Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

0

A visual presentation to Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of Genesis 1:2 . . . to be continued.

SCIENCE FACT

"The Sun and all the planets were formed at around the same time, depending on when you define the birth of the sun. Before the Sun became as it is today it was a proto sun, which had all the elements it has now but it just had not started the nuclear reaction which fuels today's sun. As the sun started to form from the debris of the dust/particle cloud so did all the planets."

From : What is the age of the sun (the sun of our solar system) and the age of earth?

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void:
--
Maybe God and Science work too slowly for Darwinists and Fundamentalist religion...















It becomes abundantly clear to me, why "the sun" (see images 5,6,7) did not exist until "day #4" of Genesis... as well as a new source for Photosynthesis, proliferation of plant life and animal life... abundant diversity (including hard-body plans that could withstand the heat of the sun)... introduction of the sun would be the cause of the Cambrian explosion and "evolution" of hard-bodied organisms in the fossil record.

Before that time, in a dark, sunless world, life was ideally suited for a dark, damp, primarily non-photosynthetic world. Save some organisms (like photosynthetic bacteria discovered near deep Pacific hydrothermal vents) early organisms could photosynthesize around hot springs, supporting an entire ecosystem... in the total absence of sunlight.

What Genesis speaks of in day #3 explains unanswered questions to the peculiarity of the lack of fossils, and the Cambrian explosion (around 500 Million years ago).

Read More »

What "Day" in Genesis Means?

1

Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers 1991

"The day age theory claims that the word yom (3117), which is the Hebrew word for "day," is used to refer to periods of indefinate length, not to literal days. While this is a viable meaning of the word (Leviticus 14:2, 9, 10) it is...."

Enough said on that note.

“With God one day is a thousand years and a thousand years is one day.”

Whether the verse deals with patience, or not, it's clearly a statement on how God sees time, and uses his time, quite differently from man.

The point is, "the sun" (upon which man establishes _his_ measurement of time), did not exist until Day #4 of the Genesis account. Therefore, by all reasonable interpretations, Genesis is not and can not be speaking in terms of "literal 24 hour days" or a six day creation.

With that thought in mind, I'll refer to Professor Louis Agassiz, an esteemed Paleontologist, with equal credentials (if not more so), intensive research, publication and innovative theories such as the glacial epoch (The Ice Age), in which Agassiz concluded in contrast to Darwin,

"...In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to 'epochs of creation'." (See footer, from article on Professor Louis Agassiz, Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia, ©1950)

Word Study of Strong's Concordance, for Hebrew term "day" #3117



Strongs Concordance, reveals the term day or yom, #3117, at the back of the Concordance, provides a definition for the context of this elusive term...



Genesis leaves no doubt to the question whether or not Adam died "the day he ate thereof".

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
Genesis 2:17

But Adam ate of the fruit, and did not die in the same 24 hour "day". On the contrary,

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Genesis 5:5

Atheists have often mocked the verse, claiming that Adam did not die in "the same day," therefore Atheists argue, God lied and the serpent spoke the truth,

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die..."
Genesis 3:4

But they did eventually die.

It's safe to deduce from this usage alone, the Hebrew word "Yom" does not imply a 24 hour day. It is used in a context to describe an indefinate length of time. Otherwise, had "yom" implied a strict 24 hour time period, then, the Atheists got it right and God lied to Adam, because no, Adam did not die the same day. On this note, I conclude without any doubt, the term "Day" or "Yom" is used to imply a lengthy, indefinate period of time.

Absurdity? Genes alluded to in Genesis that allow people to live forever?‏

"And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Genesis 5:5

Atheists say it is "absurd" altogether... living 930 years. But Atheists would have said that Brooke Greenberg was absurd, too.. and impossible, until they saw it for themselves, and heard it from medical science. The mystery of how a human does not age at a normal, accelerated rate mystifies the medical communty. In fact, Brooke stopped maturing altogether, at age 4.

How does a baby remain a baby, forever?

