Another Atheist Scoffs: What is the "Curse on the Snake in Genesis?"


This particular atheist' response was a result of these two posts: (1 and 2.) I will acknowledge his comments, below:

ajistotle: I don't see the point in this really.

genesis/science: Of course not. Because you didn't read where the atheist wrote above, emphatically, SNAKES DO NOT EAT DIRT. But they do eat dirt, all the time in fact.
However, sadly the atheist never bothered to look up the definition of "dust" vs. "dirt" in his Hebrew word studies, nor concordance, for one would soon realize the term "dust" translated from Hebrew doesn't refer exclusively to "dirt". It is dust, which can apply to lice for instance. Would you agree lice is "dirt"? Perhaps, dirty, but not dirt. Yes, lice is dust according to the bible. Also, in the Bible, "dust" can be many things, including tiny bits and pieces. Small creeping things, amidst the litter of the ground. But I gather you are an atheist, who doesn't like your patent truth(TM) of atheism (aka another sorry religion) questioned. Atheism is afterall, "the one true truth" is it not? Agnostics do tend to offer more coherent discussions as they're seldom guided solely on emotions, guarding their "patent truth of truths".

ajistotle: Several animals crawl on their abdomen, even the ones with legs like lizards, snails, tortoises and so on and obviously the food they ingest will be stained with dust or dirt to some extent. Were they also cursed?

genesis/science: Yes, they do, and they also possess in their dna the capability to evolve. In the case of the snake, however, they will "forever go on their belly". Tis true.

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."

Now, if you wish you may go argue with Lenny Flank, as I'm sure you don't like what he has to say, but be forewarned, he's an atheist and also an expert on snakes. So pack a lunch.

ajistotle: Even cattle and other animals that eat grass will take in a bit of dust with it too.

genesis/science: Thank you for making that case. Yes, and the snake was cursed above the cattle.

ajistotle: After a lion hunts a prey, it is also likely the struggle between them causes the prey to be stained with dust, is the lion also caused with eating dirt.

genesis/science: There you go again, presuming the Hebrew term translated into "dust" means "dirt". A mistake many Atheists make, but in fact, a learned scholar would inform you, "dust" may refer to bits and pieces of burned sacrifice. Litter...

ajistotle:You are simply oversimplifying things to suit your case.

genesis/science: And you sir, are simply trying to overcomplicate the facts, to suit your purpose... that is, to promote atheism, in spite of actual facts. I have provided two important facts in this post:

  1. Snakes DO eat dirt. Atheists have (quite ignorant needless to add) denied snakes eat dirt.
  2. "Dust" in Hebrew does not mean "Dirt" to the exclusion of all other things and substances. Anyone who thinks it did, has proven their lack of understanding of Biblical languages.

ajistotle: What that part of the bible represents is a definite curse on a single animal and as such, the punishment must be unique to that particular animal.

genesis/science: Again sir,

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."

All other animals, including other legless varieties of creatures that slither, may eventually evolve legs, but snakes will continue to "go on their belly and eat dust all the days of their lives.

ajistotle: If several other animals also slug in dust and dirt with their food, the the curse is absolutely pointless.

genesis/science: and cattle quite enjoy a good dip in the dust.

Cattle happily bathing in dust.

Your point?

Does anything you've said up to this point change either fact that's been pointed out?

  1. Snakes DO eat dirt. The ATHEIST was in error.

  2. Dust does not exclusively imply "dirt".

ajistotle: In fact since the bible says the snake is cursed above every cattle....

genesis/science: There we go with overcomplicating things. The ATHEIST said, "Snakes do NOT eat dirt."

ajistotle: and above every beast of the field, your explanation fails terribly as cattle

genesis/science:Did the Atheist say, "Snakes do NOT eat dirt". Well, snakes do eat dirt. I can point you to several scientists who will confirm that scientific fact for you. Atheism falls short, and fails terribly in the science department.

ajistotle: and a lot of beasts take in dust with their food and therefore the snake doesn't suffer more than any of them.

genesis/science: Let me repeat this fact, one last time. With hopes it will finally sink in.

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."

The snake shall go on its belly all the days there are snakes on the planet... until they evolve into some other form of creature though that's doubtful to happen any time soon since they've been around for a hundred million years or so. Snakes will never have four limbs as do cattle, they will slither in the dust, and consume dust. Ask a rabbi to explain what "dust" means... perhaps a mouse for dinner could compare with a chunk of leftover sacrificial lamb. Meat... yes, meat can be dust. However, snakes will forever, be on their bellies. They never again will rise and walk like cattle or any other beasts because of something called a "HOX" gene.

ajistotle: Therefore, the point still holds, snakes DO NOT eat dirt.

genesis/science: You're an atheist. ;-) Just like any liars for their religion. You do your creed proud!
Had it been an Agnostic, they'd shrugged their shoulders and said "So what? So snakes consume dirt, big deal. Now I'm off to enjoy life!" But an Atheist wallows in denial of facts, miserably hung up on shitpicking details to overcomplicate truth, science and indisputable facts for the cause of converting others (who do not even want their fanatical militant atheism shoved down their throat) and lie. Sir, snakes DO eat dirt. The atheist (above) who was writing, sadly, he was writing out of ignorance. Obviously he assumed in his limited understanding of Hebrew, that "dust" meant the English equivalent of "dirt". I'm sorry that Atheists fail to actually study before taking on serious subjects like theology. He should go obtain a master's or PhD in biblical studies, THEN come back and write his presentation, until then, he was wrong. Snakes DO eat dirt.

ajistotle: Snakes may swallow dust and dirt WITH food like SEVERAL other animals, but snakes do not exclusively eat dirt.

genesis/science: Sir, scorched meat and remnants left over from the ancient Hebrew sacrifice constitutes "dust". Lice constitutes "dust". If we are speaking of the Bible, then you must stick with the Hebrew definition and quit superimposing a modern English context into a language that is thousands of years old, and very different from your own. But then again, you are an atheist, and atheists are quite religious-minded, where reality itself is limited to their perception of truth. If in your reality the word dust only means "dirt" then 3500 years ago when the Hebrews wrote of "dust," of course they thought to themselves, "In 3500 years there will be an atheist named ajistotle, and we must write the whole bible to accommodate his egocentric reality... therefore, we're speaking of dirt." Yeah, sure. Sir, the Hebrews didn't give two flips about the modern English context of "dust," because English did not exist back then, and I'm sure in your limited Atheist perception, that too seems impossible. A world without the English language. Well sir, English too evolved... just like snakes lost their legs, re-evolved their legs, and lost them again. And there was a HOX gene that shifted, and therefore snakes will NEVER walk again. That is the only reality, unless science has changed its opinion on the effect of what a HOX gene shift may do to a snake's body plan.

ajistotle: And oh, the other appendages of your argument likes dust may mean bones or lice or anything else still fail,

genesis/science: because you are an atheist, and quite content with those patent arguments with Y.E.C. and other fundamentalists. The facts are

  1. The Atheist was wrong. Snakes DO eat dirt.
  2. Dust can mean sacrificial remnants of meat.

All your proselytizing for Atheism will not change either fact, not one iota.

ajistotle: because the fact still remains that none of this problems is unique to a snake and not to any other animal.

genesis/science: Did you actually just say THAT?!?

One last time for good luck!

Paraphrasing an Atheist and 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."

Now Mr. Atheist, if you can prove worms and other legless creatures all have that shift in the HOX gene, you just let us know. Then you can say it's "not unique" to snakes. The Bible was correct on that note. The snake shall go on its belly... ALL the days of its life, unless it evolves and learns to walk on two legs as man did. But that's doubtful to happen sir, as man has only been on this planet for about four million years (counting hominids) and snakes have been around for about 150 million and haven't mastered bipedalism. So its a safe bet to say, Snakes "shall go on their bellies all the days of their lives."

Oh wellll, I suppose this conversation was more interesting than more of those idol worshipers arguing again that the snake was the mythological satan... aka the "war in heaven" between Tiamat and Marduk and a rehash, in the Titans cast down by Zeus to the lowest hell... yes, THAT satan, the myth, the idolatry of modern theism. Atheists and Theists have quite a lot in common. They really don't enjoy a fact-based reality.


On this post, I used a video of donkeys taking a dust bath.

Deliberately. Purposely.

If it is an atheist, he/she will freak out. Because "donkeys" are not "cattle" ... at least in the modern English definition of what constitutes "cattle".

But Hebrew was very limited to its meanings/context. Just as the Hebrews confused whales with fish. Perhaps their confusion is actually our own, lost on the language barrier. Or perhaps, the Hebrews really did believe whales were fish and completely lacking knowledge that whales were mammals. Its very difficult to properly translate Hebrew, a 3500 year old language, into modern English. I've even asked myself at times...

Europeans EAT horse meat, and horses are also used as beasts of burden.

