per billion transcriptions [Fersht 1981, Drake 1969, 1991]. But in all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion [Grosse et al. 1984]. The geometric-mean rate is one per billion (10-9 ) in bacteria and one per ten billion (10-10 ) in other organisms. These are the chances of a mutation in a particular nucleotide in a particular replication. (Not By Chance, p92)

To win first prize in the New-York-State Lottery you have to choose correctly a set of six numbers from 1 to 54. The chance of winning is about one in 26 million. …But even if you should win, you'd have a hard time collecting first prize in the New York lottery three times in a row. Nor would you be allowed to win at the roulette table 17 times in a row. Such events are so unlikely that everyone would suspect fraud. Regardless of any precautions that might have been taken, fraud is far more likely than that kind of luck. (Not By Chance, p93)

Selection can favor certain traits to dominate even to the loss of unexpressed recessive traits if a minority population is separated from mixing from a whole population long enough due to environment or breeding, which really is the result of loosing variety in genes. For example there are some stick bugs that have wings and there are some that don't , but they are still stick bugs. There are also other phenomena that occur in some creatures; the environment can turn genes on and off but the code they trigger is a highly organized program that has to be functional for a predisposed purpose. Ants can sprout or suddenly evolve wings when it's time to spread out, or swarm. In bee colonies certain events or conditions trigger what the role of the bee will play by turning off or turning on genes in their development. Wikipedia (retrieved on Dec. 2011) tells us Drones never exhibit typical worker bee behaviours such as nectar and pollen gathering, nursing, or hive construction. Since the worker bee's stinger is a modified ovipositor [an egg laying organ]… (Drone [bee], Behavior). To clarify, female bees can sting and potentially lay eggs and the queen bee can sting and lay eggs; but the drone which is the only male, of course has no ovipositor and no stinging system to go along with it, but those cells developed into a sperm depositing utility which detaches in a female queen bee. Backyard Beekeepers (retrieved Dec.3,2011) clues us in, Because the drone has a barbed sex organ, mating is followed by death of the drone. …The drone does not have a stinger (backyardbeekeepers.com, subheading: Three Castes of Honeybee). Going from an a sperm depositing system from a stinging system requires a precise and deliberate library of alternative DNA instructions to protein construction in the cells, apparently do to a lack of a trigger from a gene in a male chromosome because bee drones are haploid; that is they only have one set of chromosomes from an unfertilized egg of the female queen bee. Not only that, The queen is the only bee with fully developed ovaries, and a queen would develop into a working bee if not fed royal jelly which has a trigger or hormone to mature the female reproductive system. Backyard Beekeepers (n.d. ) tell us when honeybees loose a queen they make’ a new queen by selecting a young larva and feeding it a diet of ‘royal jelly (subheading: Three Castes of Honeybee ). Can a creature get these systems by accumulating error one at a time?

caterpillar face butterfly face
Metamorphosis: Going from a caterpillar to a butterfly is so dramatic of a change: all the organs dissolve in the caterpillar and totally new functions along with an almost totally new appearance emerge; that one could even say it is a new creature. Although this caterpillar (unknown to me) does not become this Lime Butterfly it illustrates not only the dramatic change that moths and butterflies undergo but that certain caterpillars always become certain moths or butterflies.
Metamorphosis would be an example of macro-evolution if there ever was one, except it is not due to random error.
These two photos were purchased for this website and grants free permision to copy and publish but not to sell. The photographer is Kurt Aka (OrionMystery) at orionmystery.blogspot.com

Any organ, even the simplest of organs such as a wing have to have meaningful information in place all at once to function, and a dysfunctional reproductive system would render extinction in one generation. Since we do not observe partial organ systems waiting for the right errors to come along and complete them, or partial new features expressed in populations today for natural selection to select (ex: partial wings, lizard feathers, hoofed dogs…), there is heated debate about macro-evolution or randomness as a science. Spetner (1998) argues not only the impossibility for random accumulation to produce a favorable mutation, but there sometimes seems to be jump in some creature's adaptive response to an environment:

But if a mutation seems to have much more than one bit it can't be a part of cumulative selection. We would have to interpret that mutation as the switching ON of information already in the genome. (Not By Chance, p106).