16 year old baby - she doesn't age



Brooke Greenberg - An eternal baby?? - 2005

Read More »

Darwin never denied God. Darwin declined association with Toxic Atheists.

0

When Charles Darwin was asked permission to dedicate a book authored by an Atheist to the name of "Charles Darwin," Darwin declined out of respect for his Christian family. He states:

"I should prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing... direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public... It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family, if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request"

Darwin himself apparently was enlightened enough on the matter, to understand "Science" itself takes no stand on matters of religion. Even expressing in his written correspondence (above) that the author was seeking "a direct attack on religion," which Darwin would have no part of.
Charles Darwin never denied the existence of God, nor did his theory dismiss the existence of God.

So, where does all the toxic Atheism that is associated with modern Darwinism come from? The man who sent Darwin his book, Das Kapital... Karl Marx, author of the Communist Manifesto. Marxists latched their fangs into Darwin's Origin of the Species, like a vampire... yes, poisoning whatever good may have been in Darwin's studies into actual science and paleontology.

Communist Posters of the Day portray Karl Marx' book, above Charles Darwin, as well as that of Ferdinand Lasalle, a respected social reformer who openly denounced Karl Marx' theories.




Images extracted from video series, "The Bloody History of Communism" which attempts to lay blame on Charles Darwin as the main culprit behind the bloody history of Communism. Evil Atheists like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc would have continued on their bloody warmongering path.. with or without Darwin's theory.

One would think Darwinism has became quite like a religion and built on theories, instead of empirical facts... filling in unknowns on faith... with few or even no facts to substantiate some of the wild claims found floating around. Many forget, Darwinists themselves, are not scientists. The theory of Natural Selection was only godless enough to permit Atheists to camouflage their toxic bigotry against God and people of faith, under the guise of "Science".

Quite earnestly, the toxic element comes from Marxists who attempted to latch on to Darwin's theory... distributing misleading posters, portraying Darwin's book, Origin of the Species, alongside that of Karl Marx. Just as these Marxists latched on to the success of the socialist reformer Ferdinand Lassalle, parading posters of Marx alongside Lasalle to give the misleading impression Lassalle supported Marx... but in fact, Lasalle had denounced the violent, murderous revolutionary element in Karl Marx' theories. Ferdinand Lasalle was considered a respectable, progressive thinker of the time, whose mild socialist reforms were embraced and implemented by the German Empire. Karl Marx could not achieve that same respect for his warmongering political theories.

So, we pick up at this interesting piece of history where Charles Darwin was sent a copy of Karl Marx' book, but never even bothered to read it. Darwin's lack of interest in toxic atheism is duly noted.

Marx genuinely admired Darwin's Origin, despite its crude English style. He even sent Darwin a personally inscribed copy of the recently published second edition of Das Kapital in 1873. Darwin's letter of acknowledgment (quoted above) delighted Marx, who used it as proof that the great scientist appreciated his work. In fact, Darwin, ever the gentleman (and no German scholar), was merely being polite: he never read Marx's book, the vast majority of whose pages remained uncut in his library.

Myth Conception
So, how did the dedication story come about? The answer is given, amongst other places, in Francis Wheen's highly readable biography, Karl Marx (Fourth Estate, ISBN: 1-85702-637-3). It all started with a second Darwin letter unearthed amongst Marx's papers, dated 13th October, 1880:

Dear Sir:
I am much obliged for your kind letter & the Enclosure.— The publication in any form of your remarks on my writing really requires no consent on my part, & it would be ridiculous in me to give consent to what requires none. I shd prefer the Part or Volume not to be dedicated to me (though I thank you for the intended honour) as this implies to a certain extent my approval of the general publication, about which I know nothing.— Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request, but I am old & have very little strength, and looking over proof-sheets (as I know by present experience) fatigues me much.
I remain Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Ch. Darwin

This letter was published in a Soviet newspaper in 1931, which went on to suggest that the enclosures referred to in the letter might have been chapters from Das Kapital that dealt with evolution. No matter that Das Kapital, a book on economics, could never be considered a direct attack on religion, whatever Marx's well-documented views on the subject.

