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 »

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 »

Snake found with a full limb (Attaching the photo of snake with claw)

3

Atheists have latched on to this poor cursed creature with one remnant hind limb, as if it were "walking". Far from it, and how geneticists have established the snake will NEVER walk again.


The picture says _everything_ anyone need know. When God "curses" -- don't underestimate the implications. Meant exactly what's written in literal black and white.

Snake with foot found in China
A snake with a single clawed foot has been discovered in China, according to reports.

Already this information is being used by Atheist(Anti-Theist) hatemongers to say,

The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.

They will scoff as they may, but I have already explained vestigial appendages on snakes, and why the snake will never walk again.

While humans may regain tails,

While cetaceans may sprout the bud of a hind limb...

While Pythons continue to retain spurs from their past life...
the snake shall NEVER walk again. The HOX GENE shift moved the body plan forward where it can not and will not grow forelimbs.

So, according to the science of Genetics, all the days of the snake' evolutionary future, it will inevitably -- go on its belly, and while slithering around on the ground to attack its prey, rolling around and around to asphyxiate and/or retain its victim in its clutches, they will get dust[dirt] on their prey... therefore, do indeed EAT DUST[dirt].

Now, if anyone finds a sea serpent that has re-evolved all four limbs again,... lol, share that please! I'll be open to the enlightenment.

Again, for posterity, I don't see that snake "walking" on four limbs... does anyone else?

God=Science, or either, God just isn't "God". YEC tend to deny Science, therefore, have denied knowledge and God will reject them. (Hosea 4:6)

---

Comments

An Atheist, pretending to be a Christian (how sad), left a new comment:

"...oh, and the photo is obviously photoshopped. those guys just wind you idiots up and watch you...you guys just show yourselves as ignorant fools."

Hmmm, how interesting Mr. Atheist. You claim the snake with the claw found in China, is a "photoshopped" sensationalist fiction. Even if it is by any chance a fictional story, it does _not_ invalidate a word I said about vestigial limbs in snakes, nor does it change the fact that AN ATHEIST used the same story/photograph, believing the story entirely to claim "snakes" are walking!! So I guess Atheists are credulous wind-up buffoons too? Thanks for pointing out the one-sided hypocrisy, because here it is:

"The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of it’s legs back.

And what does that prove? That the snake is walking??! Of course not. The book of Genesis did not "fail" because a snake regains a leg or not. The fact is, that science has established snakes are not "walking," period, and never will walk again.

The Atheist pretending to be a Christian, adds this too:

"...is all that remains on them of limbs. it is impossible for the mutation of a gene to cause a snake to grow a fully formed limb...because of the sheer number of genes involved in the process of making a limb (no, it isn't one gene that 'makes legs')

Intermission: Citing Herpetologist (reptile expert) Lenny Flank, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit... Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs."

Continue...

and the fact that the animal lost limbs so many millions of years ago (before mesozoic era) that those genes for the formation of full limbs no longer exist in ANY snakes dna. yes. i am earning interest on the mind god gave me, because somebody has to actually minister to intelligent people every once in a while. you guys go convert the dumb. you will win numbers, and that is good. but in your ignorace you will turn some away- i'm not willing to have that on my head.

Sure you are, Atheist. Also, I really don't believe the Atheist understood a word I wrote. #1, to this day, humans may not have tails (like monkeys do), but humans certainly do retain and carry genes to grow them, and on a rare occasion, do re-grow tail remnants. Also, cetaceans (whales and dolphins) still posess genes for hind limbs, observed in wild and the laboratory, and on occasion fishermen have caught such creatures. There's a vast difference between a) not having an appendage and yet carrying the gene to re-grow those limbs vs. b) not having an appendage due to an actual shift in HOX Gene expression. As in the case of fossilized snakes. Snakes do not fossilize well, period. Therefore, it is unknown to scientists, exactly when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. That's the mistake they make when discussing forelimb loss in snakes. Just because a snake doesn't have the limbs (millions of years ago), did not mean the genes were absent.
As for the number of genes, oh well, I was citing the ATHEIST Herpetologist, who wrote: "there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit..." Ole Lenny happens to be a Herpetologist and probably knows his snake genetics better than an angry, frustrated Atheist pretending to be a Christian.

