When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

0

Referring to Two Past Posts

Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now? and,

Richard Dawkins Admits Intelligent Design Possible
Atheist:

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."
Atheist:

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.

But is that not how Atheist's produce "evidence".. by pointing to lack of evidence?

Reiterating on Atheist Logic: "...It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence I think in order to have an intelligent discussion... both parties need to agree that evidence is needed in order... 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.

Atheists fail to provide any evidence for Atheism themselves, except "lack of evidence". Lack of evidence is what they base their entire belief system on! It is a presumption that God does not exist, not empirical evidence. Scientists do not have direct evidence for black holes, yet they testify to the effect black holes have on surrounding stars. However, black holes are accepted as fact in modern physics. Even further, Theists aren't so foolish as to claim they have empirical evidence for God, and admit their creed is based solely on faith whilst Atheists claim they have "evidence" and demand "Evidence".

Yet, actually, Atheists base their creed on the sole basis of thier Lack of Evidence.

Mr. Atheist, I am not speaking in a different language. I have spoken in YOUR LANGUAGE when I say:

Isaiah 45:15 "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour."

Atheist: It seems you are using the lack of evidence...as evidence.

How is it then, that it fails the logic of Atheism? Since lack of evidence is the sole foundation of the Atheist belief, perhaps for the Biblical authors, it was the foundation of their belief in God, and a profound evidence.

Lack of Evidence, is precisely what Atheists need to support their entire belief system. They have no evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they say they conclusively believe... there is no God. Ah, no evidence = belief. Then why their demands for evidence from Theists?

"With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.
Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.
I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.
Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF."

Scientific theories exist, without direct evidence... proof, they say? Yet Atheists have no problem accepting these theories on faith. And even still, there is no direct PROOF, for the non-existence of God.
This particular Atheist never had the viable "Proof" God does not exist. Lack of evidence, is not "proof". Forensic investigations are not done that way. Investigators develop a theory and seek evidence. Scientific theories are formulated in the same manner. Theories are formed after which, evidence is sought. It is my belief, that Atheists do not genuinely seek evidence. It was the belief of Biblical writers, "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God. The "Burden of Proof" argument fallacy does not fall on myself or theists. Afterall, who needs evidence. Lack of evidence is "evidence"!

John is driving in his car with Lucy. John tells Lucy, "Look over there," and points toward an area among the distant trees. "A murder took place over there just a few years back" Lucy is curious. Lucy wants to know more. After several days, Lucy drives back to the spot just as she remembers John pointing it out to her. Lucy anxiously expects to see "evidence". There should be a body or some other evidence that indicates "murder," shouldn't there? But there is no body, no blood, there's nothing. There is no "evidence" for a murder anywhere in the location. Perhaps John just lied, and made up the whole entire story. Lucy gets angry at John and accuses him of lying, since afterall, shouldn't his claim that "a murder took place in said spot," be accompanied with evidence? Lucy is too lazy to question police, or browse old newspapers. Lucy does not continue her search for more answers. Lucy closes her mind and feels the "lack of evidence" is enough "evidence" to satisfy her mind, make up her conclusions, that no murder ever took place and John, is a liar. From that point on, she will not accept old newspaper reports, testimonies from witnesses, living relatives of the murder victims, books on the murder or any claim that contradicts her "Truth" on the matter. Afterall, hadn't Lucy went to that location and saw with her own two eyes, there was no body? No blood. No evidence. What more "Proof" does anyone need? Lucy is a genius. Lucy thinks like an Atheist!!

Likewise, such "lack of evidence" adequately explains why some other people might form a belief in God based on that same line of logic. Hey, afterall, if its good enough for Atheists to form a whole belief system based entirely on lack of evidence, then why isn't it good enough for Theists? Afterall, according to the Atheist belief system "lack of evidence," is "evidence".

And for those of you who've erroneously believed you are atheists, but can mentally embrace the fact that you have no solid evidence to base your opinion on, which was formed in the total absence of evidence, A.K.A. "proof" to establish your non-belief in God on, that makes you an Agnostic and in my opinion, that raises the bar for one to be viewed as slightly more intelligent. There are many things in the cosmos that remain unknown... for an intelligent, scientific-minded person says of those things they know not, "I don't know."

---

Actually, atheists would argue using a similar story,

But the problem is dear...

but inserting a creationist who visits the Olduvai Gorge at the spot where the bones of "Lucy" the Australopithicine

I am not a "creationist."

were discovered, and since the creationist doesn't spot the fossils there any longer,

and therefore this point you tried to make is totally moot.

and doesn't consult the science journals, disbelieves in any fossil evidence for evolution.

Creationism and God, do not equate. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

And the example still stands. Just as primitive man does not disprove God, you can't prove God by it either. You can prove evolution, but you can not prove or disprove God using the fossil record. The record stands on its own merit.

And, while the good Lord was allowing things to evolve, and tinkering with DNA, I'm sure he'd already considered this long before you came on the fossil record:

"Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour." And it was Jesus who stated, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it" (Matthew 12:39)

Utilizing minimal deductive logic, since "lack of evidence" is enough to satiate the Atheist curiosity and intellect on the question of God, and no evidence is necessary to form a belief, likewise, I owe Atheists no explanation "why" I believe in God.

