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 »

Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

0

Atheists lost belief because of errors in Theism and Creationism, so they say. Right? They cherrypick the weakest, most mythical watered-down arguments and then say "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc are wrong." Then, proceed at their attempts to sell their religion, Atheism. That's what I call flawed logic. Think that Atheism doesn't have its own share of errors to explain?

Well, I listened to the Atheists' arguments and came away realizing they have some sweeping to do around their own back doorstep before criticizing their neighbor's clutter. They have some beams to pluck from their own eyes before criticizing the splinter in mine.

The "facts" of Atheism didn't add up and still don't add up. Science is leaving Atheism in the dust. Facts often won't add up with a philosophy if you're cherrypicking the most ignorant of apologists; for instance, Kent Hovind and ilk. Kent Hovind hardly qualifies to represent my views or the views of most educated Christians. He's a circus performer, not a scientist. I took a look at many of Atheism's errors, and concluded "This, pseudo-philosophy Atheism, can't be true". Afterall, if there are any scientific errors then their philosophy is a false teaching. Right?

But perhaps some of us have accepted that we don't need religion, or patent truths and not fearing to stand alone and take comfort in the fact, "I may never know. And, in the cosmic scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. Life will go on and the sun will rise tomorrow and that's fine by me."

The religions of Atheism and Theism need "Absolute Truths(TM)" and that headrush of standing on "the winning side". Being a part of something bigger than one's self but of course never having to do the actual work that's required. But in my studies, Atheism is in as much error, if not more so, than Theism. At least Theism's creed is based on FAITH which requires no evidence. But Atheism boasts to be based on EVIDENCE, and I have not seen "Evidence". Atheists have failed to produce "Proof."

Find one error and then throw it all in the philosophical waste basket, and seek out some new world view in the search for "Truth(TM)." That's discomforting to Atheists and Theists alike. Not knowing what "The Truth(TM)" is and not knowing where to go next, or who to call one's "brethren"? I suppose we can ignore new evidence, and live in a state of denial, or we can simply accept that a view is not for everyone, especially when Atheism's facts aren't available. Afterall, don't Atheists tell us they don't accept anything on faith? They need proof? Also, I will post the following proof I need to dismiss Atheism as a false doctrine.

BIG ERROR #ONE
Using Polydactyly as an example of evolution.

Meet "Jacob" the Polydactyl Cat with Six Toes.
Atheistic Darwinists claim anomalies of this nature are "random genetic mutations" plotting new body designs. Actually, it's nothing "new." (see PubMed).
Since this has been going on for several 100 Million years, then why has evolution failed to produce the tens of thousands of species with six digits we should've seen long before now? This is not evidence for a "Random Mutation." It's more like a genetic throwback to the past. For the atheist argument, See Polydactylity) which is not evolution, but an abnormality which spawns from Junk DNA.

See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908

University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Looks like six toes to me, and apparently this has been going on a very, very long time and is renders no "proof(TM)" for Atheism.

Atheists were converted to Atheism, using weak anti-creationist arguments and patent non-scientifically thought-out so-called darwinist counter-arguments. But Science, is not done that way. The exception makes the rule and there is always some thing, some fact, some new twist and new piece of evidence that throws a monkey wrench into "Absolute Truth(TM)" and doesn't afford adherents of the atheist religion the luxury of kicking off their shoes and laying back on their comfort couch of the "patent one and only truth(TM)". This discipline is called SCIENCE. Not religion.

SCIENCE keeps pushing forward for more answers and in a perpetual state of flux saying, "I don't know." Whilst Religions like Atheism set on their laurels, falsely reassured in thier "Absolute Truth(TM)" thus, inevitably failing to grow in knowledge and intellect.

Atheism is a religion for the feeble minded. "My cat has six toes, therefore it proves why I refuse to believe in God." Comparing apples and oranges?? I suppose I could also rationalize since my cat has six toes, that God has blessed my cat by making it special enough to be featured on my blog post? But perhaps the more sane rationale is, God has nothing to do with it one way or the other, these maladies turn up in nature by happen-stance, because junk DNA has stuck around since the dawn of complex organisms. Atheists make a fallacy error, by making any comparisons between God and flawed arguments of creationists, or for that matter, anything in the empirical world. God is not of the "empirical realm" and thus, you can not expect empirical evidence for a spiritual God.
This fact stands alone: God has not been disproven by science, because science deals only in the empirical.