So, does that make the horse "cattle" as well?

I don't know. AND you know what else, does it really matter? Hebrew is a culture, buried in history, deceased and many things will just never be known about what the Hebrews may or may not have meant. But does it really matter to anyone? Because, if we're looking to Atheists and Theists, its obvious neither of these two extremes even care about the truth! That's right. If you present a fact to an atheist, and he feels that fact threatens his precious beliefs he shall surely conjure up fantastic lie upon desperate lie to deny a fact. ANY fact! Same goes for Theists, they dislike the truth about their "Holy Bible" so much, most refuse to even read "The Word of God". Well at least, the first half of the Bible and when their intermediater (preachers, not Jesus) interpret the Old Testament for them (they must, because the sheep are too afraid to think for themselves)... the Old Testament is handled with kid gloves instead of the courage to accept hard facts, including the distasteful facts about the Old Testament.

What does it matter when besides, I'm interested in LIVING in the here and now... today. Atheists do need to get a life.

Strong's Concordance
( )

miqneh: cattle
Original Word: מִקְנֶה
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: miqneh
Phonetic Spelling: (mik-neh')
Short Definition: livestock

Word Origin
from qanah
NASB Translation
acquired (1),
cattle (10),
cattle* (1),
flocks (1),
herds (1),
livestock (54),
possessions (3),
purchased (1).

THE MODERN ENGLISH ( PROPER BIOLOGY ) DEFINITION OF "CATTLE" EXCLUDES animals beyond cows and oxen. Even sheep aren't classed among the cattle in our modern perception of what properly constitutes "cattle". But I read "cattle" in the Hebrew Bible and it feels as if it indicates a context, like described in Strong's Concordance, a most rudimentary term for "livestock". And I think those of us with an inkling of knowledge about the Hebrews would agree the Hebrews were certainly not Biologists or familiar with zoological classifications to differentiate "cattle," as cow vs. horse, no more than they differentiated fish from whales.

Hebrew can be summed up as simple thoughts make for simple words. Atheists zealously overcomplicate things, and prove absolutely nothing except their militant religious zealotry. As if others fail to recognize what's going on... ZEALOT is stamped on their forehead: A total turn off to *whatever brainwashing* they're promoting.

The concordance stated "cattle" (Hebrew) can be translated in the general sense as "livestock".

Are Horses livestock?

What is livestock?
Livestock is most commonly considered animals kept or raised in a farm or ranch setting and used in a commercial enterprise. The raising of livestock is an agricultural endeavor that promotes the preservation of green space and a way of life that many in today's society desire.
Are horses livestock?
Yes, horses are livestock. Traditionally, and legally, horses have been considered livestock in the United States. Even today, horses are still kept and raised on a farm or ranch and are used in a commercial enterprise.

An AGNOSTIC Response

An Agnostic Respondee: At least the snake wasn't cursed with pain in childbirth or having to farm the land and clear weeds to get its food. So all in all the snake wound up O.K. compared with the curses placed on Adam and Eve. *smile*

But I'm still pondering what kind of a "curse" is it for an animal to be cursed millions of years before any humans it could "tempt" ever lived?
Or to be "cursed" to do the same things many animals already do that crawl on their bellies on land?

genesis/science: I don't know. I guess I would have to be the Hebrew who wrote Genesis, to know the exact context in which the book was written in. But we both agree that God did not write the Bible. So your guess is good as mine.

Just a small thought here about what that Hebrew term translated to the English term, "curse" even means: Perhaps its pointed toward a cultural thing. Snakes above all animals, are feared immensely by most people. I doubt you would disagree with that. Just as the Hebrew culture "cursed" swine as filth and unclean, and in other cultures, pork is highly prized as a delicious meat. In some cultures snails are treated with disgust and in others, as a delicacy. Same for shellfish... the Hebrews abstained from all of it as unclean. BUT WHY???

Here we have God sanctifying ALL meat as clean to eat:

"Every moving thing that liveth shall be food for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things:"
- Webster's Bible
Genesis 9:3

Then Moses and the priests, (organized religion) proceed to yet change again, God's own command... as they did with practically everything else.

Forgive me for getting sidetracked, on the overall, snakes are despised, universally. Dreaded as slippery, slithering, venomous fang-bearing [predators as you say] and dreaded... cursed... one of the worst insults is to say of a person, "He's a snake in the grass!!" Perhaps because it states it would "cursed" to forever strike at the feet of humans, and that humans would forever "bruise" its head, and that's pretty much so, for every snake I've ever seen deliberately killed, they strike for the head of the snake. Where they might allow a poison tree frog the liberty to leave, even spiders, every nasty, poison, stinger bearing pest and predator... humans tend to allow them to escape. But snakes, its seldom so. People will run for a hoe to chop its head off. Fear fills most people when realizing they're in the presence of a snake and rightfully so I suppose. I've seen the horrific injuries snake venom can cause.

So, who knows what precisely the Hebrew implies?

Embraced by a few who have nerves of steel to handle Cobras, Black Mambas and the like... but on the overall, culturally, universally, worldwide snakes are dread. Culturally, as a whole, snakes are either revered or cursed. In some ways, worshipped. Hebrew idolatry resulted in the worship of the babylonian myth Tiamat, which transformed into satan. The myth is worshipped in the form of both a snake and a dragon, one of which we know is a completely mythological creature like unicorns. And this concept of snake worship was mentioned as well in the Old Testament when Moses set a snake on a pole and the Hebrews worshiped it. It was then commanded to be destroyed as the Hebrews (like modern Theists) began worshipping a relic, like many Christians sadly still do.

Why did God save the Israelites with a bronze snake when idolatry was forbidden?
God specifically required the people to “look” at it, not to worship it.
700 years later, when the Jews later did start to worship it, king Hezekiah had to destroy it.

I never thought of it before, but perhaps somewhere in Hebrew history... this serpent worship was from where the Hebrews originally made their first connection with the idolatrous "Satan" (aka snake) worship. In which begins making its first introduction into Jewish literature, late O.T. to New Testament.

2 Kings 18:4
He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).[1]
[1]Nehushtan sounds like the Hebrew for both bronze and serpent.

These idol worshipers are "God's Chosen People"? Chosen for what? Obviously, they were only chosen to make a example of.

An Agnostic Respondee: There's also amphibians that lost their legs, and who move on the bellies, not just reptiles. The amphibians probably lost their legs earlier than the reptiles because amphibians as a class preceded reptiles, and even earlier still were the worms who were cursed to never have legs at all, starting back in the pre-Cambrian. Long curse I'd say.
So how exactly are animals cursed when they go on their bellies? The species we know about seem to get by as well as many other species. And snakes are predators so it gives them an edge to lay low while hunting prey.

National Geographic said he did "what he felt he had to do." Killing it.
There's "the curse" if there is one.

genesis/science: A brief note: All the more reason people fear these creatures and will run for their hoe to chop a snake's head off. If it were any other creature, chances are they would allow it to escape.

Maybe you have to take all the verses that speak of the snake and consequences of "the curse" in context, to form the whole picture of what the Hebrew author was attempting to relate in meaning.

"Cursed" above cattle tends to lead me to conclude that perhaps, "cattle" refers to livestock.. creatures which are raised for dairy and meat-consumption, namely, SLAUGHTERED for food. Therefore, "cursed" above all cattle.

One or two additional notes, without intending to be a shitpick.

One: I grew up on a farm. Had there been a * four limb reptilian predator * on the farm, that posed a danger, it would have likely escaped, whether on its own, or humans preferring not to engage it and allowing it to escape on all fours. If it did not, I don't recall any attempts to kill any such creatures, ever. There were never any lizard kills. There were never gator captures. There were never any creatures that posed a real issue except: SNAKES. But in any instance, if a snake were found, we always called for an adult and my dad would come running with a rifle or hoe, and always aimed for the head. My brother too, he had it in for snakes. They were and still are, loathed and despised.

Also, if we were driving down the road, and a snake was crawling across the road my parents usually tried to swerve, drive over the snake in hope to kill it. Had it been any other animal they'd swerved to miss it. Truly "cursed" if there ever were a "cursed" animal. I'm not saying this is right to do to wild animals but it happens a lot. And I suppose I would much rather see a dead snake laying on the highway than a snake free to crawl up in my yard and bite one of my dogs or a child. My family treated the cattle well, fed them a lot of good hay, clean water... but snakes were "cursed above the cattle" that is: Slaughtered without discretion. My family sent a well-fed cow or two to the slaughterhouse, but slaughtered far more snakes.

I should add this too: The Atheist who was posting, has very little knowledge about cattle obviously. I say this because while growing up on a farm, I learned that cows are by far more picky about the hay they will eat than given credit by those not familiar with the diet of livestock. If their hay is not clean, dirt-free, cows will avoid eating it.

