Genesis and Science: science

Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Stromatolites

I will post this for posterity to clear up any confusion readers may have had with this article.

Atheists have tunnel vision. Atheists think things can only photosynthesize from the sun's light.

Photosynthesis Found Where the Sun Don't Shine | LiveScience
livescience.com
Jun 22, 2005 – Instead of sunlight, the deep-sea microbes use geothermal radiation. "This shows that photosynthesis is something that is not limited only to the ...

Researchers find photosynthesis deep within ocean
www.asu.edu/feature/includes/summer05/readmore/photosyn.html
Jun 21, 2005 – They published their discovery in an article titled “An obligately photosynthetic bacterial anaerobe from a deep sea hydrothermal vent,” in the ...

Photosynthesis At Deep-sea Vents
www.science-frontiers.com/sf124/sf124p08.htm
Photosynthesis At Deep-Sea Vents. The surprisingly rich populations of lifeforms that prosper around the hydrothermal vents have been thought to be utterly ...

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 penetrated the Earth's non-existant atmosphere, for the thick black clouds (as in, "what made the dinosaurs go extinct -- lack of sunlight" which lead to a mass extinction of plants -- which started a domino effect that lead to mass extinction of most species on earth) -- 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.

Also, it needs to be noted... Genesis did not use the term "plant" at all. In the King James version, it distinguishes the organisms as "herbs". Latter verses in time after man is created, Genesis then specifies "plants". Clear distinctions are drawn between herbs and plants.

~>I'm not judging your argument in this post just want to point out that your argument depends on four things,
knowing when the sun ignited,

Fossil record tells us this. As in Cambrian Explosion.

~>knowing when the oceans formed,

Geothermal heat/radiation.

NOTE: It seems as if most Atheists don't know how to distinguish between the
1) sun "forming" as a gargantuous gas ball with tremendous gravitational pull that shaped the planets, vs.
2) the nuclear fusion equation, which came later, which is irrelevant to your question.

The sun's heat was not necessary. The Earth produces massive geothermal heat, which lead to the rise of ocean water. See,

Formation of the Ocean
The current theory holds that after the Sun formed, there was a very large disk of dust and gas orbiting it. In this disk were all the elements that we see today, which were themselves formed in the furnaces of other stars. Anyway, it lumps together because of gravity and eventually pulls itself into balls, which then eventually become planets. Water was also present in this disk, and continued to be delivered to Earth in the form of comets after our planet had solidified. It's present mostly on the surface because when the planet was first formed, it was molten rock and very volcanically active. The water inside the planet was thus ejected as steam, but held in the atmosphere by Earth's gravity.
-Wes
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_ocean_form

~>knowing when the first reproducing organisms arose,

Fossil record tells us this. Although, its believed life possibly arose even earlier but any traces of fossil activity was probably consumed by volcanic eruption. The eldest life traces are 3.8 bya (carbon ball in rock), and earliest fossil dates to about 3.5 billion years ago.

~>knowing when the first photosynthetic organisms arose.

The fossil record tells us this, although most is currently speculation and theory that some of the earliest were photosynthetic. Scientists aren't absolutely certain about anything 3.5 billion years ago but presume it was photosynthetic and finding photosynthetic organisms around deep sea hydrothermal vents almost clinches that life arose in such environments and so photosynthetic organisms probably did exist long ago in these conditions, photosynthesizing from geo-thermal radiation.

A couple visuals for Atheists and Creationists to "see the light".

This fact was picked up off the web. I wish people would pay closer attention to what they are reading:

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."

The sun had formed, but it had not began the nuclear fusion at its core. The planets were formed as well. Cosmic debris like comets and meteors were rampant and plummeting into the surfaces of the planets and the sun, also, sucked in by gravity. There were all forms of gas, cosmic matter in transit around the sun, including water which earth's own geothermal heat would turn into steam, later forming our ocean. The planets were shaped by the massive gravitational force of this gargantuous gas ball that was destined to become our neighboring star, the sun. It was not the "Sun" as we know it today because the nuclear fusion at the core had not began, but this massive proto-sun was formed at the same time as the planets.

Two Very Different Things

1. Today's Sun heat energy is generated from gravity creating nuclear fusion at the core.
2. The Earth of past, present and future geo-thermal heat energy is generated at the core from gravity causing friction.

Nuclear Fusion and Friction both cause heat and light, but are two very different things.

