Observations of Science and Introduction of Agriculture Genesis 2:5

0

New American Standard:
"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had *not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground."

(And as I've explained, * there are some regions on Earth which do not see a drop of rain for months, possibly years, if never.) Some former-oceanic terrain, is over geologic time, turned to dry desert. Dr. Philip Gingerich is one of the first to testify of "whales" found in "The Desert," Science Fiction? No, science fact:

"Forty million years ago a vast area of the northern part of the Egyptian Western Desert was nothing but a sea. The whole of Fayoum was submerged; it was part of the Tethys Sea. In reality, Tethys Sea was so enormously big that some scholars call it Tethys Ocean rather than sea. When it finally receded, it formed what we know today as the Aral, Caspian and Black seas. In its bluish- green water dwelled creatures that evolved and survived or did not and became extinct. One of the biggest inhabitants of the ancient sea was Zeuglodon, the famous whale of Fayoum."
~ http://arabenvironment.net/archive/2007/4/205266.html

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "After Their Kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with skills in Agriculture.

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

Lettuce History
Lettuce probably evolved from a wild species which is still extant called Lactuca serriola. It is very bitter. The Ancient Egyptians grew Lettuce..."
www.practicallyedible.com/edible.nsf/Pages/lettuce

Lactuca serriola, the ancestor of lettuce.

There were many nomadic humans, but no farmers.

The primitive man of Epoch Six was given what to eat?
"...I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

But no cabbage, no broccoli, no cauliflower...
Early hominids and primitive man, were vegetarian, and lived nomadically gathering fruits, edible roots, leafs. It does not mention anything of Lettuce, Tomatos, String Beans and all the foods which modern man has cultivated.

Take a look at the conclusion of Science, and the typical dogmatic Atheist who latches on without any knowledge of Biblical text. A poignant observation, but too little, too late, because Genesis was stating the very same thing, thousands of years ago :

"...There is not a third-rate intelligence on earth that could not, after ten minutes' contemplation, devise a better scheme of things. Man's life is largely consumed in improving his surroundings and adjusting the blunders of nature. Daily, hourly, he must employ his wits to untangle the snares of unthinking nature. It would take an intelligence below the level of a moron to carry on evolutionary processes as commonly observed. It has taken evolution, unguided by intelligence, countless ages to develop the simple, unattractive flower known as the wild rose. Evolution, with man's intelligence behind it, has, in a relatively short period of time, changed this simple flower, by artificial selection, into the glorious, multi-petalled American Beauty. That was intelligence behind evolution. Man has not only produced new species of flowers from wayside weeds, but given scent to odorless lilies and eliminated the thorns from raspberry and blackberry bushes. He has been able to evolve a spineless cactus, which, breeding true, now furnishes the desert with food for cattle. He has, by applying his intelligence to evolution, done in a short period of time that which evolution might have accomplished only after millions of years - or never at all. He has speeded up those processes which, under natural evolution, drag along hopelessly or reach an ultimate utility only after thousands of failures and unfavorable adaptations."
From "Evolution Implies Atheism"
"Essays of an Atheist", The Truth Seeker, 1945 by Woolsey Teller

Genesis is Evidence for Science

That's right. Thousands of years before Science, a "Holy" source was documenting the same things about how man cultivated modern food...
But Atheists(Anti-Theists) will deny truth because they hate truth. Creationists will deny what's written in Genesis, because they hate Science. But its in the Bible.
As Gandhi said, a truth is a truth, even if you're a minority of One... as in One, God. And both extremist factions will deny what's spelled out in black and white text, out of stubborn arrogance (oh how awful, Genesis beat science to the discovery) and the other, vain, arrogant, pride (because they were wrong, and they know they're wrong).
When man tries to deny the truth of God, or tries to usurp God's authority... well, (also Gandhi said) the only devils we need to fear, are the ones running around in our own hearts.

It seems so difficult for some to explain the context for "Earth brought forth herbs... After Their Kind," and "Waters brought forth creatures.. after their kind," but Genesis uses the same Evolutionary Terms, as in "Every Plant of the Field Before it grew" and "Every Herb of the Field Before It," is translated by others as saying, "No plant in the field had sprouted" ... as in THEY HAD NOT EVOLVED YET, for, there was not a man with knowledge of Agriculture, to cultivate farming.

Farming became tradition, with the introduction of Agriculture in Mesopotamia, and the skills spread throughout the ancient world. In other words, though God may have had a "hands off policy" for much of the account in Genesis 1 (commanding the Earth and Waters to bring forth...) IT WAS MAN who actually "created" these foods.

Read More »

Intelligent Design Advocates Will Be Disappointed By Literal Reading of Genesis

0

I've considered, and re-considered the very literal text of Epoch Three, Five and Six, and the conclusion is you have to read it for what it says in black and white. The majority of species described were "created" by the earth and waters... am I disappointed, not really. Enlightened, is more like it.