So, I'm afraid the Atheist critic was oversimplifying the reality about cow diets, and how readily they're willing to eat "dirt":

"...Like many ranchers that have found themselves squeezed in recent years by outside forces—from drought and a weak economy to rising oil and grain prices—Davis who owns 75 head of mixed-breed cattle, wanted better control of his input costs, especially the hay his cows wasted eating from traditional hay rings each winter.
The problem with a hay ring is that cattle stand outside the feeder, tear the hay out, and let the excess fall from their mouths. When cattle bite off too much, as they are inclined to do, the waste falls to the ground, gets trampled and otherwise damaged – and will not be eaten."

Two: I hate to stoop to the level of an atheist and shitpicking desperately to prove a point whether or not its a rational one just for sole sake of disagreeing with the Bible (somebody needs a life), but just for sake of semantics and to further emphasize the meaning of the Hebrew term for dust. "Lice" itself is "Dust" by the ancient Hebrew definition. Snakes eat lice all the time because wild mice and other small creatures are crawling with lice and disease. Now, whether or not ingesting any of these filthy pests harms the snakes or cause them any irritable bowel issues, is unknown to me. But none the less, snakes eat dust = lice.

Human louse-transmitted infectious diseases
( )
in Microbiol Infect. 2012 Apr;18(4):332-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-0691.2012.03778.x. Epub 2012 Feb 23.

Human louse-transmitted infectious diseases.
CDC - Lice - Head Lice - Disease
( ) Nov 2, 2010 - Education and information about head lice, head lice disease, and pediculosis.

( )
Lice may also live in the coats of pet mice and rats. They are flattened, wingless insects that suck tissue fluids and blood from the skin of the host. Lice are larger than mites and can usually be seen without a magnifying glass. Lice are most often transmitted by direct contact with infested bedding and between infested and unaffected individuals.
The lice of mice and rats are found most often on the neck and body. They suck blood and can therefore cause anaemia (and sometimes death) and transmit blood-borne diseases to rodents. Louse infestations may also cause scratching, hair loss and skin wounds. A veterinarian should be consulted if louse infestation is suspected.

Diseases and Disorders of Mice
Infestations of blood-sucking lice are common in wild mice, but are rarely seen in pet mice. Human beings will not be affected if their pet mice have these lice, because the lice do not cross over from one animal or species to another. Heavily infested mice show intense itching, restlessness, weakness, and anemia (lack of red blood cells). Infestation is diagnosed by identification of adult lice or eggs on the fur. Lice are treated similarly to mites (see Mice: Skin and Fur Mites).

The point here is: Snakes DO eat dust. Quite a lot in fact. By ratio the numbers of lice infestations snakes consume by far outnumber, the number of rats snakes caught which the lice were crawling on.

Further Elaborating on What "Curse" Probably Refers To

An Agnostic Respondee: "But I'm still pondering what kind of a "curse" is it for an animal to be cursed millions of years before any humans it could "tempt" ever lived? Or to be "cursed" to do the same things many animals already do that crawl on their bellies on land? There's also amphibians that lost their legs, and who move on the bellies, not just reptiles...."

genesis/science: I looked up the scripture because I think you and I were still not reading the scripture quite right, to put it into the same context the author of Genesis was intending to write it.

Genesis 3:14
"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:"
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

This, "CURSED ABOVE ALL" is restricted to a comparison with

  1. Cattle.
  2. Beasts of the Field.

Now, since we both know Biblical authors were not zoologists, YOU tell me "what defines "cattle" and what defines "beasts of the field" in Hebrew"? The word, "Field" is still used today, either with a battleground or an area sectioned off to plant corn, wheat, barley, oats, etc. Its obvious to some degree what types of animals the serpent will fair more miserably than; cattle and beasts of the field. The author is speaking of creatures that relate directly to agriculture; Livestock and creatures that may be in a farmer's gardens / field, for whatever reason. Could he mean for instance, wolves? Or foxes? Or other animals that may be considered pests, or beasts of burden? What does he mean by "beasts of the field"? Cattle we both would agree, are livestock in the general sense, and if you wish, you can narrow it down to cows and oxen.
I remember many days gathering corn and never ran on any "beasts" though we were always on the lookout for snakes because mice run rampant in corn fields, and where there are mice, you always find snakes... only more well-hidden. The poison, fang-bearing kind too.

The author of Genesis goes on to better elaborate on what he means by "cursed," in the next verse. The result of this "curse".

Genesis 3:15
"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."
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

God is taking direct credit for why when people find a wild snake in their garage they go into hysterics. A man comes out with protective gear and if he can't disperse with it, he kills the invasive snake. When a snake is found in a garden patch or field, the children run and scream for their daddy to get his gun or their mother to "bring a hoe. Quick!!!" I will never forget the horror when I was young and impressionable, the traumatic shock, when in a field picking beans, I brushed back a lot of weeds that were knee-to-waist deep and it took a second while my eyes focused, and seeing a stoney shaped, beady eyed, drawn into scanning mode, what appeared to be a diamond-headed copper-colored snake... I stared at it. It stared right back, not moving... it was looking at me, calculating its threat level, I stayed only long enough to pick up my bucket and ran. I was OUT of that field as quick as I could go. That butterbean field could pick itself for all I cared and the snake could have it.

However, I simply dont recall any other "beasts" or "beasts of the field" that struck fear and loathing (aka, "enmity between") into any who farmed, such as a snake does.

So, I believe that is what the author of Genesis may be eluding to. He knew snakes were in an exclusive class by themselves in regard to farming/agriculture. Farmers will kill them if they run on a snake. I think my parents tried to differentiate between rat and king snakes vs. rattlesnakes and copperheads, on the basis of whether or not a snake was poisonous, yet my parents' reasoning behind killing the ratsnake was always it would probably go near the chicken house and steal the eggs. So rat snakes had to die too. I never saw a King snake near our farm. Only heard conversations about them, more out toward the wooded area. My parents claimed that King snakes would kill other types of snakes, esp. dangerous ones. So the green Grass snake (due to its tiny size) and the King Snake were the only two I remember my parents allowing to live.

A Pair of Kings

"Kingsnake" is a term familiar to many people who associate it with those snakes that, due to their immunity to snake venom and their powers of constriction, can kill and eat venomous snakes. The species most often associated with this name, and status, is a beautiful shinny black animal with narrow bright yellow or whitish cross bands. This is the Eastern kingsnake. These snakes do not purposefully hunt venomous snakes, indeed they eat many other kinds of snakes, rodents, and other items. But their earned reputation with venomous snakes provides them a welcome by many landowners who might otherwise be unfriendly to snakes. An adult Eastern kingsnake may grow to over 4 feet in length, is a handsome sight, and is correctly perceived as one of the jewels of our upstate fauna.

In addition to the Eastern kingsnake, the mole kingsnake dwells in open areas and forest edges of our upstate. Living up to its name, this species spends considerable time under ground, and seeing one in the open is a rather rare sight. Most specimens are found as they crawl across roads. The mole kingsnake grows to 3 feet and is light glossy brown with darker brown blotches. This may sound copperhead-like, but this kingsnake has a very narrow head and body quiet different from a copperhead. They feed mostly on rodents.

Both of these kingsnakes are secretive, spending much time out of sight, and therefore may live around people for years without being discovered. Then one day, there one of them is in your driveway, or on your back porch. After you get over the surprise, enjoy the visit.

An adult Sierra Mountain Kingsnake eating a juvenile Northern Pacific Rattlesnake in Fresno County.
© Patrick Briggs

So, your Agnostic mind has got to be reeling, asking, "Well then, didn't the King Snake evade the curse in Genesis?" The problem is, the King Snake never ventures much near fields/farming plots that I ever saw. At least not that I ever recall. There were corn snakes, there were even rattlesnakes that came up through the fields and settled in near buildings around the farm, copperheads too. Rat snakes were abundant. As I said, I recall my parents telling about a kingsnake that killed a poisonous snake. They found the King Snake, back of our property, deeper in the wooded swampy forested area. They just didn't harm King Snakes. My parents welcomed that variety on their land.

The verse in Genesis, regarding "the curse" seems to point directly to farming and agriculture exclusively. The author specifies the snake will be cursed "above cattle and beasts of the field". He doesn't say anything about "beasts of the earth" or "beasts of the sea". Not even "beasts of the forest" or "beasts of the desert and prairies." It's very agricultural-specific.

I don't recall seeing the tiny green snake in the field either. They sometimes would come up into our yard. They might be found hanging on a tree limb. Cute as they were. I saw them at times in wooded areas around the area where the fields were planted, but never in the fields.

So, I never saw King Snakes killed. Nor did I see green snakes killed. I did see aggressive varieties of poisonous snakes killed, or any snake which posed a threat to steal eggs like rat snakes and red-belly moccasins, or any variety which could otherwise cause harm to our livestock and poultry. Though "rat" snakes probably kill rats which is good, rat snakes also kill baby chickens and ducks which is bad for a farmer. So rat snakes were killed if they were found anywhere around the hen-house.

