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 »

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 »

Cambrian Explosion -- The Big Bang of Biology

0

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

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

2

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

















Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Read More »

Evolution and Genesis

1

I am attaching Day #3 where plants are brought into existence. It is suppose to be Vendian period "plants," (or the "tender" grass, as noted in my copy of Nelson's KJV Bible of the original Hebrew) which would've been too soft-bodied in design, to ever have left a fossil... and for that cause, it's up to my own imagination as to what kind of plant-life existed in the Vendian era (before sunlight).

"... earth brought forth grass... after his kind...."

"... earth brought forth grass... after his kind...."

"... earth brought forth grass... after his kind...."


I noted in the text however, it does not say God "created" grass/herbs/trees... rather it specifies that God said, "Let the earth bring forth... after his kind". That implies evolution (probably natural selection).
Meanwhile on WHALES... in Day #5, verse 21, it specifically uses the word "God CREATED great whales" and "every living creature"... so God was directly involved with the creation of animals.
In verse 26, God "makes man in his image". (That is NOT Adam (the first man to till the ground/invention of Agriculture -- Adam was hand-formed, long after the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal -- so God knew the blueprint of a human!!), that was the prehistoric man back during the Tertiary). Early man did have the ability to create, use tools, to think, conquest... all the things that set man apart from animals. Man was superior to animals... and dominated them. All the things Genesis 1 states.
Some verses imply God states, "Let the earth bring forth..." and others God becomes directly involved, and implies direct act of creation. So maybe Natural Selection and Creationism are both true... the text implies that much. God used both methods to create. At least that's how the text appears to be literally written...

--

> I noted in the text however, it does not say God "created" grass/herbs/trees... rather it specifies that God said, "Let the earth bring forth... after his kind". That implies evolution (probably natural selection).
> Meanwhile on WHALES... in Day #5, verse 21, it specifically uses the word "God CREATED great whales"


There explains, i.e., Darwinist fascination with bacteria that "evolved" to consume nylon, but meanwhile... how very odd that early whales did a 360 and returned to the ocean... an incredible -- INCREDIBLE thing in the fossil record... literally lost limbs, and are air-breathing MAMMALS, that live in the water.

"Whales" stick out like a sore thumb in Genesis... ask yourself *why*...
I'd say of all things on the earth the Darwinists make the hugest ordeal over, are the evolution of whales... or had anyone else noticed?

Man and whales, are sort of "out there" in the Genesis text. God doesn't even bother to mention fish. Fish are lumped in with all varieties of "moving creature". One special documentary on PBS -- revealed the huge feat that was involved with arriving to a "moving" creature. The sponge was the first true animal, and it did not move. Starfish was an example of one of the first creatures that had the ability to move. And, Genesis specifies the "moving creature" as the first to emerge in Day #5 (after the creation of sunlight).

Read More »

Day #3 Could Life Exist in a Sunless World?

0

Genesis 1:11-13
"...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. 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. And the evening and the morning were the third day..."

The YLT Version notes *tender
And the earth bringeth forth tender grass, herb sowing seed after its kind, and tree making fruit (whose seed is in itself) after its kind; and God seeth that it is good;

* according to popular theories about Vendian organism their lack of hard-body structure which explains lack of fossils, as it stands, why mention "tender" in Genesis at all, unless it implies a soft-body plan.

The King James Version of the Bible (Copyright 1972, Nelson Publishers) concurs with the following footnote,


More from the Atlas of the Prehistoric World on the mystery of the Vendian organisms,



I took a peek at some of the very fascinating research that is taking place with Lichens today, too. Seems these things are not like most organisms in the plant or animal kingdom, and able to "shut down" and "turn back on" when supplied with water... a life expectancy of approximately thousands of years. Amazing, isn't it? That's including varying light sources.. surviving under snow for indefinate periods of time.. they simply "shut down".

The following information I retrieved from (fairly reliable) websites, including some research papers available on the web which are written in technical terms, but the research focuses on the following (simpler terms) information. (i.e., lichens in light, lichens in dark... one suggested, "The dissimilarity between 3H and 14C labelling patterns has led to the conclusion that polyols synthesized in the absence of photosynthesis must be derived from other stored substrates within the thallus."

