"Brit-Am Now"-890
1. The Worship of Baal in North Europe of Ancient
2. Are the Slavs Israelites?
3. We Were Missed
4. Searching for Booklet
5. Are DNA Scientists Really "Closet" Creationists and the Reversal of Roles?

1. The Worship of Baal in North Europe of Ancient

<<Bel, or Baal, was worshipped on the western and northern coasts of Europe, and
gave his name to the Baltic, the Great and Little Belt, Balesbaugen,
Balestranden, etc.; and to many localities, in the British Islands, as,
for instance, Belan and the Baal hills in Yorkshire.

2. Are the Slavs Israelites? wrote:
I have been very interested in learning about Israelite identity, I have e-mailed you before in regards to the Irish. I myself am of Irish descent but, I am curious are Slavs Israelites, as well? If so, of what tribes are they from. I would really appreciate the help.


Slavs are speakers of the Slavic Languages.
Ethnically they are mixed but contain a dominant element that could be termed
While in some areas many Israelites may at some stage or other been amongst them
we do not consider them to be of Hebrew origin in accordance with our
Brit-Am Criteria:

See also:

Other Claimants to being the Lost Ten Tribes

3. We Were Missed
From: Margie
Subject: Re: Brit-Am is Back!

Yeah!!!! You were missed. Blessings upon all your times.

Shalom and simchat,
the Kinikins

4. Searching for Booklet
I once received a booklet containing extracts from:
"The Chronicles of Eri, being the history of the Gaal Sciot Iber, or the Irish People, translated from the Phoenician dialect of the Scythian language", by Roger O' Connor

The booklet was published by British-Israel or by one of its ofshoots.
I have now lost or displaced it.
I could not find it advertised on the web.
If anyone has this work I hope they can send me a copy of it or know where I can purchase one.
Please let us know.

5. Are DNA Scientists Really "Closet" Creationists and the Reversal of Roles?
DNA Theoreticians appeal to Evolution to explain their overall view since this provides them
with a framework and as much time as they wish for things to have happened in the past.
In practice however they ten to deny allowing for environmental influence as a factor
in determining changes in DNA.

Creationists also tend to stress the fixation of creation though allowing
for moderate changes.

Brit-Am agrees with the Creationists but holds that the Almighty
place the ability for change within limits in response to external stimuli within the organism.

Modern Evolutionists more or less state that a series of mutations induced
by radiation or what not is selected according to its utilitarian advantage
and has a cumulative effect over millions of years way back in the Never-Never
land but not now.

An early source or near cousin of Evolutionary Theory was Lamarkinism.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829)
We would propose that it should be re-examined
in the light of new evidence and perhaps applied to the Brit-Am Model.
[ The "Brit-Am Model" is in fact that of Spetner and numerous others
but we say expressly and with emphasis what these scientists prefer to suggest]

"Brit-Am Now"-23
#3. Science: of Interest: The Fall of Neo-Darwinian Theory

Brit-Am Now 172
#6. Brit-Am concept of race (very brief)

Brit-Am Now 142
"Brit-Am Now"-142
#1. Criticism From a Geologist and historian of science ...

Consider the following extracts from the Wikipedia article on Lamarkanism:


<<In the 1920s, Harvard University researcher William McDougall studied the abilities of rats to correctly solve mazes. He found that children of rats that had learned the maze were able to run it faster. The first rats would get it wrong 165 times before being able to run it perfectly each time, but after a few generations it was down to 20. McDougall attributed this to some sort of Lamarckian evolutionary process

<<While Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence for larger lifeforms, some scientists controversially argue that it can be observed among microorganisms.[2] Whether such mutations are directed or not also remains a point of contention.

<<In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[3] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutagenesis.

<<If bacteria that had overcome their own inability to consume lactose passed on this "learned" trait to future generations, it could be argued as a form of Lamarckism; though Cairns later chose to distance himself from such a position. [4]

<<There has been some research into Lamarckism and prions. A group of researchers, for example, discovered that in yeast cells containing a specific prion protein Sup35, the yeast were able to gain new genetic material, some of which gave them new abilities such as resistance to a particular herbicide. When the researchers mated the yeast cells with cells not containing the prion, the trait reappeared in some of the resulting offspring, indicating that some information indeed was passed down, though whether or not the information is genetic is debatable: trace prion amounts in the cells may be passed to their offspring, giving the appearance of a new genetic trait where there is none.[5]

The Reversal of Roles
We now have a reversal of roles.
DNA "Evolutionists" say that no real changes take place apart from those that
they say happened over such a long a period that statistically anything could have happened.

On the other hand, "Brit-Am" on behalf of the creationists suggests that what would
once have been described as "evolutionary changes" are happening all the time.