When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

0

Referring to Two Past Posts

Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now? and,

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible
Atheist:

dazco01
You're saying that it's impossible to find evidence that God exists.
Thank you.

That's what the Bible states in the prophet's words:
Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."
Atheist:

dazco01
It seems you are using the lack of evidence for God...as evidence for God.
I think in order to have an intelligent discussion about God's existence, both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order to confirm God's existence. The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

But is that not how Atheist's produce "evidence".. by pointing to lack of evidence?

Reiterating on Atheist Logic: "...It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence I think in order to have an intelligent discussion... both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order... The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

Atheists fail to provide any evidence for Atheism themselves, except "lack of evidence". Lack of evidence is what they base their entire belief system on! It is a presumption that God does not exist, not empirical evidence. Scientists do not have direct evidence for black holes, yet they testify to the effect black holes have on surrounding stars. However, black holes are accepted as fact in modern physics. Even further, Theists aren't so foolish as to claim they have empirical evidence for God, and admit their creed is based solely on faith whilst Atheists claim they have "evidence" and demand "Evidence".

Yet, actually, Atheists base their creed on the sole basis of thier Lack of Evidence.

Mr. Atheist, I am not speaking in a different language. I have spoken in YOUR LANGUAGE when I say:

Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Atheist: It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence.

How is it then, that it fails the logic of Atheism? Since lack of evidence is the sole foundation of the Atheist belief, perhaps for the Biblical authors, it was the foundation of their belief in God, and a profound evidence.

Lack of Evidence, is precisely what Atheists need to support their entire belief system. They have no evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they say they conclusively believe... there is no God. Ah, no evidence = belief. Then why their demands for evidence from Theists?

"With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.
Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.
I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF."

Scientific theories exist, without direct evidence... proof, they say? Yet Atheists have no problem accepting these theories on faith. And even still, there is no direct PROOF, for the non-existence of God.
This particular Atheist never had the viable "Proof" God does not exist. Lack of evidence, is not "proof". Forensic investigations are not done that way. Investigators develop a theory and seek evidence. Scientific theories are formulated in the same manner. Theories are formed after which, evidence is sought. It is my belief, that Atheists do not genuinely seek evidence. It was the belief of Biblical writers, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God. The "Burden of Proof" argument fallacy does not fall on myself or theists. Afterall, who needs evidence. Lack of evidence is "evidence"!

John is driving in his car with Lucy. John tells Lucy, "Look over there," and points toward an area among the distant trees. "A murder took place over there just a few years back" Lucy is curious. Lucy wants to know more. After several days, Lucy drives back to the spot just as she remembers John pointing it out to her. Lucy anxiously expects to see "evidence". There should be a body or some other evidence that indicates "murder," shouldn't there? But there is no body, no blood, there's nothing. There is no "evidence" for a murder anywhere in the location. Perhaps John just lied, and made up the whole entire story. Lucy gets angry at John and accuses him of lying, since afterall, shouldn't his claim that "a murder took place in said spot," be accompanied with evidence? Lucy is too lazy to question police, or browse old newspapers. Lucy does not continue her search for more answers. Lucy closes her mind and feels the "lack of evidence" is enough "evidence" to satisfy her mind, make up her conclusions, that no murder ever took place and John, is a liar. From that point on, she will not accept old newspaper reports, testimonies from witnesses, living relatives of the murder victims, books on the murder or any claim that contradicts her "Truth" on the matter. Afterall, hadn't Lucy went to that location and saw with her own two eyes, there was no body? No blood. No evidence. What more "Proof" does anyone need? Lucy is a genius. Lucy thinks like an Atheist!!

Likewise, such "lack of evidence" adequately explains why some other people might form a belief in God based on that same line of logic. Hey, afterall, if its good enough for Atheists to form a whole belief system based entirely on lack of evidence, then why isn't it good enough for Theists? Afterall, according to the Atheist belief system "lack of evidence," is "evidence".

And for those of you who've erroneously believed you are atheists, but can mentally embrace the fact that you have no solid evidence to base your opinion on, which was formed in the total absence of evidence, A.K.A. "proof" to establish your non-belief in God on, that makes you an Agnostic and in my opinion, that raises the bar for one to be viewed as slightly more intelligent. There are many things in the cosmos that remain unknown... for an intelligent, scientific-minded person says of those things they know not, "I don't know."

---

Actually, atheists would argue using a similar story,

But the problem is dear...

but inserting a creationist who visits the Olduvai Gorge at the spot where the bones of "Lucy" the Australopithicine

I am not a "creationist."

were discovered, and since the creationist doesn't spot the fossils there any longer,

and therefore this point you tried to make is totally moot.

and doesn't consult the science journals, disbelieves in any fossil evidence for evolution.

Creationism and God, do not equate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And the example still stands. Just as primitive man does not disprove God, you can't prove God by it either. You can prove evolution, but you can not prove or disprove God using the fossil record. The record stands on its own merit.

And, while the good Lord was allowing things to evolve, and tinkering with DNA, I'm sure he'd already considered this long before you came on the fossil record:

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God.

Read More »

The Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now?

0

"All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree."
- Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)

The Bible says the Sun moves. Right?

Well, Atheists seem to think the sun is "fixed" in its position but they're wrong. The stars move. Starting with black holes,

Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429120851.htm

Apr 29, 2009 – It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: Rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close.

Curious About Astronomy: How do stars move in the Galaxy?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378

Oct 18, 2005 – The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. ... We can dectect radial motion by looking at the wavelength shifts it creates in the ...

lol.

Yahssir, the exception makes the rule.

Nothing's so simple as those patent "absolute truths" (TM) of Atheism and Theism. The exception makes the rule.

"The second answer is that in a more general sense that stars do move. The simple fact is that due to gravity every object in space moves. The reason that things seem stationary is because of relative motion and frame of reference. Relative motion means that celestial object tend to move at the same speeds. We only notice them moving if their relative velocity is different from ours. Stars move due to being in their own unique orbits around the center of the galaxy. In real time speed the move very quickly but because every other star moves at around the same speed we never notice how quickly we move. The other fact is that as fast as stars move the distance the cover is even bigger. What is fast to us on Earth is a snail’s pace in the larger universe.
In the end we see that the answer to the question “Do stars move?” depends on the frame of reference and our understanding of motion in the wider universe. So when you next time you look up at the night sky know that the stars are moving but not in the way most people think."
~ http://universetoday.com/85730/do-stars-move/

Don't believe Atheists would make such a non-scientific claim?

