And On The Sixth Day God Created Dragons ... and Unicorns too.

0

Much of my time with this blog has been spent giving Atheistic Darwinists (if they deserve the title) due criticism for their lack of accuracy, or open-mindedness... but I'll dedicate a moment to my dislike of fundamentalist creationists and "why" I clearly dislike them.

A LITERAL GENESIS

One of the creatures found in the garden, is no less than a multi-headed dragon.

and the mythological unicorn.

This famous 16th Century painting shows God as having made all creatures nearly simultaneously. The events in Genesis are shown in sequence from left to right.

*Doh* considering 99% of species that ever lived on the planet have went extinct, that was quite a feat! They didn't even survive 6000 years on earth, how young earthers figure time. In my opinion, the god envisioned of the young earth creationist is a feeble-minded creator.

For an enlarged image, click genesis_creation_large.jpg (517 KB)

---

Darwin lived during a time where ignorance and magical fairy tales dominated popular opinion.

The trade-off?

Science... knowledge... advancement... enlightenment... progress. For this, the poor scientist was ostracised, publickly ridiculed and degraded.

Clips of "humor" circulated in Darwin's Day.

darwin_bergh.jpg (88 k)

descent_of_man.jpg (133 k)

man_fossil_ichthyosauri.jpg (115 k)

As an ex-fundamentalist, ex-creationist... I have no respect for fundamentalist creationists. My problem with Athiests spawns from this fact, most were once fundamentalists themselves, and deconverted. Once deconverted, they searched for no substantial knowledge and still remain as ignorant as when they were bible thumpers and believed in fairy tales.

Rude bouts of blaspheme hardly qualifies one for ThD credentials in the field of Thinkology.

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 »

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 »

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible

0

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

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

do you see what I'm saying?

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

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

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

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

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

@dazco01,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis implies an Intelligent Creator, but not a Designer.

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

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

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

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

So the same is with God.

Read More »

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 »

Genesis and the Fossil Record

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

vs.

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

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

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

Read More »

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist or a Christian?

0

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

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

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

THAT INCLUDES THE ATTACKS ON CHARLES DARWIN.



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

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

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

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

Read More »

Atheists attack... for observing and speaking, a scientific truth

0

Just a note of interest. I saw on Google where an atheist forum was attacking me, and for what? I'm innocent. Because I made an observation based on a scientific fact? Oh crucify me for speaking the truth! Non-photosynthetic fungi (which do bear seed[spores] in them, have fruit[the fruiting fungi variety] etc., and have been found in "tree" form.) Their comment was something like, "What else will they have up their sleeve?" who is this "they" which they speak of? Excuse me, but I don't have anything "up my sleeve" unless that's a mighty big sleeve, because I couldn't explain the riddle of Genesis with the fossil record! Then I prayed to God to reveal the answer. Within a couple hours I was lead to Prototaxites,

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


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

...and a book accompanying it on edible foods, explaining a fruiting fungi is non-photosynthetic, with spores that act like seed, and can be eaten. I was in disbelief.

Extract from Foods and feeds - Google Books Result, by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages:


My view is not like "them" (the old "us" vs. "them" of paranoid Atheist hatemongers who have a religion of their own to pawn on the masses so they can destroy the U.S. and other nations, just like they brought the USSR to its knees in poverty, warfare, genocide, famine of millions... hardly "science" at work. I am not "religious," and my view is this, unlike creationists, I SAY, stick to strict, unadulterated, uncompromised science... and keep religion out of the classroom. Every truth which scientists have discovered, will explain the verses in Genesis. Not vis versa.

Meanwhile, with that understanding in mind that Epoch Three speaks of non-photosynthetic fungi like ancestors to Prototaxites, and at best, Algae which derived photosynthetic energy directly from hydrothermal vents (explaining Darwin's dilemma why 3.5 billion years of "nothing" in the fossil record, for lack of the sun's light energy). Soft organisms (suited to a dark, damp world at best).

Well, if it were actually "24 hour days" spoken of in Genesis -- why then non-photosynthetic organisms? Why not "create" modern plants that depend on sunlight? Would young earth creationists try to convince me, that a modern tree or any other modern plant couldn't withstand one night in the dark, approx. 12 hours, without light, until the next day...

Therefore, its easily deduced that Hebrew word "Yowm" is implying an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and not a literal 24 hour day. It's written in Genesis itself, "for times, seasons," wasn't even set until Epoch four, with the introduction of light from the heavens. Time did not even exist until Hebrew word, "Yowm" (Epoch) Four. It does not say the heavenly orb was created, but rather light itself, (photosynthesis), and thus providing a way to measure time.
"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 1:14)

God does not measure time on man's terms, period.

If it were a 24 hour day, could not young earther's modern angiosperms, survive through just one night without dying? Obviously, the riddle is solved by non-photosynthetic fungi (true to the fossil record). And that implies it was (true to science) millions of years in darkness. Modern photosynthetic plants, would've quickly went extinct in the environment described in Genesis Epoch Three. Only algae, fungi(herb) and organisms like Prototaxites (fruiting fungi trees) could've survived in that harsh environment of early earth. It can_not be a 24 hour day.

I am saying, (unlike Creationists and zealot Atheist hatemongers) for religion not to interfere with Science, because religion can't even properly teach the Bible (that includes Atheists who regularly take text of the Bible, completely out of context), but would be so arrogant as to attempt interpreting Science... a completely unrelated realm of knowledge!

Religion(including Atheism) mix with science like oil and water.

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 »