Atheists Providing Comic Relief -- This Time Its Not Creationists Misunderstanding Science, Rather Atheists Fail To Understand Ancient Biblical Hebrew

This was priceless. I found it on the web today. An Atheist has exhausted his wits, and I'll give it a chuckle, a bit of time to answer and then move on to more important things. The argument provided, well, is just too amateur to take serious.



He writes,

do creationists know ANYTHING about biology?

the fruiting body of a fungus is NOT a fruit bearing tree
a spore is NOT a seed
and just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!

Hmm, most people will agree, it is *smile* called a FRUITING fungi, and certainly, by all reasonable, scientific standards, pass for a "tree".


~ commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prototaxites_Dawson1888.PNG
Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.

This is not the failure of a Creationist knowing "Biology," (first point, *smile*, the proper scientific field in discussion is, BOTANY, or MYCOLOGY, not "Biology," but that's beside the point), the issue is not a matter that a Creationist has failed to understand Botany, but that the Atheist has proven itself illiterate of the Hebrew language, and Biblical context.
If you want to get technical, Mycology is the study of fungi or perhaps even this question might fall under Paleobotany, the study of plant fossils (Since afterall, the organism was once classed as a conifer). Biology is the study of (animal) life. Plant biology (a. k. a. Botany) (at least once it were so) included the study of bacteria, algae, and fungi. See, Ohio University, Botany Department.

First and foremost,

That scientists chose to name the "fruiting fungi" a FRUITING fungi, is probably the best evidence of all, that even in English, it stands to reason that edible "fruit" from the fungi, is in fact its "fruit". *smile* that wasn't difficult at all.

Secondly, the fruiting fungi, ancestors of Prototaxites, were indeed trees, and called so by scientists, mistaken for about a century as a conifer. But later this primitive fossilized organism was verified to be a "Fruiting Fungi".

Thirdly, and most amusing, the Hebrew language referred to many things as "seed." As was explained early on in this blog, the Hebrew language was restricted to a few 1000 words, in contrast to the English language which contains a few million words, so in Hebrew, yes, spores would have been "seed". See excerpt below from Strong's Concordance. Even one's descendents are referred to as "Seed," whether or not the English language incorporates ten or twenty synonyms to say, "descendants," the Hebrew did not. Likewise, spores, semen, descendants, seed(in the modern sense), all are interpreted as "seed" in Hebrew.

Fourthly, Darwin's dilemma, to explain why the earth left little trace of life before the Cambrian Explosion is indeed explained by all reasonable scientific standards that (see Epoch Four vs. Epoch Five, in Genesis) sunlight was not reaching the earth for the first 3.5 billion years of Earth's history, and the fossil record was primarily vacant. Yet, despite theories by scientists which hint at a dark, damp, sunless world, such as "soft bodied organisms," and admissions that fungi and other botanical organism existing during the Precambrian, such as algae (fossil evidence spanning back as far as 3.5 billion years), where was life during that vast expanse of time? Science can not, and never will adequately explain this, except with the absence of sunlight. This dilemma raised by Charles Darwin, his contemporaries and scientists who followed him, establishes that though such organisms may not have left fossil remains, with certainty, they existed! Therefore, let it be deduced, non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) organisms existed before the sun began nuclear fusion, the sun (Epoch Four/Genesis) newly providing life on earth with a source for light energy/photosynthesis, and abundant proliferation of life (Epoch Five/Genesis) began. According to evolution theory itself, organisms evolve according to their environment and, would not have evolved their non-photosynthetic properties, without a cause, that being, logically, the absence of sunlight.

It is not the Creationist who lacks knowledge of Botany, but that the Atheist has failed to comprehend the fundamentals of Biblical Hebrew.

If the Biblical Hebrew meant, "spore" in contrast to "seed," we would find a Hebrew term for "spore" in Strong's Concordance. Rather, "spore" is absent. As pointed out, ancient Hebrew was absent of such a word and the word "seed" was used in Hebrew to define numerous things, including "spores".

Fifthly, to address,

"...just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!"

I am attaching an image (below) which provides approximates for the current, modern day size comparisons between the sun (a gas giant) vs the cold gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. Then, note comparison to size of Earth.


From Prison Planet, where they mention ironically, "experts" fail to get even the most basic facts correct,"

Note, sidebar,

"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."

There was a major difference between Earth forming in its early stages, with ice and rock; debris compressing as gravity pulled the Earth into its final form (as Genesis states, "the earth was without form...," gravity taking its toll, leading to friction, therefore intense heat and ultimately, early Earth becoming an orb of molten rock. It must be noted, there is indeed a significant difference when comparing early Earth (composed of rock) vs a gas giant. As it is written in Genesis, God said "Let there be light," and there was light. That is, Light from hydrothermal vents to provide algae with a source of light energy.
It is feasible to suggest, (in all scientific light) that the Earth was set ablaze long before the sun. The fossil record bears testimony: Due to a lack of proliferation of animal life, yet with just enough light energy to support the spawn of simple algae and bacteria. Otherwise, the fossil record is primarily empty. Charles Darwin was not mistaken.
The sun, on the other hand, like Jupiter and Saturn would need a heavy enough compression, leading to nuclear fusion. Compression of hydrogen atoms within the core, due to gravity pressing inward. This is not heat caused from friction and compression, but completely and solely compression of gas. How long did it take the sun to reach this state? We have Earth's fossil record that tells us when sunlight was present, and when it was not. For 3.5 billion years, the fossil record is vacant, therefore, there was no sun. The question is, 4 billion years ago when the Earth was in a state of molten rock, blanketed by heavy steam... was the sun yet of size, compression enough to create the force necessary to trigger nuclear fusion? In all probabilty, the answer is NO, and again, the fossil record testifies to this! Therefore, evolution took the primarily non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) route. Despite the massive size of Jupiter and Saturn (both gas giants with similarities to the sun), they do not have the nuclear fusion in their core as evidenced with the sun, or you'd see these giant planets set ablaze, like nuclear bombs being detonated..., like two small suns burning in the distant heavens.
The sun, in contrast,

...that is, about 100 billion H-bombs every second!"
The Sun, Physics Department, FSU.EDU

Sixthly, the question is, do Atheists know the difference between Science and Theology? Take note and observe where he posted a question on BOTANY. Did this Atheist genuinely hope to receive an answer from a Botanist or even a Biologist under the "Religion and Spirituality" category? Is the Atheist even aware that Science and Theology are separate entities? It is not the "Creationist" who is confused, but rather, the Atheist. It can be deduced that an answer was not being sought by an actual Scientist, but the question was directed at fellow Atheists, who are not, Scientists.

Religion and Spirituality Category. Atheists are confused, and can not distinguish between philosophy and empirical science today.

Let the words of Charles Darwin address this problem of Atheists who confuse thier religion, with the field of Science. Unlike Atheists, Darwin was a Scientist who did indeed distinguish a clear difference between Science and Religion:

"...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..." and, "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..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

Science and Theology, are two independent fields of study, separated, like the east is to the west. The man was a genius. Or perhaps, possibly a simple man like myself who asked simple questions, and exercised a thing in short supply these days: COMMON SENSE, which militant, religious Atheists (who go to Category:RELIGION, for answers on Mycology and Botany), need more of.

Seventh, and lastly: Do you realize how frustrating it is, to read Atheists mindlessly attacking Christians (amounting to nothing more than good old fashioned prejudice and religious bigotry of their own); because they have been brainwashed to believe the lie, that Faith=Lesser intellect. I have an IQ of 129. In fact, I feel quite confident that I'm by far more educated than the average atheist, therefore I strongly resent the stereotype.