So what on Earth was going on?

Mystery Solved
The mystery was investigated and solved by Margaret Fay of the University of California, who came across an obscure book published in 1881, entitled The Students' Darwin. This was the second in a series of books sponsored by a pair of evangelical atheists.

The author of the book, Edward Aveling, later became the lover of Marx's daughter, Eleanor. In 1895, he and Eleanor began organising her late father's papers (which she had recently inherited from Engels). Later, in 1897, Aveling wrote an article about Marx and Darwin, in which he mentioned having corresponded with Darwin. Presumably, he then filed Darwin's letter to him along with Marx's papers.

Eventually, a letter from Aveling to Darwin (dated 12th October, 1880) was discovered amongst Darwin's papers at Cambridge University. Enclosed with this letter were sample chapters from The Students' Darwin. The letter requested permission to dedicate the book to Darwin.

So, it wasn't Karl Marx's Das Kapital that Darwin politely declined the dedication of; it was Edward Aveling's The Students' Darwin.

Read More »

The Darwin Myths -- Lying for Darwinian Natural Selection

0

...any other Scientific pioneers I should throw in, before Darwin's time?‏

This is what I've been saying ... Darwinism is like a religion...
Darwinists don't even seem to know who Linnaeus was, "Linnaeus who? never heard of him". Obviously they have a very limited working knowledge of science in general. Therefore how could such people, with such limited understanding, possibly grasp anything so complex about the origins and proliferation of species around the planet?

“Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution laid the foundations of modern biology, it did not tell the whole story. Most remarkably, The Origin of Species said very little about, of all things, the origins of species. Darwin and his modern successors have shown very convincingly how inherited variations are naturally selected, but they leave unanswered how variant organisms come to be in the first place."
~ swarthmore edu
--

"...Darwin and his modern successors have shown very convincingly how inherited variations are naturally selected,"

I haven't seen that overwhelming evidence for this claim. A few examples, not more.
I suppose if you go looking hard enough, you can find a handful of examples to support a theory about anything... but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

And I agree...

"they leave unanswered how variant organisms come to be in the first place."

Because Darwin couldn't. He couldn't appropriately explain the absence of fossils before the Cambrian explosion, much less, the billions of years the earth had appeared to lay dormant. That huge gap, is a real problem for "Natural Selection." 3.5 billion years of bacteria baking under the sun, and it just sits there, with no mutations toward the production of hard-body plans and complex organisms. The high Co2 levels in Earth's early history would've been ideally suited for plants -- thus, followed by animals, billions of years before... but it didn't happen that way.

"...“Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution laid the foundations of modern biology..."

Really?

Exhibit dedicated to Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist whose work laid the foundations of modern biological systematics and ...
~ yahoo

Before Linnaeus weighed in, the living world had seemed a hodge-podge of organisms. ... and animals and laid the foundation for much of the work in biology that ...
~ books nap edu

Carl Linnaeus was a Sweden botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. ... In Biology taxonomy, a domain is the highest taxonomic rank of organisms, higher than a Kingdom . ... As an example, consider the Linnaean classification for modern human ...
~ absoluteastronomy com

... Linnaeus laid the foundations of modern biology. He was certainly proud of his achievements. 'God creates, Linnaeus organises,' he liked to say;
~ nick-lane net

Read More »

Day #3 Could Life Exist in a Sunless World?

0

Genesis 1:11-13
"...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day..."

The YLT Version notes *tender
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;

* according to popular theories about Vendian organism their lack of hard-body structure which explains lack of fossils, as it stands, why mention "tender" in Genesis at all, unless it implies a soft-body plan.