The author of Genesis is referring to a "curse" which is agriculture-related. That is the only thing I can conclude when I've taken all the verses into their context.

A Summary

Genesis 3:14
"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:"
Genesis 3:15
"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."
- King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

These verses state, the snake is cursed above all cows, oxen, sheep, goats, et cetera. Why these? Because these varieties are specifically bred and raised for SLAUGHTER. Cows and oxen are treated quite well; fed well and given good treatment until they are sent to the slaughterhouse! Poor cursed livestock. Beasts of the field may refer to "other animals" that wander into farm territory such as wolves, or lions. Recall David's reaction to a "beast" which preyed on sheep. However, snakes are SLAUGHTERED typically with no discrimination, especially if they're on a farm. Snakes are normally slaughtered without a second thought. "Enmity" would be a good choice of words. The verses are excluding all types of areas outside of farmland, specifically. These verses do not apply to ocean-dwellers, or rain forests, or deserts, or any territory where agriculture is not practiced, such as forests and open prairies. The verses state the snake is "cursed" to forever move on its belly, and consume dust (rubble of sorts); perhaps a better way of saying it in English is, the snake will be a bottom-dweller on farmland. The verses state, God would put "enmity" (a loathing thereof) between humans and snakes when they cross each other on farmland. Man will kill snakes by aiming to cut their heads off, and snakes will strike at the human's feet.

One further elaboration, on the term "dust" itself in the English language! In English, when we say "dirt," we mean dirt. But when a housewife speaks of "dust" she seldom refers to "dirt". She would be referring to those fine particles that accumulate on tops of television sets, bookshelves, windows, and elsewhere. "Dust" in English, is very different in what composes it compared to dirt. Dust can sometimes contain particles of decomposing insect remains, i.e., a fly wing might be part of the dust.

Google Definitions describes the modern English definition of dust as, "(1) fine, dry powder consisting of tiny particles of earth or waste matter lying on the ground or on surfaces or carried in the air. Synonyms; dirt, grime, filth, smut, soot. (2) cover lightly with a powdered substance.

So, when even the English still distinguishes a difference between "dust" and "dirt" we know the translators of the King James and et cetera translations, book of Genesis, were probably trying to make a distinguishing between "dust" and actual "dirt". The Hebrew did not intend to imply "snakes eat dirt," although incidentally, actually, due to their hunting methods, since they are close to the surface of the ground (on their bellies) they do consume a regular supply of "dirt." Which, since dirt itself may be part of what "dust" consists of, there is no contradiction there either. Just ties in to further the point I'm making. The term "dust" itself has a quite different meaning than simply "dirt".

"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed..."

This too is an interesting find.

Snake-Fang Evolution Mystery Solved -- "Major Surprise"

I ask myself, exactly "when" in the fossil record did fangs evolve in snakes, toward the front of the jaw, such as with cobras? I can't find any definitive answer to that. I don't know which cobra fossils they might have, and at what age the rock they were discovered in was dated. But even the most primitive snakes had fangs located toward the rear regions of their jaws.

"...The discovery suggests venomous fangs—the lethal evolutionary invention that led to snakes becoming so successful—arose only once about 60 million years ago." (See the N.G. link)

But that is only addressing the back jaw. Not necessarily the type of snake that is so dreaded by humans. When did the viper and similar species, evolve? question is, "What is this "ENMITY" the author in Genesis refers to that was placed between man and snake?"

They studied embryos, noticing how the fangs migrate toward the front of the jaw.

"...a study of the embryos of eight front- and rear-fanged species has found that fangs always first appear at the back of the upper jaw before migrating forward in vipers and cobras.This previously unidentified transformation in the unborn young occurs due to "rapid growth of some parts of the upper jaw relative to the others," Vonk explained.
"It's a major, major surprise," the zoologist said of the findings, which will appear tomorrow in the journal Nature...."

Another article of interest is (see this link):

"The remaining species in this family in Georgia are rear-fanged snakes with weak venon. These snakes have an enlarged pair of teeth in the rear of the upper jaw. However, these teeth are not like the true hollow fangs of the dangerously venomous Pit Vipers and Coral Snakes."

So there's a bit on fang evolution.

Still, no matter.

I'm almost certain, what the author of Genesis is implying when he uses that term "to put Enmity between man and snake" (implying that at one point in human history there was no such "Enmity" between man and snake), has much to do with the threat of fangs. At least, that is my suspicion. But that's only for starters, there must be more to it still, because that in itself doesn't address snakes which are non-poisonous. Farmers today distinguish between good and bad snakes. Such as ratsnakes. They aren't fang-bearing (even in the rear-fanged snake species) but farmers still kill them.

Where the curse on Adam and his "seed" (children) begins with what you said already I believe,

"...At least the snake wasn't cursed with... having to farm the land and clear weeds to get its food.... *smile*"

Where there is agriculture, there are weeds. And where there are weeds, there will be snakes. Snakes bite. Snakes steal the farmer's eggs.

Those first chapters in Genesis has everything to do with farming, and the first farmer on Earth.

NOT "the first human". We both know Cro-Magnon roamed those regions up to 40,000 years ago and were preceded by Neanderthals. So any holy book that would claim Adam or any other were the "first man" is a book of myths. The author of Genesis does not make such a claim. The author of Genesis states, "There was not a man to till the ground." That implies, there were no farmers.

And, according to the story of Eden, God himself created a "Garden" and put a man there to tend to it. The entire Earth was not a "Garden," nor does the author of Genesis claim the world was weed free. Nor does the author of Genesis ever imply there was "no death before the fall of man or original sin". The author of Genesis implies the "garden of Eden" was a small microcosm in Mesopotamia (taken in context) and evidently that tiny garden was weed free. Where we find weeds, we find snakes.

A snake wandered into Eden.

The whole chapter is speaking of the first human agriculture.

It was all the pseudo-scientific and biblically-illiterate theologians, preachers, et cetera who have confused and mislead people on what the author of Genesis was ever implying when he wrote of the curse on the serpent. Those ignorant "experts" in their wretched and hate-filled attacks on Charles Darwin wanted people to believe the book was saying Adam was the "first human" on earth and that Darwin was a blasphemous Atheist for ever suggesting man evolved. Therefore theologians have spent decades evading the true and necessary emphasis on the scripture that simply states, "There was no man to till the ground" (as in modern agriculture). No such claim by the author of Genesis was ever made, that humans did not already exist in the region, nor did it imply Adam was the first man.

The author of Genesis goes one further, to claim that the man "Cain" left from among his family and went out and took a wife... and these false, lying interpretations by Anti-Darwinists, have wildly asserted Cain married his sister (incest). Desperate lies, in hopes of reaffirming their Anti-Darwinist rhetoric that "Adam" was the first man to live on Earth and "how dare Charles Darwin claim there were man, before Adam."

The author of Genesis asserts no more and no less, than there was "no man to till the ground." So God placed this agricultural minded "adam" in this little garden to tend it. When Adam transgressed, he was driven from the garden and weeds were promised to him as a curse. Snakes, from that day forward would be one of his major adversaries. And, tis true. There is nothing so annoying while trying to tend to a farm and garden than the (1) weeds and (2) snakes that pop up in the weeds, and most especially when they're the fang bearing kind.

So there it is. You can blame the theologians, scholars, preachers, Darwin-haters, science-haters, anti-evolutionists, and all the other ilk who have diligently tried to skew and obscure the most simplest of biblical text to suit their pitiful Anti-Charles Darwin campaigns. I don't see what is so difficult about reading it for what the verses are saying in such plain English, especially if you're not filtering these verses through the interpretations of 10,000 biblically and scientifically-illiterate fundamentalist preachers.

What spoke through the mouth of the Snake?

Forensic investigators would find no traces of any "satan" in Genesis, but "the Lord" was present at the scene of the crime.

The author of Genesis does not say "satan" spoke. In fact, the author of Genesis was emphatic it was merely a beast of the field.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made.

To know what heavenly power deceives, and opens animal mouths to speak, we find that answer in Numbers 22.

21 And Balaam rose up in the morning, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab.
22 And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him.
23 And the ass saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and the ass turned aside out of the way, and went into the field: and Balaam smote the ass, to turn her into the way.
24 But the angel of the Lord stood in a path of the vineyards, a wall being on this side, and a wall on that side.
25 And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she thrust herself unto the wall, and crushed Balaam's foot against the wall: and he smote her again.
26 And the angel of the Lord went further, and stood in a narrow place, where was no way to turn either to the right hand or to the left.
27 And when the ass saw the angel of the Lord, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff.
28 And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?
29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee.
30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? and he said, Nay.
31 Then the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord standing in the way, and his sword drawn in his hand: and he bowed down his head, and fell flat on his face.
32 And the angel of the Lord said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me:
33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.
34 And Balaam said unto the angel of the Lord, I have sinned; for I knew not that thou stoodest in the way against me: now therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back again.