…if the control is in the development process, even a small change of the "right" kind can lead to a large adaptive change in the phenotype. But the "right" kind of change would be unlikely to occur by chance. If the changes are random, the chance of a "right" change occurring is proportional to the fraction of the "right" changes among all possible ones. The number of "wrong" changes is vastly greater than the number of "right" ones. But—and here is the important point—if the genome were set up for adaptive change to be triggered by a cue from the environment, then chance wouldn't be involved. The right adaptive change would be sure to occur when it was needed. (Not By Chance, p.183).

butterfly fluttering and feeding on nectar If ever we there were modern proof of macro-evolution or one creature becoming another it would be the modern butterflies and moths. They change from worms that hobble around and all they know is to eat leaves, but then they fall into a deep sleep {death for the caterpillar} and randomness changes them into flying machines which can't eat leaves anymore. But as chance had it (?) they mutated a straw mouth and digestive system to eat nectar. Random error (?) chose color coordinated wings that cause only one creature to admire them in envy, man. Man could never have mimicked those wings even to fly with and he can't comprehend how a pee brain can fly with those un-aerodynamic, cardboard like flappers for wings. How does a moth or butterfly get them to work so gracefully? Then some of those unorthodox works of art, which weigh less than a piece of paper, fly hundreds of miles in migrations to the same places against winds that should have blown them into unknown destinies. The Monarch Butterfly goes from Mexico to as far north as Wisconsin and without education on how to navigate, nonetheless why to go to certain marsh areas, and all of this by chance — what an example of how randomness can make you smart and beautiful ?!! Why bother going to school except to learn how randomness will make you smarter? But randomness is not predictable because it does not repeat time after time with anything to trust in, or know. Please pardon my sarcasm but education is not for free and is someone's investment to see a dream come true in reality. And indeed education has become a mystery since error has become a secret agent and foundational to so called science, but even this twist has a determined unknown intelligence behind it!

Some people are looking for intelligence on other planets because functional designs are self-evident and can only be the product of intelligence; random chance only scrambles or confuses organized systems from all of our known experience (basis for intuition). So why is intelligence being dismissed on this planet? Dawkins asked that we drop our intuitive feeling for probability, or chance. Our intuition, he said, is not suited to dealing with something as improbable as the origin of life (Dawkins as cited by Spetner, 1998, Not By Chance, p164).

Is it possible that intelligence is being rejected on this planet to trust in experts that will flatter one in death as long as they can be your master on mystery? This was the formula of the dark ages; no one saw error as costly and death as an enemy! One major problem with promoting mystery is that it breeds mistrust and no one really wants to pay for it with their life, even if they think it is flattering. Those who rely on mystery for trust have no borders to honor and either make gods from gold or have a tendency to despise their own kind and turn their affections to beasts or creatures of another identity. Finding trust is necessary for human beings to even want to find life, nonetheless to perceive reality or desire to discover the hidden intelligence! But sincere sacrifices are required to find something real behind outward predisposition; mystery is meant to be discovered only by those searching and willing to labor for treasures greater than {comfort in death} money.