Early Sun

The sun as we know it today, did NOT exist when the planets were forming. It was a cold gas ball, similar to the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. If Jupiter had more mass, the gravitational force could cause Jupiter to become our solar system's "second sun".

People steadily confuse,
1) The sun "formed" as a gas ball, -vs-
2) The sun "formed" as a nuclear-heatball.

In the case of the sun, What you mean by "Formed" can have two meanings, and both are two very different things.

When Atheist Logic Backfires and Fails

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.

Mimicry (A Theory That's Obvious Nonsense)

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

Black Hole Sun Lyrics Meaning - Neil DeGrasse Explains

Seeing the video on youtube, yields amazing presumptions on the meaning of Soundgarden's "Black Hole Sun".

Neil DeGrasse the Astrophysicist and colleagues explain.

People will go to amazing lengths to deny the simplest and most obvious things.

This song isnt even about a black hole though.

Never mind that "Black Hole (Sun)" is the title of the song.

"Black holes will never get anywhere near us, because by the time they do, we will have been long gone."

Precisely, that's why scientists added Black Holes as #7 greatest threat to life on earth.

'Last Days on Earth' mini-series
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2319986
These are organized from least likely to most likely:
7a. Death of a Star: Gamma-Ray Burst
7b. Death of a Star: Black Hole
Number seven was actually two alternate views of what could happen to a star and how it could destroy life on earth.
6. Intelligent Machines
5. Supervolcano
4. Asteroid
3. Nuclear War
2. Plague
1. Climate Change

"The sun would have already died."

Our sun (a star) has nothing to do with a rogue black hole roaming into our solar system.

"And a black hole would be nothing like this video, the earth would be stretched flat before the black hole got anywhere near this close."

Where does this joker get his information? See end of video. The Earth, subjected to the gravitational pull of a Black Hole retains the shape of a sphere, until the last remnants of Earth's core are vaccuumed into oblivion.

In my eyes, in disposed,
In disguise:as no one knows
Hides the face Lies
The snake, the sun
In my disgrace
Boiling heat, Summer stench
'Neath the black
The sky looks dead
Call my name
Through the cream
And I'll hear you
Scream again

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun

Won't you come
Won't you come

Stuttering
Cold and damp
Steal the warm wind
Tired friend
Times are gone
For honest men

And sometimes
Far too long
For snakes
In my shoes
A-walking sleep
And my youth
I pray to keep
Heaven send, Hell away
No one sings
Like you anymore

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Hang my head
Drown my fear
Till you all just
Disappear

Black hole sun
Won't you come
And wash away the rain

Black hole sun
Won't you come
Won't you come

Atheists Try To Force Religion Into Classroom

I've seen atheists cross the line, but this one is over the top...

You've heard right, an Atheist (philosophy), claims Science and Atheism are the same thing.

"Technically, a religion is a set of beliefs, to be truly atheistic, you'd have to have no beliefs whatsoever. Sience, on the other hand, has beliefs, for example "I belive that this wall is solid" or "I believe that this chemical and this chemical makes one less science lab *explosion* aaargh I was right!" so if you want to get pedantic, then atheism is the statement that nothing is true. If you don't want to get pedantic, on the other hand, then atheism and scientific belief are the same thing."

Over the top!!!

Science and Atheism (worthless philosophy) are completely unrelated.
Science does not have any opinion on Religion, but Atheists are often guilty of spreading wreckless FALSEHOODS. Scientists like Dr. Alan Fedducia had to come out blasting Atheistic Darwinists in the media for propagating their FALSEHOODS such as "feathered dinosaurs evolving into birds". They make so many scientific errors, because... ATHEISM IS NOT "SCIENCE"!
Atheism is classed as a religion, and falls under the uselessness of philosophy.
SCIENCE HAS NOTHING to do with religion.

Seems atheists are rather hypocritical when it comes to the whining about Creationists wanting to superimpose their views on public education. But Creationists are not half as deluded about the definition of "Religion" and "Separation of Church and State," as Atheists have became.

If Atheists want to force their religion down people's throats, let 'em, at their own privately ran "school for Atheists". But keep the Atheist religion (which is not and never will classify as "science"), out of the classroom.

'tis more example how they're dumbing down the nation.

The public education system is failing miserably.