LENNY FLANK WRITES: "As an aside, we now know, from genetic analysis, why snakes don't have vestigial FRONT limbs. During the evolutionary appearance of snakes, there was a change in one of the HOX genes that shifted the body plan forward a bit. As a result, snakes now have no neck vertebrae --- they are all thoracic and abdominal. Since, genetically, front limbs appear right where the cervical vertebrae begin, snakes can't have front limbs. The vestigial rear limbs appear where the abdominal vertebrae meet the tail. As photos show, the tail of a snake is extremely short. So, even though a snake LOOKS like it is all neck or all tail, in reality, it is all body."
Creation "Science" Debunked
My Reptile Page

Scientists do not know when snakes lost the ability to grow forelimbs. In the evolutionary history of snakes, the loss of the genetic information occurred at some time or another and they don't know when... they would need actual fossilized tissue of snakes to analyse the DNA to know exactly "when". Sorry, that is not available. Just because snakes did not grow forelimbs, did not automatrically mean, they didn't possess the genes to regrow forelimbs! Big difference. To this day, many creatures are absent of limbs, yet still carry genes that lay dormant. Until this day, snakes retain genes to sprout hind limbs, even though they haven't grown them in millions of years... just as some birds retain genes to grow teeth. There is no scientific "evidence" from genetics that millions of years ago, snakes "lost" any gene, just simply, they stopped growing forelimbs and hindlimbs. The loss of limbs vs. genetic information, are two very different issues. This shift in the Hox Gene, may have occured 100 thousand years ago, even a million... or it could've happened only about 10,000 years ago, like it is stated in the book of Genesis.

Last but not least, but here's outright denial of what's written in black and white text by this person, pretending to be a Christian :

ok. 1. no snake in the garden. come on. we know that this was passed down orally for hundreds of years before the hebrews and others ever developed writing. but for the sake of argument, the animal 'snake' was not itself cursed. the snake was already a snake.

Quoting the "Curse on the Serpent" : The serpent in Genesis is clearly a serpent, "the shrewdest beast of the field that the Lord God had made," and it was cursed to crawl on its belly and eat dirt "all the days of its life," and was understood to be a serpent by ancient Hebrews according to even the Evangelical Christian Wheaton College professor of Old Testament, Walton, who wrote the NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY on GENESIS (2002), available at any major Christian bookstore.
Serpent figures were common in the ancient world, and the description in Genesis of the serpent being stepped on and biting the heel of the seed of woman is merely a generic description of conflict. Hardly proof of anything. Consider Genesis, chapter 49 when Jacob blesses his children before his death, part of his blessing to Dan in verse 17 is: "May Dan be a snake beside the road, a viper by the path, that bites the heels of the horse so that its rider falls backward," (NET Bible). The generic term for serpent, "nahash," is used here (just as in Genesis when the "nahash" spoke to Eve). Most commentators believe that the serpent image in this passage is positive since this is a blessing. Dan, though a small tribe, will be as shrewd as a serpent, able to bite its enemies' heels so that they are defeated.
[NET Bible, 131, note no. 6; Sailhamer, 278; Henry, 92; The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, 46; H. C. Leupold, Leupold on the Old Testament. Vol. 2, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House and The Wartburg Press, 1942), 1188-1189]"

...the devil was cursed and told that he would remain in that form of the animal he took and would therefore be cursed to crawl on his stomach, get his head stomped, etc...just like all the oither snakes were doing before he appeared in the garden in that form. the devil was cursed, not the snake.

No where does the term "devil," "satan," "evil spirit" or any such superstitious garble appear in the Garden of Eden account. It states "beast of the field," implying the serpent.

jesus people. jesus is going to be expecting more than what he gave you when he returns, and our most valuable talent is our minds- too afraid to use it 'cause you thought that massa was a hard man, so you bury it in the dirt? i think when god returns or we get to him (whichever first) you are going to be some shocked people, because it isn't even close to what you have been duped into beleiving by guys like Gish, etc. they'd be better off having a swim with a millstone necktie than having spout out the garbage they have (knowingly, mind you) in order to try to defend their faith. oh yes. Jesus will demand interest on his loans.

Sure. Okay. You say.

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


The demon and satan babble has got to end. It's the very same idolatry that lead to God destroying Israel and Judah.

Solomon's Idolatry (Excerpt from scribd.com)

Read More »

What Does In The Image of God Mean?

0

I salvaged this conversation from youtube, during a conversation on what "the image of God" may mean, thought I'd share for anyone seeking possible answers. Some of the comments are no longer in their original posted order, which may explain if some of the comments seem out of sync with the conversation.

November 18, 2009...

