Spoken only to Woman

See University of North Carolina, Oppression of Women in Early Christianity
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm

This statement alone, sounds bells and whistles it's a forgery:
"as the law also says (Genesis 3:16)"


By very virtue that any man was calling the CURSE in Genesis on woman, a "Law," proves he did not have any understanding of scripture.

Scholarship May have Found a Solution to this Problem . . .
"As Ehrman (p. 346) states concerning "the harsh words of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Indeed, this passage is so similar to that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and so unlike what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that these too are words that Paul himself never wrote; rather they were later inserted into the letter of 1 Corinthians by a scribe who wanted to make Paul's views conform to those of the Pastoral epistles."
See University of North Carolina, Oppression of Women in Early Christianity
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm


Yesterday, an unfortunate thing happened. Neighborhood boys came over (I've ran them off before), when boys get in packs they destroy everything in their path. I sent them all outside, and next thing I know... the pump nozzle was knocked clean off the side of the house. Water spraying everywhere like a geyser. I unplugged everything... and the landlord fixed it for me.... told me "Boys will be boys". The terror of the neighborhood. Statistics show there's no greater misery, no greater source for juvenile delinquency, than boys raised in homes with single mothers, because boys will do exactly as they please if there's not a man in the home who has a firm upperhand and control over wild behavior.

As the good Lord said, "...he shall rule over you..." (as a CURSE) and it was done, laws of nature, re-written into stone (human nature)... about like the discovery of Hitler, that "a small mob of men can rule a city, through terror."

As if we needed insult added to injury, salt poured on the wound... (it was ALREADY DONE), yet some men (who wanted to ENSLAVE women like cattle, because of men's evil nature to plot and scheme how they can steal even _more_ power for themselves, like the addicts to tyrannical domination that they are) takes it upon himself to FORGE lies in the name of Paul, and beating women down into the dust... man dominating his fellow man, in cruelty... of slavery, because of lack of integrity, bullying, heaping on misery... that's the nature of the male... and God called it a CURSE that man would rule over woman.

That devil who forged scripture in the name of Paul, was too ignorant to even realize t'was not "the law" but a CURSE! There was no law or commandment, what was done was done! Written in stone. God did not need any help of a lying scribe and misogynistic woman-haters with their own "political agenda" to rewrite the commandments of God. Just as every time a man tills the ground, he will sweat, just as a snake will never walk again, and will continue to strike at the heel of humans... there was no commandment, "When you till the ground, you BETTER SWEAT." Just as there's no law that says "When you see a human you BETTER sink your fangs into his foot." It was rewritten into nature, what was done, was done, there was no need of some evil scheming slave-driver of women, to say "obey a man".

... and their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked ...


EVIL WICKED TREACHEROUS MALES:
Hugh Hefner. “Women are here to serve men. Look at them, they got to
...blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/.../womens-sexuality-20/

Another censorship followup: Child ... “Women are here to serve men. Look at them, they got to squat to piss. ... -Hugh Hefner of Playboy on early feminists. ... I have some quotes from sources, and I really wish that the quote function still worked in the comments
(what a ...~ amptoons com/.../another-censorship-followup-child-porn-and-rape-porn/

Women's Sexuality 2.0 at I Blame The Patriarchy –Hugh Hefner. “Women are here to serve men. ... I won't repeat that particular quote if it makes you uncomfortable, however. No probs. ...blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2009/02/.../comment-page-4/


...

... and their eyes were opened, and they saw they were naked ...


WISE YET, LADIES??!



Maria Magdalena van Beethoven (1746-87) Beethoven's mother.
"It was clear to Maria from soon after her marriage that her husband would fail to fulfil his musical ambitions, and as he descended into alcoholism she resigned herself to an unhappy marriage. To a friend she described marriage as 'a chain of sorrows'.

WISE YET??

The Commandments of God, and that males would obey those commandments, was the only hope for WOMAN to have any peace... any hope... and Jesus came rebuking men for their evil, sinful ways. Delivering women from men's abusive, adulterous ways.

SCRIPTURE IS ABSENT OF SUCH A "COMMANDMENT" TO OBEY WICKED, LUSTFUL, SELF-CENTERED, EGOTISTICAL MEN.

In fact, if God had intended women to "obey" man, God would've said so in Genesis. Rather, Genesis emphasized the cursed nature of the curse, "Your pain will be increased in birth, and your desire to this (disobedient clod), and he will rule over you." AND MAKE YOUR LIFE A LIVING HELLL... because he refuses to obey God.

Tormented at the soul...

By very virtue that any man was calling the CURSE in Genesis on woman, a "Law," proves he did not have any understanding of scripture.

  • Do read the Commandments of God, and pray tell me, where any mention therein commands women must "obey" a man? It is absent of such a thing. However, God's Commandments FIERCELY rebukes men, for lusting after their neighbor's wife and maid servants,
  • The Commandments do condemn adultery (following the commandment of murder!)
  • Jesus came teaching the law, and did not command women to obey men like cattle, but had women followers, and also, rebuked men for their adultery.
  • It was a command, God made to Moses, to circumsize the most sensitive portion of the male private... to lessen pleasure in hopes of deterring adultery...

    ...no where does God, or Jesus, command women to obey men like mindless cattle. But in fact, all of human history, man has lead woman astray with his evil, wicked imagination to do continual violence.

    Why no commandment? Because God had already re-written the laws of nature, where by nature, woman would be crushed under the heels of wicked men, and "be made wise" in the process. The Old Testament is filled with horror stories of men's wanton plunder and evil exploitation of women and children.

    Who was that devil, who forged lies in the name of Paul and in the name of God?

    God had already *cursed* woman-kind, as soon as that disobedient man in Genesis, who partook of "KNOWLEDGE OF EVIL"... life has been hell, for woman, children, and everything in the path of a man, since that day. He will rule over you, ladies... you will suffer at his wicked hands!! And there's nothing you can do about it. Unrestrained to his evil imagination. No hope... except that he obey the commandments of God.

    No greater misery, than a single mother raising children on her own. Boys statistically grow up and end up in prison, and there's no greater misery... because a woman can't control a boy's wild nature to do every evil thing that enters into his wild imagination.

    Woman would spend eternity, LEARNING why, yes, "You will become as gods, and be made wise, ladies..." suffering the brunt, WHY when men disobey God, well, gals, you're gonna "feel it"... for the rest of human history. You're going to SUFFER... you're going to see it and pained at your soul when your husband REFUSES to obey the commandments of God and goes on his wayward, wicked, treacherous path... irregardless of who gets hurt. Even if the clod doesn't see it... you'll see it girls, and you'll be a 1000x wiser than the clod. Through much suffering, you will be made wise. He will rule over you, and make your life a living hell... because he refuses to obey the commandments of God.

    Recognize this? Does it hit home, ladies...?

    Verse 1
    A lonely mother gazing out of the window
    Staring at a son that she just can't touch
    If at any time he's in a jam she'll be by his side
    But he doesn't realize he hurts her so much
    But all the praying just ain't helping at all
    Cause he can't seem to keep his self out of trouble
    So he goes out and he makes his money the best way he knows how
    Another body laying cold in the gutter Listen to me
    Chorus

    Don't go chasing waterfalls
    Please stick to the rivers and the lakes that you're used to
    I know that you're gonna have it your way or nothing at all
    But I think you're moving too fast

    Verse 2
    I seen a rainbow yesterday
    But too many storms have come
    Leaving a trace of not one God-given ray
    Is it because my life is ten shades of grey
    I pray all ten fade away
    Seldem praise Him for the sunny days
    And like His promise is true
    Only my faith can undo
    The many chances I blew
    To bring my life to a new
    Clear blue and unconditional skies
    Have dried the tears from my eyes
    No more lonely cries
    My only bleedin' hope is for the folk who can't cope
    With such an endurin' pain that it keeps 'em in the pouring rain
    Who's to blame for shootin'caine into you're own vein
    What a shame you shoot and aim for someone else's brain
    You claim the insane and name this day in time
    For fallin' prey to crime
    I say the system got you victim to your own mind
    Dreams are hopeless aspirations
    In hopes of comin' true
    Believe in yourself
    The rest is up to me and you
    Chorus


    Spoken only to woman, not the man :

    "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


    YEAH... I AM A 1000x WISER... every time I see statistics of prisons overflowing with a violent, brutal, cruel, evil male population, who wanted to kill, steal, covet, and do every imaginable wickedness under the sun, refusing to obey God... and burn down the law, I am made "wiser".

    And as it is written, (the man gained the knowledge of EVIL), and man's imagination was to do continual wickedness. Women and children have suffered the brunt... and man just "doesn't get it". He RULES the world, and plunders, exploits, destroys everything in his path.

    As the lying, deceptive forgery has it written, "Holy hands," ... like hell.

    Genesis 6:5 "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."


    But leave it to an arrogant blasphemer to exalt himself and his evil, lying, vile hands above God as "holy" -- and besides such utter contempt for God, a thing even Jesus Christ dared not do. "Why do you call me good? None is good, save God alone." Above all, the entire motive was to make SLAVES of women. All of Jesus' efforts to liberate women from the beastly overbearing tyranny of the Hebrew customs, came to no effect, due to one evil forgery... and for the rest of Christian history, woman has suffered thanks to _one evil man_ who practiced deceit.