The King James Version of the Bible (Copyright 1972, Nelson Publishers) concurs with the following footnote,


More from the Atlas of the Prehistoric World on the mystery of the Vendian organisms,



I took a peek at some of the very fascinating research that is taking place with Lichens today, too. Seems these things are not like most organisms in the plant or animal kingdom, and able to "shut down" and "turn back on" when supplied with water... a life expectancy of approximately thousands of years. Amazing, isn't it? That's including varying light sources.. surviving under snow for indefinate periods of time.. they simply "shut down".

The following information I retrieved from (fairly reliable) websites, including some research papers available on the web which are written in technical terms, but the research focuses on the following (simpler terms) information. (i.e., lichens in light, lichens in dark... one suggested, "The dissimilarity between 3H and 14C labelling patterns has led to the conclusion that polyols synthesized in the absence of photosynthesis must be derived from other stored substrates within the thallus."

Amazing life span.

Canada's Polar Life - Lichens
Lichens are hardy plants, in that they have the ability to "bounce back" from prolonged periods of dessication. They simply absorb water when it is available, wither into a state of dormancy when it is not, and come back to life once they are moistened again. Scientists have studied the extremely slow growth rates of lichens – in particular, map lichen, Rhizocarpon geographicum, and jewel lichen, Xanthoria elegans – and have discovered that these lichens can live more than 4500 years! The constant growth rates of some lichens have been put to good use, as a tool to estimate the age of landforms, such as moraines. The larger the lichen patch, the older the moraine.

--

Lichen Habitat
When lichens are wet, they "turn on" and start photosynthesizing and growing. When lichens are dry, they "turn off", become brittle and go dormant. This process is known as "poikilohydry", and other organisms such as mosses and liverworts operate in the same way.
The simplest way to tell if lichen is dormant or growing is by looking at its color. The darker black or brighter green lichen is, chances are that it is photosynthesizing. Of course, if it is wet and pliable, that is a good indication too.
If lichen looks pale and is dry and brittle, then it is dormant and waiting for the next rain or fog event before it starts photosynthesizing.

This could work well for an organism exposed to volcanic activity (as in the Pacific Hydrothermal vents and photosynthetic bacteria in the absence of sunlight), in a sunless world... the lichen needs very little light to survive in even hostile conditions (like those believed to exist in earth's earlier history).


Source: Atlas of the Prehistoric World
Discovery Channel Books, Douglas Palmer, P. 56

The book states:

The Vendian Seaworld
The organisms that lived in the shallow-water seas of Vendian times have puzzled paleontologists for many years. They were all completely soft bodied -- no trace of any hard parts have been found. At first they were thought to be jellyfish and wormlike creatures. But the way their bodies are preserved suggest that they were made of tougher material. Some of them seem to have lived within the seabed and had saclike bodies filled with sand. However, some of the plumed-shaped forms, such as Charnia, are similar to living seapens and sea-anemones.

Sea Anemones?

Scuba Diving - New Jersey and Long Island New York
Plant-like Animals. Invertebrates. Sea Anemones; Northern Coral; Hydroids; Bryozoans; Tube Worms; Barnacles; Sponges; Sea Squirts ...
http://njscuba.net/biology/sw_plant-like.html

Plant or Animal? A sea anemone looks a lot like a plant. It's even named after a kind of flower. But it's really an ocean-dwelling animal, related to corals and jellyfish. An anemone's waving "petals" are stinging tentacles for zapping and trapping. An anemone may use them to stun or even kill prey. Or it may just dine on drifting animal bits. Either way, the anemone uses its wiggling tentacles like ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17408808.html

Scientists are mystified by these early organisms... and most of all, for 3 billion years of "bacteria baking under the sun (that's presumably there," why the lack of hard-body plans in these organisms? Scant fossils, because the organisms were too soft to fossilize? In fact, why the lack of hard-body organisms in general? 3.5 billion years is an awful long time, for bacteria baking under the sun, and nothing happens.... "natural selection" and "random mutations" proposed by Darwinists, simply sit idle. The conditions they propose (if true) should've produced plants and complex organism in great abundance around 3 billion years ago vs. the wee 500 million years ago (as the fossil record shows). Afterall, the atmosphere was loaded with Carbon Dioxide and ideally suited for the proliferation of bacteria to evolve into plants.... but it didn't happen that way.
On this note, Natural Selection is faced with a huge gap... a gap that lasted around 3 billion years, and just a little too much Darwinism to swallow.