A creationist asks: "Atheists, how did they earth get here? Why does the sun come up and down? Why do the tides go in and out?"

An Atheist answers:

A singularity and gravity.

The sun doesn't move, the Earth does.

Tides happen because of the gravitational pull from the moon.

Anything else I can explain for you?

Why does the universe need a creator, but your God doesn't?

What? *drum roll please* A non-scientific answer from an Atheist... well there you have it folks. Atheism is a false religion that can not be trusted for science!

Question2011-5-30 14:26:49 PST
Atheists: Why does the sun follow a predictable path around the galaxy?
Answer
Like most of the stars in our galaxy (milky way) our sun is in an orbital path round the centre. Just as the earth moves round the sun. It is due to the balance of forces in the speed that the sun is moving the pull of gravity from the black hole at the centre of our universe. This will go on until something alters which could be the sun running out of fuel (about 5 billion years) or the andromeda galaxy crashes into our galaxy which will happen in a few billion years. This may well disturb our orbit but I doubt if it will bother us.

---

Ah - What? Are you that thick?
The sun doesn't move, genius, everything else does. Its "path" is nothing more than illusion to us. The sun is the heaviest thing in our solar systerm, thus is the thing that we all go around. It sits still.
Actually pick up a book.

---

HOLY **** YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
MUST BE JESUS!!!11
CHECKMATE!!!!!1111!!

---

the sun does not move, we move around it

---

Turtles all the way down...
lol

Well, there it is! "Atheist Science".

Here's one of the funnier examples

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
May 1, 2011 – What's the problem with the sun standing still for 24 hours?! You don't see a problem?
How about Jesus giving wrong information about the mustard seed?
How about God "repenting"?
How about God having to "come down" to see what's going on so he would know?
How about God making a rainbow to remind himself never to flood the earth again?
[...]
That's because I can't even get a grown up answer on that one verse, let alone others! Even if it were one lonely verse, every word is supposed to be true, right? So, if the sun doesn't move, how could it "stand still" for 24 hours? Is your God a geocentrist too?

Obviously, Mr. Atheist knows the Bible speaks of a movable sun, and is fired up about it. He believes the Sun stands still.

Atheists will swear that the sun is fixed in its position, because they're so fixated themselves on whether the earth moves or not, and what biblical writers might've said in regard to geocentric beliefs. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel... and a lack of interest in actual science to boot. If the biblical writers said the sun moves, well you know, they had a point afterall!!! LOL.

Occasionally, you might actually bump into an Atheist that seems to have a working knowledge of science, and I do note what seems to be (at least at the moment) a more mellow tone to their discussion:

It's very clear to me that this reaction only made me turn away from religion more. I was the sort of kid who, while not being overly badly behaved, constantly questioned everything. The fact that I was being told that I couldn't question this...thing people spent a lot of their lives doing, made me intrigued. What sort of power did this religion hold for people? Why was it intrinsically wrong to even begin to think that some of it might be wrong?

A problem I had at the time (which still plagues me to this day) is that I could not, and still can't, accept anything at face value.

'The earth goes around the sun. The sun doesn't move,' a teacher once told the class in a science lesson. My hand went up.

'Mr H., my book says that the sun moves too. It's got an orbit. Isn't that right?'

I remember the look of mildly amused exasperation on his face. 'Yes, Jodie, that's right. But for now, let's pretend, for the sake of these exams that you're sitting in a few months, and for the rest of the class, that the sun doesn't move. Okay?'

'But...'

'Jodie.'

'Yes, Mr H.....'

That was my issue with religion. Even though my teachers grew exasperated with my questions about the accuracy of their teaching, they never told me that I couldn't ask my questions - just to wait. With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.

Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.

I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.

People often question this assertion. 'You have faith that your family loves you. You have faith that if you are hungry, and you eat something, you'll feel better. You have faith in modern medicine to at least attempt to help you if you're injured or sick.'

No, I don't.

Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF.

The proof that I have for my family loving me is the fact that despite my oftentimes very difficult behaviour, they still continue to give their support, talk to me, provide me with shelter and love. The proof that I have that if I eat food, I'll feel less hungry is the empty bag of crisps I stuck in the bin an hour ago. The proof that I have for the workings of modern medicine is obvious in the thousands of people who are currently better off (or better, still alive) because of the tireless work of people in the NHS and other medical systems around the world.
http://interjection.livejournal.com/9804.html

Interesting indeed. Amazing. There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".

However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people.

---

rofl...that's so funny. Atheists claiming the sun doesn't move.

ROFL... They're atheists. They're suppose to have "absolute truth" because doesn't atheism = "science"??

Then how can atheist writers be wrong?

How?

It's a religion, not a scientific field of knowledge.

That's how they're wrong. Often. And about a lot of things. No better than those people who wrote the Bible.

---

"...Atheists never said they were inspired by the author of the cosmos to..."

Oh atheists do claim they're inspired by the author of "Cosmos" and other Scientific Programming, and make a lot of false claims that don't hold water. When put to a simple trick question, the truth spills forth. They're not really that intelligent. They lack the "abstract" thinking required to "think outside the box".

A matter of IQ.

Repeating myself for posterity:
"...There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People, as a whole, tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".
However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people."

And if you're fair about it, you'll accept that, because its the truth.

"...write about it, and that only one book contains the true inspiration of what atheism is all about."

Atheists don't need a book. They just need a daily regimen of blaspheme to keep their "intellectual" faculties in check. Astronomy & Chemistry & Physics... are not Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Science. Not one scientific field has proven or disproven anything about God.

Atheism is completely useless in the realm of science.