    Wise yet, ladies?

    Misery and suffering are all women and children have known, since. Save some of those little primitive tribes who were not infected by the wicked seed of Adam, still living, disconnected from "western civilization" and its barbarity -- the men protect their little tribes; still to this day are hunters and gatherers as they were 10,000's years ago, and provide for their women and children, and they love each other, like one big family. They have peace in their very simple (call it "ignorant" if you want to), but they have survived 10,000's of years... and left to modern man and his love of weapons of mass destruction... humans will be lucky if the monsters don't blow human life off the planet 10 times over (approximate destructive power of the current stockpile of nuclear warheads, etc). Constant imagination in men, to do continual wickedness; evil and violence. Those ancient people don't hurt anyone.

    A CHAIN OF SORROWS INDEED
    A chain of sorrows indeed. Especially for women who are truly feminine, and easily crushed under foot... passive and meek. A male in his wild brute overbearing nature will run you over and crush you under his heel!
    Feel free to pass along to your Atheist male ilk, and any theologians you please.
    They're all males, and on the turn of a dime, become wicked.

    Just take a look at some of the atrocities taking place against women in Muslim nations (Where Polygamy is condoned), and compare that with what Atheist men did to about 2,000,000 women (anywhere between age 6 and 80) during the Red Army invasion into Western Europe... slaughtering, raping and plundering everywhere those men went. Millions of women and girls, raped and brutalized and left for dead.

    Everytime I ever allowed any man into my life, he destroyed my life and what little I had.‏

    Blessing?!?!? Commandment???! Holy Hands?!?!
    Any woman foolish enough to trust a strange man is liable to get her throat cut open. Why has it taken 10,000 years to figure out this simple truth? That CURSE was not a "blessing" and least of all, a "commandment". But just the "nature of things" as they are, and sorrow, misery on woman... the only hope, is that men will obey God.

    There will be many male perverts standing before God, and told "Depart I know you not". But Lord, we're males... woman is the "root of all evil," just look at our "holy hands"... why, we're even more holy than God himself because we have male genitalia.

    What kind of mental illness is it at work in the wiring of the male brain?? I have never figured it out... but if I want any peace, if I want to protect my children from pedophiles, and what little I have, then I am forced to keep males : OUT!!

    And, according to scripture,
    "...All men in Israel were commanded to assemble together for religious purposes three times a year [Exodus 23:14-17; Exodus 34:21-23; Deuteronomy 16:16,17]. Those occasion were the Passover with the feast of unleaven bread; the feast of weeks (or Pentecost); and the feast of booths (or the feast of tabernacles or the feast of ingatherings). Women and children were permitted to attend, but it was not mandatory that they attend."
    ~ westarkchurchofchrist.org/chadwell/approaches7.htm

    I suppose if the Principal of a School calls for a mandatory gathering of disobedient, stiff-necked boys to "lay the law down on them" -- it's because of their "superior moral character" and "good behavior".

    Holy Hands?!?! What kind of mental illness is it at work?

    Question why God commanded to put them to death? Because, the only thing wicked men seem to understand is "brute force". They're pig-headed, and stubborn and... "stiff necked" and need I borrow more adjectives from the mouth of God, and the Bible itself??!
    Yes, stubborn and stiff-necked.
    One of my worst living nightmares: Back in the 1990's, I was up late, like I am a lot of evenings -- early morning, and I began smelling a strong odor. A mellow and pleasant odor... I knew I'd smelled it somewhere before, but couldn't place it. It was pouring into the house. I returned to what I was doing, thinking... and about 10 minutes later, it dawned on me where I'd smelled it.
    Just a couple weeks before, I'd left the local store and the owner told me "That man was drunk..." -- he was a huge, bulking hulk of a man around 350 lbs., and in his early to mid 30's I'd guess. He left from there, and wrecked into two young boys (what do you know, typical unruly boys), turning doughnuts in the road, like fools, breaking the law.
    I mentioned to the cop, the owner at the store said the guy who got in the wreck with them, had been drinking. What do you know, but I looked into the car, and there he was sitting, soaked down in cologne trying to disguise the smell. That cologne was wreaking from the police car... and he heard every word I spoke to the police.

    When I remembered where I'd smelled that odor, I warned him, something like "If you try coming in this house, I'll blow your brains out, and take your **** with it."
    The odor of that cologne faded away... until I smelled nothing more.
    Violence, Evil, Wicked... Brute Force, is all the male understands.

    "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
    ~ bible.cc/matthew/26-52.htm

    All they understand is brute force, so that's how God dealt with them in the Old Testament. "He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword."
  • Intelligent Design Advocates Will Be Disappointed By Literal Reading of Genesis

    I've considered, and re-considered the very literal text of Epoch Three, Five and Six, and the conclusion is you have to read it for what it says in black and white. The majority of species described were "created" by the earth and waters... am I disappointed, not really. Enlightened, is more like it.
    "...In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to 'epochs of creation'."
    ~ F&W Encyclopedia, 1950, on Professor Louis Agassiz, rival and contemporary of Charles Darwin.

    Based on a literal comparison between what Science teaches (to the detail), and Genesis 1 and 2, Scientists Louis Agassiz ("Epochs of Creation") and Charles Darwin ("Natural Selection"), were both correct.

    Even further, some of the prophets allude to a "New Heaven and Earth," and further improvisations on animal kinds in the Kingdom of God, with the lion redesigned to eat grass and lay down next to a lamb. The chronology in Genesis will not support "Intelligent Design Hypothesis" as some may want it to.

    The Problem with Extinction

    God does not create animals "after their kind," until the time of whales. The Waters brought forth the animals, "after their kind," as in evolving over several 100 million years. That includes the KT Boundary, which wiped out so many species, and the mammals inherited the Earth.

    The scripture is black and white,

    God commanded the Earth and Waters to "bring forth" and merely created the varieties the water brought forth (as in "every living creature" as in extant, still "living"), "After their kind," which implies what some have suggested for, "Fine-tuning hypothesis".

    If you're an intelligent God, and use the ocean and waterways to create by... you want to separate the weak from the strong species.... you put the species through cataclysm, and what's left at the end of the day, the living... those are fine-tuned.

    That's what it says too. "Created every _living_ creature" along with Whales, after their kind = which serves as the most excellent hint for humans to figure out the time period must be around 45 mya . . . and God creates "every living (extant) creature" after its kind.

    The KT Boundary took out so many species.

    The next major evolutions indeed, took place with Cattle and beasts of the earth, followed by man... in Epoch six, still God is allowing the earth to do the creating, after their kind, --then creates (fine tunes) them, after their kind.

    In scientific terms, "every living creature"... as in what's left extant, is called "Survival of the Fittest". 95% of all species that ever lived, have went extinct.

    An Intelligent Creator... but obviously, doesn't seem much into "Designing."

    They said it couldn't be done -- but here it is. Trees Before Sunlight.


    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.)"



    See the next post.

    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...




    They are "fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,
    "Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

    In the total absence of sunlight... a "fruit" bearing seed (spores) in itself... and is edible by humans.

    Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
    Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued...
    ~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm



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

    As I said earlier, seed can even mean a man's reproductive ... well, seed can mean spores, too. I wanted to identify what exactly was meant by "Fruiting Fungi" for that gigantic 20 ft. Prototaxites. This came up, see the extract from Google Books.

    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...


    1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
    2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
    3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

    Darwinists Admit Serious Problem With Gap In Fossil Record

    "...and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself..."

    As I said earlier, seed can even mean a man's reproductive ... well, seed can mean spores, too. I wanted to identify what exactly was meant by "Fruiting Fungi" for that gigantic 20 ft. Prototaxites. This came up, see the extract from Google Books.

    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...




    This (see above) may be the answer I was hoping and praying for. These organisms, and organisms very similar, certainly existed during the Vendian.

    My God... am I reading that book extract, correctly? They are "fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,
    "Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

    In the total absence of sunlight... a "fruit" bearing seed (spores) in itself... and is edible by humans. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly... I'm in complete shock. Or, maybe its exactly what Genesis Epoch Three, describes.

    "...At the end of the nineteenth century scientists began to think it was an alga, in fact a brown alga, and this opinion has been established and is now mentioned in nearly every book. Until an American paleobotanist, Francis Hueber, after 20 years of research published an elaborated paper (2001) in which he defended that Prototaxites was the fruiting body of an enormous fungus ... And now there is Marc-André Selosse from Paris, who proposes with good arguments that we might have to do with a huge lichen!"


    --------------------------------------

    EARLIER

    Here's an excerpt I just extracted from one pdf on lichens and fungi I pulled off the web. It reminds me of how Anti_Theists do their Science and Bigotry toward people of Faith. They demand "evidence" for God... before believing, but God does not exist for their amusement, entertainment and performing "magic tricks".