The oldest evidence of life on earth remains at around 3.8 thru 3.5 billion years, with a carbon molecule extracted from a rock and, stromatolites (cyanobacterial activity formation on rocks). As shown here-in, a discovery in the deep Pacific, in total darkness where photosynthetic bacteria, can and do photosynthesize around the dim light of hydrothermal vents, and from the Earth's own energy.

In all this time, 3.5 billion years... where are the living organisms that Natural Selection predicts? The fossil record is empty.

The presence of sunlight would necessitate hard-body plans to retain moisture. Left alone on dry ground, the sun would bake a soft-bodied organism, dehydration, then death. But this "crazy hypothesis" is precisely what science has hypothesized as the cause behind the lack of fossils during the Vendian: Soft Body Plans. A dark world (without sunlight) would be ideally suited and could indeed support an ecosystem filled with non-photosynthetic organisms... even a limited number of Photosynthetic organisms, as was recently discovered in the deep Pacific, in the total absence of sunlight.

(See Recent Discovery of Green Sulfur Bacteria on From a Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vent :

Recent Discovery of Green Sulfur Bacteria on From a Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vent
The work of Beatty, Blankenship, et al. (2005) lead to the discovery of a previously undiscovered species that lives in the near vicinity of a deep-sea hydrothermal vent in the East Pacific Rise (Figure 5). The region from which the microbe was extracted is spotted with volcanic sites and many different types of underwater vents, making the area ideal for discovering new photosynthetic anaerobes. Although it is possible to verify the presence of organisms by analyzing samples of bulk DNA, Beatty et al. took a different approach to discern the presence of intact cells. They took samples of ocean water for cultivation rather than direct PCR amplification of bulk DNA. Samples were grown in medium prepared specifically for the cultivation of green and purple photosynthetic bacteria. Incubation occurred at 25 degrees C and a weak fluorescent light, as well as a 60-watt incandescent bulb, was turned on to provide a source of photons.

It is well-known fact, Earth is its earlier geological stages were covered in volcanic activity, providing a localized source for light and any photosynthetic bacteria and plant life to thrive. Let's be earnest with ourselves, if scientists can propose the "crazy theory" that this discovery somehow supports the "...hypothesis that life exists on other planets devoid of star-light. In addition to providing supporting evidence for extraterrestrial life..."

But Darwinists say we're not suppose to dare theorize that these events took place, right here on Earth in the early geological record.

*shreiking* fears of God, and Genesis, and if the Genesis account is true... "we might be obligated to obey those awful commandments that would have kept us from having so much fun..."

The author below, is speaking of our modern photosynthetic-dependent ecosystem, and not of an ecosystem comprised entirely of organisms that are non-photosynthetic, or primarily non-photosynthetic (as holds true with the example of mistletoe).

In the absence of light, life on earth [note mine: as it stands in current world] would not exist. Biological photosynthesis is among the most important reactions on planet earth that allows life to thrive. It was long thought that life was restricted primarily to photic zones where photosynthetic primary producers could access the light needed to drive their metabolism. This view was challenged with the discovery of green sulfur bacteria that grow deep in the ocean floor. Green sulfur bacteria are photosynthetic microbes that are capable of thriving in ecological regions that have extremely low levels of solar radiation. It has been proposed that certain types of green sulfur bacteria use what is known as Geothermal Radiation to supplement their chemotrophic metabolism. The emission of photons from geothermal vents could have provided a selective advantage to chemotrophic ancestors of modern day green sulfur bacteria that utilized light sensing systems to perform phototaxis towards sulfur-rich geothermal vents (3). A new microbial world at the bottom of the ocean adds to our knowledge of the incredible biological diversity that our planet planet nurtures and sheds light on a new ecological system.
On Earth, the discovery of a photosynthetic species capable of using geothermal radiation, rather than solar sources, helps support the hypothesis that life [...] on Earth originated in conditions similar to those displayed in the vicinity surrounding deep sea hydrothermal vents.
In green sulfur bacteria, the harvesting of light is in part carried out by the Fenna-Matthews-Olson protein (FMO). Based on the current literature, the FMO protein is thought to belong uniquely to the green sulfur bacteria (4). The chlorobiaceae contain Fe-S type reaction centers that share an ancestor with oxygenic photosynthetic organisms that utilize photosystem I (4).