Read More »

Three reasons I can't believe in Atheism

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIG ERROR #TWO
Scientific misinformation.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modern physics responds:

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

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

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

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

Read More »

The Earth Moving and the Sun Standing Still... Really Now?

0

"All who maintain that the Sun is immovable, and that it is the Earth which moves, sufficiently show that the Scriptural and Scientific Account of Natural Things seldom agree."
- Matthew Tindal (A Deist, writing in 1730)

The Bible says the Sun moves. Right?

Well, Atheists seem to think the sun is "fixed" in its position but they're wrong. The stars move. Starting with black holes,

Hundreds Of Rogue Black Holes May Roam The Milky Way
http://sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090429120851.htm

Apr 29, 2009 – It sounds like the plot of a sci-fi movie: Rogue black holes roaming our galaxy, threatening to swallow anything that gets too close.

Curious About Astronomy: How do stars move in the Galaxy?
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=378

Oct 18, 2005 – The stars move on orbits around the centre of the Galaxy. ... We can dectect radial motion by looking at the wavelength shifts it creates in the ...

lol.

Yahssir, the exception makes the rule.

Nothing's so simple as those patent "absolute truths" (TM) of Atheism and Theism. The exception makes the rule.

"The second answer is that in a more general sense that stars do move. The simple fact is that due to gravity every object in space moves. The reason that things seem stationary is because of relative motion and frame of reference. Relative motion means that celestial object tend to move at the same speeds. We only notice them moving if their relative velocity is different from ours. Stars move due to being in their own unique orbits around the center of the galaxy. In real time speed the move very quickly but because every other star moves at around the same speed we never notice how quickly we move. The other fact is that as fast as stars move the distance the cover is even bigger. What is fast to us on Earth is a snail’s pace in the larger universe.
In the end we see that the answer to the question “Do stars move?” depends on the frame of reference and our understanding of motion in the wider universe. So when you next time you look up at the night sky know that the stars are moving but not in the way most people think."
~ http://universetoday.com/85730/do-stars-move/

Don't believe Atheists would make such a non-scientific claim?

A creationist asks: "Atheists, how did they earth get here? Why does the sun come up and down? Why do the tides go in and out?"

An Atheist answers:

A singularity and gravity.

The sun doesn't move, the Earth does.

Tides happen because of the gravitational pull from the moon.

Anything else I can explain for you?

Why does the universe need a creator, but your God doesn't?

What? *drum roll please* A non-scientific answer from an Atheist... well there you have it folks. Atheism is a false religion that can not be trusted for science!

Question2011-5-30 14:26:49 PST
Atheists: Why does the sun follow a predictable path around the galaxy?
Answer
Like most of the stars in our galaxy (milky way) our sun is in an orbital path round the centre. Just as the earth moves round the sun. It is due to the balance of forces in the speed that the sun is moving the pull of gravity from the black hole at the centre of our universe. This will go on until something alters which could be the sun running out of fuel (about 5 billion years) or the andromeda galaxy crashes into our galaxy which will happen in a few billion years. This may well disturb our orbit but I doubt if it will bother us.

---

Ah - What? Are you that thick?
The sun doesn't move, genius, everything else does. Its "path" is nothing more than illusion to us. The sun is the heaviest thing in our solar systerm, thus is the thing that we all go around. It sits still.
Actually pick up a book.

---

HOLY **** YOU'RE RIGHT!!!
MUST BE JESUS!!!11
CHECKMATE!!!!!1111!!

---

the sun does not move, we move around it

---

Turtles all the way down...
lol

Well, there it is! "Atheist Science".

Here's one of the funnier examples

When Atheists Attack (Each Other)
May 1, 2011 – What's the problem with the sun standing still for 24 hours?! You don't see a problem?
How about Jesus giving wrong information about the mustard seed?
How about God "repenting"?
How about God having to "come down" to see what's going on so he would know?
How about God making a rainbow to remind himself never to flood the earth again?
[...]
That's because I can't even get a grown up answer on that one verse, let alone others! Even if it were one lonely verse, every word is supposed to be true, right? So, if the sun doesn't move, how could it "stand still" for 24 hours? Is your God a geocentrist too?

Obviously, Mr. Atheist knows the Bible speaks of a movable sun, and is fired up about it. He believes the Sun stands still.

Atheists will swear that the sun is fixed in its position, because they're so fixated themselves on whether the earth moves or not, and what biblical writers might've said in regard to geocentric beliefs. Sort of like straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel... and a lack of interest in actual science to boot. If the biblical writers said the sun moves, well you know, they had a point afterall!!! LOL.

Occasionally, you might actually bump into an Atheist that seems to have a working knowledge of science, and I do note what seems to be (at least at the moment) a more mellow tone to their discussion:

It's very clear to me that this reaction only made me turn away from religion more. I was the sort of kid who, while not being overly badly behaved, constantly questioned everything. The fact that I was being told that I couldn't question this...thing people spent a lot of their lives doing, made me intrigued. What sort of power did this religion hold for people? Why was it intrinsically wrong to even begin to think that some of it might be wrong?