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.



BIG ERROR #THREE
From an Atheist's criticism of creationism,

"When the creationist smoke screen finally dissipates, the debate hall falling silent at last, the young-earth advocate finds himself back on square one. He is looking at stars many millions of light-years away, stars putting out light which takes many millions of years to reach us! Attempts to speed up the velocity of light or to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

But Science is not restrained by Dave Matson's "Glass Half Empty," Atheism. Those physicists wouldn't be trying to break the speed of light, if they didn't feel it CAN be done. Perhaps, they have a bit o' faith in the so-called "impossible". That is to say,

"Last week’s bombshell physics news--those superluminal neutrinos that CERN’s OPERA experiment clocked moving faster than the speed of light--are already getting the rigorous vetting that OPERA’s researchers were hoping for......Which means, they say, that in all likelihood these neutrinos never achieved superluminal speeds. The anomaly is an error in the data or measurement of the speed, or some other brand of misunderstanding or miscalculation.Which makes a certain amount of sense, writes Steve Nerlich over at Universe Today over the weekend. Neutrinos do move very fast, straight through the Earth (neutrinos don’t interact much with normal matter), relying on GPS time-stamping and other methods of man-made measurement that are very precise but certainly not infallible to determine time and distance traveled. And it’s not like these neutrinos were clocked doubling the speed of light or something like that--the difference is 60 nanoseconds. That’s another way of saying that the neutrinos in question are thought to have traveled at 1.0025 times the speed of light. That’s certainly a small enough margin to be explained away by some kind of measurement error.Still, the jury remains out on this one, and we certainly don’t want to dismiss a perfectly good game-changing science story just because it seems hard to reconcile with the status quo. After all, if OPERA’s result turns out to be confirmed it is going to completely reorient physics as we know them. More on this as it develops.

"Attempts,,,,to shrink down the universe have come to naught."

First black hole for light created on Earth - physics
newscientist.com
An electromagnetic black hole has been built in a lab – and may one day be adapted to generate limitless solar energy even on a cloudy day.

Scientists Make Desktop Black Hole | Wired Science | Wired.com
wired.com ~ desktop-black-hole/
Oct 14, 2009 – Two Chinese scientists have successfully made an artificial black hole. Since you’re still reading this, it’s safe to say that Earth hasn’t been sucked into its vortex. That’s because a black hole doesn’t technically require a massive, highly concentrated gravitational field that prevents light from escaping, as postulated by Albert Einstein. It just needs to capture light — or, to be more precise, electromagnetic radiation, of which visually perceived light is one form.
Together, the patterns completely absorbed microwave radiation coming from any direction, and converted their energy to heat. Like a near-black hole designed earlier this year and made from photon-absorbing carbon nanotubes, the material could be used in solar energy panels.

ATHEISM, STRIKES OUT! Atheists say it can't be done. Couldn't happen. But it has... can... does... it will.
There we have scientists, stepping out on a limb, experimenting with what Einstein deemed impossible... perhaps "Faith" in things "not seen, (believed possible) and hoped for"... perhaps science isn't that different from the theist creed, afterall. Faith. If science only dealt with "facts" and established evidence (as Atheism falsely claims to do) and never pushed its limits, why, what progress would there be in that? But Atheism has never produced evidence. It claims to "demand proof" ... boasts to "have evidence" ... yet not even as much as one shred of evidence has ever been produced to support the philosophical view of Atheism in the empirical world. Theists on the other hand will at least confess their creed is entirely a matter of Faith, not evidence.

---

And, just because. Here's a bonus reason I can not believe in Atheism.

