Stromatolites

0

I will post this for posterity to clear up any confusion readers may have had with this article.

Atheists have tunnel vision. Atheists think things can only photosynthesize from the sun's light.

Photosynthesis Found Where the Sun Don't Shine | LiveScience
livescience.com
Jun 22, 2005 – Instead of sunlight, the deep-sea microbes use geothermal radiation. "This shows that photosynthesis is something that is not limited only to the ...

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html
Jun 21, 2005 – They published their discovery in an article titled “An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep sea hydrothermal vent,” in the ...

Photosynthesis At Deep-sea Vents
www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p08.htm
Photosynthesis At Deep-Sea Vents. The surprisingly rich populations of lifeforms that prosper around the hydrothermal vents have been thought to be utterly ...

Scientists admit there were organisms, but they left no fossils. We do know organisms can photosynthesize around hydrothermal vents; black smokers, hot springs. Stromatolites were "photosynthesizing" as far back as 3.5 billion years ago when the earth was still a cauldron of smoke and volcanic activity (which would have blocked out the sun, if it were nuclear-fusion-active, anyway.)

That's right folks, at that point in the earth's history, its highly unlikely that sunlight would've penetrated the Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, "what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight" which lead to a mass extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction of most species on earth) -- meteor activity and volcanic activity was billowing forth at that time in natural history and -- with all those thick black clouds and steam... well, somehow, still, stromatolites existed.

Atheists can't figure out where the light came from, for stromatolites to photosynthesize? Of course we understand this takes a PhD in Genius to figure out.

And what were they photosynthesizing from? Hydrothermal vents, just as they did 2 billion years ago. But for any atheist who might presume, "An organism like that couldn't exist because it's not been discovered" -- Atheist logic is flawed by that same line of reasoning. God supposedly doesn't exist because they've not found "empirical evidence," which I've covered here (and backfire it does!) It is a fact: Just because species did not leave fossils, does not mean the species never existed. Good scientists tell us so.

Also, it needs to be noted... Genesis did not use the term "plant" at all. In the King James version, it distinguishes the organisms as "herbs". Latter verses in time after man is created, Genesis then specifies "plants". Clear distinctions are drawn between herbs and plants.

---

~>I'm not judging your argument in this post just want to point out that your argument depends on four things,
knowing when the sun ignited,

Fossil record tells us this. As in Cambrian Explosion.

~>knowing when the oceans formed,

Geothermal heat/radiation.

NOTE: It seems as if most Atheists don't know how to distinguish between the
1) sun "forming" as a gargantuous gas ball with tremendous gravitational pull that shaped the planets, vs.
2) the nuclear fusion equation, which came later, which is irrelevant to your question.

The sun's heat was not necessary. The Earth produces massive geothermal heat, which lead to the rise of ocean water. See,

Formation of the Ocean
The current theory holds that after the Sun formed, there was a very large disk of dust and gas orbiting it. In this disk were all the elements that we see today, which were themselves formed in the furnaces of other stars. Anyway, it lumps together because of gravity and eventually pulls itself into balls, which then eventually become planets. Water was also present in this disk, and continued to be delivered to Earth in the form of comets after our planet had solidified. It's present mostly on the surface because when the planet was first formed, it was molten rock and very volcanically active. The water inside the planet was thus ejected as steam, but held in the atmosphere by Earth's gravity.
-Wes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_ocean_form

~>knowing when the first reproducing organisms arose,

Fossil record tells us this. Although, its believed life possibly arose even earlier but any traces of fossil activity was probably consumed by volcanic eruption. The eldest life traces are 3.8 bya (carbon ball in rock), and earliest fossil dates to about 3.5 billion years ago.

~>knowing when the first photosynthetic organisms arose.

The fossil record tells us this, although most is currently speculation and theory that some of the earliest were photosynthetic. Scientists aren't absolutely certain about anything 3.5 billion years ago but presume it was photosynthetic and finding photosynthetic organisms around deep sea hydrothermal vents almost clinches that life arose in such environments and so photosynthetic organisms probably did exist long ago in these conditions, photosynthesizing from geo-thermal radiation.

---

A couple visuals for Atheists and Creationists to "see the light".

This fact was picked up off the web. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they are reading:

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 sun had formed, but it had not began the nuclear fusion at its core. The planets were formed as well. Cosmic debris like comets and meteors were rampant and plummeting into the surfaces of the planets and the sun, also, sucked in by gravity. There were all forms of gas, cosmic matter in transit around the sun, including water which earth's own geothermal heat would turn into steam, later forming our ocean. The planets were shaped by the massive gravitational force of this gargantuous gas ball that was destined to become our neighboring star, the sun. It was not the "Sun" as we know it today because the nuclear fusion at the core had not began, but this massive proto-sun was formed at the same time as the planets.

Two Very Different Things

1. Today's Sun heat energy is generated from gravity creating nuclear fusion at the core.
2. The Earth of past, present and future geo-thermal heat energy is generated at the core from gravity causing friction.

Nuclear Fusion and Friction both cause heat and light, but are two very different things.



The sun as we know it today, did NOT exist when the planets were forming. It was a cold gas ball, similar to the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. If Jupiter had more mass, the gravitational force could cause Jupiter to become our solar system's "second sun".