Read More »

Day # 3 in Genesis -- Plants Before Sunlight

2

Cal Peters: You've listed several living things which aren't dependent on photosynthesis. Yet the Bible says the earth brought forth grass and fruits, etc. Those do require sunlight. Also, while some living things don't require sunlight for photosynthesis, what would the temperature be on an earth without a sun?

Genesis/Science: Hi Cal, I'm sorry, but "Fruit" does not require photosynthesis. You have been extremely misinformed on what "fruit" is. Fruit is the end beneficial product, including such phrases as "Fruits of their labor" or "Fruit of the womb". The Bible was not written in 20th century English. It was written in Hebrew, thousands of years ago. So, for a scientific perspective, start here The religious leaders who do not begin to understand what science teaches, yet sadly assume they do, erroneously claim that science says there were no trees before sunlight, but they conveniently leave out the fact that there is simply no empirical evidence or way to prove when life photosynthesized from earth's own light and switched to reliance on the sun. Science does know to some extent when sunlight was knocked out, due to mass extinctions. However, one thing science is certain of is that there were organisms populating the earth 3.5 billion years ago and continued to do so through to the time of the Cambrian explosion. Now what those organisms were? Scientists still lack those answers. Darwin was mystified. Who knows? Many successful and failed evolutionary experiments took place during those billions of years, but most didn't leave fossil impressions. That doesn't mean they didn't exist and its very believable a grass-like non-photosynthetic organism or even a grass-like organism that relied on the earth's own geothermal photosynthetic potential (geothermal, hydrothermal vents, hot springs) existed way back when in early geological history. That's the beauty of it. YOU CAN NOT AND DO NOT KNOW, NOR DO I. That's the beauty of theory, because it is entirely possible. The point here is not to defend the Bible as infallible, but the point is to prove to Atheists that science does not.. Not.. NOT have all patent answers they falsely claim it offers, and especially, science does not exist for the sole purpose of destroying gods, religions, and blindly attacking people of faith. Science "Facts" and what Science teaches, is that the exception makes the rule, and that theories also can be falsified with proper evidence. We know there were in fact complex organisms before the Cambrian that did not leave fossils. They were soft-bodied, and non-photosynthetic and did not leave fossil impressions and that includes the possibility of a grass-like organism that would today, be classed among fungi and quite possibly it could have produced fruit as well!

DO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION... FRUIT = NON-PHOTOSYNTHETIC. This... is what science teaches. Anyone who says otherwise, is misinformed.

"...moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route..."

Foods and feeds - Google Books Result
by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages These structures are aptly designated as the "fruiting bodies," and such fungi are called the "fruiting fungi." In nature, as many as 2000 edible species ...
books google com/books?isbn=082478491X...