    Secondly, Paleontology just isn't done that way either. You don't start out saying, "If you haven't got the fossil for it... it never existed." If Science was done that way, Science would've made zero progress... just as Darwin predicted... and had faith, there was a progression of fossils, on back. Darwin was perplexed by the absence of fossils before the Cambrian, but did Darwin stop questioning, and say "The Precambrian fossils didn't exist, because they disappear from the fossil record around the time of the Cambrian." ? No, that's not how Science is done, nor is it how any one approaches God. Scientists go on looking for earlier fossils. With God, and Science, you must have faith it can be found.... then you seek, and you shall find.

    Not saying its always what they want or expect to find, but they'll find... just as below, the excerpt comes from scientists themselves, confessing, "it doesn't make any sense..." But, there's nothing saying it has to.

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
    Figure 2 (A) Prototaxites; transverse section showing the internal anatomy, which is entirely ... structures of a flowering plant. This fungus, which is ...
    paleobotany.bio.ku.edu/taylorPDFs%5C%5B2005%5D%20Taylor%20and%20Krings


    I will go on believing in God.. Just as I will go on believing strongly that organisms fitting the description in Epoch Three of Genesis, existed in the Vendian and Precambrian. (Not to mention, the very first organism described, "Tender" Grass sure describes Algae, grass, as a covering on land).

    Faith is a wonderful thing. Faith may be the stuff science is made of... that has lead to the greatest discoveries of things that were formerly unknown.

    Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
    Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued that it was instead a lichen, ...
    ~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm


    Lichens... aye.



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

    Earlier in the evening the thought occurred to me, when the Bible speaks of "seed," it can refer to anything, including the "seed of a man," which could also refer to "spores," for seed and also, the word "fruit" may not refer to "fruit" at all, like apples and oranges. It could even refer to a "nut" or another entirely different form of produce. (One example being, in English, a tomato may be called a vegetable, but technically its a fruit because it grows on a vine.) Could a pecan be considered a "fruit whose seed is within itself"? Fruit is what is produced, as in "Fruits of the Spirit". So, possibly.

    Most important, all these organisms evolved from earlier organisms, "after their kind".

    Flowers on the ground and in the trees
    "The trees are in “full bloom” in this picture. Pecans are dicotymous. In laymans terms it means the male part of the flower is located seperately from the female part. Bees therefore play no part in pecan pollination but rather they are wind pollinated. This may be the reason that the evolution of flowers on pecans had no need for attractive flowers. They do produce huge amounts of pollen though, on the tassels or catkins shown in an earlier photo."
    ~ rouxpecans.com/blog/?p=202


    As pointed out
    * Some "flowering" parts would be too small to fossilize. As with spores of Fungi, it wouldn't fossilize at all, due to the soft structure.

    HERE'S MORE, BUT I DON'T EXPECT ANY ANTI-THEIST DARWINISTS TO THROW ANY SUGGESTIONS IN... THE ONLY THING THEY USE SCIENCE FOR, IS MAKING A WAR ON GOD.

    At the end of the nineteenth century scientists began to think it was an alga, in fact a brown alga, and this opinion has been established and is now mentioned in nearly every book.
    Until an American paleobotanist, Francis Hueber, after 20 years of research published an elaborated paper (2001) in which he defended that Prototaxites was the fruiting body of an enormous fungus ...
    And now there is Marc-André Selosse from Paris, who proposes with good arguments that we might have to do with a huge lichen!
    Below the facts are put in order.

    Scientists have identified the Godzilla of fungi, a giant, prehistoric fossil that has evaded classification for more than a century, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

    A chemical analysis has shown that the 20-foot-tall (6-metre) organism with a tree-like trunk was a fungus that became extinct more than 350 million years ago, according to a study appearing in the May issue of the journal Geology.

    Known as Prototaxites, the giant fungus originally was thought to be a conifer. Then some believed it was a lichen, or various types of algae. Some suspected it was a fungus.

    "A 20-foot-fungus doesn't make any sense. Neither does a 20-foot-tall algae make any sense, but here's the fossil," C. Kevin Boyce, a University of Chicago assistant professor of geophysical sciences, said in a statement.

    Francis Hueber of the National Museum of Natural History first suggested the fungus possibility based on an analysis of the fossil's internal structure, but had no conclusive proof.

    Boyce and colleagues filled in the blanks, comparing the types of carbon found in the giant fossil with plants that lived about the same time, about 400 million years ago.

    If Prototaxites were a plant, its carbon structures would resemble similar plants. Instead, Boyce found a much greater diversity in carbon content than would have been expected of a plant.

    Fungi, which include yeast, mold and mushrooms, represent their own kingdom, neither plant nor animal. Once classified as plants, they are now considered a closer cousin to animals but they absorb rather than eat their food.

    Samples of the giant fungi have been found all over the world from 420 million to 350 million years ago during a period in which millipedes, bugs and worms were among the first creatures to make their home on dry land. No animals with a backbone had left the oceans yet.

    The tallest trees stood no more than a couple of feet (a meter) high, offering little competition for the towering fungi.

    Plant-eating dinosaurs had not yet evolved to trample Prototaxites' to the ground. "It's hard to imagine these things surviving in the modern world," Boyce said.
    ~ news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070423/sc_nm/fossil_fungus_dc


    Some more interesting information on the evolution of plants: This is funny.


    One of the Ediacaran Fossils (above) compared to the modern onion plant (below).

    Pic from hort.purdue.edu

    Needless to rehash, the earth brought forth the herb, "after its kind."

    A couple more facts to consider. Some flowering forms, have a flower too small to fossilize. So it is indeed very difficult to know much about earliest plant forms.

    Article: First Orchid Fossil Puts Showy Blooms At Some 80 Million ... The fossil record lacks evidence of orchids, Ramirez says, because they bloom ... along with the highly specialized flowers' need for a well-developed array ... That is...some species were too small to leave a fossil record or died in ...
    ~accessmylibrary.com/.../summary_0286-32782149_ITM

    DARWIN: SCIENCE OR PHILOSOPHY? Chapter 9 Jul 14, 2002 ... Large-bodied organisms are more likely to fossilize than small ones. .... or because they were too rare or local in distribution. ...
    ~leaderu.com/orgs/fte/darwinism/chapter9.html

    Asking about life - Google Books Result by Allan J. Tobin, Jennie Dusheck - 2005 - Science - 960 pages
    For example, most insects are too small and delicate to be preserved, ... ichthyosaur fossil, ER Degginger/Bruce Coleman, Inc.; fossil flower, ...
    books.google.com/books?isbn=053440653X...

    [DOC] Geology Activities: Rocks File Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML
    Since then, the fossil record of jellyfish is quite sparse, .... In fact, most paleontologists believe that its brain was too small to ... More than 100 years ago, Charles Darwin called the origin of flowers an "abominable mystery". ...
    gk12.utmsi.utexas.edu/pdf/geo_ori.doc


    ** What's the chance they got the fossil of any plant, through all of its life stages? However, the most important thing that Anti-Theist Darwinists would prefer to overlook is this, despite there being a 3.5 billion year gap in the fossil record which perplexed even Darwin, the Genesis account tells there was an introduction of the sun *after* plants had already been introduced on land, and for that very cause, its safe to assume a vast majority of species probably went EXTINCT, adapted to living in a dark, damp, sunless world and were forced to re-evolve. Already, below they confess that land-plants made a comeback as little as 470 million years ago!

    Excuse me, but if CHARLES DARWIN himself had a hard time swallowing that 3.5 billion year gap in the fossil record, then I have no apology for doing it myself.

    ** Below, they confess land plants have been around for 470 Million years. This is not counting their soft-bodied ancestors from whom they evolved!!

    ** Anti-Theists presume, because they haven't found the fossils, they didn't exist, but nothing could be farther from the truth. At least wisegeek is honest and admits "...or longer..." because perhaps they're not in denial like some Anti-Theists are, that land plants had earlier origins... and those origins are shrouded in mystery among the Vendian and Precambrian.. soft-bodied and left few to no fossils.