People steadily confuse,
1) The sun "formed" as a gas ball, -vs-
2) The sun "formed" as a nuclear-heatball.

In the case of the sun, What you mean by "Formed" can have two meanings, and both are two very different things.

Read More »

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 »

grass... yes... grass

0

I saw on the stats where somebody out there was scouring this page, and probably an ANTI-THEIST trying to seek out a theist they can attack... and on that page, I knew I had visualized some strange, "grasslike" extinct organism... green = photosynthetic.

I came to the realization, later, relying on fossil evidence that is, after I'd already made the page, and it was too late, that it should be photosynthetic BACTERIA and non-photosynthetic fungi organisms... i.e., ancestors of mushrooms.

But I got to thinking... wait.

That's an extinct ecosystem. Right?

When do the evolutionary lines blur and cross over from "proto-plant" to animal organism anyway, i.e., Euglena and Volvox. Consider the sponge, namely, the glass sponge.


A Glass Sponge

Evolutionary theorists will confess themselves, how its theorized there were life, and then nature destroys it all, and it evolves from scratch, all over again.

So anything's possible, including these weirdo things I quickly threw together, to symoblize soft-body organisms -- and photosynthesizing around hydrothermal vents, before the Cambrian.

Look at my pic and think "Common Ancestor to Sponge" -- and "Euglena and Volvox" -- photosynthesizing near some hydrothermal vent during the past 1.5 billion-500 million years ago.

You know what. There could have been an organism just like that in the picture. ANYTHING was possible. Just because there's no fossil evidence, doesn't mean it didn't exist. So the paleo-botanists caution.

Yes, green, and like a glass sponge, but not a sponge, some kind of volvox-like ancestor -- like in the photo, before animal life learned to form complex multi-cellular organisms.



Volvox and Volvox with daughter colonies

britannica.com/.../topic/... /protozoan/... /Evolution-and-paleonto... Protists were a dominant form of life on Earth 1.5 billion years ago. While protozoans ...

PROTOZOA
cladocera.de/protozoa/protozoa.html
Oct 8, 2004 – The taxonomy of protozoa is a difficult task. Protozoa are thought to be the origin for the evolution of all multi-cellular organisms to which belong ...

My religion? I dislike Atheists and Creationists in equal measure.

My distaste how they'll make "any argument" no matter how absurd to defend their pitiful religions reviles my deepest senses. So, in my "religious view" -- ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and almost anything can be proven, at least hypothetically with science.

They're ALL wrong.

---

Some Afterthoughts... The Next Day

Propaganda Techniques - Library library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is ...

BTW..if you say "Bible" or even hint at any belief... or your reader has you stereotyped (like atheists often do to me -- they presume everything I discuss, is out of interest in the Bible, when the truth is 9/10 of the time, I'm more interested in natural world science), but atheists rush in with 1001 "scientific" reasons why this or that "couldn't" have ever happened. Typical for Atheists, and their "Glass Half Empty" "everything is death and cataclysm" attitude rooted in nihilism and anarchy.

But the problem here is: it COULD have happened. That's no lie. About the primitive life forms on early earth... and how there could have been some early organisms that _looked just like_ those green stalks in my image -- preceding sponges, and something that spawned from protists, drawing light energy from hydrothermal vents. Well, there COULD HAVE BEEN.

When scientists find a trace evidence on a rock they believe came from outer space... they go off in a tangent about how life could exist on other planets, and here's the "proof" they say... they go off on a tangent about how the rock came from Mars (though they have no actual evidence) -- they don't know where the rock even came from! They begin theorizing and hypothesizing... as long as it sounds atheistic -- any theory is fine, with atheists.

So, what has God got to do with Science? Nothing. Atheists say it themselves that the Bible is not a scientific text, then why all the attacks on the Bible using "Science"? Somebody hasn't convinced themselves fully.

The Bible has nothing to do with science. I accept that, most people know its not a "scientific text". Then WHY the "science" used to attack the Bible? I know why. Because Atheists have a religion, and mindlessly, like a hive, seek to convert and assimilate others into their religion. That's what's chaffing my hide with Atheists, really bad. They can't see the forest for the trees, and their hypocrisy is double-edged. They sure preach it, but they don't practice what they preach.

Recently, for simply mis-spelling a word, an atheist barks, "Creationists tend to misspell..." alluding to the misconception that I'm a Creationist, and "only" creationists are "ignorant" to misspell things. Um, excuse me, I've seen my Agnostic and Atheist friends misspell words. I've seen leading scientists misspell a couple words in personal emails, it hardly reflects on their competance or expertees.

It's not like common banter on the web qualifies as "professional papers for publication," I've found misspellings in all sorts of stuff... especially Atheists.

Misspelled words do not tell anything about whether a person is right or wrong about what they believe. Something so miniscule, and an atheist is grabbing at straws for their pitiful strawman argument.

I am not a "Creationist".

Because of their ignorant (uneducated) atheist hatemongering, I politely resigned from that news group. They're wrong about everything. I'll leave science, to the scientists... and has anyone taken notes yet, that they (scientists) are never discussing religion. Did you notice? Darwin also avoided religion, because he was interested in science.

