| 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 . . . 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 ... ... 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. ...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 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." 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." |
 |
Spoken only to Woman
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'." 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.
See the next post. Foods and feeds - Google Books Result  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  ~ 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 ... ** 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 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 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.  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! 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 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 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 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 ... 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. ... 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 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. 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 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 |
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 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: 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: 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. 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) 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. 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. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
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.
| |||||||||||||||||||
Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.