    You might think that flowering plants (angiosperms) have been around forever, but they haven't. Though land plants have been around for 470 million years or longer, the earliest evidence of flowering plants, in the form of the fossil Archaefructus liaoningensis, dates to just 125 million years ago, in the early Cretaceous period. This means that flowering plants have only existed for about a quarter of the time of land plants in general. Fossil evidence of pollen, considering indicative of flowering plants, is a bit older, dated to about 130 million years ago.
    The evolution of flowering plants was a long time in coming, but today, they are the most successful group of land plants, found on every continent but Antarctica, and on remote islands thousands of miles from the mainland. The abrupt appearance and success of flowering plants was so extreme that Charles Darwin called it an "abominable mystery." However, since Darwin's time, more fossils have been found that reveal a series of intermediate steps before full-fledged flowers.
    The evolution of plants is generally one where groups that exploit fundamental evolutionary innovations, such as vascular tissue, bark, seeds, or flowers, have the tendency to almost completely replace more primitive plants when they really get going. Furthermore, these evolutionary innovations tend to emerge in the most complex plants at the time. Accordingly, flowering plants evolved from the most sophisticated seed plants, which themselves had replaced most seedless plants about 370 million years ago, during the late Devonian.
    Flowers are a very successful evolutionary innovation because they permit a more complex range of interactions with other organisms, opening up various symbiotic partnerships, especially with pollinating insects such as bees. The constant exchange of pollen between plants, facilitated by bees, helps flowering plants to stay genetically diverse and resistant to disease or other hardship.
    Flowering plants diversified into the two main groups, monocots and dicots, just 5-10 million years after they initially evolved. By the end of the Cretaceous, 65.5 million years ago, half of today's main groups of flowering plants had evolved, and they accounted for 70% of global plant species. The success of flowering plants around this time had caused scientists to speculate the the dinosaurs may have gone extinct by eating flowers. This was before scientists came to agree that the dinosaurs went extinct from an asteroid impact.
    ~ wisegeek.com/when-did-flowering-plants-evolve.htm


    The Vendian Period was filled with ancestors to the modern plants... little is known about them. The fossil record yields so little fossil material, because even modern plants don't fossilize well (that's your foremost problem), but secondly, its putting the cart before the horse to deny evolution itself, saying (plant) Algae arrived on the scene, 3.5 billion years... went nowhere, miraculously jumps to creating animals, and then "modern plants" evolved after the animals.

    That's absurd.

    Are the Darwinists there, denying reasonable evolution, or did you erroneously believe the only purpose science exists for, is for you to twist it to suit your own agenda to make war on God and deny Genesis?

    Dealing with soft-body vendian organisms... an extinct ecosystem which has yielded nearly no fossils... no insight into those organisms that went extinct (scientists themselves can't tell what for certain they were), but the few fossils that remain, resemble plants... the ancestors of plants, long before animals came on the scene.. the closest explanation to date, was that modern lichens will leave fossils similar to those found in the Vendian, (which also are notorious for "shutting down" for long periods of time, a strange reaction to water and light and can live 4000+ years),

    3.5 billion years of a gap (even with Precambrian Fossil Fuel telling another story)... is just too much for any reasonable person to swallow. Besides this, plants had a head-start on evolution, _long_ before animals, and to this day, algae, fungi, bacteria, plants... fill _every_ conceivable niche in the earth, where animals do not and can not.

    The absence of fossils, does not mean the organisms did not exist. But wait, that's how Anti-Theists deduced that God doesn't exist. For Posterity, an Anti-Theist once told me, "Common Sense has nothing to do with Science."

    ----

    Let me throw this in as a fore-note, before its overlooked as one of the important subjects to consider in what Epoch Three of Genesis is referring to (and Anti-Theists will go out of their way, to omit or avoid) :

    How do spores and seeds differ? | Answerbag.com
    May 12, 2006 ... How do spores and seeds differ? Basically, spores are produced by non-flowering plants, while seeds are produced by flowering plants.
    ~ answerbag.com/q_view/55633

    Seeds versus Spores: Evolutionary Strategies for Plant ...
    Fungi, mosses, lichens, and ferns are among the plants that produce spores rather than seeds as their vehicles of reproduction.
    botany.suite101.com/article.cfm/seeds_versus_spores

    WikiAnswers - What is the difference between a spore and a seed Earth Sciences question: What is the difference between a spore and a seed? They are both asexual means of reproduction. The key difference is that seeds ...
    wiki.answers.com/


    Genesis doesn't differentiate between spores and seeds.. now does it?

    Ancestors to the modern plants...

    Where was the mention of flowers in Genesis. Seems the "scientifically illiterate" Hebrew, who stole his creation story from "Babylonian Mythology" would've thought to throw flowers in there.

    Mistletoe Management Guidelines--UC IPM
    Jan 17, 2008 ... After the mistletoe seed germinates, it grows through the bark and into the tree's water-conducting tissues, where rootlike structures ...
    ~ ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7437.html

    HERE'S ANOTHER JUST ANOTHER SOFT ORGANISM (PLANT ANCESTOR) THAT THRIVES IN THE DARK... REPRODUCES WITH SPORES:

    "...Another mushroom oddity is the fact that this plant actually thrives in the dark, unlike almost every other plant..."


    Fungus... Algae, etc were first on Earth.. Yes? Hello? ANY DARWINISTS OUT THERE LISTENING... or are you ignoring science?

    NOTE TOO: THE BIBLE REFERS TO MALE REPRODUCTION FLUIDS AS "SEED" TOO. GEEPERS.

    Mushrooms are listed as a vegetable, but are actually a fungus. This essentially means that it is an edible "plant" without roots, flowers, seeds or leaves. Another mushroom oddity is the fact that this plant actually thrives in the dark, unlike almost every other plant. There are approximately 38,000 different mushroom varieties, and of course not all are edible. In fact some are poisonous, and so I recommend you only eat mushrooms that came from sources you have the utmost confidence in. Many of these mushroom varieties grow in the wild, but most of the mushrooms you find at the market are now grown in "controlled" environments. This controlled growing method produces literally billions of tiny spores, which has increased production of the most common mushrooms like the white button mushroom.

    Mushrooms distribute spores in different ways. Some have gills under the caps that release spores. Others have pores under the caps. Still others, like the puffballs, eject clouds of spores when they break open.

    Identifying mushrooms requires a basic understanding of their macroscopic structure. Most are Basidiomycetes and gilled. Their spores, called basidiospores, are produced on the gills and fall in a fine rain of powder from under the caps as a result. At the microscopic level the basidiospores are shot off of basidia and then fall between the gills in the dead air space. As a result, for most mushrooms, if the cap is cut off and placed gill-side-down overnight, a powdery impression reflecting the shape of the gills (or pores, or spines, etc.) is formed (when the fruitbody is sporulating). The color of the powdery print, called a spore print, is used to help classify mushrooms and can help to identify them.
    ~ lycos.com/info/mushrooms--spores.html



    You can start by simply doing a little reading. Aside of fragile bone structure in birds, snakes, even whale limbs (partially composed of cartilage), some things just don't fossilize well.

    2007 September It's the 21st Century, Stupid!
    Plants don't fossilize well. As you can imagine, flowers even less so. So how can the existence of a flower from millions of years ago be proven? ...
    http://itsthe21stcenturystupid.wordpress.com


    But what's interesting ... *chuckle* ... Genesis Epoch Three doesn't mention flowering plants at all. How odd, it tends to agree with science/paleontology, in this regard.

    HOW VERY ODD FOR "MERE MYTHOLOGY". Genesis is completely absent of mention of flowers. It mentions the herb... but no flowering plants.

    Flowers, Angiosperms, are recent introduction into the fossil record.
    Angiosperms
    Flowers, which are the reproductive structures of an angiosperm and consist of four whorls of modified leaves (from outside in): ...
    biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio106/angio.htm


    Do pay close attention to the literal text in Genesis Epoch Three, and its lack of mentioning a flower.

    However, it does mention "tender" grass... which correlates with algae. Ah, where are the fossil traces of algae?? What, 3.5 billion years and all Paleontology is left with is a side effect of algae? formation on rock... testifying that the algae was there, but not the actual algae. And why? Because, plants don't fossilize well.

    Science knows this.

    Environments and fossilization
    "Without further explanation one might get the idea that fossils will occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been formed. This is clearly not the case. Relative to the abundance of sedimentary rocks on Earth, those that contain plant fossils are very rare indeed. This implies that plant fossils are formed under very special environmental conditions. It is not sufficient to have a body of water, a source of inorganic sediments, and plant or animal remains to make a fossil. We all know that when an organism dies under normal conditions in nature, that organism decays. This happens because of the activity of bacteria and fungi, especially those that are aerobic."
    ~ Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants (Second Edition), Wilson N. Stewart and Gar W. Rothwell


    Or try this on for size,

    While many of scientists have commented about the "missing links" in the fossil record, H.S. Ladd of UCLA observes, "Most paleontologists today give little thought to fossiliferous rocks older than the Cambrian, thus ignoring the most important missing link of all. Indeed the missing Pre-Cambrian record cannot properly be described as a link for it is in reality, about nine-tenths of the chain of life: the first nine-tenths." (Geological Society of America Memoir, vol. II, 1967, p.7.)


    And regarding that 9/10th of the missing links in the fossil record,

    [PDF] Paleo-piracy endangers Vendian (Ediacaran) fossils in the White ... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
    Vendian organisms outside Russia. Impressions of Vendian metazoans in the rocks are very rare. ..... Localities of the Vendian soft-bodied fauna of ...
    paleopolis.rediris.es


    For paleontology to fully understand that epoch in Earth's geological history, it's a huge blank, a mystery, science isn't even sure what those organisms were that they _do_ have fossils for. But one thing is certain, they have admitted algae existed and the literal text in Genesis states, "tender" grass (grass is for a covering), emerged. Then considering those "unidentified organisms," of the Vendian, theorized to have all been soft-bodied... how odd... no defenses from the sun? Evolution sure felt the need to protect itself just a few million years later, forming shells, and harder structures, hard enough to fossilize!