A problem I had at the time (which still plagues me to this day) is that I could not, and still can't, accept anything at face value.

'The earth goes around the sun. The sun doesn't move,' a teacher once told the class in a science lesson. My hand went up.

'Mr H., my book says that the sun moves too. It's got an orbit. Isn't that right?'

I remember the look of mildly amused exasperation on his face. 'Yes, Jodie, that's right. But for now, let's pretend, for the sake of these exams that you're sitting in a few months, and for the rest of the class, that the sun doesn't move. Okay?'

'But...'

'Jodie.'

'Yes, Mr H.....'

That was my issue with religion. Even though my teachers grew exasperated with my questions about the accuracy of their teaching, they never told me that I couldn't ask my questions - just to wait. With religion, it was an entirely different matter, which brings me to my next point.

Religion requires faith. Essentially, faith is the belief in something without, or despite proof. Faith requires the human mind to take a leap beyond that which is currently proven in the paradigm of science and hold on to something slippery and non-concrete.

I don't feel confident accepting the idea of faith.

People often question this assertion. 'You have faith that your family loves you. You have faith that if you are hungry, and you eat something, you'll feel better. You have faith in modern medicine to at least attempt to help you if you're injured or sick.'

No, I don't.

Of these things, I have something entirely different. I have PROOF.

The proof that I have for my family loving me is the fact that despite my oftentimes very difficult behaviour, they still continue to give their support, talk to me, provide me with shelter and love. The proof that I have that if I eat food, I'll feel less hungry is the empty bag of crisps I stuck in the bin an hour ago. The proof that I have for the workings of modern medicine is obvious in the thousands of people who are currently better off (or better, still alive) because of the tireless work of people in the NHS and other medical systems around the world.
http://interjection.livejournal.com/9804.html

Interesting indeed. Amazing. There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".

However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people.

---

rofl...that's so funny. Atheists claiming the sun doesn't move.

ROFL... They're atheists. They're suppose to have "absolute truth" because doesn't atheism = "science"??

Then how can atheist writers be wrong?

How?

It's a religion, not a scientific field of knowledge.

That's how they're wrong. Often. And about a lot of things. No better than those people who wrote the Bible.

---

"...Atheists never said they were inspired by the author of the cosmos to..."

Oh atheists do claim they're inspired by the author of "Cosmos" and other Scientific Programming, and make a lot of false claims that don't hold water. When put to a simple trick question, the truth spills forth. They're not really that intelligent. They lack the "abstract" thinking required to "think outside the box".

A matter of IQ.

Repeating myself for posterity:
"...There are some intelligent atheists out there. But perhaps that's because some people, in general, as a rule, are more intelligent than others. They're just born that way. It's genetics to thank, not Atheism and not Theism. Intelligence and intellect are not due to one's religious persuasion. Nor do intelligent people tend more to choose to become Atheists. People, as a whole, tend to lean toward spiritual and philosophical beliefs, period. There are just as many "dumb" Atheists, as there are "dumb" Theists. So much for the argument fallacy that Atheism were a religion for up and coming "intellectuals".
However, I do need to note, I have seen many examples where certain religious persuasions (including Atheism) tend to dumb down otherwise intelligent people."

And if you're fair about it, you'll accept that, because its the truth.

"...write about it, and that only one book contains the true inspiration of what atheism is all about."

Atheists don't need a book. They just need a daily regimen of blaspheme to keep their "intellectual" faculties in check. Astronomy & Chemistry & Physics... are not Atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with Science. Not one scientific field has proven or disproven anything about God.

Atheism is completely useless in the realm of science.

Perhaps Paranormal investigators... I hear that's some kind of voodoo "scientific study" which has produced no significant results. Perhaps they're taking applications to deal with things that don't apply to the empirical world. Perhaps some Atheists can become gainfully employed among paranormal investigators or other pseudo-scientific fields of knowledge. Yet, Atheism has no bearing on Chemistry, Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Biology, Botany, Paleontology, Archaeology, etc etc etc... and all we call Legitimate science.

---

Carl Sagan of Cosmos fame was an agnostic.

Nobody disputes Sagan's knowledge on science. Does that mean his Agnosticism or Atheism brought humanity one inch closer to knowing yea or nay about God? No, his Agnosticism was his own personal belief, not a scientific discovery. Obviously, from the getgo of saying he was Agnostic proves he had zero knowledge of God... at least he didn't confuse his personal opinions about God with his science, in the series Cosmos. I doubt PBS would've aired the program had it spent 99% of the episodes railing against people of faith, and 1% about science, and flawed science, like most Atheists tend to do.
True scientists, know the difference.
Charles Darwin was the smartest of all... he never breathed a word of his true opinion, and generations after he's dead in the ground still battle over whether he was Atheist or believed in God. Does it matter?!? Why is it, his science is overshadowed by the stupidity of Atheists and Theists?? Again, science is dismissed because Atheists' bad attitude, no love for the science, and Theistic ignorance.