In case it might seem I am implying that solving the macro-evolution verses intelligent design debate is going to solve our problems, I am not. All of nature has been corrupted and is prone to error, and many past empires had unknown gods they declared as absolute because they recognized design in creation, and societies problems weren't solved and they disappeared in mystery. But I am suggesting putting aside prejudices, and rejecting anything you can't test with results. If one values at least their hard labor it is wise to have no obligation to anything unknown or one will be swept away from reality even further yet and may become their own terror, and a dream will become a nightmare that may give birth into reality. It is better to be stretched while hunting for something real than to labor for a counterfeit life. Spetner (1998) give us the bottom line, Like it or not, we don't have a theory that can account for the natural origin of life (Not By Chance, p210). With this freedom from any compulsion we can only strongly emphasize that we simply interpret what we perceive by where we get worth, and we need to establish a boundary for trust before one can define what is real and true. Theory is only a starting point to find science, but when theory becomes superior to knowledge and understanding, or when theory becomes an absolute one promotes a denigration of intelligence or truth, in favor of error or mystery. The only reason discovery becomes so rewarding is because through much diligent effort meaning was found behind something illusive, possibly even seductive and misleading, keeping one from a possible tragic error; Or a hidden treasure was found that was so profound it was against those who sold it for their own legacy.

Mistaken identities

Instar:baby Kattydid
FIG.3       INSTAR [ Katydid nymph ]
Photo taken by Muhammad Mahdi Karim from www.micro2macro.net; for image permission contact Muhammad at info@micro2macro.net
permision granted under the conditions of GNU Free Documentation License
         If you click on Fig.1 at the top of the page you will see a video of a stick bug (Extatosoma Tiaratum) which appears as a branch with leafs coming to life. In Fig.3 you will see a picture of what looks like an ant, but it is an immature katydid which is referred to as an instar. It looks so much like an ant that if one where not hungry to find out who is behind the face or exterior of things, one could blatantly see an ant evolve into a grass hopper, but underneath it all it is not anything at all like an ant! If you wish to see some live picture images on how instars develop into katydids look under the heading "The Instars" at this web page www.brisbaneinsects. com/brisbane_grasshoppers/simplex.htm

         Lamarckism was the theory that creatures can change their physical traits by being in need, and has no logical evidence either in the DNA or in our observations today, which is why even Darwinism has split camps in academic circles. But there is evidence that environment can trigger certain genes to turn off or on in order to enable adaption to the environment within the limits of what is available in the creatures system, which can happen quickly and appear as Lamarckism because a need was met. Point being that a creature cannot take credit for its own intelligence because it didn't change itself in its identity or even appearances to survive in an environment. If creatures could change their own makeup no identity would be stable and macro-evolution would not be debated and very observable. Some moths stick out like a sore thumb with beautiful colors, and others are camouflage; colored to blend into the background. It is not the moths will or intelligence that does this, although it is a reflection of intelligence.
Instinct:
a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.
Behavior that is mediated by reactions below the conscious level.

Why do we humans put such emphasis in the mere appearance of things? We have a great need to know our identity like no other creature but I think a natural boundary has been dishonored and trust has been lost internally. If one were merely going by the appearance one can make many errors. Some people think the apes are our relatives because they have some similar features. But just as the katydid instar and the ant are very different I think you will find people are very different from apes, although they have the look.

gorilla looking Lucy ( Australopithecus afarensis ) was discovered in 1974 and was very chimp like from the few bones Donald Johanson and Tom Gray found, but Lucy was popularized as the missing link in 1980's. The bones they found were not even found together and mostly fragments Johanson brought the skeleton back to Cleveland where it was reconstructed by Owen Lovejoy (Wikipedia, nd, retrieved on Dec.13, 2011, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)#Discovery ). Apes and monkeys are not designed in their bone or muscle structure to walk upright, they are made for climbing. But Lovejoy reconstructed the hip features to be humanlike when nothing about the monkey really suggested anything humanlike, but they had to come up with something to justify grant money. Maybe free gifts have something to do with how appearances change but someone is going to pay! Is the interest true?