Perhaps Paranormal investigators... I hear that's some kind of voodoo "scientific study" which has produced no significant results. Perhaps they're taking applications to deal with things that don't apply to the empirical world. Perhaps some Atheists can become gainfully employed among paranormal investigators or other pseudo-scientific fields of knowledge. Yet, Atheism has no bearing on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Botany, Paleontology, Archaeology, etc etc etc... and all we call Legitimate science.

---

Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame was an agnostic.

Nobody disputes Sagan's knowledge on science. Does that mean his Agnosticism or Atheism brought humanity one inch closer to knowing yea or nay about God? No, his Agnosticism was his own personal belief, not a scientific discovery. Obviously, from the getgo of saying he was Agnostic proves he had zero knowledge of God... at least he didn't confuse his personal opinions about God with his science, in the series Cosmos. I doubt PBS would've aired the program had it spent 99% of the episodes railing against people of faith, and 1% about science, and flawed science, like most Atheists tend to do.
True scientists, know the difference.
Charles Darwin was the smartest of all... he never breathed a word of his true opinion, and generations after he's dead in the ground still battle over whether he was Atheist or believed in God. Does it matter?!? Why is it, his science is overshadowed by the stupidity of Atheists and Theists?? Again, science is dismissed because Atheists' bad attitude, no love for the science, and Theistic ignorance.

I emphasize, DOES IT MATTER whether Darwin was Christian or Atheist? If he were one or the other, would it somehow invalidate his scientific research, theories, conclusions? Would it make his theory any less appealing or appalling if he were Christian or Atheist?

I don't care to know. I do know with certainty, he was a scientist. That's all that matters. Atheism or Theist aspect of his "Science" is irrelevant. If Darwin had felt the matter were pertinent to his scientific theories, he'd surely thought to share his little secret. But he didn't. Because religion (atheism and theism) are philosophical issues and have nothing to do with science.

And in so far as heated discussions between theists and atheists go, also don't forget to visit places on the web where Catholics are tearing at Protestants and vice versa, or where Fundamentalists are tearing at Charismatics/Pentecostals and vice versa, or where Christians are tearing at each other's interpretations of Genesis or Revelation.

CHRISTIANS FIRING CHRISTIANS
"Hardly a month goes by without me hearing directly or indirectly of a professor [at an academic Christian institution] who was precipitously dismissed or forced to resign with little warning and without given an appropriate and fair venue (i.e., consistent with Christian morality) for adjudicating grievances. The situation is reaching epidemic proportions." Moreover, “No major doctrine [had been] called into question [by the fired prof.], no denial of any item of historic Christian faith, no moral lapse, no criticism of teaching effectiveness, just a charge of having stepped out of the party line on any one of a number of matters undifferentiated as to importance.”

Atheists and Theists can't live together, and can't live without each other, because all they want to do is fight like rabble over pointless squabbles that will never be resolved beyond one's own personal opinion. Put the science in the waste bucket, and proceed to attacking somebody's philosophical views which seems rather pea-brained in my opinion.

Read More »

Eddie Vedder May Be An Atheist, But....

5

Eddie Vedder (may be atheist but is the best looking man to ever walk the face of the earth) Really, am I the only woman who thinks Eddie Vedder is the finest man to ever walk the face of the Earth? The passion, the drama, the way he expresses himself is so beautiful.

(cur) (prev) 00:59, 6 March 2010 CKarnstein (talk | contribs) (60,680 bytes)
(Early life: rmv unsourced claim that Vedder's parents divorced because his father was having a homosexual affair.) (undo)
- Revision History on Eddie Vedder, Wikipedia.
**Wonder if it could be something like that** aka Ted Haggard(?)**

Sad. Liberals I know of want to say its all a huge free for all out there... but what society ends up with, when people flounce around with casual, careless sexual mistakes... mistakes in general; misery, and screwed mental troubles. Sad... I've been reading on the deaths of some of these guys; Layne Staley, etc.

Eddie Vedder, Vocalist for Pearl Jam, for the very touching song, "Jeremy" and taking note of the "Genesis 3:6" (at the 1:23 marker) in this video.

Whatever the case may be, Eddie Vedder began using his Mom's maiden name for his own last name, just as I assigned my kids with my maiden name and refused to use their fathers' names (when I could have). Why? Because of the crap treatment those men dished out. They weren't loyal, faithful, honest companions. Obviously... Eddie Vedder's Mom split up with his biological father.

Why do liberals want to promote screwed up lives, that hurt young people... then when kids like Jeremy (the true story of "Jeremy" appears to be located at this page), are putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger in front of all their classmates, notice.. the liberals are quiet. But oddly enough... Eddie Vedder was the vocalist for that very song.

Sad sad sad world.



Another of their songs:

"Alive"

Son, she said, have I got a little story for you
What you thought was your daddy was nothin' but a...
While you were sittin' home alone at age thirteen
Your real daddy was dyin', sorry you didn't see him, but I'm glad we
talked...
Oh I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey, I, I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey...oh...
Oh, she walks slowly, across a young man's room
She said I'm ready...for you
I can't remember anything to this very day
'Cept the look, the look...
Oh, you know where, now I can't see, I just stare...
I, I'm still alive
Hey I, but, I'm still alive
Hey I, boy, I'm still alive
Hey I, I, I, I'm still alive, yeah
Ooh yeah...yeah yeah yeah...oh...oh...
Is something wrong, she said
Well of course there is
You're still alive, she said
Oh, and do I deserve to be
Is that the question
And if so...if so...who answers...who answers...
I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, but, I'm still alive
Yeah I, ooh, I'm still alive
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Seems even *some* Atheists realize there's screwed up errors, aka "sins" that screw up people's lives... and the innocent affected by those mistake carry the cross, crucified for it (so to speak). The world needs a lot more love, aka accountability, and doing to others what you want done to yourself, that includes counting the consequences your own mistakes will have on your loved ones (if you have the capacity to love anyone at all). It is my belief that God allows (sometimes even tempts mankind) -- into situations like the one in this video, the test and trial to become stronger, better, overcome the world. Putting a gun to your head is the easy way out.



"Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat is in the hands of the Gods... So let us celebrate the struggle."
- Swahili song

"I set before you life and death, a blessing and a curse. Choose life, that you and your children may live."
- Deuteronomy 30:19

...I believe "the gods" give us a choice, and it is called our own free will.