I emphasize, DOES IT MATTER whether Darwin was Christian or Atheist? If he were one or the other, would it somehow invalidate his scientific research, theories, conclusions? Would it make his theory any less appealing or appalling if he were Christian or Atheist?

I don't care to know. I do know with certainty, he was a scientist. That's all that matters. Atheism or Theist aspect of his "Science" is irrelevant. If Darwin had felt the matter were pertinent to his scientific theories, he'd surely thought to share his little secret. But he didn't. Because religion (atheism and theism) are philosophical issues and have nothing to do with science.

And in so far as heated discussions between theists and atheists go, also don't forget to visit places on the web where Catholics are tearing at Protestants and vice versa, or where Fundamentalists are tearing at Charismatics/Pentecostals and vice versa, or where Christians are tearing at each other's interpretations of Genesis or Revelation.

CHRISTIANS FIRING CHRISTIANS
"Hardly a month goes by without me hearing directly or indirectly of a professor [at an academic Christian institution] who was precipitously dismissed or forced to resign with little warning and without given an appropriate and fair venue (i.e., consistent with Christian morality) for adjudicating grievances. The situation is reaching epidemic proportions." Moreover, “No major doctrine [had been] called into question [by the fired prof.], no denial of any item of historic Christian faith, no moral lapse, no criticism of teaching effectiveness, just a charge of having stepped out of the party line on any one of a number of matters undifferentiated as to importance.”

Atheists and Theists can't live together, and can't live without each other, because all they want to do is fight like rabble over pointless squabbles that will never be resolved beyond one's own personal opinion. Put the science in the waste bucket, and proceed to attacking somebody's philosophical views which seems rather pea-brained in my opinion.

Read More »

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 »

When Atheists Go to Desperate Extremes to Deny.. Science

0

* To protect the identity of the very uneducated person who made this error, I will replace instances of his name, with "Fred".

--

See attached image, devonian_fossil_001.jpg.


Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

I thought science taught that men have superior brains, and can do spatial tasks better, and "visualize" in 3 Dimension, or as the evil Alfred Rosenberg who was blaspheming God and Jesus Christ to high heaven once said, that men are born inherently with the inborn skill for "conceptualization" while women are ... inferior... lacking in intellect... weaker minds. I suppose if you trap any human in a cage, refuse them an education, consign them to servitude... forbid them to develop their potential, including a barrage of insults "in the name of God," they'll turn out ignorant sooner or later.

Meanwhile, I argued... and argued.... and argued with *Fred,* since he wanted to take Genesis out of context and superimpose "birds" on the word for "Fowl" coming from the water, which actually means "insects" (I sent him the Tektonics link, on the usage of the word fowl = insects) but he ignored this, and continued to claim (despite being corrected 1000x times)... I mean, if you're Atheist, who needs to stick with facts or truth? afterall, there's no such thing as sin... and morals go right out the window.. no ethics, no standards, no honesty necessary. Atheism has saved them from that awful obligation called "intellectual honesty")... that Genesis is speaking of "birds" when it speaks of "fowl". . .

. . . but hey, after considering it, it was an interesting argument from at least a scientific p.o.v., (an argument that Darwin himself would appreciate). It doesn't do much for the Young Earth Creationist argument about Creation... but it does wonders for Evolution theory. Ha ha ha... yes, Fred, a self-proclaimed Agnostic and Darwinist... was caught red-handed in the act of DENYING EVOLUTION and Science!


Typical Devonian Period Environment, 480-360 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

Birds have

Nicititating membranes (the transparent second lens over the eye of aquatic creatures), and

Scales on their feet,

waterproof feathers ... not just the ducks, geese, swans and other water-fowl/marsh-birds/sea-bound albatross/pelicans,etc etc... but land-varieties like Cardinals still retain their aquatic characteristics which reveal hints about their mutually-shared aquatic origins. And, take a look at what Science teaches about the origins of tetrapods. Their origins all point to, and return to the water. Why would terrestrial birds have Aquatic traits?
The Y.E.C. may not have an answer for this, but Science/Paleontology does...and Genesis 1 raises the same issue. Creatures began in the water and emerged on land. This, the aquatic characteristics shared between all birds, is a definite question, Charles Darwin could fully appreciate.

*Fred* argued blue in the face, that birds came to exist _on land_. In his kindergarten view of evolution, and Hollywood-based understanding of Paleontology, he visualizes animals wandering around in deserts to qualify as "terrestrial"... with little or no water in sight. BUT THIS WAS SIMPLY NOT TRUE FOR THE EARLIEST CREATURES. Take a look at so called "terrestrial" tetrapods. Complete with four legs, and still living IN THE WATER as I was desperately trying to explain to him.


Typical Carboniferous Period Environment, 360-286 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

The same for bird ancestors. They came from water origins... they clinged around beds of water, hunting for prey, and gathering berries and other food. ALL BIRDS... not just geese and swans, possess characteristics of aquatic creatures. The grand-father of all birds, was somewhere around the water's edge like other contemporaries of his age... and passed those aquatic traits on, to all modern birds. Even the Canary and Cardinal, cannot escape its origins and will continue to pass on the aquatic eyelid, the aquatic waterproof feathers and scaled feet of its earliest ancestor. This is how evolution (as science) works... it not only moves forward, it almost always retains characteristics from its origins.