BIG ERROR #FOUR
One of my favorite orators, Robert G. Ingersoll whom yes, was an Agnostic, but often mistaken as an Atheist. Ingersoll's ceaseless wit and intellect, to which he confesses on many occasions he "does not know," in comparison to Atheists who naturally presume to know everything,

Words are the shadows of all that has been; they are the mirrors of all that is. The ghosts also enlightened our fathers in astronomy and geology. According to them the world was made out of nothing, and a little more nothing having been taken than was used in the construction of the world, the stars were made out of the scraps that were left over...
Ghosts

The real question is: In the light of science, in the light of the brain and heart of the nineteenth century, is this book true? The gentleman who wrote it begins by telling us that God made the universe out of nothing. That I cannot conceive; it may be so, but I cannot conceive it. Nothing, regarded in the light of raw material, is to my mind, a decided and disastrous failure, I cannot imagine of nothing being made into something, any more than I can of something being changed back into nothing. I cannot conceive of force aside from matter, because force to be force must be active, and unless there is matter there is nothing for force to act upon, and consequently it cannot be active. So I simply say I cannot comprehend it. I cannot believe it. I may roast for this, but it is my honest opinion.
Mistakes of Moses

But Atheists can conceive of "Nothing". They look up. They look down. They look around themselves, and see no God. Therefore, God can not exist. They only know what they see with their own two eyes. Anything else beyond the five senses, can not exist. Genius!

I read in a book that the Supreme Being concluded to make a world and one man, that he took some nothing and made a world and one man, and put this man in a garden; but he noticed that he got lonesome (laughter); he wandered around as if he was waiting for a train (laughter); there was nothing to interest him; no news, no papers, no politics; no policy, and as the devil had not yet made his appearance, there was no chance for reconciliation (hearty laughter and prolonged applause); not even for civil service reform (Continued laughter) Well, he would wander about this garden in this condition until finally the Supreme Being made up his mind to make him a companion; and having used up all the nothing...
Liberty of Man, Woman and Child

Back of that time there must have been an eternity, during which there had existed nothing-absolutely nothing-except this supposed God, according to this theory, this God spent an eternity, so to speak, in an infinite vacuum and in perfect idleness.
Admitting that a god did create the universe, then the question arises, of what did he create it? It certainly was not made of nothing. Nothing, considered in the light of raw material, is a most decided failure. It follows, then, that a God must have made the universe out of himself, He being the only existence. The universe is material, and if it was made of God, the God must have been material. With this very thought in his mind, Anaximander of Miletus said: "Creation is the decomposition of the infinite."
It has been demonstrated that the earth would fall to the sun only for the fact that it is attracted by other worlds, those worlds must be attracted worlds still beyond them, and so on, without end. This proves the material universe to be infinite. If an infinite universe has been made out of an infinite god, how much of the god is left?
Gods

Created from Nothing? Atheists look around themselves for evidence, and see empty space, therefore, "Nothing" is there. Many notes of the audience mockingly laughing, however, Ingersoll lived before the time of Einstein, long before the time Quantum Mechanics entered into the equation and left behind even Einstein. Simple minded Atheists still look to the night-sky, and see the vastness of the Cosmos and presume "Nothing" is there, as Atheists often wonder, "What a terrible waste of space," they see "nothing" so of course, no God either. It's "empty space," and "nothing" is there. And, speaking of that vast "nothing," Some thing is there. It was there, all along. It is invisible, but consumes most of the cosmos.

"It is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 70% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 25%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."
science.nasa.gov/astrophysics ~ what-is-dark-energy/

I would like for an atheist to produce an empirical sample of this dark energy. Afterall, how can anyone believe in something they can't see with their eyes, or hear with their ears? It must be experienced with the five senses, or it can not exist. Right? I demand "evidence".

Modern physics responds:

THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN'T ZERO [7.6.06]
A Talk with Lawrence Krauss
edge.org ~ krauss06.2_index.html
"But in cosmology what we're having now is this cockamamie universe. We've discovered a tremendous amount. We've discovered the universe is flat, which most of us theorists thought we knew in advance, because it's the only beautiful universe. But why is it flat? It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands. This was an amazing discovery in 1998 or so.

"It's full of not just dark matter, but this crazy stuff called dark energy, that no one understands...we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space..."