And to those who are unclear on how evolution works? 3 billion years ago, 2 billion years ago, 1 billion years ago... one half billion years ago, 99% of the organisms that existed back then, failed to resemble anything known on the planet in our modern day. They completely disappeared, went extinct, nada, caput. Atheists do not know what existed a billion years ago. They are not psychic nor have they time-traveled to the past to see the planet before the Cambrian. And modern organisms are a hard sell, to establish exactly what kind of life-forms existed 2 billion years ago. Species have evolved and diversified to where the kinds and "after their kinds" do not necessarily represent their ancestors adequately enough to say for instance, "Well, since the snake today has poisonous fangs, all snake ancestors had poison fangs," for even this trait was an evolved one, and whilst some have venomous fangs, others do not. Others have only bare traces of modified teeth. TO SUMMARIZE: It is impossible to know WHAT existed 1.5 billion years ago, how it functioned, and what they were! Precambrian organisms are such an oddity, scientists confess they do not know what they were, including perhaps, a failed evolutionary experiment that met with a dead end. Yet, Atheists claim to have all patent (TM) truths. Thank God the Agnostics are not so arrogant. In the case of the Pre-Cambrian, Science is content to admit more is unknown than known. A few scant fossils of mysterious organisms exist and nothing more. So could there have been a grass-like organism? Yes, indeed.

Nature... 3 billion years ago... 2 billion years ago... 1 billion... produced single cell organisms and non-photosynthetic, soft-bodied types of organisms, including life-forms that to this day, their fossils can not be properly classified (Vendian organisms). What they were, remains a mystery. Species can evolve in the form of many things, including species that qualify in size and form as trees, produce fruit, some forms could appear as grass.

From there (what science has confirmed as a "matter of fact") one's imagination is at liberty to fill in the blanks with theories because, there simply are no concrete answers. My guess is as good as anyone else's, although I am certain of this fact, Creationists are WRONG and Atheists, because they boast to possess patent (TM) truths, they too are equally in error. Thank God the Agnostics are not so arrogant. Thank God some people can admit they "do not know" and move on with their lives.

So Cal, I hope I have adequately addressed your statement.

Cal Peters: You've listed several living things which aren't dependent on photosynthesis. Yet the Bible says the earth brought forth grass and fruits, etc. Those do require sunlight. Also, while some living things don't require sunlight for photosynthesis, what would the temperature be on an earth without a sun?

We've established factually, there are "fruiting organisms" that do not depend on sunlight. What was originally meant in ancient Hebrew when terms such as fruit or grass, is debatable at best. Not all nutrition is derived from sunlight. Period. The temperature on earth around hydrothermal vents can vary as do methods of deriving nutrition. Below find two images that give insight into "early earth" and after some careful contemplation, ask yourself honestly, how sunlight would make any difference?.

Life as We Didn't Know It - NASA Science - Science@NASA
Before 1977, scientists believed that all forms of life ultimately depended on the Sun for energy. For all ecosystems then known to exist, plants or photosynthetic microbes constituted the base of the food chain....In contrast, these vent ecosystems depend on microbes that tap into the chemical energy in the geyser water that billows out from the sea floor -- energy that originates within the Earth itself.

Earth Life May Have Originated at Deep-Sea Vents | Space.com
Jan 25, 2013 - Hydrogen sulfide is a poison gas that’s lethal for humans even in very low concentrations. Yet, this compound — two parts hydrogen, one part sulfur — turned out to be the food source for bacteria that drive an entirely new ecosystem. (New to usat least. Some scientists suspect this type of ecosystem might, in fact, be the oldest on our planet.)

IN THE ABSENCE OF SUNLIGHT :

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
Discovery of green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents has major implications for where photosynthesis happens and where life may reside
A team of researchers, including a photosynthesis expert from ASU, has found evidence of photosynthesis taking place deep within the Pacific Ocean. The team found a bacterium that is the first photosynthetic organism that doesn’t live off sunlight but from the dim light coming from hydrothermal vents nearly 2,400 meters (7,875 feet) deep in the ocean.
The discovery of the green sulfur bacteria living near hydrothermal vents off the coast of Mexico has significant implications for the resiliency of life on Earth – and possibly on other planets, says Robert Blankenship, a member of the research team and professor and chair of ASU’s chemistry and biochemistry department.
“Life finds a way,” Blankenship says of the plucky bacteria that were found in a vent field called 9 North off the coast of Mexico.
The bacteria apparently live in the razor-thin interface between the extremely hot water (350 degrees Celsius, or 662 degrees Fahrenheit) coming from a flange vent and the very cold water (2 degrees Celsius, or about 36 degrees Fahrenheit) surrounding it.