Typical Triassic Period Environment, 245-208 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

**I really don't see the need to proceed beyond the Triassic (which I personally believe would've produced the ancestor to _all birds_), because by the next period, the Jurassic (208-144 Million Years Ago), the fully formed and functional "bird" Archaeopteryx, was already living (and according to one source I've read thus far, scientists do not believe Archaeopteryx is the actual ancestor to all birds, a type of evolutionary dead end)... I'm discussing *the one true* original fossil ancestor of birds, which even Dr. Alan Feduccia (an expert in the subject) confesses is unknown to science.

But for posterity sake, I'll proceed _beyond_ the time of Archaeopteryx. Here's yet another image of a typical Cretaceous (144-66 Million Years Ago) environment... millions of years after Archaeopteryx, and the creatures are _still thriving around the water, and Water's Edge.


Typical Cretaceous Period Environment, 144-66 Million Years Ago
Source: Discovery Channel, Atlas of the Prehistoric World, ©1999 ISBN#1563318296

This is an argument based strictly on what Darwin himself would've taught... what Science teaches... and in Genesis, with "Let the water bring forth.."

lol! When Agnostics are making arguments against Evolution to dispute Genesis, you already know they're desperate.

See attached image for "terrestrial tetrapods". And from all that I know of the earliest tetrapods and following evolutionary epochs didn't change much for aquatic-based habitat preference for most creatures. Even the oldest known horse ancestor's anatomy, dated around 50 mya, was built for walking on wetland...
but leave it to an Agnostic to deny Genesis, and without realizing it, denying Evolution and every established scientific teaching.

Yes... the grand-father of birds came from an environment, very much like the environment seen in the attached image. His entire anatomy testifies to his origins. He was Aquatic in origin, and all his descendents retain Aquatic Characteristics. What Fred was arguing was not only non-scientific, but, un-Darwinian.

And even worse than this..

As I pointed out last night, concerning snakes (which are too fragile to serve much good in the area of fossil preservation) therefore, due to only a scant fossil record, scientists have two on-going theories, whether or not snakes originated from water-dwelling mesosaurs, or land-dwelling lizards. Birds, like snakes, and most plant-life, do _not_ preserve well... along with many other organisms, leave few to no fossils. Only in special environmental conditions preserve softer body organisms, those lacking hard-bone and body structure. Even special environmental conditions are required to preserve even some of the hard-bodied organisms!

BTW, "terrestrial" does not mean necessarily living in the desert like Hollywood teaches the masses with its terrible misinformation, however, the truth about the earliest creatures on earth, is more like Carl Zimmer's book, "At the Water's Edge," as in the so-called terrestrial Alligator and Crocodile, which spent part if not most of their time around the water... or, another better example, the "Walking Whale" Ambulocetus Natans, precursor to modern whales, which scientists theorize was an ambush hunter, who dwelled at "the water's edge," and returned to the water. So it actually never (fully) left the water to begin with, did it?

When Agnostics are soooo desperate to deny Genesis, they sometimes end up denying science, as well.
Meanwhile, because Agnostics believe they "have all truths," and like a religion, "Absolute Truths"... swearing blue in the face, that birds did not evolve from Aquatic origins.
Funny, during brief correspondence with Dr. Alan Feduccia, he confirmed they do not know what the ancestor of Archaeopteryx was... in fact, in his book he refers to the ancestors of birds, as "whatever they were," and in one link that Fred provided me with... Dr. Feduccia concluded, "What group of reptiles (erm, tetrapods)?"


The Origin and Evolution of Birds, by Alan Feduccia, ISBN #0300078617

"Reptile" is such a misleading term... one might be mislead, erroneously assuming that when Scientists speak of "Tetrapods," and say "Reptiles," they actually mean, "Reptilians" as in cold-blooded. Actually the scientist means "tetrapods"... and as Dr. Feduccia summed up in his correspondence with me, it is very difficult to know anything about Physiology (warm-blood vs. cold-blood) from FOSSILS.

Yet, with all this admission by an expert on Avian origins, and the widespread _lack of knowledge_ about bird origins, leave it to the Agnostic to fill in the holes, complete with theories as patent answers, and such ARROGANCE to assume knowing more than the scientists themselves! The Agnostic chimes in with his "absolute truths," that birds did not have origins around the water.

Yet, if Darwin's theory is correct, then,
1. Waterproof Feathers
2. Scales on Feet
3. Nicititating eyelid

Points to origins around an aquatic environment, those characteristics did not emerge from "thin air."
Creationists may teach "characteristics in creatures came out of thin air." Science does not. Seems now, some Agnostics are teaching the same thing.

We can look at modern creatures, and still tell something about their ancestors. All birds (even purely terrestrial ones) characteristics scream "AQUATIC ORIGINS". To understand origins, scientists compare modern anatomy with fossils that are dug up out of the ground. It is called "Comparative Anatomy"... but leave it to an Agnostic, to deny Science and Darwin's studies into Paleontology.. as well as books like "AquaGenesis" by Richard Ellis and Carl Zimmmer's "At The Water's Edge."
I really don't think Fred realized how his anti-Theist zealotry could lead him so far astray, into denying established science itself!