    But they have confessed reluctantly, algae and bacteria (along the line of PLANTS) existed for as long as 3.5 billion years! This still is not addressing the scant fossils they have of the period, which look like ... PLANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Of course Atheistic Darwinists won't dare touch the subject, knowing that all the facts add up to some legitimate reason to doubt, aside of the fact that we're not speaking of evolutionary changes since the time of the Cretaceous... but a whopping 3.5 billion years of an empty fossil record! Lots of changes can occur in THREE AND A HALF BILLION YEARS... but how quickly, "Evolution," gets tossed out the window by any Darwinist... when its there to rationalize common sense. At all costs, Anti-Theist Darwinists only twist science, to plant doubts in any mind... when Genesis 1 speaks of trees, the Anti-Theist wants images of MODERN, DAY tall skyscraper sized trees to pop into mind, hard-wood varieties... and the harder, the better, giant, huge, hard trees.

    But this is simply not how evolution works, now is it?

    Evolution starts out small... and, since the first things on earth (admitted by science itself), algae and earliest bacteria forms, is super-small and microscopic, we can thus discount any crazy notion that huge Sycamores "popped" up on Earth.

    Rather, take a look at the more plausible variety of early life on Earth, and its still with us, to this day. The debates are on the web, fungus or plant... plant or fungus? Just when does the line blur between what's plant and what's fungus. Science use to be more simplified, classing everything as either plant or animal, but with the passing of time, scientists have reclassified organisms into more narrow classifications.

    Here's the problem, Science teaches life began with *one* original cell, and branched outward.. isn't that right, Charles Darwin. So, since we know Algae was some of the first, then the next evolutionary development on the list, are going to be PLANTS, not animals, but PLANTS!!!!

    Fungi provide potential for combating dwarf mistletoe - Canadian ... Mar 7, 2007 ... Not to be confused with Christmas mistletoe, dwarf mistletoe is a parasitic plant that causes swelling of tree stems and irregular branching ...
    cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/news/107

    Plp407 Lecture 14 -:- Virtual online flashcards - Share and study ... List 5 ways that dwarf mistletoe is different from true mistletoe: Dwarf is non-photosynthetic; lacks true leaves; is host specific; usually on conifers; ...
    cueflash.com/Decks/PLP407_Lecture_14

    The World of Northern Evergreens - Google Books Result by E. C. Pielou - 1988 - Travel - 200 pages
    Both diseases are caused by fungi, two different fungus species on the two sets of hosts. ... DWARF MISTLETOE Fungi are not the only parasites on conifers. ...
    books.google.com/books?isbn=0801494249...

    [Study function of endophytic fungus in parasitism process of ... - 10:40am
    CONCLUSION: Endophytic fungus of mistletoe can secrete cellulase and assist the haustorium of mistletoe to breakthrough the cell walls as well as ...
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18831195


    Hello.... how quickly Darwinists forget, things like fungi, bacteria, and soforth... Evolve.

    Therefore, life on the planet as it were 3.5 billion years ago, through the mysterious, dark era of the Vendian... are not what they appear to be, today.

    Look at that mistletoe, complete with berries... branches... leaves... and if you've ever handled a mistletoe plant, you'll see just how soft and flexible it is. That's not to forget its non-photosynthetic characteristic. These organisms required very little light, to grow.

    But how tall does a tree need to be, to qualify as a "tree". Height evolved too. Did it not? Beginning with a single cell (tiny, finite, small..) and billions of years later, the planet produced the giant dinosaurs. The size of those creatures didn't come about overnight, as some Anti-Theists would like to suppose, but occurred in transitions... over time, slowly evolving. So Charles Darwin would've taught.

    The same applies to the evolution of trees.

    RECAPPING
    #1. Vendian Organisms were soft-bodied, leaving rare, and usually no fossils.
    #2. Even modern varities of plants, adapted to standing up to the heat of the sun, still don't fossilize well. Only in rare exceptions will modern plants leave a fossil!

    But lastly, How tall does a berry-bearing tree need to be, to qualify as a tree?




    No further comment necessary, in that regard. Point established.

    Now, subtract about 500 Million years of Darwinian Evolution... and return to the grandfather of berry-bearing trees, and their soft-bodied original form and you get an insight into what life looked like, in the Vendian. Only, much, much smaller scale.

    The blueberry tree by itself, is a really bad example to go on, by itself, like everything else, it has evolved!! Life was very different, 3.5 billion years, when the first tender "grass" (algae) and on through the geological ages of plant-life evolving. Even to this day, there are examples of Protozoans -- are they plants, or are they animals?? This gives insight into what the planet was covered in, during Epoch Three, of Genesis, and the Vendian period, back to 3.5 billion years ago, when the first Algae (proven, indisputable) made its appearance on earth.

    Google : cyanobacteria algae

    Google : cyanobacteria algae plants

    Cyanobacterial metabolites with bioactivity against photosynthesis ... Kulik MM (1995) The potential for using cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) and algae in the biological control of plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Eur. ...
    ~ springerlink.com/index/N0216U2343354457.
    PHOTOSYNTHETIC CYTOCHROMES c IN CYANOBACTERIA, ALGAE, AND PLANTS. The cytochromes that function in photosynthesis in cyanobacteria, algae, and higher plants have, like the other photosynthetic catalysts, been largely ...
    ~ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/


    Atheistic Darwinists, who have an agenda to make war on God and people of faith, will stretch and skew science however they will, to make certain every hope is smashed to a pulp, and the laws of God, done away with.

    But... it won't happen. They over-estimated themselves... the Lord Jesus Christ, will return as has been promised, and I shouldn't waste time repeating it, but researchers already discovered bacteria photosynthesizing around deep sea hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, therefore, Genesis is entirely possible based on the evidence, for the existence of plants and... that includes (soft-structure) TREES, to survive in the total absence of sunlight.

    How quickly Anti-Theists skew science, ommitting crucial pieces of information required to get the full spectrum of how biology and botany work, as a reminder, Protozoans, related to plants... an insight into the Vendian, when Photosynthesis was confined to hydrothermal vents, and the sun had not began its nuclear fusion...

    Methods of Deriving Nutrition and Reproduction
    Protozoa 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 Earth certainly sustained plant-life, in abundance. Aside of the admission that
    #1. The atmosphere was loaded with heavy carbon dixoide levels, ideal for the proliferation of plant life, and,
    #2. The amount of fossil fuel in the Earth, has helped geologists to realize, "life" had existed (in a much greater abundance) than previously assumed... but the fossil record itself, is absent due to SOFT BODY... PLANT life.


    Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999

    Never mind that
    1. The atmosphere was loaded with Carbon Dioxide, ideal for plants to proliferate.
    2. The soft-bodied plans, theorized by scientists that would leave few to no fossils.
    3. Never mind that almost all fossils of the Vendian have zero stomachs or mouths, and resemble some kind of forerunner of modern plant-life.
    4. Never mind that science itself has already admitted that algae has been around for a whopping 3.5 billion years, and algae is closer related to plants, than animals...

    Never mind all the obvious road-signs, pointing to PLANT ANCESTORS...

    Anti-Theists can't admit the obvious, because *pain.. pain* it might lend credence to the account in Genesis.


    Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999

    If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, dips into ponds like ducks, doesn't have intestines or mouths like animals, and has a structure just like a modern plant leaf, it's probably a PLANT ANCESTOR.

    Gee whiz. But as one anti-theist and self-proclaimed Darwinist told me once, "Common sense has nothing to do with science."

    When Atheists Go to Desperate Extremes to Deny.. Science

    * To protect the identity of the very uneducated person who made this error, I will replace instances of his name, with "Fred".

    --

    See attached image, devonian_fossil_001.jpg.


    Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
    Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

    I thought science taught that men have superior brains, and can do spatial tasks better, and "visualize" in 3 Dimension, or as the evil Alfred Rosenberg who was blaspheming God and Jesus Christ to high heaven once said, that men are born inherently with the inborn skill for "conceptualization" while women are ... inferior... lacking in intellect... weaker minds. I suppose if you trap any human in a cage, refuse them an education, consign them to servitude... forbid them to develop their potential, including a barrage of insults "in the name of God," they'll turn out ignorant sooner or later.

    Meanwhile, I argued... and argued.... and argued with *Fred,* since he wanted to take Genesis out of context and superimpose "birds" on the word for "Fowl" coming from the water, which actually means "insects" (I sent him the Tektonics link, on the usage of the word fowl = insects) but he ignored this, and continued to claim (despite being corrected 1000x times)... I mean, if you're Atheist, who needs to stick with facts or truth? afterall, there's no such thing as sin... and morals go right out the window.. no ethics, no standards, no honesty necessary. Atheism has saved them from that awful obligation called "intellectual honesty")... that Genesis is speaking of "birds" when it speaks of "fowl". . .

    . . . but hey, after considering it, it was an interesting argument from at least a scientific p.o.v., (an argument that Darwin himself would appreciate). It doesn't do much for the Young Earth Creationist argument about Creation... but it does wonders for Evolution theory. Ha ha ha... yes, Fred, a self-proclaimed Agnostic and Darwinist... was caught red-handed in the act of DENYING EVOLUTION and Science!


    Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
    Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

    Birds have
  • Nicititating membranes (the transparent second lens over the eye of aquatic creatures), and
  • Scales on their feet,
  • waterproof feathers ... not just the ducks, geese, swans and other water-fowl/marsh-birds/sea-bound albatross/pelicans,etc etc... but land-varieties like Cardinals still retain their aquatic characteristics which reveal hints about their mutually-shared aquatic origins. And, take a look at what Science teaches about the origins of tetrapods. Their origins all point to, and return to the water. Why would terrestrial birds have Aquatic traits?
    The Y.E.C. may not have an answer for this, but Science/Paleontology does...and Genesis 1 raises the same issue. Creatures began in the water and emerged on land. This, the aquatic characteristics shared between all birds, is a definite question, Charles Darwin could fully appreciate.

    *Fred* argued blue in the face, that birds came to exist _on land_. In his kindergarten view of evolution, and Hollywood-based understanding of Paleontology, he visualizes animals wandering around in deserts to qualify as "terrestrial"... with little or no water in sight. BUT THIS WAS SIMPLY NOT TRUE FOR THE EARLIEST CREATURES. Take a look at so called "terrestrial" tetrapods. Complete with four legs, and still living IN THE WATER as I was desperately trying to explain to him.


    Typical Carboniferous Period Environment, 360-286 Million Years Ago
    Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

    The same for bird ancestors. They came from water origins... they clinged around beds of water, hunting for prey, and gathering berries and other food. ALL BIRDS... not just geese and swans, possess characteristics of aquatic creatures. The grand-father of all birds, was somewhere around the water's edge like other contemporaries of his age... and passed those aquatic traits on, to all modern birds. Even the Canary and Cardinal, cannot escape its origins and will continue to pass on the aquatic eyelid, the aquatic waterproof feathers and scaled feet of its earliest ancestor. This is how evolution (as science) works... it not only moves forward, it almost always retains characteristics from its origins.


    Typical Triassic Period Environment, 245-208 Million Years Ago
    Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296
    **I really don't see the need to proceed beyond the Triassic (which I personally believe would've produced the ancestor to _all birds_), because by the next period, the Jurassic (208-144 Million Years Ago), the fully formed and functional "bird" Archaeopteryx, was already living (and according to one source I've read thus far, scientists do not believe Archaeopteryx is the actual ancestor to all birds, a type of evolutionary dead end)... I'm discussing *the one true* original fossil ancestor of birds, which even Dr. Alan Feduccia (an expert in the subject) confesses is unknown to science.

    But for posterity sake, I'll proceed _beyond_ the time of Archaeopteryx. Here's yet another image of a typical Cretaceous (144-66 Million Years Ago) environment... millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the creatures are _still thriving around the water, and Water's Edge.


    Typical Cretaceous Period Environment, 144-66 Million Years Ago
    Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

    This is an argument based strictly on what Darwin himself would've taught... what Science teaches... and in Genesis, with "Let the water bring forth.."

    lol! When Agnostics are making arguments against Evolution to dispute Genesis, you already know they're desperate.

    See attached image for "terrestrial tetrapods". And from all that I know of the earliest tetrapods and following evolutionary epochs didn't change much for aquatic-based habitat preference for most creatures. Even the oldest known horse ancestor's anatomy, dated around 50 mya, was built for walking on wetland...
    but leave it to an Agnostic to deny Genesis, and without realizing it, denying Evolution and every established scientific teaching.

    Yes... the grand-father of birds came from an environment, very much like the environment seen in the attached image. His entire anatomy testifies to his origins. He was Aquatic in origin, and all his descendents retain Aquatic Characteristics. What Fred was arguing was not only non-scientific, but, un-Darwinian.

    And even worse than this..

    As I pointed out last night, concerning snakes (which are too fragile to serve much good in the area of fossil preservation) therefore, due to only a scant fossil record, scientists have two on-going theories, whether or not snakes originated from water-dwelling mesosaurs, or land-dwelling lizards. Birds, like snakes, and most plant-life, do _not_ preserve well... along with many other organisms, leave few to no fossils. Only in special environmental conditions preserve softer body organisms, those lacking hard-bone and body structure. Even special environmental conditions are required to preserve even some of the hard-bodied organisms!

    BTW, "terrestrial" does not mean necessarily living in the desert like Hollywood teaches the masses with its terrible misinformation, however, the truth about the earliest creatures on earth, is more like Carl Zimmer's book, "At the Water's Edge," as in the so-called terrestrial Alligator and Crocodile, which spent part if not most of their time around the water... or, another better example, the "Walking Whale" Ambulocetus Natans, precursor to modern whales, which scientists theorize was an ambush hunter, who dwelled at "the water's edge," and returned to the water. So it actually never (fully) left the water to begin with, did it?

    When Agnostics are soooo desperate to deny Genesis, they sometimes end up denying science, as well.
    Meanwhile, because Agnostics believe they "have all truths," and like a religion, "Absolute Truths"... swearing blue in the face, that birds did not evolve from Aquatic origins.
    Funny, during brief correspondence with Dr. Alan Feduccia, he confirmed they do not know what the ancestor of Archaeopteryx was... in fact, in his book he refers to the ancestors of birds, as "whatever they were," and in one link that Fred provided me with... Dr. Feduccia concluded, "What group of reptiles (erm, tetrapods)?"


    The Origin and Evolution of Birds, by Alan Feduccia, ISBN #0300078617

    "Reptile" is such a misleading term... one might be mislead, erroneously assuming that when Scientists speak of "Tetrapods," and say "Reptiles," they actually mean, "Reptilians" as in cold-blooded. Actually the scientist means "tetrapods"... and as Dr. Feduccia summed up in his correspondence with me, it is very difficult to know anything about Physiology (warm-blood vs. cold-blood) from FOSSILS.

    Yet, with all this admission by an expert on Avian origins, and the widespread _lack of knowledge_ about bird origins, leave it to the Agnostic to fill in the holes, complete with theories as patent answers, and such ARROGANCE to assume knowing more than the scientists themselves! The Agnostic chimes in with his "absolute truths," that birds did not have origins around the water.

    Yet, if Darwin's theory is correct, then,
    1. Waterproof Feathers
    2. Scales on Feet
    3. Nicititating eyelid

    Points to origins around an aquatic environment, those characteristics did not emerge from "thin air."
    Creationists may teach "characteristics in creatures came out of thin air." Science does not. Seems now, some Agnostics are teaching the same thing.

    We can look at modern creatures, and still tell something about their ancestors. All birds (even purely terrestrial ones) characteristics scream "AQUATIC ORIGINS". To understand origins, scientists compare modern anatomy with fossils that are dug up out of the ground. It is called "Comparative Anatomy"... but leave it to an Agnostic, to deny Science and Darwin's studies into Paleontology.. as well as books like "AquaGenesis" by Richard Ellis and Carl Zimmmer's "At The Water's Edge."
    I really don't think Fred realized how his anti-Theist zealotry could lead him so far astray, into denying established science itself!

    As I have said, there have never been two more destructive groups to science, than the so-called "Darwinists" (Atheists guising their agenda behind Darwin's theory) and having no actual understanding or love for science, ... and YEC who base all their arguments on what these jokers claim science teaches. Just like these so-called Darwinists never actually address a single verse in Genesis... beyond idolatrous attempts to distort it, otherwise, their arguments consist of a total basis on YEC interpretations, while YEC steadily base their rebuttals on Darwinist arguments against Genesis.
    A downward spiral of the blind, leading the blind astray.

    As Dr. Feduccia put it in the media, "Science can't get a fair hearing".

    How often Atheists have complained about the Creationist's "Circular Reasoning," when they themselves, denying all along their own unscientific based religion of Anti-Theism, alas comes "fool circle" itself.
    ... Oooo, *pun* ! Atheists love those.

    Creationists assumed "God created," (because they didn't pay close attention to the literal text), but tell me where the word "Created" is even mentioned in Epoch Three regarding the "designs" of plants:
    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) 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.
    Genesis 1:12 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.
    Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.


    Can anyone point out where God "designed" the plants?

    I'm sure if God had hand-designed, "created," it might've speeded things up a billion years or two... but, God instructed the earth to create the algae, and plant-life that followed it.

    I'm not saying that God never had any thing to do with some touching up of genetic blueprints in plant organisms (as it appears to be the case in diatoms with their extreme geometrical designs)... but if God involved himself in any way, shape or form with creation of plants, Genesis fails to mention this.
    Leaving "creation" up to the Earth and Waters, explains what Science has discovered for the 4 or 5 billion or so year, age of the Earth.
    Even Epoch 5 omits any mention of "create" until the Waters had brought forth "abundantly" . . . and the text states, (modifies) creates them "after their kind."

    Completely evolution, under God's patience and guidance.

    The only question is, Who or What, are the Darwinists actually making their arguments with?? Because, it's certainly not the text of Genesis.
  • The Snake In Genesis

    Here's a photograph of a Ball Python (2005 MBaumeister)



    By this time, hopefully everyone is up on the fact that certain species of snakes, do have spurs, or tiny remnant femurs.

