Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern physics responds:

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

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

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

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

Read More »

Fruit Trees Before Sunlight

0

Recently whilst surfing the web, I stumbled across this gem.

Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

Wild Edible Fungi: A Global Overview Of Their Use And Importance ...
Google Books Result
books.google.com/books?isbn=9251051577...
E. R. Boa - 2004 - Nature - 147 pages
The impact of harvesting wild edible fungi is frequently raised and a recent review provides a helpful summary of key issues that are explored in further detail below (Pilz and Molina, 2002).

Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree. Removing all the fruit does not affect future harvests unless the tree is damaged, but might have an impact on regeneration. This appears to be true for wild edible fungi but with some reservations: removing unopened fruiting bodies prevents dispersal of spores. In some areas of Italy regulations prevent the collection of first flush of some edible species (Zambonelli, 2002, personal communication: Truffles, and collecting porcini in Italy). (This makes practical sense too, since the early fruiting bodies are often damaged by insects.) Some collectors spread parts of the mushroom cap to encourage dispersal of spores.

A study in Switzerland showed that harvesting all the fruiting bodies of 15 species of macrofungi over a ten-year period had no significant effect on production (Egli, Ayer and Chatelain, 1990). If soils are compacted or leaf litter layers are disturbed, this can affect production. Indiscriminate digging for truffles, for example, is harmful. Crude raking to reveal young and immature matsutake damages the mycelium present in the upper layers of the soil. (The young fruiting bodies can be sold for a higher price.) This can be avoided by first identifying potential areas of matsutake, then using your hand to locate the tell-tale bumps while generally looking for signs of emerging fruit bodies (Arora, 1999).

Most species of edible fungi are picked without causing any damage since their fruiting bodies and edible parts are all above ground. The search for truffles (Tuber spp.) is often undertaken by trained dogs (Plate 4) (Hall et al., 1998a). The traditional use of pigs is now banned in Italy because they are difficult to control and sometimes eat the truffles. Truffle dogs are not used in China and random digging used to locate fruiting bodies will affect future production.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5489e/y5489e07.htm

...Collecting wild edible fungi is often compared with picking fruit from a tree...

I had a good with it.
I shared the excerpt with a good friend who's an Agnostic and told them:

But the problem is, you can't deny the evidence. Scientists discovered a fossilized "fruiting fungi" and they called it a "tree"!!! For 100+ years...

I can only imagine those creationist faces who have denied evolution based on supposed lack of "trees" in the fossil record. The arrogance! Their theological leadership, who presume to be intermediators for God and presumed themselves qualified also to speak for Science! far from the experts they claim to be to dare speak on what paleontology teaches. These DENIERS of science.

Or, the expression on any anti-theist atheist face these people who set themselves up as gods, to dictate the only acceptable version of genesis, are those that reak of the most absurd interpretations. Young Earth Creationism(TM) is of course, as we all know, the only doctrine taught in Sunday School. Never mind that there are at least 7 mainstream interpretations, never mind that one of them was evolution... and because theologians misconstrued their facts about science, with wreckless abandon dismissed evolution out of hand, rejecting it due to "lack of trees before sunlight." Atheists of course, in all their hours of petty squabbling with creationists would never think to correct those theologians and creationists on this matter of scientific fact.

Well there you have it. How can anyone be right, when everyone was wrong?

See "They Said It Couldn't Be Done, But Here It Is"!!

"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)" Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 This Statement Is Hereby Officially Board-Certified Approved

AMG editors failed to properly read Genesis 1:11 before attempting an exegesis of the passages in discussion, as it never even mentions the word "creation". Their second error was to assume there were no "fruit-bearing trees" that could aptly fit the timeline of the fossil record. Creationists have some serious apologizing to do to one, Mr. Charles Darwin.

Read More »

Mimicry (A Theory That's Obvious Nonsense)

0

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

You're absolutely correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

And the Denial Of Science by Atheists Continues...

1

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



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

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

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



...have amply proven themselves completely ignorant.

Protozoa are variegated, and feed through three means:

1. Holophytic protozoa obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic protozoa depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic protozoa asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This, is a tree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or any other type of "plant" ??

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

What are you talking about???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read More »

Eddie Vedder May Be An Atheist, But....

5

Eddie Vedder (may be atheist but is the best looking man to ever walk the face of the earth) Really, am I the only woman who thinks Eddie Vedder is the finest man to ever walk the face of the Earth? The passion, the drama, the way he expresses himself is so beautiful.

(cur) (prev) 00:59, 6 March 2010 CKarnstein (talk | contribs) (60,680 bytes)
(Early life: rmv unsourced claim that Vedder's parents divorced because his father was having a homosexual affair.) (undo)
- Revision History on Eddie Vedder, Wikipedia.
**Wonder if it could be something like that** aka Ted Haggard(?)**

Sad. Liberals I know of want to say its all a huge free for all out there... but what society ends up with, when people flounce around with casual, careless sexual mistakes... mistakes in general; misery, and screwed mental troubles. Sad... I've been reading on the deaths of some of these guys; Layne Staley, etc.

Eddie Vedder, Vocalist for Pearl Jam, for the very touching song, "Jeremy" and taking note of the "Genesis 3:6" (at the 1:23 marker) in this video.

Whatever the case may be, Eddie Vedder began using his Mom's maiden name for his own last name, just as I assigned my kids with my maiden name and refused to use their fathers' names (when I could have). Why? Because of the crap treatment those men dished out. They weren't loyal, faithful, honest companions. Obviously... Eddie Vedder's Mom split up with his biological father.