But what you couldn't understand was how to cancel a number to a hundred and twenty decimal places and leave something finite left over. You can't take two numbers that are very large and expect them to almost exactly cancel leaving something that's 120 orders of magnitude smaller left over. And that's what would be required to have an energy that was comparable with the observational upper limits on the energy of empty space.
We knew the answer. There was a symmetry and the number had to be exactly zero. Well, what have we discovered? There appears to be this energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem. When we look out at the universe, if this dark energy is something that isn't quite an energy of empty space but its just something that's pretending to be that, we might measure that it's changing over time.
Then we would know that the actual energy of empty space is really zero but this is some cockamamie thing that's pretending to be energy of empty space. And many people have hoped they'd see that is because then you wouldn't need quantum gravity, which is a theory we don't yet have, to understand this apparent dark energy. Indeed, one of the biggest failures of string theory's many failures, I think, is it never successfully addressed this cosmological constant problem. You'd think if you had a theory of quantum gravity, it would explain precisely what the energy of empty space should be. And we don't have any other theory that addresses that problem either! But if this thing really isn't vacuum energy, then it's something else, then you might be able to find out what it is, and learn and do physics without having to understand quantum gravity."

Some thing is there. I don't have to see it. I don't have to taste or smell it. I don't have to touch it, or even hear it. That's because I have faith in science, to just believe them when they say, "It exists".

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 »

Mimicry (A Theory That's Obvious Nonsense)

0

Here's a problem with the theory of "Mimicry".
Just because it looks like a rattlesnake during a very short phase during its lifespan, doesn't mean anything. Snakes.. all of them have lots of stripes, spots, and in fact, even some trained snake experts have trouble distinguishing between them, so how could a dumb animal?? When I saw it, of course, "rattlesnake" came to mind, but *why* doesn't it retain those features since they're beneficial during their entire lifespan?

Ask yourself that. Why lose features, which would be beneficial through your entire lifespan?

(**)Mimicry doesn't explain anything. Nature happens... so, natural selection happens and there's nothing but randomness and coincidence, and Darwinists made the "leap of faith" and extrapolation that there's actually anything "intelligent" in nature, that one species would try to mimick another, out of self-protection... Darwinist nonsense. Its only coincidence that it turned out that way.

Who is it looking for "Design" in the choas, catastrophism, and seeking "intelligence" where there is none?
Ah, none but the Darwinists... and Atheists. It "just" turned out that way. I hate to break it to you, but sometimes things happen, they just turn out that way and there's no explanation for it. No design, no thought-process, just random coincidence.

**(Mimicry, resembling a rattlesnake really assisted the eastern hognose in keeping my cat away from this species, didn't it? So much for the Mimicry theory nonsense).


Photo 1 LAWA Juvenile - pattern, coloration and body form bears resemblance to a Pygmy Rattlesnake - perhaps some protection is afforded.
Photo 3 JONE Juvenile hog nosed snake in red color phase similar to pigmy
rattlesnake.

> The cat dragged this one up. Eager to identify it. Its around a ft in
> length... very small snake.
>

On 8/27/2010 1:24:13 PM, Jeff wrote:
> Too bad I can't see much of the head in that shot, but I'll bet it's an
> Eastern Hognose. Really too bad the cat killed it, as hognose snakes are
> totally harmless to people and really cool snakes!
>
> Some are nearly black, but some are quite colorful, and yours matches this
> baby hognose I found a few years ago pretty well. Scroll down:

You're absolutely correct.

Thanks for the link. I looked this one up by species name, and found an identical one that matches mine (now in a jar of alcohol).

Photo 1 LAWA Juvenile - pattern, coloration and body form bears resemblance to a Pygmy Rattlesnake - perhaps some protection is afforded.
Photo 3 JONE Juvenile hog nosed snake in red color phase similar to pigmy rattlesnake.
Heterodon platirhinos, Eastern Hognose Snake

The hognose is also the snake that will roll over and pretend its dead and produce a bad odor, as though it were dead to discourage predators from eating it, isn't it?
A scent like its been deceased for a few days... so one documentary claimed.. showing a coyote losing interest in the hognose snake, because it stank.

They produce a perfume of death when they're playing dead, right?

>
> http://www.duke.edu/~jspippen/herps/easternhognosesnake.htm
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

On 8/27/2010 8:22:27 PM, Jeff wrote:
> Yep,
> that's the one!
>
> Cheers,
> Jeff

Read More »

And the Denial Of Science by Atheists Continues...