Ferdinand Lasalle. I learned of him in Henry C. Sheldon, 1895, "History of the Christian Church." Sheldon mentions embrace of mild socialist reforms, by Bismarck/German Empire and denunciation of Marxism which demands terrorism and worldwide revolution. Complete meltdown of civilzation. Socialism began with good intent, and corrupted by anti-Christ Marx. Marx' parasitical followers began putting posters of Lasalle w/Marx, to create the false impression Lasalle supported Marx, LEECHING off Lasalle's success.

Aside of Lasalle's success being preyed on, Darwin was also victimized. Gaining widespread notoriety among scientists (I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution) Marx tried wedging into Darwin's success. See friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/. Darwin refused request for dedication in an Anti-Theist book. Darwin would not associate with Atheist bigots. MARXISTS BEGAN PRINTING POSTERS OF MARX' BOOK ON TOP OF DARWIN AND LASALLE, tho Darwin/Lasalle both had denounced atheist bigotry.

"I've read Catholics have no problem with Evolution"

And I read somewhere that L. Ron Hubbard wasn't crazy. lol..

I can tell you that in My Diocese, Karl Marx, Darwin or Evolution are NOT looked upon with kind eyes. We teach from the Gospel, no not the Catholic Bible but from The King James Version. Mass is completely centered on the Bible from the readings to the homily. I don't think most Protestants understand Catholicism and it's a shame because it contains allot of Christian history.

Perhaps then, SOME Catholics are accepting. NC-PBS Evolution: Triumph of an Idea (Carl Zimmer), the Bishop featured to represent Catholicism seemed to feel Evolution was not a problem. For me too, I do not see contradiction. After years of publishing among Darwinists, then converting to Christianity, I went through Genesis 1 verse by verse, and it aligns in perfect chronology with all that science has discovered, including solutions to serious mysteries, i.e., the Cambrian Explosion.

My Darwinist compadres were aghast when I provided concrete evidence, AMG KJV Study Bible, states "attempts to join the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable... because the order of creation is in direct opposition to modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
-- DO WHAT??
I knew this was a LIE. In fact, the elusive "tree" in Genesis was discovered, Prototaxites. Not angiosperms (flowering), but spores(seed) non-photosynthetic, fruiting fungi 'tree'.

So in essence, if I'm following you correctly, you accept the ideas of people like Cormac Murphy-OConnor?

Heyyyy, that's an insult.

"...During this time it was brought to his attention that a priest, Michael Hill, was a child sexual abuser. Instead of reporting Hill to the police, Murphy-O'Connor allegedly allowed the crime to be covered up..."

I found an article by this person Murphy-O-Connor. He has very little understanding of Science or Genesis.

HE WRITES: "It is a mistake to treat the theology of creation in the Book of Genesis as a scientific textbook."

Hmm.. after years publishing in thick of Darwinists and sometimes peer review of variegated scientists -- I converted to Christianity.

I can only say after all I had learned from science, I read Genesis verse by verse. And, interpreted so, it is SPOTLESS modern science!

No. I do not accept Connor's views. He has no understanding of Science or Genesis.

To make a long story short:
Science teaches earth once was "without form and void". Science teaches plant_ancestors arrived first (algae, fungi, etc).

Most profound truth of all. Science teaches that animal life began in the water and emerged on land. That's precisely what Genesis 1:20 says. God said, "Let the waters bring forth the moving creature."
etc

Genesis is identical chronology w/fossil record.

Ok, cool. My apologies. I thought your views ran somewhat parallel with his. I do see where your coming from now though.
I'm a white Catholic (1/4 Iroquois) but the rest is Euro. I see the depictions society has produced of Jesus or Adam and Eve for that matter and I know they're probably not right. I cannot bring myself to toss out history i.e. time and places of origin. I don't think anyone really has a clue what God looks like. So, did he model Adam and Eve entirely of himself? Or

God is spirit. When I checked the KJV footnotes, I found something very interesting compared to other interpretations (especially Atheist) . . it is written, God said "Let us make man in our image...." and I had to ask what "us" means. In the footnotes, it states (Heb.)"plural, majesty" -- and the "us" is followed by "male and female (plural) created he them".

So in God's image, both male and female.
Sadly, some have tried to teach woman could not be in the image of God...

did he just give free will to the Adam and Eve? What does "in his likeness really mean" I know God didn't create a monkey after his likeness because then that would collide with the evolution of that mammal. I think these questions can only be answered by God. I believe that there is allot missing from the Bible and the New Testament as far as preciseness is concerned. Which is understandable giving the age of such writings. Also, is the Bible Vague on purpose?