These verses do not imply speaking donkeys are "divine gods" or "fallen angels," but that God sends delusions and hallucinations.

Another example in the chapter of Exodus 4,

The LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?" And he said, "A staff."
3 Then He said, "Throw it on the ground." So he threw it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from it.
4 But the LORD said to Moses, "Stretch out your hand and grasp it by its tail "-- so he stretched out his hand and caught it, and it became a staff in his hand--…

Just as God commanded Adam to not partake of the forbidden fruit, Moses delivered God's commands to Pharaoh to let his people go. But Pharaoh refused to hearken to God's command, and why?

Exodus 9:12
And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had spoken unto Moses.

There is no mention of "satan" tempting Eve, or any other human in all the first books of the Bible. It is God who spoke through the mouth of the serpent to tempt Adam into transgression, just as God deliberately lead Pharaoh into temptation against his own commands.

God tempted Adam with the hallucination of a talking snake. God used the mouth of a snake to speak through. As demonstrated in Pharaoh's court, the Lord caused the hallucination of a snake to appear before Pharaoh, so perhaps the snake Eve witnessed was God himself, in the form of an apparition, a hallucination, an illusion. But none the less, God was the power behind the verbal temptation spoken through the snake, to know whether or not they would obey his commandments.

I (feel I) have answered your questions adequately concerning the author's reasoning for singling out the snake as "cursed above cattle" and since the snake itself was a "beast of the field," it was cursed above all other "beasts of the field."

There are no whales, no rain forest tree frogs, no legless amphibians which are even in the equation... unless they live wild on farming property.

As for myself, I withhold any claim that I am giving any personal endorsements to any particular writing in the Bible (due to books like Job which are completely man-made fiction composed of ancient common Jewish folklore and mythical in its origins). I am suspicious however, the first initial opening chapters of Genesis came from a very different source than the rest of the Bible. That is, the rest of the Bible is filled with extensive examples of mythology and man-made religiosity and each book, chapter, verse to be carefully scrutinized at what is truth and what is the production of man.

Yet, I set apart these opening chapters, as having strange incidental truths with the opening of recorded human history and beginning of agriculture (how could the author of Genesis possibly know about the significance of "tilling of the ground"? How could he know that at one time in history, "there was no man to till the ground"? Only learned experts in anthropology and archaeology should know such things, i.e., about 10,000 years ago farming (agriculture) did begin in Mesopotamia when man began to "till the ground"... I am absolutely perplexed by this.
My views DO NOT AT ALL correlate with fundamentalist religion as established religions are froth with ignorant ideas about the teachings of science and human history and desperate seething angst they press forward in any shape, form or manner skewing scriptures in a flawed attempt to deny evolution or Darwin's theory, and blissfully teach mythology in lieu of anything that remotely resembles "Biblical scholarship".
Nor do I believe Moses wrote the "Five books of Moses" because many writings which were attributed to Moses, were composed postmortem. If Moses did write the first few opening chapters of Genesis, from where did he get his information? Perhaps from Egyptian teachers? Learned Egyptian scholars who would have a written record and recollection about the evolution of Agriculture, how it began, perhaps. The Egyptians did, indeed, have mathematicians and other such men of learning, who had deep respect for knowledge and education.

The opening chapters of Genesis simply do not fit with the rest of the Bible. The opening chapters do not even quite fit with the remaining chapters of Genesis itself. I have read the book and they simply feel as though are from different sources.
Those who do have a problem with the interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis, perhaps because they filter the interpretations of each verse through the lies, myths, misinterpretations and falsehoods espoused through the modern xtian mythology instead of objectively reading the plain text as it is written.

A Matter of Perception

An Agnostic Respondee: People put labels on animals, calling some "beneficial" and some "harmful" to humans and/or their crops, and then humans go after the ones they label "harmful" (including using chemical warfare in the case of certain insects), while we feed and care for the animals we consider "beneficial." If any animal is cursed it seems to be the fly, mosquito and spider, since we swat first in each case. The Bible also mentions scorpions as being harmful, as in Luke 10, "Behold, I have given you the power to tread upon serpents and scorpions and upon the full force of the enemy and nothing will harm you." Of course humans also go after wolves, since they steal our sheep, which we sheer, cook and eat.

It's a very human-centered designation as to which animal WE consider "beneficial."

As Robert Anton Wilson pointed out, "I recall one day in Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago around 1968, I came upon a Great Horned Owl. He or she was in a cage with a sign saying among other things that he or she was a "desirable" bird. The desirability of the Great Horned Owl was explained by the fact that he or she eats various critters that annoy farmers. This seems to me one of the silliest things I ever saw outside a Creationist journal. My own hunch is that the Great Horned Owl would consider itself desirable no matter what humans thought about the matter; and I also suspect that the critters eaten by the G.H.O. do not consider it a desirable bird at all, but probably regard it as actively nefarious."

genesis/science: I can not disagree with a thing you've stated.

Whomever the author of Genesis was seemed to be conveying just that.
The snake is an unwelcomed, unwanted, undesirable (a.k.a. "cursed" from a human point of view) pest or, "beast of the field" as Genesis calls it, snakes are killed wherever agriculture occurs and there are human settlements.
Even in city limits, people go to all lengths to keep their lawns mowed and trash clear (due to city ordinances) for fear of snakes moving in and becoming a threat to people.
Namely... snakes. Other creatures are farther down the threat list.

Otherwise, for many cultures, snakes hold a great fascination for people. Whether scientific curiosity about snakes... horror films such as Anaconda, and included in some cultural practices, aka "snake charmers" or religious rituals such as the Old Testament when Moses placed a bronze serpent on a pole, and some religious sects in Xtianity seems enraptured with the desire to "handle" snakes, and soforth, so on... etc.

I wonder just how much Ancient Egyptian Snake Mythology influenced latter Jewish "satan" mythology. I find this interesting. "Apep" was the snake-demon of the underworld. The snake in xtian mythology, also rules over hell (the underworld). The mythological xtian snake-satan transforms through three forms, as it comes in the form of a

  1. dragon (mythological)
  2. Apep (Egyptian snake myth) or
  3. satan portrayed in the description attributed to Nehebkaw which is part human.
"...The snake had mixed popularity in Egypt because snakes caused the danger and the cure to the venom. Apep was a snake-demon of the underworld, who tried to stop Ra on his nightly journey through the land of the west. The four primeval goddesses of the Ogdoad - Naunet (water), Amaunet (invisibility), Hauhet (infinity) and Kauket (darkness) - were also snake goddesses. There was a snake god called Nehebkaw who was depicted as a man with the head and tail of a snake."
( )

P.S. the "curse" on the worm (?)‏

An Agnostic Respondee:...also amphibians that lost their legs, and who move on the bellies...amphibians probably lost their legs earlier than the reptiles because amphibians as a class preceded reptiles, and even earlier still were the worms who were cursed to never have legs at all...

genesis/science: As you've so eloquently pointed out, "cursed" is all a matter of perception. The "curse" in (its whole) context was in no way related to creatures... even SNAKES, in tropical forests where man and snake seldom cross paths, oceans where sea SNAKES skim along the surface for catching the "dust" of the ocean, deserts where man seldom inhabits, et cetera. The "curse" is all from a farmer's perspective and besides, I doubt too the worm ever felt in any way it was "cursed" as enjoys every tasty mouthful of a moist cow pie. Another fact I learned while growing up on a farm, Earthworms are invaluable in the production of compost piles. No farmer would want to harm the earthworms that aide in the breakdown of organic materials in the soil.

"IF YOU ARE AMONG the millions of Americans who keep a garden, you already know that earthworms deserve more affection and gratitude than their lowly reputations might indicate. Worms mix and aerate soil, making it a more appealing place for seeds to germinate and for plants to grow. Their tunnels create pathways for roots to follow. And in ways that are still becoming clear to scientists, worms increase the population of beneficial microbes in the soil. These microbes in turn make the nutrients in organic matter more accessible to plants.
“What comes out of the back end of an earthworm is hundreds—probably thousands—of times more microbially active than what goes in,” says Clive Edwards, a soil ecologist at Ohio State University."
Nature’s Gardener or Forest Invader?
...earthworms are dramatically changing the world beneath our feet—for better and for worse


Genesis 3:19 "...till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.:.."

Merely "clay" or "dirt"? Oversimplified atheist and creationist answers. Of course they don't like real study of the Bible as it might bring them to a place they don't like the conclusion. But they certainly will trivialize when its expedient to their own agenda. What Jesus meant by straining at a gnat but swallowing a camel.

