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 »

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 »

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 »

Cambrian Explosion -- The Big Bang of Biology

0

An Atheistic-evolutionist wrote, I presume in hopes to cast skepticism and doubts on Genesis aligning with Paleontology. I'll stick by my guns there is only one Cambrian Explosion and will only be one Cambrian Explosion until the end of time. That Cambrian Explosion is the same one Charles Darwin wrote of extensively, and the same one acknowledged in Epoch Five of Genesis, when God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature..."

"The Avalon Explosion
Ediacara fossils [575 to 542 million years ago (Ma)] represent Earth's oldest known complex macroscopic life forms, but their morphological history is poorly understood. A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace. A comparable morphospace range was occupied by the subsequent White Sea (560 to 550 Ma) and Nama (550 to 542 Ma) assemblages, although it was populated differently. In contrast, taxonomicrichness increased in the White Sea assemblage and declined in the Nama assemblage. These diversity changes, occurring whilemorphospace range remained relatively constant, led to inverse shifts in morphological variance. The Avalon morphospace expansionmirrors the Cambrian explosion, and both events may reflect similar underlying mechanisms.
--Shen et al. (2008) “The Avalon Explosion: Evolution of Ediacara Morphospace” Science 4 January: 81-84."
~ scienceblogs.com/strangerfruit/upload/evolutionis.pdf

Meanwhile, I'm providing a brief timeline for better insight into something that should not be overlooked... great significance for insight into scripture. Epoch Four discusses nothing about the evolution of life on the Earth. It is silent on the matter. It only discusses affairs of the heavens.



So, what's the point if they find traces of life activity between the time the earth brought forth (Heb)"Tender" grass (algae), non-photosynthetic "herb"(fungi) with spores within itself and non-photosynthetic fruiting fungi "trees" with seed(spores) within itself.... (Epoch Three). The fossil record confirms indeed, such things existed.

...and millions of years later, when the Cambrian Explosion occurs... the same burst of diversity Charles Darwin wrote extensively of, is described emphatically in Epoch Five, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature...."

The Gap: What happened on earth, between Epoch Three and Epoch Five? Genesis is silent on the matter. There's no discussion of the Earth in Epoch Four.

So, this (albeit, interesting) information is somewhat, irrelevant, beyond some insight into what was taking place during the epoch "God made two great LIGHTS to give light upon the Earth..." as in making the sun go nuclear fusion.

After the sun went nuclear, God commands, "Let the waters bring forth ABUNDANTLY..." and that perplexing observation, went with Charles Darwin to his grave. There's lots of things ommitted from Genesis 1... and only a nit-picker would strain at gnats, expecting mention of them be included.

Whoops, that was Vendian (Late Precambrian). Corrected timeline chart‏

Unlike Atheists who are perfect, and have "absolute truths," I'm only human and make errors.

The Vendian was the "late precambrian" (650-540 MYA). The sun went nuclear, somewhere between the Vendian (late precambrian), and dawn of the Cambrian.

The fossil record testifies of this with the proliferation of animal life. When the sun is absent, animal life spirals into extinction.

Read More »

A Creationist Speaks : Keep Creation Science Out of the Classroom

0

What I've been waiting for.‏

Somebody who understands science (a positive). A big postive.

State  :  Virginia City  :  Troutville Lat/Long  :  37.4482, -79.9986 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1143 x 857 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Nov 4 2009 8:56:08 pm
Last Page View		Nov 4 2009 8:56:08 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...losion&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		genesis theory of cambrian explosion
Visit Entry Page		http://genesis-scien...four-of-genesis.html
Visit Exit Page		http://genesis-scien...four-of-genesis.html

Very weird feeling... extreme weird. After years of being in the middle of fighting "Creation Science," here I find myself promoting it. The only exception is, I'm basing the interpretation on *literal Genesis* and actual science... aligning the two.

Somebody from Troutville, Virginia... the first person I've found with a specific search string related to what I've proposed for explaining the text of Genesis Chapter One. Somebody who maybe does understand the significance of "Cambrian Explosion". It would be nice.

I am not underestimating or overestimating the significance of the Cambrian Explosion, just as Darwin himself made an ordeal over it, grieved until he went to his grave... incapable of explaining the phenomena in the fossil record. It's got to be the greatest mystery, perplexing scientists worldwide to this day.