As I have said, there have never been two more destructive groups to science, than the so-called "Darwinists" (Atheists guising their agenda behind Darwin's theory) and having no actual understanding or love for science, ... and YEC who base all their arguments on what these jokers claim science teaches. Just like these so-called Darwinists never actually address a single verse in Genesis... beyond idolatrous attempts to distort it, otherwise, their arguments consist of a total basis on YEC interpretations, while YEC steadily base their rebuttals on Darwinist arguments against Genesis.
A downward spiral of the blind, leading the blind astray.

As Dr. Feduccia put it in the media, "Science can't get a fair hearing".

How often Atheists have complained about the Creationist's "Circular Reasoning," when they themselves, denying all along their own unscientific based religion of Anti-Theism, alas comes "fool circle" itself.
... Oooo, *pun* ! Atheists love those.

Creationists assumed "God created," (because they didn't pay close attention to the literal text), but tell me where the word "Created" is even mentioned in Epoch Three regarding the "designs" of plants:

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.

Can anyone point out where God "designed" the plants?

I'm sure if God had hand-designed, "created," it might've speeded things up a billion years or two... but, God instructed the earth to create the algae, and plant-life that followed it.

I'm not saying that God never had any thing to do with some touching up of genetic blueprints in plant organisms (as it appears to be the case in diatoms with their extreme geometrical designs)... but if God involved himself in any way, shape or form with creation of plants, Genesis fails to mention this.
Leaving "creation" up to the Earth and Waters, explains what Science has discovered for the 4 or 5 billion or so year, age of the Earth.
Even Epoch 5 omits any mention of "create" until the Waters had brought forth "abundantly" . . . and the text states, (modifies) creates them "after their kind."

Completely evolution, under God's patience and guidance.

The only question is, Who or What, are the Darwinists actually making their arguments with?? Because, it's certainly not the text of Genesis.

Read More »

Fish who grew legs, and walked from the water

0

#1 I can imagine creationists swallowing their words, and saying nothing... realizing they have been fighting science... for nothing. Fighting the truth of God. God has used scientists for his own purpose.
#2 I can imagine Darwinists/Atheists shreiking like angry little children... stomping their God-hating feet. But if it isn't for fighting YEC, what the heck will we do with our lives... we don't have a life beyond Karl Marx and attacks on Religion and God.

All that hysteria a couple decades ago, when SCIENTISTS said that "fish grew legs and walked out of the water." Oh how "blasphemous". But I am including scanner text from Genesis itself. "And God said, Let the WATERS BRING FORTH abundantly the *(creeping)* creature, that has *(soul)*... see Hebrew footnotes in the King James.



Fish that grew legs and walked away from the water... the tetrapods, were "creeping" and moving creatures.
Fish with legs... just as science predicted. They have explained the creation account in Genesis.

Read More »

Genesis 1:14-19 ( Day Four of Genesis )

0

A ( 3-D Visual Animation Video ) presentation of Genesis 1:14-19. . . the end of "Day #Four".



Quotes on the Cambrian Explosion come from (link).

Environments and fossilization
"Without further explanation one might get the idea that fossils will occur wherever sedimentary rocks have been formed. This is clearly not the case. Relative to the abundance of sedimentary rocks on Earth, those that contain plant fossils are very rare indeed. This implies that plant fossils are formed under very special environmental conditions. It is not sufficient to have a body of water, a source of inorganic sediments, and plant or animal remains to make a fossil. We all know that when an organism dies under normal conditions in nature, that organism decays. This happens because of the activity of bacteria and fungi, especially those that are aerobic."
~ Paleobotany and the Evolution of Plants (Second Edition)
Wilson N. Stewart and Gar W. Rothwell

















It has been widely theorized, that before the Cambrian Explosion, during the Precambrian or Vendian, organisms which lived during the period were primarily soft-bodied, therefore, even worse than modern plants which leave few fossils due to fragile structure, the likelihood of soft-bodied Precambrian plants leaving fossils is dramatically decreased. The Pre-Cambrian has yielded only scant fossils, but as scientists have observed with the Cambrian Explosion.... the abundance and diversity point to earlier origins. Soft-bodied organisms would have been ideally suited dwelling in a damp, dark, sunless world. For sake of posterity, many plant forms are non-photosynthetic or derive nutrition through alternate means aside from photosynthesis. For example, Protozoans who are cross between photosynthetic plant and animal, (i.e., Euglena and Volvox)

Methods of Deriving Nutrition and Reproduction
Protozoa obtain their food supply through three methods:
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.