"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
- Nietzsche

Eddie Vedder
AKA Edward Louis Severson III
Born: 23-Dec-1964
Birthplace: Evanston, IL
From http://nndb.com/people/693/000025618/
Gender: Male
Religion: Atheist
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Singer
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Lead singer, Pearl Jam
Edward Louis Severson III entered the world in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, where he was greeted right away with a convoluted family life.
Raised to believe that his mother's second husband was his biological father, his actual father (known to him only as a family friend) died of multiple sclerosis before the fact of his parentage was revealed. His adoptive father separated from the family when Eddie was in his early teens, adding more to his emotional troubles and compelling him to find refuge in drugs and, more constructively, an extensive record collection. While in high school he became active in local garage bands, eventually dividing his time between Chicago and San Diego in order to paricipate in both music scenes. He formed his first band, Bad Radio, during this period, but, due to an inability to expand beyond a regional audience, the project was later dissolved.
Through his friend and sometime Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Jack Irons, Vedder (who been using his mother's maiden name since learning about his real father) was exposed to a demo tape put together by guitarists Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament, both formerly of the band Mother Love Bone. Vedder dubbed his vocals over the instrumental tracks and sent it to the duo in Seattle; they were impressed enough with the results that they immediately invited the singer to fly out for a visit. The three individuals meshed well on a personal level, and within days Vedder had made a permanent move to Seattle to begin work on the new band in earnest. Initially, they performed as Mookie Blaylock, the name of a favorite basketball player; before any records had been released, however, this was altered to Pearl Jam, in honor of an aunt's peyote-laced preserves. Blaylock was still given a nod in the title chosen for their debut album: Ten (1991) being the ball player's jersey number. Several months before work on this album started, a short-lived project was undertaken with members of Soundgarden under the name Temple of the Dog, resulting in a single eponymous record at the end of 1990.
Following the release of Ten, Pearl Jam immediately achieved enormous popularity, being one of several bands (Soundgarden, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains amongst them) to benefit from the hype surrounding the initial attle "grunge" explosion. In particular, the song Jeremy -- whose subject matter centered around a boy who commits suicide in front of his classmates -- gained Vedder and the band both notoriety and a devout fan base amongst alienated teens. The next two albums, Vs. (1993) and Vitalogy (1994) were met with equal success, but by this time a backlash against the "grunge hype" was becoming evident. Around the release of Vitalogy, the band's press coverage was distracted away from its music to concentrate instead on a conflict with (and subsequent law suit against) the ubiquitous ticket vendor/extortion racket Ticketmaster; sadly, the resolution to this conflict failed to bring about much improvement in the situation. With the next release, No Code, a deliberate move away from a commercial sound was made, resulting in a corresponding drop in sales. 1998's Yield made a return to a more accessible style more in keeping with the band's earlier records...."
/Excerpt from http://nndb.com/people/693/000025618/

Know God?

Why God allows suffering? Why, sometimes, it is God who creates evil. Even Eddie Vedder knows God, I think.
footnote... in the video where the line is crossed and _chooses_ to take his own life. It is always a choice.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
- Matthew 6





"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me..."
- Psalm 23

In spite of his Atheism, Eddie Vedder is a beautiful, thoughtful person.

"God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist."
- Gandhi

Read More »

Genesis 1 - Where's the Beef?

0

Go to Google Images and type in:

"human tails"

What do you think God will do to people who deny the truth of God? what God himself laid down in the fossil record? Christians deny the simplest truth.

, and would deprive kids of an actual education in the school system? the church doesn't even teach the truth about the Bible (20,000+ sects/denominations) and would be so arrogant as to superimpose their ignorance into Science and Education? denying the empirical all the way.

I don't think so.

Evolution is true. In fact, Genesis 1 speaks of early . . . . . . VEGETARIAN . . . . . man (that's ye old primitive hominids, and Australopithecus, etc), they know from dental structure...

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, ....
bible cc/genesis/1-29.htm

But ... no beef ?? how interesting.

"Where's the Beef?"

( ole Adam arrived late on the scene about a million years after homo sapien and homo erectus and was merely the _FIRST FARMER_ ! As it is written, it doesn't say "there was no man on the face of the earth," rather, it states, "there was no man TO TILL THE GROUND"

Genesis 2:5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the ...(it hadn't been created yet... that is, the field itself hadn't been created yet, for lack of farmers), but every plant BEFORE IT GREW... so some plants existed, the ancestors to cabbage, turnips, collards, field peas, while some didn't...Ooooo, oooo, sounds like evolution to me!

"There was not a man to till the ground,. Young's Literal Translation and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, ...
bible cc/genesis/2-5.htm

Yup, no lettuce, no string beans, sorry... -- these things were cultivated by the first FARMERS around 10,000 years ago. God didn't "create" the Lettuce, man cultivated it. Go check the web for verification: "Agriculture = 10,000 years ago Mesopotamia".

I've provided you enough information, all of it verifiable by science and a handful of honest theologians.

Read More »

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible

0

dazco01 wrote: According to your logic, if I show that 2+2 does NOT equal 5, then someone could REASONABLY CLAIM that 2+2 MUST equal 6, if not 5. What we both don't know is that 2+2 equals 4!

To bring it back to this video: if you've shown that aliens did NOT travel to Earth, then you say you can reasonably claim that God must be the answer. What we BOTH DON'T KNOW, is [INSERT TRUTH ABOUT UNIVERSE HERE].
To clarify the metaphor:
aliens = 5
God = 6
TRUTH = 4

do you see what I'm saying?

I'm wondering when folks are actually going to read the text of Genesis for the first time, instead of all this made-up stuff.

Epoch Three of Genesis DOES NOT SAY DESIGN, nor does it say "HAND CREATE". *smile*. No, it implies God stood afar off and commanded THE EARTH to bring forth the ancestors of plants (algae, fungi, etc). The Earth evolved tender (algae) grass, herb, and trees (ancestors of Prototaxites, a fruiting fungi), .. yea, "After their kind," which also implies EVOLUTION.