        To see the flaws in Lucy's reconstruction see Dr. Mention's video " Lucy She's No Lady, Part 4" if you wish to see Lucy's hip reconstruction. Why isn't some other chimp like monkeys evolved more, at least at the hip for walking upright? Many have said seeing is believing, and we do have eyes because appearance does help us initially to identify a general perception quickly which can be very important, but one needs to validate an experience with other confirmable input from other senses because there is illusiveness in nature, including our own. With all the emphasis on appearance, why government funded scientists choose chimps and baboons as our close relatives when gorillas look a lot more like humans at least in their facial expressions and build, eluded me in my effort even in trying to understand them. What is the reasoning as to why one believes a chimp should be our cousin? What is it that connects us in relatedness?

Most medical experiments are done on mice not monkeys, because among other reasons in some ways our bodies do react more like mice, which seem to be why some science magazines are now proclaiming a mouse as a man's real ancestor. For some reason some experts always seem to like belittling their subjects (although maybe subconsciously) to feel important, and there may seem to be justification for it in some cases due to offences committed in ignorance, but could prejudices against other people or a way to obtain worth be affecting an interpretation of reality. Monkey parts are not used in human beings as one would think if they were 97% similar in DNA (which also is a misinterpretation). But there have been cases where horse, cow, and especially pig extracts, tissues or parts, have been used in humans from tendons to heart valves. Adam Pick (n.d.) says, By some amazing twist of evolution, human heart valves and pig valves are very similar in structure and function (retrieved Dec.2011 from www.heart-valve-surgery.com/heart-surgery-blog/2007/09/ 19/pig-valve-replacement/). And in a tendon application in a particular sports injury Dador & Eisner (n.d.) of ABC report:

What surgeons do is sew the pig tissue into the torn tendon. Over time, the body creates new tissue around the area to fix the tendon. The tissue patch, which is made mostly of collagen, somehow stimulates the body to grow the new tendon tissue, also mostly collagen. The body also absorbs the remaining pig tissue. (Pig Intestinal Tissue Helps Human Injury, abcnews.go.com )

Some doctorates like to do behavior related tests on monkeys and then compare them with human behavior. Is there correlation of intelligence between chimps and man? First, apart from theoretical experts, we can take into consideration that chimps, baboons, or even gorillas are not compatible pets with people if we wish to test correlating intelligence, or in the least some common interests. Dogs have been the favorite pets for a long time, with horses being a big second favorite among those in the outback or country settings. Some sheepdogs are capable of being able to communicate with herders with a most astounding cooperation and awareness to rounding sheep, not to mention they identify and tend to protect those who nurtured them even against other dogs. And of course some cowboys have equally and maybe even more adept horses to help them round cows. Horses can be very sensitive to human interaction and temperament with an understanding returned, and in my observation more than any monkey has demonstrated. Where is the useful or understanding interaction of intelligent monkeys? It is true one can train them to do tricks, but I think a good parrot trainer can do equal if not more entertaining tricks with the right kind of parrot. Irene Pepperberg actually taught a parrot named Alex a vocabulary and proved birds could think and contemplate some amount of detailed awareness because Alex could express his experience through words, which chimps haven't done. Regardless, I am talking of meaningful connectedness that are related to human beings and doing something meaningful that binds a friendship. You do not hear societies say monkeys are a man's best friend, because they do not share such a commonality!

I guess that if one cannot judge internal differences through intimate connections then we must analyze the internal mechanics if we can even intellectually understand those, but we must not call possibility science it must be demonstrated, observed, and understood mechanically because we are prone to error. To paraphrase cosmologist John Barrow, a brain simple enough to be understood is too simple to produce a mind able to understand it (Myers, D., 2010, Psychology 9th ed.. New York: Worth Publishers, p81).