---

This gem widens:

Actually, I have not created, or disproved anything, I merely observed that science has a set of beliefs, for example, 'I believe this wall is solid'. I aklso observed that a religion is simply a set of beliefs, therefore one could argue that science is a religion. To be completely without religion, you would have to be without beliefs. I niether created, nor disproved nothing. Though I could perhapps have put it more clearly to avoid the demented honking from the narrow/closed minded. None, actually, because I'm not in america, I never said sciewnce has anything to do with religion, you're misinterpretting what I wrote."

You are confused. Science deals with FACT. However, quoting you 'atheism and scientific belief are the same thing'. Zat so? Then change your story , 'to be truly atheistic, you'd have to have NO BELIEFS.' But you've already admitted that science has beliefs, by using the term, "scientific belief", then change your story, "..atheism is the statement that nothing is true." hmm.. sir, Science deals with empirical facts, not philosophy.

Another person chimed in:

"You are wrong. You have created your own definition of atheism, and disproved it. Congrats! you have accomplished nothing. Atheism means 'without gods.' That is all that the word means, or will ever mean.

Answer: Anti-Theism, is rabid foam at the mouth hatred and persecution of people of faith and/or religion, and has EVERYTHING to do with obsession over Theism and bigotry and ignorance. Worse than any religion.

Can't Tell Who's The Christian and Who's The Atheist Anymore

I've managed blogs for an Atheist and Agnostic, and sometimes comments roll in. Including some who argue among themselves. There were 3 comments, and earnestly, I'm unsure which was the Christian and which was the Atheist. I'll alter the names to protect the innocent:

******: has left a new comment on your post:
"I would beg to differ with ***** as to why Christianity is suffering from an "image problem" at the start of the 21st century.
The problem... was that as he became more informed about Christianity he began to doubt. He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing, (much like --- hero, Luther, had done at one time) and found it wanting.
Additionally, when he went to those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance. Compound that with trying to search for his answers in the Bible itself and further not finding them - he turned to outside sources. Most likely the internet. There - of course - he finally found some answers: his faith was based on inconsistencies, myth, plagiarism, historical inaccuracies and in some instances, outright lies. How could he not doubt?"

Why yes... this is true. The church has failed for centuries to teach the truth. In fact, centuries ago falsehoods were circulated, i.e., the Pauline Forgeries, and people like Luther took it upon themselves to attempt translation of a Bible for the common person, and the church wanted to maintain a tight grip on the scriptures, rendering people helpless with the church as intermediator to God... but it was not so. In the midst of this, apocryphal manuscripts circulated... Jesus was the only intermediator between man and God, but the church attempted to superimpose itself into the authority of Jesus Christ.

CONTINUE...

"If --- want to answer him, they would do well to stick with addressing ***** specific problems as opposed to beating the "Here's How I Deal With Stupid Questions" bush. I would submit to ***** that there is a third criteria as a "easily identifiable and telling symptoms of false doctrine": that of obfuscation in answering the intellectual and emotional needs of the fold."

The other person responded, and this person, *****, posted again in response.

"Christians on the whole seem to somehow expect others to take what they have only experienced within the confines of their belief system on faith, for, whether you want to "believe" it or not, there is absolutely no proof that anyone named "Jesus" ever lived."

Testimonies of his existence are preserved in the Bible, and prophecies of the Messiah, but that's beside the point I suppose.

CONTINUE...

"None. Not one shred of evidence - even in the Bible itself - that anyone alive at the time that "Jesus" was supposedly living even ever knew the guy. No scrap of paper, no golden tablet, no stone inscriptions, no burial chamber, no cross, no first-source material (and there certainly seems to be a lot of copies of copies of copies, but not one original torn corner of a papyrus that even indicates that anyone ever knew him), not even any relatives left to give any account of him a generation after the fact! Nothing. Nada. Zip. Pilate: silent. The Sanhedrin: silent. The Romans: silent. On and on and on and on - you'd think that a guy who apparently raised somebody from the dead, fed a multitude on a couple of haddock and shards of bread, turned H20 into Pinot Griggio, got nailed to a cross, died and then came back might have made some form of impression on people. Nope. No one even noticed him apparently amongst the multitudes of other "prophets" of that time.
Not until 70 years later did he even actually start to appear in any meaningful manner, and even then, it doesn't appear that that guy even ever might have known him - just "of him", as it were."

INTERMISSION : Actually it's estimated to have been around 30 years after the death of Jesus, that recorded testimonies came into publication. But continue...