1

This atheist doesn't even understand the fossil record or the types of extinct organisms that lived in it, 500-600 Million years ago. He presumes to know more than scientists do! Non-existent IMAGINARY plants that depended on sunlight, he insists... afterall, in our modern ecosystem, life-forms that evolved over the past 100 million years, today, depend on sunlight don't they?? therefore his Elementary-school level logic concludes "... life-forms in the PreCambrian must have too."



This deluded, imaginary 3rd grade version of the fossil record, presumably complete with horses and cats and dogs and everything we see living in the modern world... lived 500-600 Million years ago, too. IMAGINARY PHOTOSYNTHETIC PLANTS that did not even exist during the PreCambrian or Vendian.
Supposed "dependency on sunlight," in an extinct ecosystem that left few to no fossils? Scientists aren't so bold as to assume they know what the organisms were.
So much for his fairy tale version of a Precambrian and Vendian world "food chain".

All we have to fill in the gaps for "what was," are the earliest life-forms in the fossil record; algae and fungi.

Let's take for example protozoa, which means "first animals"... any Atheist who believes 3rd Grade level elementary school education that "photosynthesis is the 'only' possible way" to supplement a food chain...



...have amply proven themselves completely ignorant.

Protozoa are variegated, and feed through three means:

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.

And, what about bacteria which do not depend on sunlight or organic matter for nutrition? Is it possible? Yes, and these organisms thrive around hydrothermal vents in the total absence of sunlight, where scientists are already theorizing life first began, and for good reason! (The same reasons my entire blog has focused on).

BACTERIA ECOLOGY
http://www.earthlife.net/prokaryotes/ecology.html
"Organisms which do not get their energy from the sun get it from the energy already stored in chemicals. These organisms are called 'chemotrophs' meaning chemical eating. Most bacteria, and Protists as well as all animals and fungi are chemotrophs. If the food chemicals are large, complicated molecules of organic origin (ie they were once organisms), then we call the bacteria and all the other animals that eat them 'Chemoorganotrophs', but if the molecules are small and inorganic (ie iron, sulphur, hydrogen sulphide, etc) we call the bacteria which eat them 'Chemolithotrophs'. Only bacteria are chemolithotrophs, whereas animals, fungi and many protozoa are all chemoorganotrophs. Chemolithotrophic bacteria are unique in our world, and because they require special adaptations to gain their energy they are quite different to the more common chemoorganotrophic bacteria.

So we don't "need" the sun for the first life on Earth, do we?? We can have entire ecosystems evolving and thriving, in the total absence of sunlight and even photosynthetic bacteria deriving energy completely and solely from the light of hydrothermal vents... which was substantiated with the discovery of photosynthetic bacteria thriving (in the absence of sunlight) in the deep sea Pacific... deriving its nutrition solely and entirely from the hydrothermal vent.

Where do these Atheists come from? The education system is in deep trouble.

Your god blah blah blah blah blah blah sounds like a blah blah blah blah blah blah broken record blah blah blah blah blah blah with a poor grasp blah blah blah blah blah blah of biology

erm, you meant Botany, or more specifically, Mycology but continue :

blah blah blah blah blah blah and astronomy. Fungi are not trees

This, is a tree.

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

So much of a "tree" that scientists themselves classified it as a conifer,

Prehistoric Mystery Organism Verified As Giant Fungus
Prototaxites has generated controversy for more than a century. Originally classified as a conifer, scientists later argued...
~ sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070423080454.htm

and, don't be confused, but conifers, are trees.

Tree Identification - The Conifers Identification of conifer trees most common to North American by their needles and leaves, fruit and flowers. Use conifer and evergreen tree species ...
~ forestry.about.com/cs/treeid/a/con_tree_id.htm

blah blah blah blah blah blah (or any other type of plant)

Or any other type of "plant" ??

ALGAE...
Although they seem plant-like, scientists have classified them in a group of their own, outside the plant kingdom. They have been classified in a separate kingdom called Protista.
~ naturegrid.org.uk/biodiversity/plants/crypalga.html

FUNGI
Five Kingdoms of Life: Monera, Protista, Fungi, Plantae, Animalia
Scientific classification sorts all life forms on Earth into five kingdoms: monera, protista, fungi, plantae, and animalia. Together they form the tree of ...
biology.suite101.com/article.cfm/five_kingdoms_of_life

Fungi are not "plants" and "plants" did not exist during the earliest period of the fossil record, *rolling eyes*... back during the the Vendian/Pre Cambrian... what are you talking about?

blah blah blah blah blah blah but they are, like virtually all life forms on Earth, still part of a food chain that ultimately depends on photosynthesis.