Sort of leaves me with a sick feeling though, after seeing all the damage (my entire life) personally victimized by ignorance the church taught. They taught me in my youth, the earth was only around 6,000 or 10,000 years old, and made to look like a numbwit when discussing European history with a pagan, back in 1991. First "debate" I'd ever been in with anyone. I'd never acquainted anyone who believed in Evolution, until that day. He said the European people had lived in Europe around 30,000+ years. I thought he was nuts... I wrote an organization I trusted for verification, and they sent Xerox of an article showing a "Venus" from Vienna, dated around 32,000 -- a male human, with a lion's head.

Here is that very article, which caused me to lose belief in a Young Earth Creation to a believer in Human Evolution. (Although, in 1991 I was far from having any real understanding of the fossil record.) It comes from National Geographic, October 1988, "The Search for Modern Humans"



In his correspondence, which consisted of snail-mail at that time, the man claimed the eldest known "Venus" was a female idol dating 30,000 years. I realized, he was wrong from what the article said... aye! victory.... it was 1) Male and 2) Older than his date, but, oooo, I learned at the same time that ancient people did indeed exist since tens of thousands of years ago -- and my faith in organized religion was shot down. I was already having doubts in 1991 and had dropped from the church.

Upon reading the article and realizing I had been prevented from trusting the school system / science, lending to darkness and ignorance, helped lead to packing away the Bible and forgetting it, rejecting it, as a book of myths.

Even now, having re-embraced Christianity fully and with all that I know of faith, and science included... I would stake everything that the full record of Paleontology can be aligned with the book of Genesis, however I would never want to see "Creation Science" taught in schools! Mainly, because mankind is not fit to teach even the Bible. Only God is fit to reveal truths, to the willing and open mind that trusts in Him. The scriptures say, "They will be taught by God."

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

Let them debate Genesis, until the cows come home... but keep it out of the class room (that includes Atheists and their revolting war on faith). So many people have been mis-educated about science, thanks to organized religion and its opponents who don't know Exegesis of the Bible, from a hole in the ground.

Therefore, thanks to that very ignorance, the last total I read, reveals a whopping statistic of something like Christianity branching into 20,000+ sects and denominations and they can not even agree among themselves.. above all, afraid to teach the truth about the simplest of things -- a great falling away has resulted because of the failure of the Church! But would be so bold as to propose over-taking education? God is not the author of confusion. Man is the author of the confusion.

One body in Christ Jesus? Nobody is teaching the truth anymore... either they don't know the truth, or they're too afraid to teach it to the masses. Seriously, why is it I can purchase scholars texts and critical commentaries like some on my book shelves, i.e., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," written by Dr. Norman Geisler, and even in his conservative rationale he is allowed to say in the book that the Hebrew word being used regarding the flood can imply a "localized flood" and all geological evidence confirms a "worldwide flood" is impossible, yet, the typical preacher tells an entirely different version to the people who sit in the pews every Sunday.
Being associated with an Agnostic / Anti-Theist / Evolutionist for a number of years now... I've been seeing, first-hand (being in the midst of Skeptic circles; Atheists and Agnostics), what results when organized religion relies on man's ignorance to interpret scripture: People drop out and become foam at the mouth Atheists and Agnostics, and other enemies to Christ. You can blame the church itself, for this. Thier refusal to teach the truth, including the unpopular truths, is completely to blame. Believers are not equipped to deal with questions, nor are they prepared to face some of the simplest tests of their faith, such as discrepancies in scripture. Once the average pew-sitter becomes aware of some of the smallest issues, which are normal questions faced by theologians every day, the delusion of inerrancy is shattered, and sometimes, that person may even receive the big "please don't come back," brush off when they ask too many questions, which leads to alienation and quite possibly becoming another typical Atheist with the typical story of becoming a "former fundamentalist". The church has failed them! So the bitterness of Anti-Theists is no real surprise.

My first loss of belief was in the church I was raised and groomed in (The Worldwide Church of God).. completely fundamentalist, and alongside attacks on science, it steadily waged a war of slander against Christianity itself. The WWCG was strict and legalistic in Orthodox laws, very much like Judaism in many ways. In 1991, when I began to see the cult fall apart following the death of the founder, and after a lifetime of being taught "this is the one true truth," my delusion about a "one true religion," and blindly following a man, was shattered. I felt like the fabric of my entire world had been pulled from my feet... I woke up and realized, you can not trust a church... nothing is forever.