Do we really think we could ever understand what God really looks like or sounds like. I don't think so. If we did know these things, that would leave God open to judgment and we know thats not gonna happen.

It was my conclusion, after reading the scripture, where it says let (us=plural majesty) create man in our image, male and female (plural) created he them...

I believe the very words that follow after "in our image," is the explanation:

... Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth...

I still cannot say for sure what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details. We have God in us but how much is to exact detail? I'm not sure we can ever truly understand the magnificence of God as earthly beings. I would suppose the quick and easier answer would be that Cro Magnons and the Sons of God reproduced at sometime. Sometimes The easiest answer is the right answer but we are talking about very complex issues here that have been discussed for thousands of years.

Scientists research for signs of animals using "tools". Evidence of intellect that sets man apart from animals.
Man had already achieved great things by the time Adam was created 10,000 years ago. Cro-Magnon were the first to be true artists, leaving cave paintings of Aurochs (cattle that have long went extinct), they carved beads, and even "venus idols". But they did not know how to farm.
People were nomadic hunter-gatherers, until man learned to farm and were then able to create settlements.

Day Six or an "Epoch" (fair Hebrew usage) Heb."Yowm" does not always mean 24 hour day. That word is used often to imply indefinate period of time, i.e., "in that day you eat thereof you will surely die." But Adam lived 900 years. So it was in "epoch" usage of the word, not a 24 hour "day". Adam was created 10,000 yrs ago. In Epoch Six, humans are created. Those were the primitive, early man-kinds that paleontologists continue to find. i.e., homo erectus, sapien, neanderthal, cro magnon, etc

Genesis 1 and 2 aligns PERFECT with science. i.e., Chapter 6 mentions "man of old" (Cro-Magnons who lived 40,000-10,000 which were giant (six ft tall on average), powerful built people, Adam descendants "the sons of God" interbreeded with them.) Genesis says of Adam, there was "no man... to till the ground". He's father of Agriculture, not the first human.

Adam, was the first farmer. Scientists have known Mesopotamia is where farming began at the same time Adam is described being created. But people like O'Connor misinterpreted that it was saying Adam was the "First Human". Genesis only says, "there was no man to till the ground"

Agriculture History
Over the 10000 years since agriculture began to be developed, ..... agriculture in the Middle East was static, and Mesopotamia, for example, ...
adbio com/science/agri-history.htm

Well I definitely understand your arguments (Conclusions). I might not agree with every thing but I certainly respect your opinion.

Some gray areas are still present in me as the traditional Christian teachings collide with my God given intellect.

Speaking of the image of God.. when you read about the creation of Adam and Eve. They broke God's commandment, and partook of the knowledge of Evil. Then, they began to populate.. it is not written, "God saw that it was good," (like it was with the earliest man who lived in simplicity and did not harm anyone) but rather, "And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

That's modern man.

"...what exactly "in our image" or "In his Likeness" exactly details..."

The fossil record shows man rose above, and dominated the environment, above all the beasts. And "God saw that it was good". But the one thing man could not do, was farm to settle.

It is written in Genesis 2, "there was not a man to till the ground." So God created the first farmer in Mesopotamia, apprx 10,000 years ago. In God's Image? No, to do continual wickedness.
It is written, God then repents he even made man.

It was my (personal) conclusion, that in the image of God, is explained "to have dominion". Early man developed innovative tools, weapons, spears, etc., mastered his environment.

Of interest too, "I have given you every herb bearing seed...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."

Early hominids and humans (i.e., A. Robustus) are believed by Paleontologists to have been vegetarian (due to dentition).

Primitive man are still among us.
Descendants of Adam who took of the knowledge of evil, "their eyes were opened and knew they were naked".
There are still primitive people living to this day in jungles disconnected from modern world and lived nomadic for 10,000's of years. They run around naked, and do not have that perverse "knowledge of evil"... peacefully living as a "tribe". They still hunt and gather foods, and do not farm.

Atomic bombs, Frankenstein genetics... who's the SAVAGE?

Creationism teaches falsely that man (Adam, the fallen one who disobeyed God's commandment), was created in God's image, but it only says "there was no man to till the ground". Only primitive man was described as "in the image of God". Adam' descendants began plundering Cro-Magnon women, who's children were the same "mighty men, men of old," Nephalim, bullies. Continual wickedness; violence. God REPENTED he made man.

In the image of God? No. CRIMINAL man. Man are far more evil than monkeys.