Amazing life span.

Canada's Polar Life - Lichens
Lichens are hardy plants, in that they have the ability to "bounce back" from prolonged periods of dessication. They simply absorb water when it is available, wither into a state of dormancy when it is not, and come back to life once they are moistened again. Scientists have studied the extremely slow growth rates of lichens – in particular, map lichen, Rhizocarpon geographicum, and jewel lichen, Xanthoria elegans – and have discovered that these lichens can live more than 4500 years! The constant growth rates of some lichens have been put to good use, as a tool to estimate the age of landforms, such as moraines. The larger the lichen patch, the older the moraine.

--

Lichen Habitat
When lichens are wet, they "turn on" and start photosynthesizing and growing. When lichens are dry, they "turn off", become brittle and go dormant. This process is known as "poikilohydry", and other organisms such as mosses and liverworts operate in the same way.
The simplest way to tell if lichen is dormant or growing is by looking at its color. The darker black or brighter green lichen is, chances are that it is photosynthesizing. Of course, if it is wet and pliable, that is a good indication too.
If lichen looks pale and is dry and brittle, then it is dormant and waiting for the next rain or fog event before it starts photosynthesizing.

This could work well for an organism exposed to volcanic activity (as in the Pacific Hydrothermal vents and photosynthetic bacteria in the absence of sunlight), in a sunless world... the lichen needs very little light to survive in even hostile conditions (like those believed to exist in earth's earlier history).


Source: Atlas of the Prehistoric World
Discovery Channel Books, Douglas Palmer, P. 56

The book states:

The Vendian Seaworld
The organisms that lived in the shallow-water seas of Vendian times have puzzled paleontologists for many years. They were all completely soft bodied -- no trace of any hard parts have been found. At first they were thought to be jellyfish and wormlike creatures. But the way their bodies are preserved suggest that they were made of tougher material. Some of them seem to have lived within the seabed and had saclike bodies filled with sand. However, some of the plumed-shaped forms, such as Charnia, are similar to living seapens and sea-anemones.

Sea Anemones?

Scuba Diving - New Jersey and Long Island New York
Plant-like Animals. Invertebrates. Sea Anemones; Northern Coral; Hydroids; Bryozoans; Tube Worms; Barnacles; Sponges; Sea Squirts ...
http://njscuba.net/biology/sw_plant-like.html

Plant or Animal? A sea anemone looks a lot like a plant. It's even named after a kind of flower. But it's really an ocean-dwelling animal, related to corals and jellyfish. An anemone's waving "petals" are stinging tentacles for zapping and trapping. An anemone may use them to stun or even kill prey. Or it may just dine on drifting animal bits. Either way, the anemone uses its wiggling tentacles like ...
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-17408808.html

Scientists are mystified by these early organisms... and most of all, for 3 billion years of "bacteria baking under the sun (that's presumably there," why the lack of hard-body plans in these organisms? Scant fossils, because the organisms were too soft to fossilize? In fact, why the lack of hard-body organisms in general? 3.5 billion years is an awful long time, for bacteria baking under the sun, and nothing happens.... "natural selection" and "random mutations" proposed by Darwinists, simply sit idle. The conditions they propose (if true) should've produced plants and complex organism in great abundance around 3 billion years ago vs. the wee 500 million years ago (as the fossil record shows). Afterall, the atmosphere was loaded with Carbon Dioxide and ideally suited for the proliferation of bacteria to evolve into plants.... but it didn't happen that way.
On this note, Natural Selection is faced with a huge gap... a gap that lasted around 3 billion years, and just a little too much Darwinism to swallow.

The oldest evidence of life on earth remains at around 3.8 thru 3.5 billion years, with a carbon molecule extracted from a rock and, stromatolites (cyanobacterial activity formation on rocks). As shown here-in, a discovery in the deep Pacific, in total darkness where photosynthetic bacteria, can and do photosynthesize around the dim light of hydrothermal vents, and from the Earth's own energy.