Then, I prayed for God to reveal the truth to me himself. What happened instead, was an "answered prayer," and a rather rude awakening when my brother (who had since became Atheist) up and decided to trek all the way from California (1993) and set down a stack of Atheist literature in front of me, challenging me to read it if I had an open mind. There, I learned things the church never told me.

And you know what? The atheists weren't lying... it didn't take much -- just reading scriptures themselves. Taught since birth, "The Bible has no errors or contradictions." But that book, the Bible Handbook (Atheist book) challenged me to open my own Bible, and compare various scriptures. I challenge any Christian to do the same, but keep in mind, to pray for God to reveal the explanation to you. Remain faithful, because it may take years of study, before you are lead to a full understanding. Be my guest, but such Atheist literature is drawing straight from the Bible itself to deceive people and lead them from the church, and the body of the Anti-Christ is growing, because the Church has failed to teach the truth. They fear to teach the truth. The adherents of Christianity have put their faith into too many Jimmy Swaggarts, Ted Haggards and Jim Bakkers, instead of relying totally on faith in Jesus Christ and calling out to God himself to teach them. Therefore, the Church has became weakened and has failed, with a great falling away from truth, that began, even many centuries ago.

I did just that... I was not afraid to confront a truth, and believed I was strong enough in faith to take on anything! I was mislead by the Church. I did not have the knowledge to read and understand scriptures. I would go as far as to say, the Church had convinced me that I was incapable of reading scriptures and understanding without a preacher interpreting for me, when that false doctrine itself (taught by wicked men who sought to have power over the masses) contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the prophets!

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

I read the verses, and compared them from my own Bible and gained a knowledge I had never knew. I read until the sun rose, I was speechless. I resented my Atheist brother for showing me the truth, but... I remember that sick feeling, he was right and I speechless, thinking "I don't want to discuss."

I became an Atheist for about 2 minutes... then remembered an apparition me and a friend saw years before, knowing "okay, so something exists beyond, but what?!" now believing the Bible couldn't answer that question, I settled into becoming Deistic... not having any clue, "Where do I go next?" In 1993, I even wrote the Atheist publisher, Farrel Till (exposed to the "Skeptical Review," publication by my brother), and Mr. Till published the letter. (Round about the spring 1993 edition, Letters to the Editors section). Mr. Till responded in kind, that he was tremendously disillusioned upon realizing the "damaged bag of goods" he too had been sold by religion.

Over that span of 2 years, I had the rug pulled from under me, twice. In 1991... faith in organized religion blown to shreds. And in 1993... faith in the Bible itself, blown to shreds.

I packed away the Bible for 7 years and mostly forgot about it. Seldom did the Bible enter into my mind, except with disdain and resentment for how the ancient book had been used by certain men in organized religion, in their agenda to control me, to bridle me with a ton of perpetual guilt, typical "God hates you" sermons about hell and brimstrone... fear, to control the faithful. And, as we all know, there's 1000's of religions, and they all hold the monopoly on the "one true truth".

In late 1999 - early 2000, I began feeling something tugging on my spirit to accept Christianity. I couldn't do that though, I thought, because, the Bible had errors and contradictions -- and long before, the Worldwide Church of God had already convinced me that Christianity itself was the "spawn of Satan," with its Christmas Trees (tree worship), and steeples sitting on the Christian Church (Egyptian obelisk)... Herbert Armstrong's teachings of Christianity itself being the "Babylon Mystery Religion". Therefore I could not be Christian. I went through a miserable spiritual conflict.

But something kept tugging on my spirit, I had to believe... I just had to take a leap of faith, anyway... the force was convincing my mind, "you never gave Christianity a chance...." So, being fair and open-minded, I decided, I'd give it a try... despite what I knew of scripture being a "book of myths". I set out on a journey then, to explain the discrepancies in scripture and prove the Bible true to myself.

I did not have any proof, and every reason not to believe, but converted anyway on a blind leap of faith.

After converting, I soon saw the ignorance and superstition in the people in Christianity... the preacher at the local church even warned me the dangers of asking too many questions. Such as, "Where does the Bible come from?" Amazing... nobody knew! The first break I got was when my Atheist brother called me up out of the blue, and offered a "Children's School Primer," which explained the origins of the Bible, from its beginning on Papyrus to later day scribes hand-copying text, generation after generation.
And when I asked a Sunday School teacher, "Have you ever actually read the Bible," and his answer was "NO" -- I asked him, "Well how then do you know its the Word of God?" I made people angry enough, that I was soon accused of Demon Possession.
The good Lord saw to it that I moved away from that church to study science and Genesis and the actual scripture and praying to God to reveal THE TRUTH.