    Already the following information is being used by Atheist hatemongers to say: "Genesis has failed".

    Atheists have latched on to this poor cursed creature with one remnant hind limb, as if it were "walking". Far from it, and how geneticists have established the snake will NEVER walk again. Atheists are obviously rather desperate for an argument. The picture says _everything_ anyone need know. When God "curses" -- don't underestimate the implications. God meant exactly what's written in the black and white, literal text.

    To address the scripture,

    Genesis 3:14-15 "And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

    Explaining this: The sheer fact that its on the ground, it's simply.... going to get dirt in its mouth. It's inevitable. Definately a type of curse, even if the earthworm and certain forms of bacteria, would disagree. The Hebrew may be stretched out of context by some, but that's the plain meaning of the text. No elaborate explanation is necessary. It's common sense...

    Meanwhile, snakes have a long line of evolutionary history behind them, just as humans themselves on occasion grow tails, which is vestigial (many humans have the same genes, laying dormant and on occasion those are triggered and a vestigial tail is fully formed and functional), or junk dna leading to the growth of a sixth digit in some species... which has been going on for around 350 Million years, this, along with vestigial hind-limbs (now flipper) in Cetaceans, and even in lab studies, to this day, the vestigial limbs are seen forming, and are reasorbed, let's throw in leg loss of snakes among those examples:

    Foremost, let it be noted, snakes don't fossilize well, so the fossil record is scant and far from complete. Scientists have two theories for origins of snakes. One involves terrestrial lizards, and the other involves aquatic mesosaurs. But more importantly, according to researchers, snakes may have followed a more peculiar evolutionary path:
    "Argument About Snake Evolution Rekindled by Fossil
    The snake fossil, found more than 20 years ago in a limestone quarry near Jerusalem, represents a new species, according to researchers writing in the current issue of the journal Science. "Haasiophis terrasanctus" -- named after Hebrew University paleontologist George Haas who bought the fossil from a West Bank quarry -- was about three feet long (0.9 meters) and lived in the shallow waters of a Cretaceous sea that covered part of the Middle East during the days of the dinosaurs. It is the second limbed snake to come from Ein Yabrud, a 95 million-year-old bed of sedimentary rock that also yielded "Pachyrachis problematicus," another important fossil with clues to the origins of snakes. Scientists believe that modern snakes are descended from lizards and that they lost their limbs over time. Remnants of these limbs can still be found in the anatomy of boa constrictors and pythons, just as the remnants of tails can be found in human anatomy. But a description of Haasiophis by Olivier Rieppel of the Field Museum in Chicago, Eitan Tchernov of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and other colleagues writing in the journal Science has researchers once again puzzling whether snakes evolved from sea-going lizards, or from lizards which lived in seashore burrows. "That question has been around for a long time," Rieppel said in a telephone interview. In the 1970s, when Haas first described Pachyrachis, he thought that the well-developed hind limbs and advanced skull characteristics meant that the fossils weren't from snakes at all. Instead he thought they were reptiles related to a species of huge ocean-going Cretaceous lizards called mosasaurs.
    "And so we are back to not knowing what kind of an origin snakes had," Rieppel said. Dr. Harry Greene, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Cornell University, said the most intriguing aspect about the West Bank fossils is they may show that certain "atavistic" traits can re-evolve if the right genes are triggered. The West Bank fossils may be snakes whose limbs re-evolved, making them "real snakes, just extinct real snakes" with legs, Greene said. Greene postulates that if animals like the West Bank fossils could re-evolve limbs, then other animals that have certain genes they never lost but whose "triggers" are dormant could re-evolve those traits. Maybe humans will end up with tails again.


    But... humans do end up with tails sometimes.
    Dolphins do sometimes sprout vestigial remnants of their hind-legs.
    Animals still go on growing a sixth toe, sometimes.

    The difference here is,

    Scientists say, "Greene postulates that if animals like the West Bank fossils could re-evolve limbs, then other animals that have certain genes they never lost but whose "triggers" are dormant could re-evolve those traits."

    Like other vestigial traits in animals which are retained for millions of years in the form of "Junk DNA," snakes could've made a turn around and evolved legs again, but... the body plan was changed. Even though early snake fossils might have had no forelimbs, does not mean they could not have re-evolved them _IF_ they had the dormant genes to do so... at some point between their earliest origins, and now, the ability to re-evolve fore-limbs disappeared, radically altered. Snakes will go on their belly the rest of their days.

    Just as snakes lost their nictitating membrane (the protective eyelid shared by all aquatic creatures. A thin, transparent lens that allows the creature to see under water, and cleaning the eye of irritants. Frogs, Birds, Sea Cows, etc share this trait.) The sea snake returned to the water, and compensated for the loss with a "modified scale". It no longer posesses the traditional nictitating membrane, like other reptilian relatives, crocodiles and alligators, etc.

    The point is, genes lay dormant and allow for traits to potentially re-evolve. In this case, snakes may have had a history of losing legs, re-evolving legs, and losing them again. But there's a difference between carrying junk dna vs. a species' genes altered, where an organism can never again grow forelimbs.

    Paraphrasing a Herp Expert (Lenny Flank):
    From genetic analysis, we know why snakes don't have vestigial fore-limbs.
    There was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward. Snakes have no neck vertebrae --- they are all thoracic and abdominal. Genetically, fore-limbs form where the cervical vertebrae begin. Snakes can't grow front limbs. The vestigial rear limbs appear where the abdominal vertebrae meet the tail. Even though a snake looks like it is all neck or all tail, in reality, it is all body."

    Another source:

    "...One of the most radical alterations of the vertebrate body plan is seen in the snakes. Snakes evolved from lizards, and they appear to have lost their legs in a two-step process. Both paleontological and embryological evidence supports the view that snakes first lost their forelimbs and later lost their hindlimbs (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Graham and McGonnell 1999). Fossil snakes with hindlimbs, but no forelimbs, have been found. Moreover, while the most derived snakes (such as vipers) are completely limbless, more primitive snakes (such as boas and pythons) have pelvic girdles and rudimentary femurs.
    The missing forelimbs can be explained by the Hox expression pattern in the anterior portion of the snake. In most vertebrates, the forelimb forms just anterior to the most anterior expression domain of Hoxc-6 (Gaunt 1994; Burke et al. 1995). Caudal to that point, Hoxc-6, in combination with Hoxc-8, helps specify vertebrae to be thoracic. During early python development, Hoxc-6 is not expressed in the absence of Hoxc-8, so the forelimbs do not form. Rather, the combination of Hoxc-6 and Hoxc-8 is expressed for most of the length of the organism, telling the vertebrae to form ribs throughout most of the body (Figure 22.9; Cohn and Tickle 1999)."
    ~ Hox Genes: Descent with Modification
    ~ http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.fcgi?book=dbio&part=A5434

    I'm not a geneticist, but I feel its a safe wager, that, while humans may continue to grow a rare vestigial tail, and dolphins may turn up occasionally with vestigial hind-limbs... though a couple snake species, may even have traces of hind-limbs left to it, it _will never grow forelimbs_ again, ever. At some time during their evolutionary history, the genetic blueprint for snakes was PERMANENTLY, and RADICALLY modified. Therefore, on its belly it will go all the days of its life.

    AN ATHEIST WRITES: "Would it seem that the bible has been proved correct....Genesis making his appearance some 6 thousand years ago. We won't mention the fact that snakes don't eat dust."


    and Atheist readers chimed in behind the author,

    ha ha ha, you are just so brilliant... yes, rolling in laughter... snakes don't eat dust.


    Sure, of course! just like every snake I've met is the pickiest eater, with the most proper table manners. It never gets dirt in its mouth while rolling around on the ground squeezing its victims to death, and swallowing them whole, along with the bloody mud...


    From Photos of Tommy's Tours and Safaris, Swakopmund

    Oh no, Snakes would _NEVER_ eat dirt. The Atheists say so, that's how we know its an absolute fact, and Atheists always have "absolute truths," therefore, can never be wrong. Can they?

    THEY WOULD NEVER EAT DIRT ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR PREY IS COVERED IN IT... NEVER... but Atheists said so, therefore, it's the gospel truth.

    To Be Constricted by a Python
    A python's bite isn't venomous, but they can kill humans by asphyxiation
    Tom Kessenich, 47, herpetologist
    "...For a while I kept a ten-foot amethystine python in a cage in my house. He was as big around as three or four garden hoses. One day, I stuck my hand into his cage to retrieve a rat he'd dropped, and, seeing movement near his prey, he nailed my forearm...He dug in and I started bleeding. Was it painful? Well, he has about eighty needlelike teeth, and he left a U shape on my arm. So I'd say yes... It's just like an octopus tentacle: It finds a way to get around you. A python's bite isn't venomous, but they can kill humans by asphyxiation...he'd started to coil around the back of my neck. In three to five seconds, he wrapped around my upper torso and neck. He was trying to get as many coils around me as he could. Once they get those coils around, it's just like a compactor; they just pull it tighter. I could still breathe, but it was hard. The pressure was unbelievable...I've got blood running down my arm, so it's a mess. With constrictors, you have to push their heads forward to pull them off because their teeth are curved inward. I reached down behind the head and pushed in and up with my thumb. Fortunately, he released and I was able to work the coils off me. Unfortunately, he also got really stressed and defecated all over my bathroom.