On "Fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

blah blah blah blah blah blah ...depends on photosynthesis.

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

On "Fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

blah blah blah blah blah blah ...depends on photosynthesis.

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

On "Fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

blah blah blah blah blah blah ...depends on photosynthesis.

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

On "Fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

blah blah blah blah blah blah ...depends on photosynthesis.

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

On "Fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

blah blah blah blah blah blah ...depends on photosynthesis.

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

And _what_ "food chain" could you be implying from your very limited knowledge of our modern day? What could you possibly know about an extinct ecosystem, hundreds of millions and billions of years ago? PreCambrian organisms are all part of EXTINCT ecosystems. Back then, from the few fossil traces left behind, we do know they did not have defenses, they were soft-bodied organisms, lacking protective coverings to shield them against the fatal rays of sunlight, no teeth to "chew" (so what makes you even think "food chain") or claws (to hunt) or a sun for that matter? Scientists remain baffled by the Vendian organisms, wondering "what were they?" They had no "mouths". What were the PreCambrian organisms? Science may never know... but I'm positive, if scientists don't, you certainly wouldn't.

During the time of the PreCambrian the only organisms in existence were algae, fungi, and those "mystery" organisms the Vendian is famed for. But organisms like the Prototaxites (ancestors thereof) did exist, but were too soft to leave fossil impressions. Scientists KNOW things like fungis and algaes existed during the Vendian/Precambrian, but did not leave fossils... and have cautioned, just because they don't find fossils (soft bodied), does not mean they didn't exist.

Don't know much about Science esp. paleo-botany, do you?


Foods and feeds - Google Books Result by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages
These structures are aptly designated as the "fruiting bodies," and such fungi are called the "fruiting fungi." In nature, as many as 2000 edible species ...
books google com/books?isbn=082478491X...

blah blah blah blah blah blah....depends on photosynthesis.

They are "fruiting fungi" with spores (seed) within itself... and they state,

"Moreover, they provide an alternative pathway for the production of food, without having recourse to sunlight and independent of the photosynthetic route."

In the total absence of sunlight... a "fruit" bearing seed (spores) in itself... and is edible by humans.

blah blah blah blah blah blah....depends on photosynthesis.

What are you talking about???

blah blah blah blah blah blahThe Sun is OLDER than the Earth.

Wow... you are ignorant. Science doesn't know anything about this so-called age of a nuclear-active sun and the precise date when the sun became nuclear. All Scientists have to go on to know about the age of the sun's nuclear fusion and a photosynthetic role with earth is a 3.5 billion year gap in the fossil record which if anything, (along with all those soft-bodied organisms they theorized in the Vendian) indicates the sun was not providing a source for photosynthesis, and the cambrian explosion is approximately the time when the sun went nuclear. We have a record of the sun's activity, via the fossil record on earth.

blah blah blah blah blah blahThe Sun is OLDER than the Earth.

Older than the Earth? Where did you pull that myth from ?

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."

blah blah blah blah blah blahWithout the Sun we would not experience DAY and NIGHT. The book of Genesis does NOT agree with science and its author shows a severe lack of understanding. They said it couldn't be done. They were not kidding.

I'll share your comments with other atheists. I'm sure they'll appreciate the humor in your inane "scientific insights" as much as I have.

Read More »

Genesis 1 - Where's the Beef?

0

Go to Google Images and type in:

"human tails"

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

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

I don't think so.

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

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

But ... no beef ?? how interesting.

"Where's the Beef?"

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

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

0

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



He writes,

do creationists know ANYTHING about biology?

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

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


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

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

First and foremost,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fifthly, to address,

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

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


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

Note, sidebar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist or a Christian?

0

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

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

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

THAT INCLUDES THE ATTACKS ON CHARLES DARWIN.