"...In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to 'epochs of creation'."
~ F&W Encyclopedia, 1950, on Professor Louis Agassiz, rival and contemporary of Charles Darwin.

Based on a literal comparison between what Science teaches (to the detail), and Genesis 1 and 2, Scientists Louis Agassiz ("Epochs of Creation") and Charles Darwin ("Natural Selection"), were both correct.

Even further, some of the prophets allude to a "New Heaven and Earth," and further improvisations on animal kinds in the Kingdom of God, with the lion redesigned to eat grass and lay down next to a lamb. The chronology in Genesis will not support "Intelligent Design Hypothesis" as some may want it to.

The Problem with Extinction

God does not create animals "after their kind," until the time of whales. The Waters brought forth the animals, "after their kind," as in evolving over several 100 million years. That includes the KT Boundary, which wiped out so many species, and the mammals inherited the Earth.

The scripture is black and white,

God commanded the Earth and Waters to "bring forth" and merely created the varieties the water brought forth (as in "every living creature" as in extant, still "living"), "After their kind," which implies what some have suggested for, "Fine-tuning hypothesis".

If you're an intelligent God, and use the ocean and waterways to create by... you want to separate the weak from the strong species.... you put the species through cataclysm, and what's left at the end of the day, the living... those are fine-tuned.

That's what it says too. "Created every _living_ creature" along with Whales, after their kind = which serves as the most excellent hint for humans to figure out the time period must be around 45 mya . . . and God creates "every living (extant) creature" after its kind.

The KT Boundary took out so many species.

The next major evolutions indeed, took place with Cattle and beasts of the earth, followed by man... in Epoch six, still God is allowing the earth to do the creating, after their kind, --then creates (fine tunes) them, after their kind.

In scientific terms, "every living creature"... as in what's left extant, is called "Survival of the Fittest". 95% of all species that ever lived, have went extinct.

An Intelligent Creator... but obviously, doesn't seem much into "Designing."

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 »

Strawman Arguments Go Up In Flames

0

Polydactyly has been going on for over 300 Million Years... if Evolution (the Atheistic Variety) were merely trying to devise new body plans, it should've happened long before now...

Dr. Kenneth Miller provided actual _evidence_ of (Chimp Chromosome #2) a genetic link between old world apes, and earliest man-forms. The Atheists have provided NOTHING... NADA... ZIP. Did Chimp Chromosome #2 disprove Genesis, or did it establish what was actually written in Genesis 1, thousands of years ago. Strawman arguments: Because YEC misinterpreted, and ignored the vegetarian nature of early man... denying Paleontology, all of which Atheists base their pitiful arguments on... therefore, Genesis is disputed? Not hardly.
Genesis speaks of Vegetarian early man. They were an intermediate between ape and man, and I showed that in the video. They did everything described, from "dominating the fish" to subdueing the Earth.
Science/Genetics, is indisputable. YEC can misinterpret until the cows come home, and Atheists can base a million strawman arguments on YEC interpretations... still, everyone is failing to address what Genesis 1 actually has written in it. The book of Genesis, has been completely avoided by YEC and Atheists.

Those two warring factions have been the two most destructive forces, to the advancement of science.

So, let's stop discussing YEC, and start discussing the actual, literal text of Genesis 1 and Paleontology. Dr. Kenneth Miller only established a coherent, feasible understanding of what Epoch Six means... man was given the "herb" for meat... Robustus is theorized to have been a vegetarian due to his denitition. Let's stick to the text of Genesis, and actual science already, shall we? If Creationists take an interest in Genesis 1 and 2 and actual Paleontology/Science.. I will be satisfied.
I have nothing to "prove" to Atheists. God is not a holy Houdini who exists for entertaining Atheists... but God, being as temperamental as She is, may decide to send some plagues and curses on those Atheists for their idle, evil blaspheme. Patience can wear thin....
Yes, I meant "She" . . . as in "Let us create man," (Hebrew, for Plural Majesty), as in plural, 1)male and 2)female. God created the Human in the image of God. Have false teachers like Augustine and Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... shame, to say she is created too, in the image of God?

Augustine:
"How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."

How they fail to read with comprehension, God is giving off a list of clear, evident curses, and, To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children..." oh and by the way, this man who refused to obey my commandments will rule over you."

How they lead each other astray in their arrogance, and false teachings, believing they have "Holy Hands" when even Jesus said, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19

NOT ANYMORE. It becomes so apparent, from the narrow dark minds of men that hate, why it was not a blessing.. not a commandment, but a CURSE on woman that man would rule over her.

Such idolatrous men exalted themselves above woman, above the teachings of Jesus... above God himself.

Saint Jerome:
"I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked."

Tertullian:
"God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."

Have false teachers like Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... forced to live in eternal shame and self-hatred? Did Jesus die in vain, or did he not die for the sins of mankind? Yes or No?

Augustine:
"How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."

Thomas Aquinas:
"Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."

John Knox:
"Women are weak, they are frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish. They are inconstant, they are cruel, and lacking of spirit, and counsel. Woman in her greatest perfection was made only to serve, and obey men."