Think about what is in clay/the ground... just dirt? No, worms and other crap. The ground is littered with decaying organic matter, etc.

What becomes of a dead rotting corpse? Most will take weeks, months, years, an eternity to decompose. Rotting.

It does not turn to "dirt". It turns to rotting organic material crawling with maggots or other larvae and all manner of oozing crud.

Also, that's more of what "dust" means in Hebrew.

They wrote of a sacrificial animal's remains of scorched flesh and bone as "dust" which further emphasizes the meaning of "dust" in the Hebrew of Genesis.

More Dust

genesis/science: I am to suppose, you don't have any further arguments to offer in regard to what "dust" means in the ancient Hebrew context (actually, the definition of the English term "dust" which is confirmed in an english dictionary to include decaying organic matter like fly wings, etc., and translators chose to use for *however* Hebrew pronounced???? word, aka ha ha "dust").

...what the meaning of that hebrew word means... you dont argue.

...and you dont argue what "cursed above all cattle" means ???

An Agnostic Respondee: I think the Hebrews were patriarchal, anthropocentric and also ethnocentric thinkers. They thought the world revolved around "man," "humanity," and the nation of Israel. So they are the ones who came up with the idea that some species were "cursed."

genesis/science: Yeah, pretty much and God came up with the idea that he would establish a covenant with these people and make an example of them. Seems an example is also made of everyone who blindly believes "Solomon was the wisest man of all" when Jesus should've been deemed wiser by Xtians, and blindly defend the folly of Israel when they stoned women to death who did not bleed on their wedding night, and the Xtians and Jews who blindly defend the mythology that turns up in their own Bible about Satan. They haven't came any further than the idol-worshipers who wrote many sections of the original patriarchal, anthropocentric and also ethnocentric Hebrew scrolls.

But do I believe "God" was involved with their foolishness? Yes indeed. Why not? I do believe it. It makes perfect sense that the living God is right there in it chastizing humans for their foolishness. These Xtians would say, God is too holy and righteous to go where there is Evil, Stupidity, Sin... but of course, the Xtians LIE and DENY the scriptures which contradict their cherished idolatry of Satan, Isaiah 45:7, (KJV) - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

They ignore that when considering "who or what" caused a snake to speak. They do not want to believe their God is capable of crafting evil, mischief... the ultimate master of a Machiavellian world. In other words, they do not want to know God (though it is written in their own Bible)! Oh, and I should add, they _don't know_ God. They REALLY DON'T KNOW God... and I don't acknowledge the existence of their foolish idols and false religions.

By the way, just to point out about the xtian idolatry of Satan, the scriptures in Genesis are silent about any "Michael the archangel and lucifer falling from heaven" or the author of Genesis elaborating on "satan cast down from Heaven". Scriptures in Genesis are silent whereby the influence of Greek mythology might otherwise explain "why" the snake was cursed. It only states that after the snake's mouth was opened and lead man into temptation ... and man succumbed that the snake became cursed. Needless to add, according to some theories of Genesis, the claim Satan was cursed because he rose up in rebellion against God and cast out of heaven, that mythology does not mesh with the curse in Genesis, because the "curse" placed on the snake in an agricultural settings, would have taken place supposedly MILLIONS of years after the fact. Therefore, according to that particular interpretation (theologians call "The Gap View,") satan and the snake can not be the same entity. Two separate "rebellions" that in no way relate. Needless to add, the one myth is no where mentioned by the author of Genesis!

Then again, "satan the snake god" makes a lot of sense only if you don't think about it.

But, from an agricultural perspective, the snake is pretty much "cursed". Farmers will go on killing snakes, as long as there are farmers.

However, it is not the author of Genesis your grievance primarily lies with. The Hebrews, just like Mayans, Sumerians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, et cetera, were what they were. It is these people, in the modern day who are self-declared "authorities of scripture" who superimpose THEIR erroneous interpretations, THEIR doctrines, THEIR falsehoods, THEIR LIES AT ALL COST on the masses (including yourself) about how to "properly interpret" these ancient Hebrew verses into English. Also, they will help you "see the light" at a cost... just like any gypsy or common fortune teller... to give of your tithes and offerings. You know they are wrong about the Bible, and that's why you are perturbed with their religious dogma and, noticeably as well, they always bring the anti-Darwin rhetoric into their exegeses, too. They should learn in silence themselves...

There were wars fought over this very thing. The Protestants felt that the common person could read (and understand) scripture just fine by themselves, guided by God's spirit to understand the divine nature of the scriptures... by themselves with aide of God's guidance to teach them. The latter apostles declared the same thing, that the common people would take scripture to themselves and "be taught by God" as to the proper meaning in scripture.

Sadly, times are no different than when the Catholic church forbid the common people to study the Bible. The common people have a brain, but do not use it. In the Dark Ages if the people were to have an opinion, it was because the Pope gave it to them. Today, even still, the people mindlessly look to ordained men to read the scripture for them and to lead them astray.

That is why, nobody ever made that much mention of the "curse" being limited to the bean patch or corn field, or places in which agriculture occurs. A very limited curse indeed, if you ask me.

The curse results in 2 things:

  1. The farmer lopping off the head of a snake.
  2. The snake striking at the lower extremities.
An Agnostic Respondee: Just like their other idea that some nations were "cursed."

genesis/science:Further, just a few decades there was much ado about the "'Curse' on Canaan" and a lot of racist mythology spun off from that, claiming the black race itself spawned from Canaan.

As if God, would give supernatural endorsements for what a man sputters during a drunken hangover induced rage. These scriptures merely state what is written in black and white for those who dare to exercise the reasoning center of their cerebral cortex.
Noah was drunk and had passed out. (A Holy Man, Indeed!!!) His son Ham enters, sees his father naked. Exits. Tells his brothers, and when Noah learns of it, he "curses" ... not his son, but his grandson. But Noah did not possess any supernatural powers of cursing or blessing. Would God be foolish enough to give supernatural endorsement to the sputtering of a an old drunk? But the Hebrews obviously believed these men possessed the power.

The author or authors of Genesis, do not even state that millions of people, a whole race of people, would be affected by this drunken "curse" against Ham and his son. It was directed solely at Ham and Canaan. Noah was so drunken, he began cursing the child that was not even listed as present during the incident. But this is how Xtians twist scripture, and if those people who blindly follow the false interpretations of preachers and theologians, instead of simple prayer and faith (learning in silence themselves!!) will be lead astray by the many false teachers.

Genesis 9:20-27
[New International Version (NIV)]

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded to plant a vineyard.
21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent.
22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father naked and told his two brothers outside.
23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father’s naked body. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father naked.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him,
25 he said,“Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers.”
26 He also said,“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Shem! May Canaan be the slave of Shem.
27 May God extend Japheth’s[b] territory; may Japheth live in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be the slave of Japheth.”

An Agnostic Respondee: "Dust" in houses today is mostly human skin cells. But in the ancient world it probably meant any matter beneath one's feet, as in "dust of the earth."

genesis/science: Also, the English-speaking still recognize the definition for "dust" provided by the original English translators, such being, the word "gold dust" is often applied to fine grains of dust, and it very well includes the larger chunks that are found amidst the finer particles. I'm certain with your extensive grasp on language studies and gift of verbiage, you can think of many, many more examples than I!

An Agnostic Respondee: And things beneath the foot of "man" were "cursed." They were "beneath man."

And "man" could not imagine moving on his belly and being that near the dust of the earth as anything other than a curse.

That's because the human imagination was so filled with the idea that humans were the species "God liked most."

genesis/science: It's how ancient man explained the natural world as it is.

The "Olive Tree" also was supposedly God's chosen tree.
However, its worth noting that other cultures had their "sacred tree worship" (idolatry of sorts), and the Hebrews could not bear it to do without integrating pagan culture into their own. So when the pagans were worshiping trees, the Hebrews chose the Olive Tree as their cultural icon, blessed and packaged it, as "God's (TM) Tree".

Read More »

The Image of God and Mankind


King James Bible
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Matthew 4:19
"Follow Me," He told them, "and I will make you fish for people!"

Read More »

Bird Origins


NATURE: Ducks: An Original DUCKumentary

A quote-worthy comment: "They were one of the first creatures to return from land, to the sea."

Endlessly, I have attempted to get this simplest of obvious truths across to (sadly) people who claim to believe in Evolution. Shame on them for not being able to think outside of the tiny atheist box where they behave like parrots! So hooked on dinosaur-bird hype, they cannot correctly picture the actual geological layout on earth, nor the unique ecosystems that existed then, alien to our own perceptions of what constitutes life on our present day planet, much less the earliest organisms on earth.

They can cite a few facts, to support some theories but lack the ability to actually visualize the larger picture of how the earth looked, back then... without highways and other infrastructure, totally devoid of all man-made interference. Swamps and seas covered the earth.