One team of researchers discovered photosyntethic bacteria, in the deep Pacific around a hydrothermal vent. Such hot springs once covered the surface of the earth amidst shallow seas, and provided a plentiful source for photosynthesis that was necessary for the proliferation and survival of many species. But let's not forget plant varieties which, even to this day are non-photosynthetic... entire ecosystems could thrive, in the total absence of sunlight... and that does not exclude even shrub-like trees, that were soft-bodied in design, complete with "fruit" and seed within (i.e., the non-photosynthetic mistletoe, which comes complete with berries and seed).
However, as suggested, with the advent of the sun, organisms would have a need to develop (or "evolve") hard-body structures (that could withstand the sun's heat) with the Sun's generating mass-photosynthesis throughout the Earth. This would allow organisms to diversify in the kind of great abundance witnessed in the fossil record and is called the "Cambrian Explosion." Just as "let the waters bring forth.. creatures.. in great abundance," is stated in Genesis, Day #5, and as was observed in the "Cambrian Explosion" by Darwin and other influential figures in Paleontology.

Genesis "Day Four" marks the epoch when the Sun began active nuclear-fusion, and Day Five marks the Cambrian Explosion in the fossil record. The only direct evidence we have of the sun's history, would be in how it interacted with Earth. The fossil record provides the evidence. Such an explosion of diverse, hard-bodied organisms in the fossil record can only be explained by the introduction of widescale Photosynthesis... which only the sun could provide, a mere 500-600 million years ago. This certainly is not the first time such a theory has been proposed, for example the KT Boundary (65 Million years ago), lead to the extinction of dinosaurs when a meteor is believed to have crashed into Earth's surface. It is suggested the fallout lead to a blackening of the skies, blocking the sun's light which lead to an extinction of a vast number of life-forms on the planet. Also, the Earth lay dormant for 3.5 billion years without any apparent major evolutionary advances, which can easily be explained with the absence of sunlight. This tremendous gap in the fossil record, remains too vast for most seasoned Evolutionists to simply ignore.

Genesis 1:14 And God said, 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 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.



Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

How odd indeed. I've already covered the explanation for this weird looking picture: Here, you've got to love that glass sponge. AND to argue, that "it could not exist" strange plant-like organisms during the precambrian... well that logic doesn't hold water with science. Scientists admit there were organisms, but they left no fossils. We do know organisms can photosynthesize around hydrothermal vents; black smokers, hot springs. Stromatolites were "photosynthesizing" as far back as 3.5 billion years ago when the earth was still a cauldron of smoke and volcanic activity (which would have blocked out the sun, if it were nuclear-fusion-active, anyway.)

That's right folks, at that point in the earth's history, its highly unlikely that sunlight would've made it through Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight leads to extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction) -- meteor activity and volcanic activity was billowing forth at that time in natural history and -- with all those thick black clouds and steam... well, somehow, still, stromatolites existed.

Atheists can't figure out where the light came from, for stromatolites to photosynthesize? Of course we understand this takes a PhD in Genius to figure out.

And what were they photosynthesizing from? Hydrothermal vents, just as they did 2 billion years ago. But for any atheist who might presume, "An organism like that couldn't exist because it's not been discovered" -- Atheist logic is flawed by that same line of reasoning. God supposedly doesn't exist because they've not found "empirical evidence," which I've covered here (and backfire it does!) It is a fact: Just because species did not leave fossils, does not mean the species never existed. Good scientists tell us so.

Genesis 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

Some may argue the Sun was there 3.5 billion years providing light for photosynthesis (i.e., Stromatolites where cyanobacteria left traces on rocks).... no no... discovery by researchers shows that bacteria was photosynthesizing in Deep Sea Pacific Ocean Hydrothermal Vent (circa 2006)... so that explains Stromatolites... early bacteria getting their light energy straight from the light of the earth, for 3.5 billion years... huge huge gap. And bacteria... that's _all_ there was for about 3.5 billion years... minus some soft bodied organisms late in the Vendian... (soft body plans require a constant water supply for moisture, or a dark environment... take your pick).

The Earth is not Young, but the Sun is... a wee 500 million years old.

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."
From : What is the age of the sun (the sun of our solar system) and the age of earth?

Not Mere Mythology
Another couple of observations of tremendous significance, on the text of Genesis...

1. If it were Babylonian mythology, as some Agnostics and Atheists propose, why are these two celestial bodies (the sun and moon) portrayed as mere "sources for light" instead of "gods" -- Babylonian and Egyptian mythology would have assumed the sun and moon and stars to be "gods". But instead, the text clearly states God formed them for "lights".

2. Light... all that I have stated involved the necessity to provide light, as a source for photosynthesis, to bring about the mass-proliferation of creatures (as seen in the Cambrian Explosion) as stated in Day #5... "let the waters bring forth... creatures... abundantly..."

The term, "lights" are used in Genesis, not the celestial orb themself, but "light." Light is specifically required in Photosynthesis to give plants energy and it states that much too, the purpose was "...to give light upon the earth..." This is significant because plants depend on light, and plants are necessary to feed living creatures.

Read More »

Why the Dinosaurs Went Extinct and other Mass Extinctions

0

Why the dinosaurs went extinct...

bunches of theories, theories... including one meteor hitting the earth... some species of dinosaurs evolved into birds... and God knows what else...

when Darwin goes looking at the Cambrian explosion, he predicted a progression... but there wasn't one there. The record goes empty... soft-bodied plans is what the scientists suggest, therefore leaving no fossil impressions... but I have often wondered to myself, maybe, just maybe it could've been due to a shift in the earth's climate... and while a plush area was turned to desert, it gave the misleading appearance that it was a "mass extinction" when elsewhere on the earth, organisms were thriving. Maybe some died out, but others continued to thrive.