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

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

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

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

Read More »

Observations of Science and Introduction of Agriculture Genesis 2:5

0

New American Standard:
"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had *not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

(And as I've explained, * there are some regions on Earth which do not see a drop of rain for months, possibly years, if never.) Some former-oceanic terrain, is over geologic time, turned to dry desert. Dr. Philip Gingerich is one of the first to testify of "whales" found in "The Desert," Science Fiction? No, science fact:

"Forty million years ago a vast area of the northern part of the Egyptian Western Desert was nothing but a sea. The whole of Fayoum was submerged; it was part of the Tethys Sea. In reality, Tethys Sea was so enormously big that some scholars call it Tethys Ocean rather than sea. When it finally receded, it formed what we know today as the Aral, Caspian and Black seas. In its bluish- green water dwelled creatures that evolved and survived or did not and became extinct. One of the biggest inhabitants of the ancient sea was Zeuglodon, the famous whale of Fayoum."
~ http://arabenvironment.net/archive/2007/4/205266.html

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "After Their Kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with skills in Agriculture.

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

Lettuce History
Lettuce probably evolved from a wild species which is still extant called Lactuca serriola. It is very bitter. The Ancient Egyptians grew Lettuce..."
www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/Pages/lettuce

Lactuca serriola, the ancestor of lettuce.

There were many nomadic humans, but no farmers.

The primitive man of Epoch Six was given what to eat?
"...I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

But no cabbage, no broccoli, no cauliflower...
Early hominids and primitive man, were vegetarian, and lived nomadically gathering fruits, edible roots, leafs. It does not mention anything of Lettuce, Tomatos, String Beans and all the foods which modern man has cultivated.

Take a look at the conclusion of Science, and the typical dogmatic Atheist who latches on without any knowledge of Biblical text. A poignant observation, but too little, too late, because Genesis was stating the very same thing, thousands of years ago :

"...There is not a third-rate intelligence on earth that could not, after ten minutes' contemplation, devise a better scheme of things. Man's life is largely consumed in improving his surroundings and adjusting the blunders of nature. Daily, hourly, he must employ his wits to untangle the snares of unthinking nature. It would take an intelligence below the level of a moron to carry on evolutionary processes as commonly observed. It has taken evolution, unguided by intelligence, countless ages to develop the simple, unattractive flower known as the wild rose. Evolution, with man's intelligence behind it, has, in a relatively short period of time, changed this simple flower, by artificial selection, into the glorious, multi-petalled American Beauty. That was intelligence behind evolution. Man has not only produced new species of flowers from wayside weeds, but given scent to odorless lilies and eliminated the thorns from raspberry and blackberry bushes. He has been able to evolve a spineless cactus, which, breeding true, now furnishes the desert with food for cattle. He has, by applying his intelligence to evolution, done in a short period of time that which evolution might have accomplished only after millions of years - or never at all. He has speeded up those processes which, under natural evolution, drag along hopelessly or reach an ultimate utility only after thousands of failures and unfavorable adaptations."
From "Evolution Implies Atheism"
"Essays of an Atheist", The Truth Seeker, 1945 by Woolsey Teller

Genesis is Evidence for Science

That's right. Thousands of years before Science, a "Holy" source was documenting the same things about how man cultivated modern food...
But Atheists(Anti-Theists) will deny truth because they hate truth. Creationists will deny what's written in Genesis, because they hate Science. But its in the Bible.
As Gandhi said, a truth is a truth, even if you're a minority of One... as in One, God. And both extremist factions will deny what's spelled out in black and white text, out of stubborn arrogance (oh how awful, Genesis beat science to the discovery) and the other, vain, arrogant, pride (because they were wrong, and they know they're wrong).
When man tries to deny the truth of God, or tries to usurp God's authority... well, (also Gandhi said) the only devils we need to fear, are the ones running around in our own hearts.

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "Earth brought forth herbs... After Their Kind," and "Waters brought forth creatures.. after their kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with knowledge of Agriculture, to cultivate farming.

Farming became tradition, with the introduction of Agriculture in Mesopotamia, and the skills spread throughout the ancient world. In other words, though God may have had a "hands off policy" for much of the account in Genesis 1 (commanding the Earth and Waters to bring forth...) IT WAS MAN who actually "created" these foods.

Read More »