In all this time, 3.5 billion years... where are the living organisms that Natural Selection predicts? The fossil record is empty.

The presence of sunlight would necessitate hard-body plans to retain moisture. Left alone on dry ground, the sun would bake a soft-bodied organism, dehydration, then death. But this "crazy hypothesis" is precisely what science has hypothesized as the cause behind the lack of fossils during the Vendian: Soft Body Plans. A dark world (without sunlight) would be ideally suited and could indeed support an ecosystem filled with non-photosynthetic organisms... even a limited number of Photosynthetic organisms, as was recently discovered in the deep Pacific, in the total absence of sunlight.

(See Recent Discovery of Green Sulfur Bacteria on From a Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vent :

Recent Discovery of Green Sulfur Bacteria on From a Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vent
The work of Beatty, Blankenship, et al. (2005) lead to the discovery of a previously undiscovered species that lives in the near vicinity of a deep-sea hydrothermal vent in the East Pacific Rise (Figure 5). The region from which the microbe was extracted is spotted with volcanic sites and many different types of underwater vents, making the area ideal for discovering new photosynthetic anaerobes. Although it is possible to verify the presence of organisms by analyzing samples of bulk DNA, Beatty et al. took a different approach to discern the presence of intact cells. They took samples of ocean water for cultivation rather than direct PCR amplification of bulk DNA. Samples were grown in medium prepared specifically for the cultivation of green and purple photosynthetic bacteria. Incubation occurred at 25 degrees C and a weak fluorescent light, as well as a 60-watt incandescent bulb, was turned on to provide a source of photons.

It is well-known fact, Earth is its earlier geological stages were covered in volcanic activity, providing a localized source for light and any photosynthetic bacteria and plant life to thrive. Let's be earnest with ourselves, if scientists can propose the "crazy theory" that this discovery somehow supports the "...hypothesis that life exists on other planets devoid of star-light. In addition to providing supporting evidence for extraterrestrial life..."

But Darwinists say we're not suppose to dare theorize that these events took place, right here on Earth in the early geological record.

*shreiking* fears of God, and Genesis, and if the Genesis account is true... "we might be obligated to obey those awful commandments that would have kept us from having so much fun..."

The author below, is speaking of our modern photosynthetic-dependent ecosystem, and not of an ecosystem comprised entirely of organisms that are non-photosynthetic, or primarily non-photosynthetic (as holds true with the example of mistletoe).

In the absence of light, life on earth [note mine: as it stands in current world] would not exist. Biological photosynthesis is among the most important reactions on planet earth that allows life to thrive. It was long thought that life was restricted primarily to photic zones where photosynthetic primary producers could access the light needed to drive their metabolism. This view was challenged with the discovery of green sulfur bacteria that grow deep in the ocean floor. Green sulfur bacteria are photosynthetic microbes that are capable of thriving in ecological regions that have extremely low levels of solar radiation. It has been proposed that certain types of green sulfur bacteria use what is known as Geothermal Radiation to supplement their chemotrophic metabolism. The emission of photons from geothermal vents could have provided a selective advantage to chemotrophic ancestors of modern day green sulfur bacteria that utilized light sensing systems to perform phototaxis towards sulfur-rich geothermal vents (3). A new microbial world at the bottom of the ocean adds to our knowledge of the incredible biological diversity that our planet planet nurtures and sheds light on a new ecological system.
On Earth, the discovery of a photosynthetic species capable of using geothermal radiation, rather than solar sources, helps support the hypothesis that life [...] on Earth originated in conditions similar to those displayed in the vicinity surrounding deep sea hydrothermal vents.
In green sulfur bacteria, the harvesting of light is in part carried out by the Fenna-Matthews-Olson protein (FMO). Based on the current literature, the FMO protein is thought to belong uniquely to the green sulfur bacteria (4). The chlorobiaceae contain Fe-S type reaction centers that share an ancestor with oxygenic photosynthetic organisms that utilize photosystem I (4).

Read More »