Only the religious always bring religion into their discussions on science... and Atheists are the worst for that bad habit. Wonder why that is... because ATHEISM IS A FORM OF RELIGION... PHILOSOPHY... in other words, bull****, and has nothing to do with actual God (that's personal, and individual) -- and nothing to do with actual science.

What do God and Science have in common? Very little is even known about the cosmos or the elusive God, because God is personal, and its difficult if not impossible to prove "personal truths". Both are mysterious things, and the more you think you know something about either, some new unexpected twist and turn arises that changes all the rules. God is left best to God, to explain. Science is best left to Scientists to explain, and I wish both Creationists and Atheists would butt out of Science and God. Because they're mostly ignorant on both.

I know some Atheists, so obsessed with Atheism, like a mental illness... their entire life goes to pot, and they can only obsess over Atheism. Perhaps Atheism is a form of mental illness? That's the kind of people I'm talking about!! They don't have what I call "A Life"... should I reword that, as "Alife"??

Here's some additional truth: Even if the whole world converted to Athiesm, they'd still find something to whine about. They still wouldn't be happy... because religion/the bible/faith in other people's lives, is not the real source of their misery. Happiness is a state of mind, and comes from within. It's something deeper inside their shallow souls. And the same holds true, for people who become obsessive with religion, there's a deeper problem that's not being addressed. All of them are seeking some kind of inner-happiness, however unfortunately ironic their search for inner-happiness often manifests itself in HATING people who don't believe as they do. Misery loves company indeed.

Atheism will NOT bring the world happiness. I'm through with Athiest whining and the manic depressive hallucinations that everyone who doesn't think just like they do are "mentally ill," "uneducated," "ignorant" and all the ad hominems Athiests can vomit up, to violently intimidate and convert people to their religion. If it were Jehovah Witnesses, I could just avoid answering the door, but on the web Atheists tend to prostelytize with profane vandalism in comment threads and vicious personal insults. I'm not saying Theists don't do the same. HA HA HA .. they do!!! and that's why I say there's no real difference between Atheists and A-Theists.

---

I'm talking about rude hateful, nasty people -- who go out of their way on the web to spam up youtube with senseless blaspheme and hatemongering against people of faith -- IMAGINARY PEOPLE in their delusions -- they're not actually talking to anyone in particular... they hate indiscriminately.

And who are those phantoms in their head they're lashing at?

I'm not exactly talking about the "affable" professional Agnostic or Atheist who exercise critical reasoning and intelligent dialogue whilst examining scriptures in the Bible, I speak of mindless haters.. but there are mentally disturbed people, out there, that haven't any real knowledge, and think irrationally -- one such person tried recently to tell me they "don't believe in anything." It was surely their attempt to sound "intellectual," but far from it. Their Atheism has warped their reasoning skills.

Can you really believe that? They "don't believe in anything."

Just try to imagine that.
When I asked them if they "believed the sun will rise tomorrow?" Atheism has enabled them to "rationalize anything" in their insanity, to a point they're of an irrational mind. That is, they have became insane. They had their explanation, how they "don't believe" the sun will rise tomorrow. However, I see it for what it is. Whether an Atheist who rationalizes away all belief, or the Theist believing God commanded them to drown their children in the bathtub.

Of course they believe the sun will rise, unless they're mentally deranged and delusional.

Can anyone say,... Religion!!!

Ever known religion to enable people to rationalize and justify any off the wall, strange, unusual; irrational behavior no matter how wretchedly insane it appears to outsiders?

Atheists & Theists are just alike.

BTW, God and Science have a lot to do with another, I'm sure. But that's a matter of my opinion. Some mile long mathematic equation... that's out of my league. If God would explain, the elementary things would be far beyond anything in the scientific world's comprehension, their knowledge is of the most elementary kind, and they admit that. Even Einstein wanted to know "God's mathematics". At least Einstein conceived of a God that would understand great matters of science and mathematics, not tricks to pull rabbits out of magic hats in six days. I'm sure if God appeared in a form perceivable by humans, and spoke on the matter of Physics and laws of the Quantum realm, that even the greatest scientific mind would have trouble comprehending. So there's no need for me even attempting to explain something I know absolutely nothing about that's unexplainable, even for modern science. What?! I confess "I don't know." Well, that's probably because of my predisposition toward having a scientific mind. I'm humble enough to say "I don't know" -- a luxury that religion doesn't afford Atheists and Theists with their Patent Truths. The God Question & many Scientific mysteries will never be solved. So why waste time battling over it? Life is too full of wonderful things. Life is too short to waste it on bickering over things we have no control over. Doesn't mean that science should give up trying to fully explain quantum mechanics or that anyone should stop their curiosity about the nature of God.

Theists, (the Creationist kind) try to murder science, whilst Atheists try to murder God. They are simply idiotically like-minded with narrow minds; hatred, destruction and ignorance.

Read More »

Black Hole Sun Lyrics Meaning - Neil DeGrasse Explains

0

Seeing the video on youtube, yields amazing presumptions on the meaning of Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun".

Neil DeGrasse the Astrophysicist and colleagues explain.

People will go to amazing lengths to deny the simplest and most obvious things.

This song isnt even about a black hole though.

Never mind that "Black Hole (Sun)" is the title of the song.