I have challenged Creationists and Darwinists to dig Epoch Three in Genesis for any term in Hebrew, implying "Design" or "Hand Create".

God commanded THE EARTH to bring forth, or evolve, algae, herbs (like fungi), and fruiting fungi trees.

So, Darwin began looking at nature, and observes "the Earth brought forth the algae, fungi(herb) and fossilized primitive fungi trees like Prototaxites, and they evolved, aka "after their kind," God had a hands off policy and Phew -- Darwin was a genius.

@dazco01,

Got a question for you that even a kindergarten child can figure out, but brainwashed adults can not.
Atheists and YEC are both Fundamentalists

Read Genesis, Epoch Three (Heb. "Day" = Yowm for "Epoch" or "Indefinate Period of Time), and you tell me, where either the word "Design" or "Hand Created" appear in the text. No cheating. Show me where it implies God designed anything.

God stood off and commanded the Earth to bring forth ancestors of plants / fungi, that is EVOLUTION.

dazco01
I believe you that nowhere in Genesis does it say that God hand-created life or designed life or anything with that connotation.

This does not have any effect on the debate at hand. We do not know if God, if there is a god, brought "forth ancestors of plants/fungi", and we (the scientifically minded) do not claim to know. Scientists ADMIT that they don't know.

If you don't know how something happened, that's when the conversation should stop, and the search for proof and evidence begins.

Exactly. If Creationists (believers in the God of Abraham) are relying on Genesis' text, there's nothing in Genesis that supports Intelligent Design. Contrary, it implies God stood back and commanded the Earth to evolve herb species (logic dictates randomness... extinction and evolution). Far cry from designed creation.

Then, God says "Let the waters" do the creating... some fine tuning suggested, when "creating" extant species after their kind (Heb. term which implies evolution).

... I also mean, the text in Genesis, "God said let the waters bring forth creatures... after their kind(evolution)" and then God creates them "after their kind(evolution again)."

Point being, if you're God with a hands off policy, you don't "Design" creatures. You allow Natural Selection to do the job. Survival of the fittest, and you fine-tune what's left at end of the day. 95% of all species that lived, went extinct.

Genesis implies an Intelligent Creator, but not a Designer.

To simplify. God used Evolution/Natural Selection to proliferate life and merely "Fine Tunes" the extant species (the first mention of "create' is way up until whales, so that's got to be a mere 45 million years ago... if you believe the fossil record. The Bible speaks often of God as HIDDEN... so a "hands off policy" would be in the nature of the Biblical God

In other words Genesis provides a dead end for Creationists who think to search for a scientific Designer's fingerprint.

dazco01
You're saying that it's impossible to find evidence that God exists.

Thank you.

That's what the Bible states in the prophet's words:
Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

dazco01
It seems you are using the lack of evidence for God...as evidence for God.
I think in order to have an intelligent discussion about God's existence, both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order to confirm God's existence. The debate should really lie in the validity of evidence provided to support either side of the argument. It is as if we were speaking different languages completely. Therefore, I cannot carry on this conversation any further. Thank you your time.

The issue is God is a matter of FAITH, not science. That's what the majority of valid scripture elaborates on and, (not the forgeries like Enoch, the Apocrypha or Pauline Forgeries, etc.,), are about. Christians (posing under ID) have forgot, it is completely about Faith.

Jesus answered your question, aleady:
"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it..."
~ Matthew 12:39

So the same is with God.

Read More »

Can't Tell Who's The Christian and Who's The Atheist Anymore

1

I've managed blogs for an Atheist and Agnostic, and sometimes comments roll in. Including some who argue among themselves. There were 3 comments, and earnestly, I'm unsure which was the Christian and which was the Atheist. I'll alter the names to protect the innocent:

******: has left a new comment on your post:
"I would beg to differ with ***** as to why Christianity is suffering from an "image problem" at the start of the 21st century.
The problem... was that as he became more informed about Christianity he began to doubt. He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing, (much like --- hero, Luther, had done at one time) and found it wanting.
Additionally, when he went to those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance. Compound that with trying to search for his answers in the Bible itself and further not finding them - he turned to outside sources. Most likely the internet. There - of course - he finally found some answers: his faith was based on inconsistencies, myth, plagiarism, historical inaccuracies and in some instances, outright lies. How could he not doubt?"

Why yes... this is true. The church has failed for centuries to teach the truth. In fact, centuries ago falsehoods were circulated, i.e., the Pauline Forgeries, and people like Luther took it upon themselves to attempt translation of a Bible for the common person, and the church wanted to maintain a tight grip on the scriptures, rendering people helpless with the church as intermediator to God... but it was not so. In the midst of this, apocryphal manuscripts circulated... Jesus was the only intermediator between man and God, but the church attempted to superimpose itself into the authority of Jesus Christ.

CONTINUE...

"If --- want to answer him, they would do well to stick with addressing ***** specific problems as opposed to beating the "Here's How I Deal With Stupid Questions" bush. I would submit to ***** that there is a third criteria as a "easily identifiable and telling symptoms of false doctrine": that of obfuscation in answering the intellectual and emotional needs of the fold."

The other person responded, and this person, *****, posted again in response.

"Christians on the whole seem to somehow expect others to take what they have only experienced within the confines of their belief system on faith, for, whether you want to "believe" it or not, there is absolutely no proof that anyone named "Jesus" ever lived."

Testimonies of his existence are preserved in the Bible, and prophecies of the Messiah, but that's beside the point I suppose.

CONTINUE...

"None. Not one shred of evidence - even in the Bible itself - that anyone alive at the time that "Jesus" was supposedly living even ever knew the guy. No scrap of paper, no golden tablet, no stone inscriptions, no burial chamber, no cross, no first-source material (and there certainly seems to be a lot of copies of copies of copies, but not one original torn corner of a papyrus that even indicates that anyone ever knew him), not even any relatives left to give any account of him a generation after the fact! Nothing. Nada. Zip. Pilate: silent. The Sanhedrin: silent. The Romans: silent. On and on and on and on - you'd think that a guy who apparently raised somebody from the dead, fed a multitude on a couple of haddock and shards of bread, turned H20 into Pinot Griggio, got nailed to a cross, died and then came back might have made some form of impression on people. Nope. No one even noticed him apparently amongst the multitudes of other "prophets" of that time.
Not until 70 years later did he even actually start to appear in any meaningful manner, and even then, it doesn't appear that that guy even ever might have known him - just "of him", as it were."