Animals emerged on land.

Early Animals

Earth looked something like this in many places, with exception to oceans covering the earth.

Early Animals

Also, the ancestors of birds were very similar to the creatures seen in these drawings and lived very much like them.

These creatures depicted in the drawings had left the water I hate to report to these certain individuals. Leg-bearing, and terrestrial, but had not yet ventured far from the water's edge.

Here are more of these creatures who had "left the water".

Early Animals

I am shamelessly of the Feduccia persuasion. See this article.

“We all agree that birds and dinosaurs had some reptilian ancestors in common,” said Feduccia, professor of biology in UNC’s College of Arts and Sciences. “But to say dinosaurs were the ancestors of the modern birds we see flying around outside today because we would like them to be is a big mistake.

“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of “Ëœdinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said. “To paraphrase one such individual, “This isn’t science . . . This is comic relief.’”

Although a few artists depicted feathered dinosaurs as far back as the 1970s, Feduccia said the strongest case for feathered dinosaurs arose in 1996 with a small black and white photo of the early Cretaceous period small dinosaur Sinosauropteryx, which sported a coat of filamentous structures some called “dino-fuzz.”

“The photo subsequently appeared in various prominent publications as the long-sought “definitive’ evidence of dinosaur “œfeathers’ and that birds were descended from dinosaurs,” he said. “Yet no one ever bothered to provide evidence — either structural or biological — that these structures had anything to do with feathers. In our new work, we show that these and other filamentous structures were not protofeathers, but rather the remains of collagenous fiber meshworks that reinforced the skin.”

Belief in the existence of the “dino-fuzz feathers” caused some scientists to conclude that they served as insulation, and hence dinosaurs were warm-blooded.

The researchers also examined evidence from five independent, agreeing studies involving structural and genetic analyses related to the “tridactyl,” or three-fingered, hand, which is composed of digits 1, 2 and 3 in dinosaurs, Feduccia said. That is the most critical characteristic linking birds to dinosaurs. They found that embryos of developing birds differed significantly in that bird wings arose from digits 2, 3 and 4, the equivalent of index, middle and ring fingers of humans. To change so radically during evolution would be highly unlikely.

“If birds descended from dinosaurs, we would expect the same 1, 2 and 3 pattern,” he said.

Current dinosaurian dogma requires that all the intricate adaptations of birds’ wings and feathers for flight evolved in a flightless dinosaur and then somehow became useful for flight only much later, Feduccia said. That is “close to being non-Darwinian.”

Also, the current feathered dinosaurs theory makes little sense time-wise either because it holds that all stages of feather evolution and bird ancestry occurred some 125 million years ago in the early Cretaceous fossils unearthed in China.

That’s some 25 million years after the time of Archaeopteryx, which already was a bird in the modern sense,” he said. Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years after the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.”

Feduccia said the publication and promotion of feathered dinosaurs by the popular press and by prestigious journals and magazines, including National Geographic, Nature and Science, have made it difficult for opposing views to get a proper hearing.

“With the advent of “Ëœfeathered dinosaurs,’ we are truly witnessing the beginnings of the meltdown of the field of paleontology,” he said. “Just as the discovery a four-chambered heart in a dinosaur described in 2000 in an article in Science turned out to be an artifact, feathered dinosaurs too have become part of the fantasia of this field. Much of this is part of the delusional fantasy of the world of dinosaurs, the wishful hope that one can finally study dinosaurs at the backyard bird feeder.

“It is now clear that the origin of birds is a much more complicated question than has been previously thought,” Feduccia said.

I will not be persuaded without evidence to the otherwise as Feduccia presented it so eloquently. Just makes a rational reasonable argument. If we are to accept the geological fossil layers, in order and natural progression, please do not ask me to accept a fable based on a fantasy that birds evolved from dinosaurs, long after birds already existed. Such a thing is simply nonsense.

However, back to my point. The atheist I was embroiled in a discussion with was quite upset that the text in Genesis says, God commanded birds to come from the water. Well, according to the drawings about early earth, that's quite a reasonable statement.

Here is the verse that was cause for so much unnecessary angst,

Genesis 1:20 KJV
King James Version
And God said , Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Though other translations tend to differ from the King James Version,

Genesis 1:20 NKJV
New King James Version
Then God said, "Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens."

Genesis 1:20 NIV
New International Version
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."

Interesting, some translations imply the verse is not even implying "birds came from water." The King James Version may read like that but other translations lend credence that context and meaning is a matter of translation. Atheists would like to discard Genesis 1:20 as a "myth" that birds flew out of the ocean, and for people to erroneously believe bird ancestors began like reptiles or lizards, crawled to the desert, and *ALL 100%* moved into dry, desert land, living like the roadrunner in the cartoon, and then trekked thousands of miles back to swampy lands and returned to the water. It simply never happened that way.

However, it needs be stated it was never even the verse itself in Genesis that captured my great fascination with bird evolution. It was the birds, themselves. Are they not the embodiment of what Charles Darwin himself predicted with the theory of Natural Selection. Modern day terrestrial varieties of birds, still possess the nictitating membrane, an ancient transparent inner eyelid (found in birds, reptiles, and some mammals). What all important purpose does such a protective eyelid serve for a cardinal, pigeon or other terrestrial bird? Birds still possess their water-resistant feathers, whether aquatic, or fully terrestrial and living deep inland. They still possess their scaley feet. The anatomy of these creatures, birds, tell an important story about their origins. They originated from aquatic ancestors.

I diligently tried to explain to the atheist, that ancestors of birds came out on land yes, indeed, of course, they have legs, but they never truly or completely left the water's edge. This is common sense for any person who understands what evolution has taught us. The early ancestors of birds diversified... branching into around 10,000 species according to modern estimates. Today, many species are primarily terrestrial whilst others are primarily aquatic such as ducks, geese, cranes, etc. Some like the Albatross wander far out to sea, some migrate hundreds of miles over ocean waters. Bird ancestors... like modern day birds stayed near the water's edge... they never wandered that far from the water. And, according to the NATURE "DUCKumentary" clip, birds were one of the first groups to return to their ancestors' aquatic habitat.

An Atheist Respondee: "’s wrong compared with modern science: Creation of fish and birds to fill the seas and the sky."

Genesis/Science: zat so?

Flying fish, family Exocoetidae, are a diverse group of about 60+ fish in 7 genera (some classifications claim up to 9 genera). These mainly pelagic marine fish are widespread and abundant in the tropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian oceans. Flying fish primarily eat zooplankton, and are in turn an important food source for many marine predators including dolphinfishes, tunas, billfishes, cetaceans, as well as pelagic seabirds. Although they can’t actually fly, they are well known for their enlarged pectoral fins (“wings”), which allow them to make gliding leaps out of the water, a behavior believed to help them escape predation. Some species of flying fish have enlarged pelvic fins as well as enlarged pectoral fins, which allows them to fly further than two winged gliders (up to 400 meters), and have far greater maneuverability. A recent molecular phylogenetic analysis of the flying fish supports previous hypotheses that the evolution of four-winged gliding evolved once from a two-winged ancestor, perhaps in a three-step progression of gliding abilities (Lewallen et al 2011; Kutschera 2005). Flying fish have evolved a diversity of reproductive and life histories strategies: some lay their eggs in the open ocean, and have buoyant eggs that float on the ocean surface or non-buoyant eggs that have stringy filaments which get wound up in floating debris, others spend their lives in coastal areas, or return to coastal areas to breed; the different species also show a great diversity in how wide a range they occupy.

Your problem is "Modern Science" can only make guesses, hypothesis... at best, "theories' based on scant fossil evidences about "what was" hundreds of millions of years ago.

"Modern Science" does not offer DEFINITIVE ANSWERS about the fossil record which primarily remains shrouded in mystery on such issues as "bird evolution." Many atheists, who are akin to fundamentalists, knowing there are no clear answers, DEMAND instant, patent packaged theories... fairy tales to fill in the gaps, and can not deal with unknowns, and prematurely connect a relationship between birds and dinosaurs. And dinosaurs? So little is known about them too! Yet, Atheists have ALL THE ANSWERS, patent and packaged, ready to sell you, whether its not true... doesn't enter the equation. A lie is as good as any truth. Truth takes effort, it takes work, it takes research, it takes facts... but religions like Atheism like the easy route.

Oh, and these flying fish... just when did they evolve? Do they know with all certainty? Did this phenomena arise when fish first evolved and carried with the earliest species who ventured out on land like the modern Mud Skippers, and then they went extinct and replaced by "birds," evolving the ability to fly in the open air.

There's no positive way to know with all certainty, is there?

Just like (militant atheist pseudo-darwinists) were espousing the belief that "polydactyly" were some proof of "Modern Evolution"... then empirical fossil evidence turned that argument on its head, noting that six digits arose 100's of million of years ago, and disappeared. Only to arise again and again from perhaps, merely, junk dna...