Glazko,G., Veeramachaneni,V., Nei,M. & Maka?owski,W. (2005) discovered – Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees:

The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1- 2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. (Glazko G., et al., 2005, Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees, abstract)

In brain development it seems that chimps and chickens would be the closest of cousins:

Pollard's analysis showed that HAR1 is essentially the same in all mammals except humans. There were only two differences between the chicken and chimp genomes in HAR1's sequence of 118 bases [bases are subunits of DNA, the As, Cs, Ts, and Gs that spell out the genetic code]. This similarity means the DNA sequence remained unchanged over hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary history, an indication that it performs a biologically important function. (Stephans, 2006, Newly discovered gene may hold clues to evolution of human brain capacity, para.9, University of California Santa Cruz )

With a battery of enzymatic and chemical probes, we found the human and chimpanzee HAR1 RNA secondary structures differed not only from the published models but also dramatically between each other (Beniaminov,A., Westhof,E. & Krol,A., 2008, Distinctive structures between chimpanzee and humanin a brain noncoding RNA, subtitle: introduction, PubMed Central ).

human skull shirts The most interesting phenomena is that when people see a less intelligent monkey and identify with it as a part of their family they begin to despise their own kind who they could possibly relate to – that is they have a tendency to want to abolish human beings for the glory of a less intelligent, less compatible form of nature – you might even say it is a wish to evolve into a lower being. This is truly a perversion of what is natural or a clue that a sacred boundary has been disrespected. There is a great fascination for the death of man, but what is not natural about it is that it comes from within man himself. Maybe reality was rejected because someone used truth to harm another when they were afflicted instead of using it to deliver them from trouble. Or maybe one wants no conviction when robbing another in their vulnerable moment so error is promoted as natural. When one gets their worth from the wrong places or attempts to take the place of God – intelligence is against him and he becomes his own enemy celebrating the death of his own identity. Regardless, one might conclude that the theory of evolution is a human attempt to mimic or relate to an ape, but even an ape would be offended because it is a mockery of their identity and not a sober judgment. This even goes against the evolutionary theory of survival of the fittest species. Who is it that really decides what is fit because when boundaries are not honored no one trusts in natural selection because of a need to find worth and some kind of glory. And as irony has it there is an intelligence force behind a confusion of identity. Trust can never be realized until a boundary is established and honored or error and mimicry keep life a mystery and one befriends death.

There is elusiveness in nature and although appearance has some bearing on general perceptions, there is more to a creature than mere appearance. Is not one's true father really behind the intelligence that inspires their dream to give birth in reality, or maybe we could say – the one we adopt to be our provider influences the interpretation of our perceptions? Intelligence is metaphysical evolution based on a trust for shared desires to be met, and that is what transforms one and gives one their identity. And although we are generally designed as the other creatures, we are slowly discovering scientifically that we are not really similar to any particular animal; chimps or baboons are not more similar in biological makeup to humans than any other mammal. We chose the father we want to adopt us based on a shared desire, or do we mimic for a free gift that will cost us reality?

face of a Hawk Moth
FIG.4       Hawk Moth
Many moths have beautiful colors, but they are not attracted to each other by color patterns; they pick up their mates scent and identitfy them with those huge sensitive antenna
(most moths are nocturnal).
What creature would be in awe of those designs and colors or were they radom errors?
{ image permision use: granted by Rob from www.meades.org }
         Is a bat a flying mouse? Is a bird a flying lizard? Could a baboon really be a hyena with hands? Just look at the snout because it is not chimpanzee! Or maybe the variety of unique creatures is supposed to put us in awe and color this world of trouble! And if not us, what creature then is in awe of the variety? Instead we denigrate identity by brushing it off as random error; it's not only an accident but we are all like each other. Are all insects related too? Take a close look at " Insect Faces Up Close and Personal. "   Joseph Scheer became famous for recognizing the art work in moths, why didn't anyone else notice it?   Maybe something has darkened reality and demoralized something unique and beautiful? It is ironic how evolutionists recognize uniqueness, attribute it to error, and imply we are all the same as the beasts?!! The only way that everyone accepts it as science (because it is not) is if everyone acts like one. And as irony has it, people do prey on each other if they can't find genuine trust in their vulnerability – it's a vicious circle! And the creationists are looking to make a profit from it by offering grace to the wicked as long as they serve the church. But first let's address the science (working mechanics) before we try to discover how we might get worth. I myself, in contrast, have observed that women seem like a different species than men, and became grateful we had some similarities so we could relate. Yet if you truly get entrusted with a treasure from heaven those differences become exciting and can bring out and add attributes to a relationship that will inspire one to labor for heaven to touch earth and get a taste of new world. What has darkened our perspective; if you could have a dream come true how much more fantastic could one make it? But there is real peril for real treasured possessions, and it does lead to making real sweat and blood sacrifices for something much more valuable than money. And are we after treasures from the right heaven? Because most people will tell you they are going to heaven. But how can you know who you are laboring for unless you taste it on earth, unless you get a witness that you have a true provider? Furthermore one person's Heaven can be another's Hades. A boundary has to be found!