INTERMISSION : Actually it's estimated to have been around 30 years after the death of Jesus, that recorded testimonies came into publication. But continue...

"No, there's nothing "selfish" about questioning the veracity of
Christianity. If anything, I'd say that was a noble endeavor. It is not "egocentric" to want to know - it is the mark of a "God-like" human to seek this so-called "God" out wherever "He" may be, wherever it may lead. It is not selfish or egocentric to admit you don't know something and wish to - it is selfish and egocentric to believe you have the answers when in fact, you don't.

"God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

When Intelligence gives, Ignorance takes over. One could probably bank on that."

And the other person, who posted in the midst of the two comments wrote this,

###### has left a new comment on your post":
"The first problem of doubt stems from the human condition of selfishness, as articulated with "the doubter finds the Christian faith wanting", "the doubter finds God lacking", and "the doubter finds himself need or requiring to know X or Y".
We are an egocentric lot that will forever clash against a God who asks for trust and faith.
God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

God or Intelligence: One has to give??

Am I reading this correctly? One person is denying the existence of God, whilst the other is teaching the falsehood that one must become "ignorant" to be a Christian??

Both appear to be Atheists (or at least, the latter, a Sheep in Wolf Clothing).

Actual scripture states in contrast: King James Bible (Hosea 4:6-9)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings."

Which also brings to mind the very insightful verse, in regard to what the former (presuming, an Atheist(?) stated, which is truly sad:

"He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing... those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance."

INDEED! as it is written,

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/1-18.htm, as it was in Jesus' day, he came teaching the Commandments of God (not the law of Moses), but God's law, and for doing so, the corrupt religious establishment murdered him.

And further, indeed: International Standard Version (©2008)
"How terrible it will be for you when everyone says nice things about you, because that's the way their ancestors used to treat the false prophets!"
http://bible.cc/luke/6-26.htm

And yes, if you speak the truth... it will make many enemies, and persecution, which equates to sorrow. The religious establishment (organized religion), the same who murdered Jesus, will turn into a witch-hunt against the righteous, which lead to the Inquisitions and other atrocities against many Saints: Those who keep the Commandments of God, and hold to the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Either way, both contributors failed to contribute any positive light, enlightenment on Christianity, and appear to be on the same side: To make a war on the Truth of God, and Jesus Christ.

There was no Commandment among the 10 which stated, "Thou Shall Not Utilize Thy Brain." But some who claim to be Christian, do indeed teach the false doctrine, and often practice it as well.

King James Bible
Jeremiah 31:34 (Old Testament Prophet): "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Hebrews 10: "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more... By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place. And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

So who is this entity, called the Church (the lie of Organized Religion which Jesus stood against, and was murdered), which with-holds knowledge, teaches falsehoods, endorses scriptural forgeries, pretends you must go through "them," flawed men, to obtain audience with God... what else was the purpose of Jesus' death and sacrifice? So that greedy preachers and televangelists could store up millions in their bank accounts? Men are unfit to teach the truth!. The corrupt and wicked priesthood who taught idolatry, lead to the destruction of Israel and Judah. When Jesus took his stand against them, they murdered the Lord. God alone has the power, the patience, the knowledge, (the Spirit of TRUTH, through grace in Jesus Christ that we may come into the presence of God, and will be taught by God), who are these persons who have usurped the authority of Jesus Christ himself, to teach falsehoods?

Read More »

Why I reject a belief in Satan

2

Here's an old movie clip I ran across tonight and it reminds me of what I strongly believe. There's some Christians (at least they claim to be) that ask me, how can I reject a belief in satan and demons and still believe in the Bible? Well, foremost, those things weren't taught by Moses or the early prophets. In the book of Genesis, there is no mention of a dragon, snake, evil spirit. The earliest (true) books of the Bible are not tainted with false gods. The Hebrews continued to pollute themselves with idolatry. Eventually, false doctrines and forgeries such as the book of Enoch (with many tales of demons), began creeping into Jewish religion. God destroyed Israel and Judah. This clip (assuming) comes from heavy influence of early Old Testament doctrines.


First, the nazis who are heavily influenced by anti-Christian socialist influence attempt to open the ark (with no reverence for God). What they find is "sand," and begin laughing (like the Atheists and non-believers they are). What follows is paranormal activity and then ghosts and other "angelic beings" that swamp the scene, and deceiving the onlookers, eventually to show its "dark powers" and consumes them. Of course Harrison Ford warns, "Don't look at it," and keep her eyes closed. And that's how I feel about "Satan" and "Evil Spirits" and other things that are false gods. You can find in the book of Acts, well, I'll let the verse speak for iself:

King James Bible, Acts 23:8
"For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both."

Competing concepts, such as evil spirits, devils, dragons, et cetera crept into Biblical theology toward the time of the destruction of Israel, because they worshipped such things (idolatry). However, this clip from "Raiders of the Lost Ark," shows paranormal activity, as well as ghosts and other phenomena coming from the most Holy Ark. How could evil, come from Holiness? Easy:

Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."
http://www.bible.cc/isaiah/45-7.htm

The prophets commanded the early Hebrews to abstain from Necromancy, and other paranormal phenomena such as found in witchcraft, but the Hebrews refused. They continued to break the commandment of God which instructs, "Thou shall have no other gods before me."

"The Lost Books of the Bible," The Apocrypha, Commentary (Halo Press, pg. 8)


"Hard Sayings of the Bible", (Intervarsity Press)

Read More »

The Lie of Organized Religion

0

Did not Jesus teach,

The false teachers mentioned above, and the many like them (2 Timothy 4:3)
"And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch."
atruechurch info

Blind Followers of Blind Leaders on Judgment Day
Our Lord, here, is talking about false teachers who are blind to God's ...
that if the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch"
(Matthew 25:41). ...
emorychristians org

God's View of False Teachers and Their Teachings Discernment
All of the false prophets, false teachers, false brethren and false ...
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
discernmentministriesinternational wordpress com/.../gods-view-of-false-teachers-their-teachings

Christians, you know these things already! Scripture has taught you.