Polydactyly in the earliest known tetrapod limbs

M. I. Coates & J. A. Clack
University Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK

NEW specimens of the earliest known tetrapod limbs shows them to be polydactylous. The forelimb of Acanthostega has eight digits and the hindlimb of Ichthyostega has seven. Both of these come from the Upper Devonian of East Greenland, complementing the only other known Devonian tetrapod limb, that of Tulerpeton from Russia1, which has six digits. The morphology of the specimens suggests that limbs with digits may have been adaptations to an aquatic rather than a terrestrial environment. The pattern of digits corresponds to a recently proposed model for limb development2 in which digit number is unspecified, rather than earlier models3–10 which are rejected because they postulate a fixed number of elements in the ancestral limb. We challenge pentadactyly as primitive for tetrapods3,11. The form of these limbs suggests early specialization in the evolution of the tetrapod limb bud.


A quote-worthy comment about "Ducks: A DUCKumentary":

"They were one of the first creatures to return from land, to the sea."

Don't know if you got that. The significance of what the narrator is saying:

Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil
"..Archaeopteryx lived around 151 million to 149 million years ago — during the Tithonian period, the late stage of the Jurassic era — in what is now southern Germany. At the time Europe was an archipelago and was much closer to the equator than it is today, providing this bird-like dinosaur with a fairly warm home close to the sea in which it could thrive."

"...a fairly warm home close to THE SEA..."

Thank you.

NOW, THE CASE IS SOOOO CLOSED on that issue. Birds did not evolve on land like the cartoon rendition of Wiley E. Coyote and Roadrunner in the middle of the desert. Birds... evolved in and around the waterways, they came from water, they are suited for moist terrain, and habitats, and inevitably descendent species returned to live the majority of their lives in water, such as ducks, geese, cranes, swans, albatross, etc.

Charles Darwin would roll his eyes, and ask, "How could it be that two people who believe in my theory are even arguing over this question?! OF COURSE birds derived their physical characteristics from their (wet) environment. This Atheist should know better!"

Read More »

Ted Bundy, the Atheist


Memorable famous last words.

Where are you now God?!
You going to strike me down?!
Where are your thunderbolts to strike me down?!?
Where's the crevice in the earth that's
suppose to open up and swallow me?!?
Where is it?!


“Then I learned that all moral judgments are "value judgments," that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either "right" or "wrong." I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured out for myself - what apparently the Chief Justice couldn't figure out for himself”that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any "reason" to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring "” the strength of character "” to throw off its shackles. ... I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable value judgment" that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these "others"? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog's life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as "moral" or "good" and others as "immoral" or "bad"? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”

- Ted Bundy

Started watching "Ed Gein" who dug up the dead including his mom and tried to resurrect them.

Super religious fanatic... got to feel sorry for him I guess in some ways. He was lonely... schizophrenia set in or something.

So Ed Gein goes from resurrecting the dead... to killing the living?

Then again, that is the history of the Christian church, come to think of it.

Gein, murdered some people believing God (thru his mom's supernatural apparitions or something) was killing for a "higher purpose"... ridding the world of "whores" and such, a result of her crazed whacked fundamentalist teachings from time he was a kid ~ that stone age barbaric hatred of women that ran rampant during the time of Jesus.... right on thru, drilled in tight, til his 50's or something.

There is a season for every purpose under heaven, including turning 18+. That is, there's a time to let your son grow up and not be your little boy anymore. Scheez.

Crazy fundamentalist **** whacker.

Got bored with that. Id seen it before anyway.

So, I turned over to watch whackjob #2 Ted Bundy.

It opens with him killing some lady in his patently sadistic, disgusting way, and there he's mocking, shouting at God, like, "Where are you God?! Where's the thunderbolts?! What? No ground opening to swallow me up?!"
The movie then jumps forward about a decade where he's in prison and the warden scoffs, "So you're a Christian now."

Almost ironic, since (Atheist) Bundy would beg God to bring down a thunderbolt... seems God delivered the very "sign" Ted Bundy asked for. He got his hateful woman-hating and God-hating arse loaded with several thousand volts of electricity. Old Sparky was God's messenger.

And, surely God should concur, Ed Gein was a total fruitcake brainwashed on religious dogma who lived out the rest of his natural life on a nutfarm.
Maybe it is "religion" that drives people insane... including Atheism.

Are there any famous serial killers who were Agnostic???

For in my experience,

  1. It actually takes an intelligent mind to be an Agnostic.
  2. Religious minds (including Atheists) always claim to already have the one and only patent truth of truths, while science investigates... Agnostics are humble enough to confess "I don't know everything." Evil men believe the cosmos revolve around them while Agnostics behold the expanse of the cosmos and marvel at their finite existence.

If there's any serial killers who are labeled "Agnostic" I would be inclined to conclude they were mistaken. That such serial killers were actually Atheist (like Bundy).

Read More »
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

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.

Trees and Plants Before Sunlight
Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"
Jim Jones was a Communist
Eddie Vedder
Stage Name Marilyn Manson
Alice in Chains

The religious establishment and their twisted evil twin, anti-religion baiters said it couldn't be done, yet...


Vegetation, Herbs and Trees Before Sunlight.
Oh well, I guess that dashes arguments of Atheists and Science-Hating fundamentalists to little itsy bitsy pieces.
(and more found here)

Karl Marx Created Adolf Hitler
Darwin's theory did not create Hitler as some have accused, nor did Hitler's Socialism have anything to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. Besides Eugenics programme in early American history and over 27 states which had sterilization laws on the books before the time of Nazi Germany, Hitler derived his version of Communist ideologue, "National Socialism" directly from the Socialism of Karl Marx, advocate of the most malevolent version of toxic Atheism, and author of The Communist Manifesto which lead to the bloody death toll of at least 100 million in the 20th Century alone and the killing continues ...
See Anti-Communism

For more information on Communism, and the ghastly death tolls:

The Black Book of Communism
Black Book of Communism

Harvard University Press
Communist regimes around the globe are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement. It takes a brick of a book to provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, that killed tens of millions in the 20th Century and that will continue to kill.

And while we're on the subject, let's set the record straight about Jim Jones, another evil, toxic atheist and Marxist-Leninist.
"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."
- Jim Jones, founder of the murderous "People's Temple," a disgusting Atheist and Marxist degenerate camouflaged under the guise of being "A man of God".
Carried out to the instruction as Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, founder of the USSR, stated a necessity to infiltrate the Church, because the religious will '"swallow anything" if it is wrapped in religious terms.'

Hitler, Messiah, Anti-Christ
Like Atheist Stalin, Hitler wages a war against people of all religion.
(See Commentary Link.)

Communists murdered 100 Million over the past century.

Communist party members are Atheists.

And no, sorry, but Joseph Stalin was not a Christian because he attended seminary once and Christianity did not turn him into a butcher. George Bernard Shaw was no Christian either when he openly supported Hitler and mass genocide by gassing.

I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Atheists know this doesn't look good when they attempt to convert people to Atheism, and people are aware of the death tolls under Communist regimes so Atheists will do mental cartwheels to conveniently deny history or come up with some other lame twisted argument fallacy to explain away the atrocities committed by Atheists, such as, "Communists worship the state," I suppose therefore they're not Atheists?? Hogwash! Enough of the silly grammar school semantics!! That's not what the Communist Party is saying, Atheists!! To become a member of the Atheist State Religion, ooops, I mean Communist Party, you must be a sworn Atheist. No exceptions!

Darwin was never the problem. ATHEISM was the problem!? No wonder Christians rejected Darwin's theory after people like George Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx latched on to it like the parasites they were!

I believe in the religion of Love which the Prophet Jesus Christ taught.
So, Atheists! Looks like that agenda to convert the world to your religion of atheism has alas backfired. Your hate propaganda has turned people off. People as a whole are still as spiritual as ever, if not more so. Oh, don't delude yourself, people understand very very well what you believe, and I know all too well what you believe with your religion of hate. Whatever side you're on, I'm not there!!!

My favorite Atheist, Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, whose wonderful song "Jeremy" brought attention to the anguish of kids who deal with school bullies vs. my least favorite

Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn "Who Needs Fred Phelps?" Manson? guilty of regularly bullying and abusing his employees, both physically and mentally. THE VIDEOS ARE DISTURBING. Just "boys being boys"? or more age old ignorance that leads to a society of bullies. Most people have heard about the evil antics, but remain oblivious to the level of inappropriate bullying and ruthless violence even band members apparently have grown weary of.

Saving the best for last.

Sorry 'tis not Atheist that I can tell, but it is Alice in Chains. My favorite band of all time, brazenly questioning religious dogma and rhetoric.

And not to forget my commentary on the meaning of Soundgarden: Black Hole Sun A must read... or at least, a must-listen!