Martin Luther:
"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."

and...

"Take women away from their house-wifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that."

See University of North Carolina, Oppression of Women in Early Christianity
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm

This statement alone, sounds bells and whistles it's a forgery:

"as the law also says (Genesis 3:16)"

By very virtue that any man was calling the CURSE in Genesis on woman, a "Law," proves he did not have any understanding of scripture.

Do read the Commandments of God, and pray tell me, where any mention therein commands women must "obey" a man? It is absent of such a thing. However, God's Commandments FIERCELY rebukes men, for lusting after their neighbor's wife and maid servants,

The Commandments do condemn adultery (following the commandment of murder!)

Jesus came teaching the law, and did not command women to obey men like cattle, but had women followers, and also, rebuked men for their adultery.

It was a command, God made to Moses, to circumsize the most sensitive portion of the male private... to lessen pleasure in hopes of deterring adultery...

God did _not_like men committing adultery or abusing women.

However, what's written in the Pauline forgeries, was _NOT_ a law, _NOT_ a Commandment, and _NOT_ a blessing that man would rule over women. It was a _CURSE_.
No more than its in any of the laws, that if a man goes out to till his field, "MEN BETTER DRIP SWEAT OR ELSE."
These forgeries do not stop there, they go even farther! They say that the male is immune from sin, having "holy hands"... while woman is forced to carry the cross with Jesus, eternally hanging her head in shame.

I picked up this piece of info on University of NC about these FORGERIES in the New Testament :

(~ http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm)
Scholarship May have Found a Solution to this Problem . . .
As Ehrman (p. 346) states concerning "the harsh words of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Indeed, this passage is so similar to that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and so unlike what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that these too are words that Paul himself never wrote; rather they were later inserted into the letter of 1 Corinthians by a scribe who wanted to make Paul's views conform to those of the Pastoral epistles."

Our Father and Mother, who art in Heaven!

Nelson's King James Bible, © 1972, Thomas Nelson Publishers Inc.

I may have got a little off topic, but at least, it's related to scriptures in Genesis

Most of what atheistic, so-called Darwinists (more specifically, Atheists which make lame attempts to make war on God, camouflaging the agenda behind "Science," -- Darwin would have nothing to do with the Atheist fanatics, and duly noted he had confined himself to matters of Science), so more properly described as *Atheist* attacks on religion, merely requires some common sense to refute. That is to say, the information on which they base their argument to disprove God, proves nothing.

I retrieved some photos of a local cat with six toes. Polydactyly supposedly presumes the body plan is attempting to "evolve" into some new species, instead of the genetic throwback to the past... a genetic mutation? Or dormant genes that permit a sixth toe to pop out on a rare occasion. This phenomena has been going on for epochs. It is nothing new. The majority of tetrapods have the same ole five toes. If it were intended for creatures to "randomly evolve" into six-digit creatures as some Atheists are theorizing... I think, it would've happened sometime within the past 300 Million years.

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]

Evidently, they continue on, "after their kind," -- six toed tetrapods existed, in the earliest times, as they still do today... the same ole' same ole'... a genetic throwback to their origins. Now where are, all the six-toed creatures adapted as entire species... it seems as though atheistic, Darwinian Natural Selection explanation for evolution in the fossil record, has a serious case of constipation... where are all the speciations of six-toed creatures?

Worst of all, is the feeble argument, "My cat has six toes, therefore, God does not exist."
Please read that once again, and realize the feeble line of logic Atheists are followng in thier reasoning.

The Fundamentalist said, "it was a perfect creation, God created every creature." Somewhat like a fairy tale impression of the world, therefore, when Atheists point out anamolies in nature, it refutes God? or even Genesis?



The Atheist is merely making an argument to dispute human interpretations. The Atheist has yet to address a single point in what Genesis is actually saying, even further, utterly failed to provide "evidence" and dispute what is literally written in Genesis 1... including other aspects of the Bible, such as God doing away with the earth as it is known, and there being "A New Heaven, and New Earth." Obviously, God did not feel the world was perfect, as Fundamentalists claim.

Atheists have built every strawman argument upon Fundamentalist interpretations, which have nothing to do with actual Science (Paleontology) or the chronology of Genesis. To attempt to do so, will leave the Atheist scrambling, and denying Science itself.

Furthermore, if you read Genesis Epoch #3, the word "Created" is not even in the text. Epoch #4 goes one further, to indicate a randomness on God's command for the "waters to bring forth moving creatures," (that is, the waters creating the creatures... which brings to mind, Darwin's own theory) -- and like Epoch #3, still was not a direct act of creation. Followed by the first actual mention of "creating" -- God touching up on the already living (presuming, "every living" may possibly mean "extant") creatures, and "creating them after their kind." A vast majority of what the literal text in Genesis implies, from God's perspective, is as Forrest Gump put it, "Life is like a box a chocolates. You never know what you'll get." and God simply worked with what the earth and waters brought forth.

Read More »