During conversation with a Christian it was said to me,

The scripture states, "how will they hear without a preacher?... But with fellowship with other believers comes the ability to grow in knowledge and faith."

But what happens if they are teaching something that is not true... a falsehood, even Theologians know certain things, taught in seminary, and knowledge never passes on to the typical adherent. The preachers are not allowed to speak the truth.

In 2000, I converted to Christianity for the first time in my life. I felt a strong spiritual force, I was compelled to seek deeper knowledge. Believe it or not, I asked the Sunday School teacher, "Have you ever read the Bible?" His reply was "No". I asked then, "Well then, how do you know its the Word of God?" He was angered no doubt. I asked him "Where does the Bible come from?" He had no answer.

It is scenerios just like I've described above, that lead to people losing faith, deconversion to Atheism, and the complaint is always the same, "I asked where Mrs. Cain came from. They complained I asked too many questions and asked me not to come back." Is this what Jesus would do? Does it hint at even an inkling of a clue, they are even capable of teach scripture? Certainly not.

Today, I know the answers to those questions above, and it was not learned from the church, but from scholars' materials / books.

Back in 2000, I approached the preacher, and asked, because Sunday School just wasn't cutting it how I might learn more -- indepth knowledge. The preacher told me, "Christian Book Distributors," for starters on scholars studies, books by theologians, etc., but he warned me. HE WARNED ME well in advance, that it would pay not to discuss knowledge with many in the church, they would not take kindly to it.

Well, in short, he, the preacher, was fired shortly afterward for becoming too "liberal," that is to say, providing a bit more upbeat music to appeal to younger generation.

And myself? I did indeed discuss the hunger for knowledge, and it got me accused as being "demon possessed".

The Power of God is compelling a person to seek knowledge, and they're accused of "Demons"? Isn't that what they accused Jesus of... and Jesus warned them they were in danger of committing the unpardonable sin? That is, they were calling the Holy Spirit of God performing works in this world, "an act of evil spirits". Great blaspheme.

Instead of the "body of Christ" it turned into a witch-hunt... even the preacher was not immune, and was fired.

The question is, how can they hear the truth, if the preacher is not even allowed to even speak, or teach the truth anymore?

So, I disassociated myself with the falsehoods of the church, and put it on Jesus Christ, the power of God, and reference material like that from Christian Book Distributors... and eventually the web, and other sources. BOOKS TAUGHT ME THE TRUTH, UNDER GOD'S GUIDANCE. Today, the way things worked out, event by event, I have my own outreach with the truth. Thousands of readers pass through every week...

Speaking the truth sometimes makes enemies. Sometimes, it changes the world. I mean, Jesus was so hated by contemporaries of the day, they murdered him, but others know, he was by birthrite, the "King of Kings".

I pray for God to show me the light of truth, and that I will never depart from it. I have faith, that God, through grace in Jesus Christ (my only teacher) will guide the way.

I believe in what you say is true and always will, because my own background with the church. I do believe that the one true teacher Jesus Christ will guide all that have faith, even if one does not tend church. I myself will not go, for the simple reason of the lies they tell. I have also done my own share of reading and found that there were other books that was never printed into the Bible as we know it. But God showed them to me so I could understand more about Him and Jesus.

Oh no.. .the Apocrypha??

They're falsehoods. Seriously, another is "The Book of Enoch" which even Jude quotes in the N.T. False teachers created those forgeries, and wanted to teach people the worship of pagan gods and fictional spirits.

Those books were thrown out of the Bible because they're forgeries and scholars know it. Enoch was mythology / a false book, FORGED to make it even sound as if it was written around the time of Adam's immediate descendents, (centuries earlier), but Scholars know the mythology is late century... written only shortly before the time of Jesus. Scholars know the book of Enoch was a forgery, a mythological falsehood... that's why those books are not contained in the Bible. Thrown out for the evil forgeries they were.

I too, have copies of the Apocrypha "Lost Books of the Bible," and the book of Enoch.

God INDEED showed you a deeper truth about the Bible, that in the latter days of Israel, they were idolators, even Solomon, the fool of fools, an adulterer, erected temples to pagan gods, in his last days he met with his downfall and (some have stated) lived like a beast...

Solomon
Solomon's downfall came in his old age. He had taken many foreign wives, whom he allowed to worship other gods. He even built shrines for the sacrifices of ...
~ jewishvirtuallibrary org/jsource/.../Solomon.html

FOR INSTANCE,

Gods and Goddesses, Pagan - dictionary definition, verses and Bible references ... The proclamation was to be made in the temples of their idols and among the people ... who "cleaned house" by destroying the shrines erected by Solomon. ...
~ biblestudytools com/.../gods-and-goddesses-pagan.html

Milton: PL Book 1 - Notes
That is, the strength of empyreal angels, virtually gods. .... The place just east of the Jerusalem temple, across the Kidron valley, often called the Mount of Olives, where Solomon erected shrines to pagan dieties like Moloch, Baal, ...
~ dartmouth edu/~milton/reading_room/.../notes.shtml

See 666 and Solomon
http://www.scribd.com/doc/6693982/666-and-Solomon

Read More »

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

0

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



He writes,

do creationists know ANYTHING about biology?

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

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


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

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

First and foremost,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifthly, to address,

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

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


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

Note, sidebar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

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

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

Read More »

The Mosaic Law vs. The Ten Commandments - The Power of God's Spirit in Truth and Holiness

0

Tonight I saw evidence of the power of God's Holy Spirit. My son is setting in the backseat of the car, and blurts out he wants to learn the Ten Commandments, from the Bible.
Sure enough, he got home and cracked open his Bible, found the scriptures himself, and began reading them. He comprehends the meaning of the Commandments...
It's written in Scripture, through Jesus Christ, they will be taught by God (in the book of Hebrews).