Needless to say, the same preacher who warned me how Christians hate knowledge, was soon fired because he introduced a slightly upbeat rhythm in music... to cater to a younger generation of Christians. Before he was fired, he had encouraged me to call Christian Book Distributors, and check out their selection of scholars texts and a full line of books read by those who are theologians and attend seminary (like Preachers).

I began a new path... the search for knowledge and truth.

Instead, what I got was caught up with somebody who _did_ know scripture very well... enough to answer EVERY QUESTION, and enough knowledge about scripture to deceive, distort and twist scripture to bring about serious doubts in my mind. I fell in with Atheists, who spend their time pouring over the Bible, tearing into it verse by verse (former fundamentalist Christians), tearing into it with a passion, but with one goal in mind: to disprove it. If only Christians had an ounce of the same fervent passion, surely God would be pleased! God loves the zealous heart and mind. If Christians would do so, there just might be some decent defense of the Bible for a change. It was answers (perhaps not the right ones)... but answers, all the same. It was more answers than I had gotten from the religious establishment. (You know, the same religious establishment that crucified Jesus?) No preachers in this day and age, dare openly discuss truth... and often being, the same truth they are taught in seminary! Shame on them.

So that's how I got deceived a second time, and lead away from Jesus.

In 2007, when my eyes were re-opened (I was compelled to begin purchasing books from Amazon on the history Communism, and combined with about 20 years of what I'd learned about history came pouring in) -- it was like waking up staring a devil in the face. I remember that feeling of uncertainty and horror. I knew that I might not have one single answer about the Bible (I was not any wiser than when I started out seeking to reconcile the scriptures) but I was certain with what I knew about Socialists (leftwing/liberals)... their war against people of faith under Communism, whatever side Atheists/Agnostics were on, I'm not on that side.

Although, in my mind -- I do believe that some Atheists are sincere about their beliefs, (perhaps due to lack of knowledge about the whole spectrum of issues). For instance, they are not aware of what their brethren have committed in the name of the Atheist Apostle Karl Marx. In fact, oddly enough, the first mention of "Pol Pot" and "Mao" was offered up by an Atheist. He stated to me in correspondence, how often we'd heard of the wanton mayhem of Hitler's millions, but never hear of those death tolls under Communist tyrants. So, there are some Atheists who probably do genuinely believe they are following a path in life, paved with with good intent... especially, once they are made aware of the brutalities committed under the power of church and state, under the Popes of Old Europe... though completely unaware of Atheism's own bloody history: 100 Million slaughtered in the 20th Century (counting until 1989), for verification see "The Black Book of Communism" (Harvard University Press).

When I re-embraced my faith, I could not prove anything to myself at that moment for truth of the Bible, but I was certain with all that I had seen and known: "I'm taking the Bible and Jesus Christ, on faith and let God do the rest."

I know full well why Atheists and Agnostics *hate* the church so much... and the church is very much to blame for that. The establishment with-holds information, they do not teach the full truth to adherents, that preachers and theologians claim the luxury for themselves to know. Therefore, people are slipping away from the faith. But the grass is not greener on the other side. Due to a little knowledge which, in the wrong hands can be a very dangerous thing. I was slowly deceived to join in with Anti-Theists. In 2007, I had awaken to find myself guilty of making hostile attacks on religion and, on many occasions. Just because a person believes in a God, does not make them a friend to Christianity by default.

Yes, with all I have seen and learned, I say keep the "creation science" out of the classroom. If the religious establishment is failing to even correctly teach the Bible, then how much less is it capable of teaching "Science," an area totally un-related to Theology?

Why does the church refuse to teach people the truth of the Scriptures and God? It took no time at all to understand, as one preacher explained the "miracle of the torn veil on the temple," symbolized that _any person_ could enter into the presence of God, without fear of being stricken dead, through grace in Jesus Christ. But people are looking to men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jim Jones (actually he was an Atheist, a Marxist-Leninist, but whose counting?)

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
~ Matthew 15:14

Following men... not following Jesus, not asking for God to teach them as was promised by Jesus and the prophets. They follow men, and are therefore lead astray into darkness. Yet complain about what Scientists are teaching to children and Atheists who lead people astray? The greatest enemy that any Christian should fear, is within the church itself because the leaders of the religious establishment REFUSE to teach the truth. For posterity, I'll say it once again: it is the same religious establishment who crucified Jesus Christ who came to fulfil the law and teach none other, than the truth. For this, the religious establishment hated him (and without cause).