Darwinists themselves admit, even despite extinction theories they all share, that some kinds of species in fact, lived on...

Genesis is emphatic that species came "... after their kind . . ." which is a strong implication for evolution (fossil progression).

But if I read the text correctly, God saying, "Let the Earth bring forth .... after his kind..." vs. "God created whales"... one seems to imply something allowed to happen on its own, while the other implies direct act of creation... well, if God did things that way, it would explain God allowing the extinction of an estimated 95% species that ever lived. It wasn't because they were "bad designs". Things just worked out that way.

Whatever the case may be the chronology in Genesis is identical to what Science has discovered through Paleontology.

Read More »

Early Earth -- How Things Were

0

>...no comparison...

Often when a peculiar issue is raised in science, "expert opinions" are offered up, that were never considered before by mainstreamers, that deviate from the Status Quo understanding of how things really are/were.

For instance... about the atmosphere, one crazy fellow who suggested "What If" Dinosaurs had evolved into intelligent beings, (a scientist I presume) what would those bipedal dinosaurs look like -- I think he was suggesting also, the reason the dinosaurs grew so very big, in comparison to brain-size, was some-thing to do with the way the early Earth atmosphere was... something to do with radiation... and caused creatures to grow to enormous size.

However, there was evidently a change in the atmosphere over the past 100 thousands of years, where animals (including humans) typically became smaller...

The atmosphere of early earth would not be identical to what it is today.

Even today there are variations, i.e., El Nino (related to hurricanes), and ozone/global warming changes. Complex details are overlooked by the score.

There can be serious, serious alterations in the atmosphere... and these things are seldom considered when Darwinists think of their fairy-tale impressions of a world way, way, way back then... compared to what they see when they look out a window. So stop criticizing Creationists for only imagining a "ready made" world... a "ready made" plant and animal kingdom... Darwinists think the atmosphere and sun came ready made too.

It did not. It would take an entire college course to explain how the atmosphere was throughout the geological ages, and it would be very difficult to tell anything from "fossils," alone. But the kindergarten version is good enough for Darwinists.

MESOPOTAMIAN WEATHER

>...no comparison...

Maybe the critic refers to a statement in Genesis, "a mist came up from the ground," and it did not rain in those days...

Genesis 2:5-6
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.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

So what?? You'll just have to ask a geologist / slash meteorologist, who's had hands-on expertees in the Mesopotamian region.

Sahara Desert - tips by travel authority Howard Hillman
It seldom rains in most of the Sahara Desert. Some spots haven't seen a rain drop in years. But on those rare occasions when it rains, it can downpour. ...
~ http://hillmanwonders.com/sahara/sahara_desert.htm

seldom rains - Ask.com Search
The great heart of the Australian continent is a desert, hot and dry. ... It seldom rains at all. But when it does rain lakes form and small fish suddenly ...
~ dictionary.reference.com/browse/seldom%20rains

Desert solitaire: a season in the wilderness - Google Books Result
by Edward Abbey - 1985 - Nature - 337 pages
It seldom rains. The geography books credit this part of Utah with an ... Sometimes it rains and still fails to moisten the desert — the falling water ...
~ books google com

Whales buried in Deserts isn't so strange, really

Dr. Phil Gingrich would be one of the first to tell you how geological shifts in the planet occur. He's went on excavations to completely dry desert land, that was once an ocean, and found whale bones in dry desert!

Imagine that.

I vaguely recall one area in the ancient near east, discussed on a documentary. Back then it was a plush agricultural region, and today its laid waste similar to a desert. It's difficult to tell.

Biblical Hebrew Context
Norman Geisler already corrected this misconception about the word "earth". As JP Holding has pointed out already,

Ancient languages usually had no more than a few thousand words. In contrast to modern languages like English, which has over a million.

To show there is any sort of problem, the critics need to suggest a word that should have been used in place of raqiya. As it is, I find it to be the best word that they had available to describe the atmosphere.

If a word is suggested, it needs to be one they had back then, also. In a similar context I had a guy suggest a word that was not around until modern times.
JP

...ancient languages had far fewer words than modern English. Also, when the Hebrew uses the word "earth" -- there was only one word, and they that one word to mean possibly several things.. it can mean either "universal; the whole circumference of the globe" or it may very well imply a "localized region"... as in "as far as the eye can see to the horizon".

Also, so goes Atheistic fundamentalist mind not computing anything less than a "global flood" -- because today, in their use of English when they say "whole earth" the ENGLISH LANGUAGE restricts it to mean "Global" -- but the ancient Hebrew language implied a very different context. Already Apologists have addressed that (Dr. Norman Geisler's "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics")... and such critics are also mistakingly presuming the "whole wide world" was speaking one language, when its emphatically speaking of the local region being of one language.

Superimposing rules of the English language, on Ancient Hebrew?? it doesn't work. Of course some will never come to understand the true context of the Bible, that way.

Read More »