    Strawman Arguments Go Up In Flames


    Polydactyly has been going on for over 300 Million Years... if Evolution (the Atheistic Variety) were merely trying to devise new body plans, it should've happened long before now...


    Dr. Kenneth Miller provided actual _evidence_ of (Chimp Chromosome #2) a genetic link between old world apes, and earliest man-forms. The Atheists have provided NOTHING... NADA... ZIP. Did Chimp Chromosome #2 disprove Genesis, or did it establish what was actually written in Genesis 1, thousands of years ago. Strawman arguments: Because YEC misinterpreted, and ignored the vegetarian nature of early man... denying Paleontology, all of which Atheists base their pitiful arguments on... therefore, Genesis is disputed? Not hardly.
    Genesis speaks of Vegetarian early man. They were an intermediate between ape and man, and I showed that in the video. They did everything described, from "dominating the fish" to subdueing the Earth.
    Science/Genetics, is indisputable. YEC can misinterpret until the cows come home, and Atheists can base a million strawman arguments on YEC interpretations... still, everyone is failing to address what Genesis 1 actually has written in it. The book of Genesis, has been completely avoided by YEC and Atheists.

    Those two warring factions have been the two most destructive forces, to the advancement of science.

    So, let's stop discussing YEC, and start discussing the actual, literal text of Genesis 1 and Paleontology. Dr. Kenneth Miller only established a coherent, feasible understanding of what Epoch Six means... man was given the "herb" for meat... Robustus is theorized to have been a vegetarian due to his denitition. Let's stick to the text of Genesis, and actual science already, shall we? If Creationists take an interest in Genesis 1 and 2 and actual Paleontology/Science.. I will be satisfied.
    I have nothing to "prove" to Atheists. God is not a holy Houdini who exists for entertaining Atheists... but God, being as temperamental as She is, may decide to send some plagues and curses on those Atheists for their idle, evil blaspheme. Patience can wear thin....
    Yes, I meant "She" . . . as in "Let us create man," (Hebrew, for Plural Majesty), as in plural, 1)male and 2)female. God created the Human in the image of God. Have false teachers like Augustine and Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... shame, to say she is created too, in the image of God?
    Augustine:
    "How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."


    How they fail to read with comprehension, God is giving off a list of clear, evident curses, and, To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children..." oh and by the way, this man who refused to obey my commandments will rule over you."

    How they lead each other astray in their arrogance, and false teachings, believing they have "Holy Hands" when even Jesus said, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19

    NOT ANYMORE. It becomes so apparent, from the narrow dark minds of men that hate, why it was not a blessing.. not a commandment, but a CURSE on woman that man would rule over her.

    Such idolatrous men exalted themselves above woman, above the teachings of Jesus... above God himself.

    Saint Jerome:
    "I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked."

    Tertullian:
    "God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."


    Have false teachers like Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... forced to live in eternal shame and self-hatred? Did Jesus die in vain, or did he not die for the sins of mankind? Yes or No?

    Augustine:
    "How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."

    Thomas Aquinas:
    "Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."

    John Knox:
    "Women are weak, they are frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish. They are inconstant, they are cruel, and lacking of spirit, and counsel. Woman in her greatest perfection was made only to serve, and obey men."

    Martin Luther:
    "Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."

    and...

    "Take women away from their house-wifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that."


    See University of North Carolina, Oppression of Women in Early Christianity
    http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm

    This statement alone, sounds bells and whistles it's a forgery:
    "as the law also says (Genesis 3:16)"


    By very virtue that any man was calling the CURSE in Genesis on woman, a "Law," proves he did not have any understanding of scripture.
  • Do read the Commandments of God, and pray tell me, where any mention therein commands women must "obey" a man? It is absent of such a thing. However, God's Commandments FIERCELY rebukes men, for lusting after their neighbor's wife and maid servants,
  • The Commandments do condemn adultery (following the commandment of murder!)
  • Jesus came teaching the law, and did not command women to obey men like cattle, but had women followers, and also, rebuked men for their adultery.
  • It was a command, God made to Moses, to circumsize the most sensitive portion of the male private... to lessen pleasure in hopes of deterring adultery...

    God did _not_like men committing adultery or abusing women.

    However, what's written in the Pauline forgeries, was _NOT_ a law, _NOT_ a Commandment, and _NOT_ a blessing that man would rule over women. It was a _CURSE_.
    No more than its in any of the laws, that if a man goes out to till his field, "MEN BETTER DRIP SWEAT OR ELSE."
    These forgeries do not stop there, they go even farther! They say that the male is immune from sin, having "holy hands"... while woman is forced to carry the cross with Jesus, eternally hanging her head in shame.

    I picked up this piece of info on University of NC about these FORGERIES in the New Testament :
    (~ http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm)
    Scholarship May have Found a Solution to this Problem . . .
    As Ehrman (p. 346) states concerning "the harsh words of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Indeed, this passage is so similar to that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and so unlike what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that these too are words that Paul himself never wrote; rather they were later inserted into the letter of 1 Corinthians by a scribe who wanted to make Paul's views conform to those of the Pastoral epistles."


    Our Father and Mother, who art in Heaven!

    Nelson's King James Bible, © 1972, Thomas Nelson Publishers Inc.

    I may have got a little off topic, but at least, it's related to scriptures in Genesis




    Most of what atheistic, so-called Darwinists (more specifically, Atheists which make lame attempts to make war on God, camouflaging the agenda behind "Science," -- Darwin would have nothing to do with the Atheist fanatics, and duly noted he had confined himself to matters of Science), so more properly described as *Atheist* attacks on religion, merely requires some common sense to refute. That is to say, the information on which they base their argument to disprove God, proves nothing.

    I retrieved some photos of a local cat with six toes. Polydactyly supposedly presumes the body plan is attempting to "evolve" into some new species, instead of the genetic throwback to the past... a genetic mutation? Or dormant genes that permit a sixth toe to pop out on a rare occasion. This phenomena has been going on for epochs. It is nothing new. The majority of tetrapods have the same ole five toes. If it were intended for creatures to "randomly evolve" into six-digit creatures as some Atheists are theorizing... I think, it would've happened sometime within the past 300 Million years.

    See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908
    University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
    PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


    Evidently, they continue on, "after their kind," -- six toed tetrapods existed, in the earliest times, as they still do today... the same ole' same ole'... a genetic throwback to their origins. Now where are, all the six-toed creatures adapted as entire species... it seems as though atheistic, Darwinian Natural Selection explanation for evolution in the fossil record, has a serious case of constipation... where are all the speciations of six-toed creatures?

    Worst of all, is the feeble argument, "My cat has six toes, therefore, God does not exist."
    Please read that once again, and realize the feeble line of logic Atheists are followng in thier reasoning.

    The Fundamentalist said, "it was a perfect creation, God created every creature." Somewhat like a fairy tale impression of the world, therefore, when Atheists point out anamolies in nature, it refutes God? or even Genesis?



    The Atheist is merely making an argument to dispute human interpretations. The Atheist has yet to address a single point in what Genesis is actually saying, even further, utterly failed to provide "evidence" and dispute what is literally written in Genesis 1... including other aspects of the Bible, such as God doing away with the earth as it is known, and there being "A New Heaven, and New Earth." Obviously, God did not feel the world was perfect, as Fundamentalists claim.

    Atheists have built every strawman argument upon Fundamentalist interpretations, which have nothing to do with actual Science (Paleontology) or the chronology of Genesis. To attempt to do so, will leave the Atheist scrambling, and denying Science itself.

    Furthermore, if you read Genesis Epoch #3, the word "Created" is not even in the text. Epoch #4 goes one further, to indicate a randomness on God's command for the "waters to bring forth moving creatures," (that is, the waters creating the creatures... which brings to mind, Darwin's own theory) -- and like Epoch #3, still was not a direct act of creation. Followed by the first actual mention of "creating" -- God touching up on the already living (presuming, "every living" may possibly mean "extant") creatures, and "creating them after their kind." A vast majority of what the literal text in Genesis implies, from God's perspective, is as Forrest Gump put it, "Life is like a box a chocolates. You never know what you'll get." and God simply worked with what the earth and waters brought forth.
  • SEARCH NOW:
    by title by author

    If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

    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."
    The entire commentary (link).
    The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

    Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

    Early Earth

    But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

    That's covered here in full.

    Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

    Early Earth

    I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

    Straight from Scripture Commentary:

    Trees Before Sunlight
    See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

    Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
    Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

    They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
        "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.)"
    Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

    Excuse my French but that's complete and utter scientifically illiterate BULLSH*T!!!

    Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

    Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
    1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
    2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
    3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

    Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

    I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
    Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
    Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) 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.
    Genesis 1:12 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.
    Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

    Still Waiting...

    When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

    And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

    Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.