Why do liberals want to promote screwed up lives, that hurt young people... then when kids like Jeremy (the true story of "Jeremy" appears to be located at this page), are putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger in front of all their classmates, notice.. the liberals are quiet. But oddly enough... Eddie Vedder was the vocalist for that very song.

Sad sad sad world.



Another of their songs:

"Alive"

Son, she said, have I got a little story for you
What you thought was your daddy was nothin' but a...
While you were sittin' home alone at age thirteen
Your real daddy was dyin', sorry you didn't see him, but I'm glad we
talked...
Oh I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey, I, I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey...oh...
Oh, she walks slowly, across a young man's room
She said I'm ready...for you
I can't remember anything to this very day
'Cept the look, the look...
Oh, you know where, now I can't see, I just stare...
I, I'm still alive
Hey I, but, I'm still alive
Hey I, boy, I'm still alive
Hey I, I, I, I'm still alive, yeah
Ooh yeah...yeah yeah yeah...oh...oh...
Is something wrong, she said
Well of course there is
You're still alive, she said
Oh, and do I deserve to be
Is that the question
And if so...if so...who answers...who answers...
I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, oh, I'm still alive
Hey I, but, I'm still alive
Yeah I, ooh, I'm still alive
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

Seems even *some* Atheists realize there's screwed up errors, aka "sins" that screw up people's lives... and the innocent affected by those mistake carry the cross, crucified for it (so to speak). The world needs a lot more love, aka accountability, and doing to others what you want done to yourself, that includes counting the consequences your own mistakes will have on your loved ones (if you have the capacity to love anyone at all). It is my belief that God allows (sometimes even tempts mankind) -- into situations like the one in this video, the test and trial to become stronger, better, overcome the world. Putting a gun to your head is the easy way out.



"Life has meaning only in the struggle. Triumph or defeat is in the hands of the Gods... So let us celebrate the struggle."
- Swahili song

"I set before you life and death, a blessing and a curse. Choose life, that you and your children may live."
- Deuteronomy 30:19

...I believe "the gods" give us a choice, and it is called our own free will.

"What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."
- Nietzsche

Eddie Vedder
AKA Edward Louis Severson III
Born: 23-Dec-1964
Birthplace: Evanston, IL
From http://nndb.com/people/693/000025618/
Gender: Male
Religion: Atheist
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Singer
Nationality: United States
Executive summary: Lead singer, Pearl Jam
Edward Louis Severson III entered the world in the Chicago suburb of Evanston, where he was greeted right away with a convoluted family life.
Raised to believe that his mother's second husband was his biological father, his actual father (known to him only as a family friend) died of multiple sclerosis before the fact of his parentage was revealed. His adoptive father separated from the family when Eddie was in his early teens, adding more to his emotional troubles and compelling him to find refuge in drugs and, more constructively, an extensive record collection. While in high school he became active in local garage bands, eventually dividing his time between Chicago and San Diego in order to paricipate in both music scenes. He formed his first band, Bad Radio, during this period, but, due to an inability to expand beyond a regional audience, the project was later dissolved.
Through his friend and sometime Red Hot Chili Peppers drummer Jack Irons, Vedder (who been using his mother's maiden name since learning about his real father) was exposed to a demo tape put together by guitarists Stone Gossard and Jeff Ament, both formerly of the band Mother Love Bone. Vedder dubbed his vocals over the instrumental tracks and sent it to the duo in Seattle; they were impressed enough with the results that they immediately invited the singer to fly out for a visit. The three individuals meshed well on a personal level, and within days Vedder had made a permanent move to Seattle to begin work on the new band in earnest. Initially, they performed as Mookie Blaylock, the name of a favorite basketball player; before any records had been released, however, this was altered to Pearl Jam, in honor of an aunt's peyote-laced preserves. Blaylock was still given a nod in the title chosen for their debut album: Ten (1991) being the ball player's jersey number. Several months before work on this album started, a short-lived project was undertaken with members of Soundgarden under the name Temple of the Dog, resulting in a single eponymous record at the end of 1990.
Following the release of Ten, Pearl Jam immediately achieved enormous popularity, being one of several bands (Soundgarden, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains amongst them) to benefit from the hype surrounding the initial attle "grunge" explosion. In particular, the song Jeremy -- whose subject matter centered around a boy who commits suicide in front of his classmates -- gained Vedder and the band both notoriety and a devout fan base amongst alienated teens. The next two albums, Vs. (1993) and Vitalogy (1994) were met with equal success, but by this time a backlash against the "grunge hype" was becoming evident. Around the release of Vitalogy, the band's press coverage was distracted away from its music to concentrate instead on a conflict with (and subsequent law suit against) the ubiquitous ticket vendor/extortion racket Ticketmaster; sadly, the resolution to this conflict failed to bring about much improvement in the situation. With the next release, No Code, a deliberate move away from a commercial sound was made, resulting in a corresponding drop in sales. 1998's Yield made a return to a more accessible style more in keeping with the band's earlier records...."
/Excerpt from http://nndb.com/people/693/000025618/

Know God?

Why God allows suffering? Why, sometimes, it is God who creates evil. Even Eddie Vedder knows God, I think.
footnote... in the video where the line is crossed and _chooses_ to take his own life. It is always a choice.

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
- Matthew 6





"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me..."
- Psalm 23

In spite of his Atheism, Eddie Vedder is a beautiful, thoughtful person.

"God is conscience. He is even the atheism of the atheist."
- Gandhi

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 »