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

Those truths which Jesus and the Apostles taught, could be very threatening to certain men who seek power and domination over the masses in the establishment of organized religion, no middle men, with Jesus as the only intermediator between a man/woman, and God.

Read More »

Intelligent Design Advocates Will Be Disappointed By Literal Reading of Genesis

0

I've considered, and re-considered the very literal text of Epoch Three, Five and Six, and the conclusion is you have to read it for what it says in black and white. The majority of species described were "created" by the earth and waters... am I disappointed, not really. Enlightened, is more like it.

"...In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to 'epochs of creation'."
~ F&W Encyclopedia, 1950, on Professor Louis Agassiz, rival and contemporary of Charles Darwin.

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

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

The Problem with Extinction

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

The scripture is black and white,

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

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

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

The KT Boundary took out so many species.

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

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

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

Read More »

Cretinism vs. Evilution - How the Game Is Played

0

Superstition (a thing God abhors, enough so that it was written to put witches to death)... paralysed the minds of the Europeans for centuries...

Okay... and the prevailing belief that God snapped, crackled, popped Adam out of the dust and created all the animals (never mind Genesis 1... that's "the same account," lies the Atheist, *chuckles and sneering,* in that it will throw the former, in contradiction with the latter.

Genesis 1... Animals created First, Man last
Genesis 2... Man created first, Animals last

The Atheist NEEDS this, to promote his war on God and convert those without critical thiniking skills, to his own religion.

How dare anyone correctly interpret the scripture by truth. It might throw a monkey wrench in the Atheists' plots and schemes.
But, ha... but, the church was incorrectly reading Genesis, because they knew nothing of science for centuries... and Darwin goes abroad, discovers an amazing thing: "Complex animal life began in the water,"

which left the Fundamentalist scrambling,

The Atheist gloats... "Wow, we really discovered a truth, therefore, the Bible is wrong."

Then a reasonable person comes along, "But Mr. Atheist... it was written all along, that life began in the water. Read Genesis 1:20".

Rather than to have his parade rained on, the Atheist angrily stomps his feet, and lies, saying "No! That can't be. It is Babylonian Mythology! It is Babylonian Mythology!"

No Mr. Atheist... you have the intellect of a child in kindergarten and you have not disproven the Bible, rather, the very science you claim to hold to, simply concluded the same chronology described in Genesis 1.

I have better things to do with my life.
Even mentioning Atheists, these days, I'm realizing, gives them far too much credit. They've proven, and disproven, absolutely nothing.

Sorry Mr. Atheist... everything science concluded about Earth's history and the history of mankind, was written in Genesis 1.. long before Charles Darwin was born. Long before Linnaeus... you didn't read Genesis 1 with clarity or comprehension. You relied on tha centuries' old misinterpretation, back when SUPERSTITION prevented Science from making headway. Besides "witchcraft" which God abhorred, God said "My People are Destroyed for Lack of Knowledge." You were too lazy to read Genesis 1, and then go prove it in the Earth whether or not it were true. You chose false interpretations, over what the text in Genesis, reads, in plain black and white. THAT is and was, the problem.

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 »

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 1:2-5 ( 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 »

Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

0

A visual presentation to Genesis 1:1 and the beginning of Genesis 1:2 . . . to be continued.

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?

Genesis 1: 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1: 2 And the earth was without form, and void:
--
Maybe God and Science work too slowly for Darwinists and Fundamentalist religion...















It becomes abundantly clear to me, why "the sun" (see images 5,6,7) did not exist until "day #4" of Genesis... as well as a new source for Photosynthesis, proliferation of plant life and animal life... abundant diversity (including hard-body plans that could withstand the heat of the sun)... introduction of the sun would be the cause of the Cambrian explosion and "evolution" of hard-bodied organisms in the fossil record.

Before that time, in a dark, sunless world, life was ideally suited for a dark, damp, primarily non-photosynthetic world. Save some organisms (like photosynthetic bacteria discovered near deep Pacific hydrothermal vents) early organisms could photosynthesize around hot springs, supporting an entire ecosystem... in the total absence of sunlight.

What Genesis speaks of in day #3 explains unanswered questions to the peculiarity of the lack of fossils, and the Cambrian explosion (around 500 Million years ago).

Read More »