Creationism may teach primitive man coming from apes, is... evil or unbelievable. TELL ME THEN what is so "holy" about modern man? What sets man above animals? Monkeys are better! Gorillas don't crack your skull open for a line of crack cocaine. Chimps don't sell their own mother for a dime. Orangutans don't go pedo on juveniles in the troop.
Animals only kill for food. Wicked man does it for sadistic sport... even preying on humans in the same manner.

It is written, God repented making man.

I don't always know the answers. When I converted to Christianity, I arrived at this conclusion:

Through Jesus Christ... we can read scripture, and the answers we seek will be given. "Knock, and the door will be open to you. "Seek and ye shall find."

Jesus is the only intermediator between a person, and God (The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth) to provide all revelations.

So God must answer you. I cannot.

"So God must answer you. I cannot."

Thats the way I see it also.

I also understand allot has been lost in translation like you bring to attention. Take the simple word "carpenter" that describes Jesus and follow that translation all the back to when that was written. It actually means "one who works with his hands". Giving the era I would tend to think he was more of a stone layer than a carpenter. But in my experience most Christians think of him as a carpenter who built houses.

--

... that's MY belief. The false teaching that man is "holy" or somehow "morally superior" compared to monkeys... as if it were proof against Evolution? No. Genesis describes that God grieved at man's ignorance, evil and criminality. Think pedophiles, armed robbery, violent assault, etc on human nature and ask yourself, "Are chimps in your neighborhood trying to rape kids?" I'd say monkeys are morally superior to many so-called "humans". Genesis concurs, that their thoughts were continual wickedness. therefore, a massive flood was sent on Mesopotamia..

Beyond "dominating the earth"... what is left? Every wicked thing under the sun? Image of God?? NO. More evil than many animals.

Man does create God in his own image though.

On a positive note, it states further on (it is known God gave them his commandments) they refused to obey... the same wicked men... God broke Israel and Judah and scattered them throughout the Earth.. and said he would yet make a new covenant through his son, (Despite the wickedness and enmity to God), ... see John 3:16

(I've said it 1000x already), "who is the SAVAGE"? When I point out atom bombs, genocide, and other wickedness that is in the heart of man... I guess it troubles inerrantists' and their impression of man's "special" status over monkeys and other creatures. Nope, God created ape, and it was good. God created modern man, and God grieved.

I am all too familiar with the false dogma taught by the churches -- adherents mindlessly nodding their heads in agreement against human Evolution, as if man had something "so special," about him, "so morally superior," ... compared to animals. Oh, contraire! Genesis is emphatic on this! Emphatic enough, that God flooded the Mesopotamian region, wiping out the hotbed of the human failure called modern man. Followed by raining down fiery sulphur on Sodom due to their wretched treatment of people.

Those fundamentalists nodding their heads in church. When they head out the door with the Bible they never read, they'll play the devil the rest of the week... I have never figured out what makes them believe humans have any moral high ground over animals. From my personal experience, animals make better friends than most humans.

Read More »

Archaeological and Geological Evidence for Biblical Flood in Mesopotamia Was A Localized Flood And Theologians Knew This Already

0

The denial of Science by anti-Theists must end.

I'm providing copies of documentation for the following,

Evidence that theologians are very well aware of scientific criticism raised in regard to a "worldwide flood" and problems with all species on earth on a single boat, among other issues.

The actual interpretation of the original Hebrew which meant "localized" flood.

Scientists who theorize the Black Sea (brackish water) may itself have been the result of a catastrophic flood in the same region. A great flood of historic proportions that was immortalized into remembrance, through ancient mythology.

Geological evidence of a massive flood like that described in Genesis, but only exists in the region of Mesopotamia, where the book of Genesis was recorded.

Other scriptural evidence that supports what Dr. Geisler has proposed below, for the Hebrew term implying a "localized" flood

HEBREW TEXT EVIDENCE
namely, Genesis 10:2 (speaks of Japheth and descendents, spreading outward after the flood): "The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras... By these were the *isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.

*Both Atheists and Fundamentalists are guilty of perpetually evading this question in their attempts to status quo the heck out of a "worldwide flood," perhaps in hope to discredit Genesis, but the question will not go away: Just whom does "isles of the Gentiles," refer to, and whom were these Gentiles who survived the flood?

The text clearly implies the sons of Japheth divide the land of the Gentiles, according to their tongues. So, the whole earth was not of the "same language".

Yet, in the very next chapter, Genesis 11, we see the opening verse (in supposed contradiction with Genesis 10?)
Genesis 11:1 "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech."