"Black holes will never get anywhere near us, because by the time they do, we will have been long gone."

Precisely, that's why scientists added Black Holes as #7 greatest threat to life on earth.

'Last Days on Earth' mini-series
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319986
These are organized from least likely to most likely:
7a. Death of a Star: Gamma-Ray Burst
7b. Death of a Star: Black Hole
Number seven was actually two alternate views of what could happen to a star and how it could destroy life on earth.
6. Intelligent Machines
5. Supervolcano
4. Asteroid
3. Nuclear War
2. Plague
1. Climate Change

"The sun would have already died."

Our sun (a star) has nothing to do with a rogue black hole roaming into our solar system.

"And a black hole would be nothing like this video, the earth would be stretched flat before the black hole got anywhere near this close."

Where does this joker get his information? See end of video. The Earth, subjected to the gravitational pull of a Black Hole retains the shape of a sphere, until the last remnants of Earth's core are vaccuumed into oblivion.



In my eyes, in disposed,
In disguise:as no one knows
Hides the face Lies
The snake, the sun
In my disgrace
Boiling heat, Summer stench
'Neath the black
The sky looks dead
Call my name
Through the cream
And I'll hear you
Scream again

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun

Won't you come
Won't you come

Stuttering
Cold and damp
Steal the warm wind
Tired friend
Times are gone
For honest men

And sometimes
Far too long
For snakes
In my shoes
A-walking sleep
And my youth
I pray to keep
Heaven send, Hell away
No one sings
Like you anymore

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Hang my head
Drown my fear
Till you all just
Disappear

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Read More »

An Imperfect Creation? Critics of "Intelligent Design"

0

t isn't what I wanted Genesis 1 to read like, but that appears to be what the text actually says,

The Lord "spoke" and put something into motion, commanding the Waters bring forth the (creeping) moving creature, and indeed the seas are filled with such organisms that creep, and they moved out on earth and multiplied (we know this is implied) because the next epoch God works with the creatures "of the earth". Both of which the Lord, "created after their kind." Notice, it does not say God creates the creatures of the earth, merely recreates them after their kind. It does not say:
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature."
No, rather it implies they're already there, and says,
"Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind..."

So these were already living on land. God caused them to evolve... improved designs.

KJV
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so."
~ Genesis 1:24

So much for I.D. Critics and Atheist arguments.

Also, if the creation were meant by God to be "perfect" (Genesis merely states "It was good" in God's eyes, "Good enough," then take note that it also states in regard to the world of chaos that is Earth (God will create a new heaven and new earth):

"...The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious."
~ Isaiah

"And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea."
~ Revelation

.. the Bible itself gives testament that God is not entirely pleased with "creation," and was so displeased with the wickedness that followed the wake of modern man (Adam; Agriculture; Violent Imagination), that God repented creating man and sent a flood... followed by raining down fiery sulphur on Sodom and Gomorrah (which Atheists still have failed to explain. There's no volcanos in the area. Where did the fire come from? Scientists are mystified. Try try to explain it.)

But, despite man's failures, the Bible concludes that God's heart and mind was, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believe in him would not perish but have everlasting life."

---

After reading those verses in Genesis, considering all the arguments I've read and listened to over the past years (since around 2000), and observing the violence in animals (some of those sharp-clawed / sharp toothed creatures among (true) reptiles and dinosaurs, i.e., Postosuchus (which resembles a cross between a large Alligator and miniature Tyrannosaurs Rex), I think, I rather prefer the idea that God would "command the waters bring forth the moving creatures" and God created them after their kind.... or even, that God hurled a meteor on the earth, wiping it all out, and created such animals "after their kind". Making them a little more social...

Those were frightful creatures, and I always did ask myself about the nice things, like ducks, maybe it was some sort of insight into the nature of God. But the thought entered my mind, "What about the lion with its sharp teeth that ferociously stalks and kills prey?"
If that's the nature of God, too?

Down deep, I'd hate to think so. I know the Bible states that God creates both good and evil... but it does put a damper on things having to believe God would really "want" Evil in the world. I couldn't help but take note, Genesis doesn't even imply God hands-on, created all those things (including the monstrosities)... he merely instructed the earth and water to bring forth, and then recreates those things after their kind. So many species went extinct.
And then, the promise of "a new heaven and new earth" -- and a promise that ferocious beasts like the lion will be made so docile, that it would lay down next to a lamb.

Read More »

Fish who grew legs, and walked from the water

0

#1 I can imagine creationists swallowing their words, and saying nothing... realizing they have been fighting science... for nothing. Fighting the truth of God. God has used scientists for his own purpose.
#2 I can imagine Darwinists/Atheists shreiking like angry little children... stomping their God-hating feet. But if it isn't for fighting YEC, what the heck will we do with our lives... we don't have a life beyond Karl Marx and attacks on Religion and God.

All that hysteria a couple decades ago, when SCIENTISTS said that "fish grew legs and walked out of the water." Oh how "blasphemous". But I am including scanner text from Genesis itself. "And God said, Let the WATERS BRING FORTH abundantly the *(creeping)* creature, that has *(soul)*... see Hebrew footnotes in the King James.