I can not teach him. and, The religious establishment can not teach him (as it was in Jesus' day, when Jesus came teaching the Commandments of God in contrast to the law of Moses (613 Commandments! - ridiculous), was as Jesus put it about their traditions, having made the commandments of God of "no effect".
For instance, Moses, being a man, and having no regard for the interests of women, re-wrote the law to permit divorce (in the interest of males), but Jesus rebuked them saying it was not so from the beginning and further teaching those men, not to even look at another woman or be guilty of adultery.

As you may gather, I do not attend a church. I trust in God to teach me. Occasionally God will use a person, to deliver a truth, but ultimately Jesus is the only "teacher" I need (his testimony), and God's Holy Spirit.

I was so proud of my son. The religious establishment (a lie even relatives will preach at me), "You can't understand the Bible without a preacher." ha ha ha, that's a lie, and is in contradiction of the very reason Jesus died.
The wicked priesthood of the day, had lead the people into sin, and away from God. Most theologians know the significance of the torn veil on the temple at the time of the death of Jesus, (it was an act of divinity due to its size and weight). A giant rip in the veil, which could have only been done by the power of God, and beyond the ability of a human. Ripped from top to bottom. That torn veil meant that any human could then come into the presence of God's Holy Spirit. Before that time, only the High Priest could on the highest holy day. They wore bells on their garments in case they were struck dead (God searching the Priest's heart and mind for impurity). If the bells stopped ringing, there was a rope on the priest to drag him out from behind the veil.

Therefore, it is no small matter to be taken lightly, that any person is even allowed the great liberty, freedom and privelege that we have as true Christians, to enter into the presence of God, and taught personally by God in the precious spirit of truth.

Also, even as a sinner, I can enter into the presence of God, without fear -- in fact, as Jesus taught, the Kingdom of God is within... not here or there, not at a church that sits on a hill, not in Jerusalem: The Kingdom of God, where God's chosen obey the Commandments of God, and are sanctified as a "Holy People," it is within, and the promise to write his Ten Commandments on the heart and mind.

I'm not meaning to sound fanatic religious... but I find the subject of theology of great fascination. When I look at the church, I am sorely disillusioned that they are no longer teaching the truth. But, it was written there would come a "great falling away". As it was in the day of Moses...God told them "Do not commit adultery," and some men up and decided, "well... hmmm, I want to commit adultery... the woman I'm with isn't exciting enough anymore... I need some thrills."
So, bit by bit, piece by piece, they began falling away from the Commandments, one sin at a time. By the time Jesus arrived, centuries later, the corrupt Priesthood didn't even recognize the Commandments of God anymore.

There's Christians telling me Jesus did away with the Word of God. LOL. Sure... save it for God on the day of Judgment. Those Christians have no knowledge of the distinction between,

1. Ten Commandments of God vs.
   
2. Mosaic Law (613 silly man-made cultural laws devised by Moses and the Hebrew people, i.e., if a woman doesn't bleed on her wedding night -- stone her brains out).

Anyway, I was so pleased to see the power of God's spirit move in my young son, to pick up the Bible on his own, proceed to find the scriptures in Exodus, and read it himself -- it was God teaching him. I was... amazed.

Read More »

Genesis and the Fossil Record

0

I have looked up the term "plant" in Strong's Concordance.
The first time that Hebrew term for "plant" appears, is in Genesis 2:5 and distinguishes "herbs" from "plants".

Medical Toxicology of Natural Substances.
Foods, Fungi, Medicinal ... Apr 8, 2009 ... Toxicology of Natural Substances—Foods, Fungi,. Medicinal Herbs, Plants, and Venomous Animals, by Donald G. Barceloux, efficiently fills ...
doi wiley com/10.1002/anie.200902139

So I'm to assume the Hebrew terms distinguish "plants" as quite different from "herbs". In Science, herbs are defined as a vegetation with medicinal characteristics.

What is interesting here, is the fossil record establishes true "plants" did not exist in the earliest fossil record. They were a latter introduction into the fossil record. "Plant" is not mentioned in Genesis 1:11. I tend to rely on the King James version. Other translations appear to be prejudiced, (interpreting the Hebrew without any comprehension of the fossil record).

This small point, too, correlates within the time frame /fossil record.

King James Bible (Genesis 1:11)
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

vs.

King James Bible (Genesis 2:5)
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I stand by the opening chapters of the Bible as being in beautiful harmony with Science, however, as the Hebrew people fell away from the Commandments, from truth (God and the Prophets rebuked the Hebrews continually until the day God destroyed Israel), taken captive with no remembrance of them, while Judah was scattered among the nations and known by name only), as they fell farther and farther from grace -- I'm not surprised if they fell to a state of darkness and ignorance.

Would God share science, or any knowledge, with a people who refused to obey the simple Ten Commandments? Therefore if the latter books are riddled with superstition and ignorance, I am not amazed. God closed off the Bible (the book of Revelation), with the mythology they worshiped and loved so dearly.

Read More »

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist or a Christian?

0

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

So scientists have observed a seemingly "random" scheme of things, that plants and animals "evolved" some without any "purpose" behind them... leading to a dead end and extinction? 95% of all species which ever lived went extinct? ATHEISTS! Please point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in the text of Genesis! God commanded the Earth to bring forth.. and to your human eye, would appear just as it was observed by Darwin, living organisms emerging on the Earth... transforming "after their kind," -- species going extinct, whilst others surviving. Well, out the window goes "intelligent design" because the word "design" appears no where within those verses. Does it??

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.

THAT INCLUDES THE ATTACKS ON CHARLES DARWIN.



Despite the ceaseless flood of hate and attacks, Darwin never reduced himself to making attacks on religion out of respect for his family. The man was a paleontologist and avoided "religion". They battle to this day, trying to know whether or not the man was an atheist or christian.
HE WAS A SCIENTIST. As much as it may pain some, he avoided the subject of religion altogether.

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

He made the scientific observation of the literal, black and white text, in Genesis epoch three. God commanded THE EARTH to bring forth... and THE WATERS to bring forth, it does not say nor imply "design". God maintained a hands off policy with exception of some limited fine-tuning of surviving species..

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

Read More »