You can find further articles by searching "life began around hydrothermal vent".

Just as all life forms do not rely on the sun for photosynthesis, we cannot know with certainty what method early organisms derived nutrition.

Methods of Deriving Nutrition
(Protozoa (meaning "first animals") obtain their food supply through three methods):
1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

The diversity and unknowns go on and on, and these (example of just one group of organisms, methods of deriving nutrition) also represent just one further example, of the complexities of 3.5 billion years of diversification of life. There are no "absolutes".

Precambrian Fossils that have been discovered notably lacking teeth and mouths, leaving scientists baffled about what they were/are to be classified as when compared to any known known extinct or extant organism. Perhaps an evolutionary experiment, that simply failed. There are more questions, than concrete answers, and currently both Creationists and Atheists have collectively failed to provide adequate answers.

So, all I can say is good luck on your continuing search for answers and back to original article, below:

---

Genesis 1:11-13
"...And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day..."

The YLT Version notes *tender
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;

* according to popular theories surrounding Vendian organisms is their notable lack of hard-body structure which explains the lack of fossils, as it stands, why mention "tender" in Genesis at all? Unless, it implies a soft-body plan for the earliest plant-life, which should naturally precede animal forms.

King James footnotes the same "tender" (Hebrew),

Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers 1991
This is vital that everyone knows this. A major reason the church denies evolution/science.
It states:

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"

I am trying to figure out where he got his information, because science teaches no such thing.

For instance,

Mistletoe is a "fruit bearing" plant, complete with seeds that is non-photosynthetic, to partially non-photosynthetic, and does not require sunlight to grow. With a slight genetic modification, this semi softer-body "plant" could easily be transformed into a tree... and certainly in a sunless world. It's thicker structure allows it to hold in moisture, a defense against the heat of the sun. Consider the cactus, which lives in the desert, and adapted perfectly so, due to its hard-body structure, to store large amounts of water.



Just for fun, this is a coral that resembles a tree in some fashion, and is non-photosynthetic.



Comes from Non-photosynthetic gorgonian. Photo: Alf J Nilsen.

Another group of non-photosynthetic plants, turns up under Orchids.

The Orchidaceae is one of the largest families in the plant kingdom, with more than 20,000 species identified, most distributed in the tropics and subtropics.

Of the European species, of which there are around 90, the genera's Orchis, Ophrys, Epipactis and Dactylorhizas are particularly well represented (Werner, 1992).

This diversity is perhaps surprising given that at some point in their life cycle all orchids are reliant upon mycorrhizal fungi. Whether they are chloro- or achlorophyllous as adults, all orchids have a stage where they are non-photosynthetic and therefore dependant on external sources of nutrients (Smith & Read, 1997).

From: Fremont Peak orchid. W. Kaehler/ Corbis with permission.

I could continue on with examples of plants whom, to this day in our sunlit world, do not depend on sunlight to sustain them.

I won't even include examples from the group called "Carnivorous Plants," as in Venus flytraps and Pitcher Plants which obtain their energy from consumption of flesh.

The point is, science no where teaches that plants *necessarily must* depend on photosynthesis. A majority of plant-life, may in our modern world, but the exception usually is the rule. Particularly for a completely extinct eco-system, that is hinted at, in Genesis 1, in the absence of sunlight. For more information, I suggest searching more information on the "Vendian" or "Ediacaran Fossils" (some of the first organisms known to exist on earth and that left a scant number of fossil impressions). These organisms continue to mystify scientists who remain uncertain as to what exactly they were. Some have hypothesized their structure included soft-body plans, which would be ideally suited for a dark, damp, sunless world, which is implied in Genesis 1, "Day #3".

Read More »