It can not be both. Needless to say, it is not both.
Skeptics might wish this faulty interpretation be perpetually propagated in their sole aim to nullify Genesis). But Dr. Geisler definitively points out, the Hebrew usage is referring to the immediate, localized region.

According to http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/I/ISLES+OF+THE+GENTILES/

"...the American Standard Revised Version "isles (margin "coast-lands") of the nations," said of the territories of the sons of Japheth. The reference is to the coasts of the Western Mediterranean, with their islands (compare "isles of the sea," Est 10:1; Ezek 26:18, etc.).

Take a look at the location of "Western Meditteranean" in contrast to the location of Mesopotamia, where actual geological evidence exists for a massive local flood. Therefore, it can be deduced the Noachian flood never actually reached the Western Meditteranean and the "Gentiles" spoken of in Genesis 10, did survive the flood.


SCRIPTURAL CRITICISM
Another item to consider is from "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," by Dr. Norman Geisler. Skeptics really should stop pretending they have discovered a cutting-edge line of questions to overturn theology. Dr. Geisler's commentary is ample evidence the issues have been considered long before now, by himself and other credible theologians. Whether or not the church at large is teaching these truths to mainstream Christians is another story.


Flood, Noah, Pg. 258
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Dr. Norman Geisler
Fourth Edition, ©1999

Christians are usually the last to be taught facts about these matters by the corrupt religious establishment, who seem to feel truth is on a "need to know" basis. Therefore I'll provide the information Pro Bono.

Note: As it were back in the dark ages of the Catholic Church's height of power, depriving the common person access to the scriptures.. at threat of death some men like Tyndall, Wycliffe, Luther and others took it upon themselves to translate and make accessible, scripture, for the common person.
How sad, with history showing brave men who sometimes suffered the fate of death for this "heresy," most Christians today, don't even read their Bibles. Was the sacrifice in vain, or is it rather that the church is guilty of convincing adherents they lack the ability to properly understand scriptures without an establishment intermediator from organized religion?
Did Jesus Christ die in vain, or is not Jesus the only intermediator between a person and God? They will be taught by God! When Christians depend on men to teach, the blind lead the blind and they both fall in the ditch.
But that's only my opinion, after becoming saved, actually reading the scriptures... and God's promise to reveal the truth to those who ask, so what could I possibly know?

Flood, Noah, Pg. 258
Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Dr. Norman Geisler
Fourth Edition, ©1999

So why do Darwinists and Agnostics and Atheists continue to pretend these issues were never raised and acknowledged by Christian theologians? Evade as they may, this publication is dated 1999, at least a decade since its publication! Yet the same outdated arguments will continue to churn from the Darwinist side, who are perpetually in denial of the more reasonable explanations already offered by leading theologians. In my personal experience with Darwinists (those certain Agnostics who seek to shed doubts on Scripture in hopes of winning over prospective converts to Atheism) share a preference for false, misleading and outdated information, sticking with status quo controversies such as 200 year old outdated beliefs; flat earth, geocentrism and other beliefs that the majority of Christians wouldn't even have known existed... and by making arguments against such things, one may be lead to presume Christians are "less intelligent," than an Atheist, or other Ad Hominems. Dishonesty seems to be the Atheists' preferred Modus Operandi over solid, honest debate as in addressing the full spectrum of the issue, instead of perpetually cherry-picking what may be distorted to make one's side seem more "intellectual." But of course, it boils down to nothing more than intellectual dishonesty, in hopes of creating the illusion they (the Atheist) hold the monopoly on scientific truths. Doesn't every religion claim to hold the monopoly on the one true, "absolute truth"? Atheism is no different than any other religion.



The side that stands with TRUTH doesn't need to use lies, to win support... the truth stands on its own. The purpose however is more along the lines of deceitful propaganda, to create a false impression that no original thought ever enters the brain of a Christian. Character assasination, in contrast to the "intellectual, scientific discourse" they are so famed for boasting to adhere to.

BLACK SEA FORMATION THEORY

http://www.natgeochannel.co.uk/Programmes/Schedule.aspx?Id=678
National Geographic produced a special on the question of the formation of the Black Sea. This theory was proposed by two scientists who were veterans in geology and question if ancient mythologies may possibly hint at the flood described in Genesis, devastating enough to form the Black Sea.

Robert Ballard, the man who found the Titanic, ventures beneath the 'dead zone' in the Black Sea. Will he discover clues about one of the most dramatic events in the Bible?

MESOPOTAMIAN ARCHAEOLOGY AND GEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE




Reference: January 1930, National Geographic Magazine, Page 118-120

Read More »