Fish that grew legs and walked away from the water... the tetrapods, were "creeping" and moving creatures.
Fish with legs... just as science predicted. They have explained the creation account in Genesis.

Read More »

Genesis 1:20 ( Day Five of Genesis, Part 1 of 2 )

0

Many of the earliest waters were "shallow seas"... and shells would designate a need for protection against the suns' rays and quite possibly, the water itself.

WikiAnswers - Do you get a sunburn faster in salt water? Yes, the salt water dries out your skin a lot faster, sucking all the moisture out, ...
~ wiki answers com

Causes Of Sun Poisoning ...
Note, the question is about sun poisoning, not sunburns. ... much body water (dehydration) and salt/minerals. ... occur: numbness/tingling of the arms/legs, ...
wellsphere com

Also, the evolutionary leap forward of the "moving creature" mentioned in Genesis 1:20 ...

Genesis 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature...



Part 1 of 2 (Genesis 1:20, Epoch or Day Five)
"The first animals did not leave fossilized bones - they had no bones, but they did leave clues. They did leave traces - tracks and trails, just as animals do today. Footprints close together suggest walking rather than running - prints give clues to movement, behavior, size - through the writing of steps on the earth. While tracks seem natural for animals, it is noted that the first animals did not leave tracks - they were like the sponges of today, which filter the water for tiny bits of food. Sponges could not move, and most cnidarians did not move to pursue the world either. Locomotion was invented by another animal... that dates back 540 million years. Animal body plans were undergoing revolution 565 million years ago. The trails indicate the first mobile animal could move sediment. The animal had to be thin because the trail is only a few mm wide, and the track is rounded so the creature had to be cylindrical, there are no scratches along the trail so the creature had no appendages, the trail also shows a sense of direction which indicates the presence of a head - it knew where it was going. It’s legacy is in most animals on the planet, which have the same body plan. Animals move with their heads leading the way, an innovation that changed the course of animal life."
The Shape of Life, Episode 3: The First Hunter (Flatworms)
http://www2.sluh.org/bioweb/bi100/movies/sol3.htm

Shell Theories
"Why did early Cambrian organisms evolve shells? The obvious answer is that they needed protection. But it has been pointed out that there were (*)no known predators armed with teeth at this time--so what exactly were these tiny organisms protecting themselves against? One possibilty is that predators used other means of attack, such as stinging cells, which left no trace in the fossil record. But it is possible that the shells were not for protection at all. They may have been for energy stores, a response to chemical changes in seawater or an anchor for (**)soft body parts."
Discovery Channel, 1999, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, pg. 61

SHELLS SERVE AS A PROTECTION AGAINST THE SUN'S SCALDING RAYS IN SHALLOW SEAS
Utah Geological Survey
During the Early Cambrian (about 570 to 540 million years ago), western Utah was covered by a shallow sea. Slow-moving rivers flowed across the sandy ...
http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/trilobites.htm

* Organism fossils from the Vendian, which preceded the Cambrian lifeforms, had one further, say scientists: No mouths, nor internal digestive tract visible in fossil finds. So if they were not animal, then what were they?
** The most important purpose of all for shells is being overlooked. Protection from the sun's dehydrating heat, and light. It would have been entirely impossible for soft body organisms to ever leave the protection of their watery environment, had it not been without thick protection from the drying effect of the sun. To this day, anyone familiar with beach-combing will notice mollusks who wash up on shore... quickly dig under the sand, and hide from the sun and open air until the tide rises.

Early Cambrian innovation in shallow subtidal environments: Paleoenvironments of Early Cambrian shelly fossils
Jeffrey F. Mount1 and P. W. Signer1
Department of Geology, University of California, Davis, California 95616
"Contrary to onshore-offshore patterns described for several Phanerozoic clades, evolutionary innovations leading to the earliest shelly Metazoa did not originate in nearshore, stressed marine habitats. Paleoecological analyses of the Early Cambrian fauna and strata of the White-Inyo Mountains of California indicate that major shelly taxa and trace fossils appeared offshore from shallow-water, physically stressed environments and only later spread to nearshore habitats. Other lowermost Cambrian stratigraphic sections elsewhere in the world show similar patterns. The contrast in pattern of community evolution between the Early Cambrian and the remaining Phanerozoic suggests either temporally variable control on position of evolutionary innovation or a need for reexaminution of the data."
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/13/10/730