Identity Theft: the rejection of the Son of Man

The grizzly bear is the most fearless animal on land in our time, and fears no one except the boundary that covers man. He eats everything and anything he wants and yet he is not a happy creature with all the power he has naturally been endowed with (do not kiss a grizz on the lips)! Man is much less endowed with natural strength and one might wonder how he ever survived in his frail state throughout the ages. He has been given the world with the only thing to inspire him to risk going through trouble is to see a dream from heaven to give birth into reality. For this to happen he feeds from an intelligence in order to be covered in some kind of glory and to find wisdom; interpret what he is seeing in reality. Man's ability to create, destroy, and reason, identifies him as a child of God because he is a seed of intelligence –but his intelligence has been corrupted by an unfaithful desire in order to find worth. Death has put a damper on the grander and adventure in this world, but losing your life for a true friendship and heavenly dream to become real and to contribute to the experience of a new world is the ultimate test of true interest and trust.

Death really starts with a loss of identity and a loss of trust. Although the fear of unknown destinies should force us to question what we trust in, and is supposed to bring us to the point of sober reality, people really do not fear death. People fear affliction and not having their deep desires fulfilled. But going through a certain amount of affliction is necessary to prove that interests are unwavering and trustworthy before a new world and a wedding from heaven can be conceived in reality. Every person is going to get exactly what they labored for in the long run even if it's a different heaven – it's a promise from God and it is a supreme justice that will prevail in the long run. Even the ungodly, those among them who labor for something more than their belly, recognize: everything a person truly sends out comes back to them in time, and it's better to die trying than to live for nothing. The risk is — will one get a return of the right kind of interest?

Time or waiting can stretch one and put us at the brink of our patience but is also good for checking one's sincerity and real desires; due to the mimicry and illusiveness that is inspired because of the temptation for quick treasure, glory, or fraudulent trust, one can error in their anxiety and lack of surety. There is fear, elusiveness, seduction, and illusion, which will bring out a desire to find an authority to trust in for those who value the day they tasted life. It really is about finding whose living, active word, will have power to cover one in reality, give one worth, and give one an identity by showing them their Father and revealing a door that can be opened so heaven will touch earth. But there is mimicry in nature and there is a different kind of Jesus (seed)! One has to define the terms because it is a case of finding true identification. Blind faith is only for those who do not value who they labor for; they want to evade reality and keep the dream a mystery to feed their belly and lie down in self-flattery with the living dead. Seeing the glory of the boundary is an absolute to truly begin to believe: either to trust in the power of illusion or the power of the Living Truth; both bring one into a reality through an intimate desire to obtain real riches, and a shared glory. So what are the boundaries to find reality and a door to heaven to see a dream give birth in reality? Religion and evolution are only philosophical and will only promote mystery; they have the same goal from different ends and only the true children will see it. A person really only fears being separated from the one they trust in: a boundary is set in heaven that defines these worlds that will be separated after true interest is proved. The credit lender is coming first!

back to navigation (press Ctrl + Home at anyplace in document to reach Main navigation)