Precambrian Era
The oldest rocks in Georgia are found in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge provinces and are Proterozoic in age (1 to 1.3 billion years old). These rocks were originally deposited as sediment, which was compressed into sedimentary rocks and then altered by heat and pressure into a metamorphic rock called gneiss. The metamorphism occurred about 1 billion years ago during a mountain-building event, or orogeny, in eastern North America called the Grenville Orogeny. This orogeny was accompanied by the intrusion of granite and other igneous rocks, which were also metamorphosed. The rocks were folded, faulted, uplifted, and then eroded. These metamorphic rocks, called the Grenville gneisses, form the "basement" upon which the younger rocks of the Appalachian mountain system have been deposited.
630 and 700 million years ago, the rifting (or splitting apart of the continent) began, which led to the opening of the Iapetus Ocean (or proto–Atlantic Ocean) along the eastern margin of North America. From the Late Proterozoic to the Early Cambrian, the Grenville mountains eroded, and streams transported sediments to the sea, which covered much of Georgia at that time. These sediments were compacted into sedimentary rocks and later metamorphosed to the gneiss, marble, metaconglomerate, phyllite, quartzite, schist, and slate found in the Blue Ridge and/or Piedmont regions of Georgia.
Volcanic islands were present in this ancient sea, and eruptions produced igneous rocks, which were also later metamorphosed. Today these rocks are amphibolite, hornblende gneiss, and other metavolcanic rocks. Gold was deposited from mineral-rich hot waters moving through cracks in the volcanic rocks on the sea floor. This gold has been mined in the Dahlonega area since its discovery in 1828.
Paleozoic Era
From the Cambrian to the Pennsylvanian periods, the southeastern part of North America lay south of the equator in a relatively tropical climatic zone. The Iapetus Ocean was offshore, roughly where the Atlantic Ocean is today. As the sea flooded over the eastern edge of North America during the Paleozoic, a thick (5 to 10 kilometers or more) sequence of shallow marine sediments was deposited. A series of three mountain-building events affected eastern North America during the Paleozoic. These orogenies caused metamorphism, folding, faulting, and igneous intrusions in the Piedmont and Blue Ridge, as well as the folding and faulting of the sedimentary rocks of the Valley and Ridge and the Appalachian Plateau.
Cambrian Period, Ordovician Period, and Silurian Period
During the Cambrian period (542 to 490 million years ago), sandstones, dolostones, and shales were deposited on beaches and in shallow seas covering the eastern edge of North America. During the Late Cambrian and Early Ordovician periods, carbonate rocks, or limestones, were deposited in the warm, shallow waters of this sea. The environment was much like that of the present-day Great Bahama Bank. Numerous animals, including corals, brachiopods, snails, nautiloid cephalopods, crinoids, trilobites, and bryozoans, inhabited the shallow sea.
http://georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3510

Read More »

Genesis 1:14-19 ( Day Four of Genesis )

0

A ( 3-D Visual Animation Video ) presentation of Genesis 1:14-19. . . the end of "Day #Four".



Quotes on the Cambrian Explosion come from (link).

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

















It has been widely theorized, that before the Cambrian Explosion, during the Precambrian or Vendian, organisms which lived during the period were primarily soft-bodied, therefore, even worse than modern plants which leave few fossils due to fragile structure, the likelihood of soft-bodied Precambrian plants leaving fossils is dramatically decreased. The Pre-Cambrian has yielded only scant fossils, but as scientists have observed with the Cambrian Explosion.... the abundance and diversity point to earlier origins. Soft-bodied organisms would have been ideally suited dwelling in a damp, dark, sunless world. For sake of posterity, many plant forms are non-photosynthetic or derive nutrition through alternate means aside from photosynthesis. For example, Protozoans who are cross between photosynthetic plant and animal, (i.e., Euglena and Volvox)

Methods of Deriving Nutrition and Reproduction
Protozoa obtain their food supply through three methods:
1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

One team of researchers discovered photosyntethic bacteria, in the deep Pacific around a hydrothermal vent. Such hot springs once covered the surface of the earth amidst shallow seas, and provided a plentiful source for photosynthesis that was necessary for the proliferation and survival of many species. But let's not forget plant varieties which, even to this day are non-photosynthetic... entire ecosystems could thrive, in the total absence of sunlight... and that does not exclude even shrub-like trees, that were soft-bodied in design, complete with "fruit" and seed within (i.e., the non-photosynthetic mistletoe, which comes complete with berries and seed).
However, as suggested, with the advent of the sun, organisms would have a need to develop (or "evolve") hard-body structures (that could withstand the sun's heat) with the Sun's generating mass-photosynthesis throughout the Earth. This would allow organisms to diversify in the kind of great abundance witnessed in the fossil record and is called the "Cambrian Explosion." Just as "let the waters bring forth.. creatures.. in great abundance," is stated in Genesis, Day #5, and as was observed in the "Cambrian Explosion" by Darwin and other influential figures in Paleontology.

Genesis "Day Four" marks the epoch when the Sun began active nuclear-fusion, and Day Five marks the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. The only direct evidence we have of the sun's history, would be in how it interacted with Earth. The fossil record provides the evidence. Such an explosion of diverse, hard-bodied organisms in the fossil record can only be explained by the introduction of widescale Photosynthesis... which only the sun could provide, a mere 500-600 million years ago. This certainly is not the first time such a theory has been proposed, for example the KT Boundary (65 Million years ago), lead to the extinction of dinosaurs when a meteor is believed to have crashed into Earth's surface. It is suggested the fallout lead to a blackening of the skies, blocking the sun's light which lead to an extinction of a vast number of life-forms on the planet. Also, the Earth lay dormant for 3.5 billion years without any apparent major evolutionary advances, which can easily be explained with the absence of sunlight. This tremendous gap in the fossil record, remains too vast for most seasoned Evolutionists to simply ignore.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:



Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.



Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

How odd indeed. I've already covered the explanation for this weird looking picture: Here, you've got to love that glass sponge. AND to argue, that "it could not exist" strange plant-like organisms during the precambrian... well that logic doesn't hold water with science. Scientists admit there were organisms, but they left no fossils. We do know organisms can photosynthesize around hydrothermal vents; black smokers, hot springs. Stromatolites were "photosynthesizing" as far back as 3.5 billion years ago when the earth was still a cauldron of smoke and volcanic activity (which would have blocked out the sun, if it were nuclear-fusion-active, anyway.)

That's right folks, at that point in the earth's history, its highly unlikely that sunlight would've made it through Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight leads to extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction) -- meteor activity and volcanic activity was billowing forth at that time in natural history and -- with all those thick black clouds and steam... well, somehow, still, stromatolites existed.

Atheists can't figure out where the light came from, for stromatolites to photosynthesize? Of course we understand this takes a PhD in Genius to figure out.

And what were they photosynthesizing from? Hydrothermal vents, just as they did 2 billion years ago. But for any atheist who might presume, "An organism like that couldn't exist because it's not been discovered" -- Atheist logic is flawed by that same line of reasoning. God supposedly doesn't exist because they've not found "empirical evidence," which I've covered here (and backfire it does!) It is a fact: Just because species did not leave fossils, does not mean the species never existed. Good scientists tell us so.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Some may argue the Sun was there 3.5 billion years providing light for photosynthesis (i.e., Stromatolites where cyanobacteria left traces on rocks).... no no... discovery by researchers shows that bacteria was photosynthesizing in Deep Sea Pacific Ocean Hydrothermal Vent (circa 2006)... so that explains Stromatolites... early bacteria getting their light energy straight from the light of the earth, for 3.5 billion years... huge huge gap. And bacteria... that's _all_ there was for about 3.5 billion years... minus some soft bodied organisms late in the Vendian... (soft body plans require a constant water supply for moisture, or a dark environment... take your pick).

The Earth is not Young, but the Sun is... a wee 500 million years old.

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."
From : What is the age of the sun (the sun of our solar system) and the age of earth?

Not Mere Mythology
Another couple of observations of tremendous significance, on the text of Genesis...

1. If it were Babylonian mythology, as some Agnostics and Atheists propose, why are these two celestial bodies (the sun and moon) portrayed as mere "sources for light" instead of "gods" -- Babylonian and Egyptian mythology would have assumed the sun and moon and stars to be "gods". But instead, the text clearly states God formed them for "lights".

2. Light... all that I have stated involved the necessity to provide light, as a source for photosynthesis, to bring about the mass-proliferation of creatures (as seen in the Cambrian Explosion) as stated in Day #5... "let the waters bring forth... creatures... abundantly..."

The term, "lights" are used in Genesis, not the celestial orb themself, but "light." Light is specifically required in Photosynthesis to give plants energy and it states that much too, the purpose was "...to give light upon the earth..." This is significant because plants depend on light, and plants are necessary to feed living creatures.

Read More »

Genesis 1:11-13 ( Day Three of Genesis, Part Two of Two )

2

A ( 3-D Visual Animation Video ) presentation of Genesis 1:11 through Genesis 1:13. . . the end of "Day #Three".

** A MINOR CORRECTION **
The forms of plants portrayed in the images, are misleading. During the Precambrian/Vendian period, the ancestors of modern plants are what one would expect to find; Algae, Bacteria, Fungi, etc. As with the case of the "Fruiting Fungi" tree (see side-bar), these organisms were and are not, what we would think of as plants in the modern sense. All of which, fit the description in Genesis:
1. Algae (Heb. Tender) Grass (for covering).
2. Herb bearing seed (Fungi may be used for medicinal purposes, as "herbs," and in fact, do have "seed" as in spores.
3. Trees, bearing fruit whose seed is inside itself, which is perfectly described by the "Fruiting Fungi," tree (see top of sidebar), or Google "Prototaxites" (one of the fossilized organisms). Notably, said fruiting fungi, is non-photosynthetic and can thrive in the total absence of sunlight (as described in Genesis Epoch #3).
Actually, my hope was more in pointing out examples of NON-PHOTOSYNTHETIC "PLANT" kinds like the mistletoe, and some orchids. But in actuality, the earliest "plant" kinds would have been algae and fungi, ancestors of modern plants. Due to soft-body structure, scant remains are ever found in the fossil record, so the images (below) are not accurate, however, its difficult filling the gaps in when you don't have fossils, but you have even scientists themselves -- theorizing "fungi" of this nature existed in the precambrian. I gave it my best shot when producing the clips, but FUNGI are more accurately, the organisms described in Genesis Epoch Three. I'm only human...



Note: Many organisms of the Vendian or "Pre-Cambrian" remain a mystery, and are theorized to have had soft body plans leaving few fossils. A few which exist, resemble leaves.
Note: Many forms of plants are non-photosynthetic.
Note: A discovery of photosynthetic bacteria, was made by researchers deep in the Pacific Ocean around hydrothermal vents, in the total absence of sunlight.

While producing this video, I did not give it much thought but applied what I know (at least many) scientists have theorized about "life beginning around hydrothermal vents, in the total absence of sunlight". In fact, entire ecosystems are supported around hydrothermal vents in deep ocean waters. I've often made the same mistake Darwinists make, in thinking of early earth in terms the Earth is "now". In fact, when I first raised this question, Darwinists laughed at the preposterous idea, "plants in the deep sea, around hot springs.." -- nobody will be laughing now, realizing hot springs covered the surface of the earth once.
Back in Earth's earliest evolution, these hydrothermal vents would've been on open land, and not "deep under the ocean waters"...

Genesis is emphatic, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth... upon the earth..." and does not say, "in the depths of the ocean floor." For the most part, back then, the earth's surface in many spots, was what is today, the ocean floor.

So I would say indeed!, life began around hydrothermal vents, and hot springs were covering the earth's surface in early earth history.

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.

Read More »

Why the Dinosaurs Went Extinct and other Mass Extinctions

0

Why the dinosaurs went extinct...

bunches of theories, theories... including one meteor hitting the earth... some species of dinosaurs evolved into birds... and God knows what else...

when Darwin goes looking at the Cambrian explosion, he predicted a progression... but there wasn't one there. The record goes empty... soft-bodied plans is what the scientists suggest, therefore leaving no fossil impressions... but I have often wondered to myself, maybe, just maybe it could've been due to a shift in the earth's climate... and while a plush area was turned to desert, it gave the misleading appearance that it was a "mass extinction" when elsewhere on the earth, organisms were thriving. Maybe some died out, but others continued to thrive.

Darwinists themselves admit, even despite extinction theories they all share, that some kinds of species in fact, lived on...

Genesis is emphatic that species came "... after their kind . . ." which is a strong implication for evolution (fossil progression).

But if I read the text correctly, God saying, "Let the Earth bring forth .... after his kind..." vs. "God created whales"... one seems to imply something allowed to happen on its own, while the other implies direct act of creation... well, if God did things that way, it would explain God allowing the extinction of an estimated 95% species that ever lived. It wasn't because they were "bad designs". Things just worked out that way.

Whatever the case may be the chronology in Genesis is identical to what Science has discovered through Paleontology.

Read More »

Genesis 1:9-10 ( Day Three of Genesis, Part One of Two )

0

A ( 3-D Visual Animation Video ) presentation of Genesis 1:9 through Genesis 1:10. . . the beginning of "Day #Three". The early formations of the earth's outer crust, locking in the volcanic activity and ocean water begins gathering to itself, along with the formation of islands, early in earth's history...



Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.











Genesis 1:10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Read More »

Genesis 1:2-5 ( Day One of Genesis Pt. 2 of 2 )

0

A ( 3-D Visual Animation Video ) presentation of Genesis 1:2 through Genesis 1:5 . . . the completion of "Day #One". It is very important to note the mention of "waters" in regard to light. The Earth's heat, generated at the core of the Earth, relies on Ocean waters for cooling, very much like an automobile engine depends on a radiator for cooling.



Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Genesis 1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Genesis 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

--
Maybe God and Science work too slowly for Darwinists and Fundamentalist religion...

Read More »

The Darwin Myths -- Lying for Darwinian Natural Selection

0

...any other Scientific pioneers I should throw in, before Darwin's time?‏

This is what I've been saying ... Darwinism is like a religion...
Darwinists don't even seem to know who Linnaeus was, "Linnaeus who? never heard of him". Obviously they have a very limited working knowledge of science in general. Therefore how could such people, with such limited understanding, possibly grasp anything so complex about the origins and proliferation of species around the planet?

“Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution laid the foundations of modern biology, it did not tell the whole story. Most remarkably, The Origin of Species said very little about, of all things, the origins of species. Darwin and his modern successors have shown very convincingly how inherited variations are naturally selected, but they leave unanswered how variant organisms come to be in the first place."
~ swarthmore edu
--

"...Darwin and his modern successors have shown very convincingly how inherited variations are naturally selected,"

I haven't seen that overwhelming evidence for this claim. A few examples, not more.
I suppose if you go looking hard enough, you can find a handful of examples to support a theory about anything... but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

And I agree...

"they leave unanswered how variant organisms come to be in the first place."

Because Darwin couldn't. He couldn't appropriately explain the absence of fossils before the Cambrian explosion, much less, the billions of years the earth had appeared to lay dormant. That huge gap, is a real problem for "Natural Selection." 3.5 billion years of bacteria baking under the sun, and it just sits there, with no mutations toward the production of hard-body plans and complex organisms. The high Co2 levels in Earth's early history would've been ideally suited for plants -- thus, followed by animals, billions of years before... but it didn't happen that way.

"...“Although Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution laid the foundations of modern biology..."

Really?

Exhibit dedicated to Carolus Linnaeus, the Swedish botanist, physician, and zoologist whose work laid the foundations of modern biological systematics and ...
~ yahoo

Before Linnaeus weighed in, the living world had seemed a hodge-podge of organisms. ... and animals and laid the foundation for much of the work in biology that ...
~ books nap edu

Carl Linnaeus was a Sweden botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. ... In Biology taxonomy, a domain is the highest taxonomic rank of organisms, higher than a Kingdom . ... As an example, consider the Linnaean classification for modern human ...
~ absoluteastronomy com

... Linnaeus laid the foundations of modern biology. He was certainly proud of his achievements. 'God creates, Linnaeus organises,' he liked to say;
~ nick-lane net

Read More »