"No, there's nothing "selfish" about questioning the veracity of
Christianity. If anything, I'd say that was a noble endeavor. It is not "egocentric" to want to know - it is the mark of a "God-like" human to seek this so-called "God" out wherever "He" may be, wherever it may lead. It is not selfish or egocentric to admit you don't know something and wish to - it is selfish and egocentric to believe you have the answers when in fact, you don't.

"God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

When Intelligence gives, Ignorance takes over. One could probably bank on that."

And the other person, who posted in the midst of the two comments wrote this,

###### has left a new comment on your post":
"The first problem of doubt stems from the human condition of selfishness, as articulated with "the doubter finds the Christian faith wanting", "the doubter finds God lacking", and "the doubter finds himself need or requiring to know X or Y".
We are an egocentric lot that will forever clash against a God who asks for trust and faith.
God or Intelligence: one has to give. One will quench the soul's thirst and the other will be like drinking salt water in the desert."

God or Intelligence: One has to give??

Am I reading this correctly? One person is denying the existence of God, whilst the other is teaching the falsehood that one must become "ignorant" to be a Christian??

Both appear to be Atheists (or at least, the latter, a Sheep in Wolf Clothing).

Actual scripture states in contrast: King James Bible (Hosea 4:6-9)
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. The more the priests increased, the more they sinned against me; they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful. They feed on the sins of my people and relish their wickedness. And there shall be, like people, like priest: and I will punish them for their ways, and reward them their doings."

Which also brings to mind the very insightful verse, in regard to what the former (presuming, an Atheist(?) stated, which is truly sad:

"He stepped outside of the dogmatic, traditional, "Let's Not Address This Issue Directly" cage and took a good look at what he had been believing... those who were supposed to be experts, or at least knowledgeable about such matters, what he was handed was sorely lacking in any form of substance."

INDEED! as it is written,

Ecclesiastes 1:18 "For in much wisdom is much grief; and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
http://bible.cc/ecclesiastes/1-18.htm, as it was in Jesus' day, he came teaching the Commandments of God (not the law of Moses), but God's law, and for doing so, the corrupt religious establishment murdered him.

And further, indeed: International Standard Version (©2008)
"How terrible it will be for you when everyone says nice things about you, because that's the way their ancestors used to treat the false prophets!"
http://bible.cc/luke/6-26.htm

And yes, if you speak the truth... it will make many enemies, and persecution, which equates to sorrow. The religious establishment (organized religion), the same who murdered Jesus, will turn into a witch-hunt against the righteous, which lead to the Inquisitions and other atrocities against many Saints: Those who keep the Commandments of God, and hold to the testimony of Jesus Christ.

Either way, both contributors failed to contribute any positive light, enlightenment on Christianity, and appear to be on the same side: To make a war on the Truth of God, and Jesus Christ.

There was no Commandment among the 10 which stated, "Thou Shall Not Utilize Thy Brain." But some who claim to be Christian, do indeed teach the false doctrine, and often practice it as well.

King James Bible
Jeremiah 31:34 (Old Testament Prophet): "And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Hebrews 10: "Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more... By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place. And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."

So who is this entity, called the Church (the lie of Organized Religion which Jesus stood against, and was murdered), which with-holds knowledge, teaches falsehoods, endorses scriptural forgeries, pretends you must go through "them," flawed men, to obtain audience with God... what else was the purpose of Jesus' death and sacrifice? So that greedy preachers and televangelists could store up millions in their bank accounts? Men are unfit to teach the truth!. The corrupt and wicked priesthood who taught idolatry, lead to the destruction of Israel and Judah. When Jesus took his stand against them, they murdered the Lord. God alone has the power, the patience, the knowledge, (the Spirit of TRUTH, through grace in Jesus Christ that we may come into the presence of God, and will be taught by God), who are these persons who have usurped the authority of Jesus Christ himself, to teach falsehoods?

Atheists Providing Comic Relief -- This Time Its Not Creationists Misunderstanding Science, Rather Atheists Fail To Understand Ancient Biblical Hebrew

This was priceless. I found it on the web today. An Atheist has exhausted his wits, and I'll give it a chuckle, a bit of time to answer and then move on to more important things. The argument provided, well, is just too amateur to take serious.

He writes,

do creationists know ANYTHING about biology?

the fruiting body of a fungus is NOT a fruit bearing tree
a spore is NOT a seed
and just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!

Hmm, most people will agree, it is *smile* called a FRUITING fungi, and certainly, by all reasonable, scientific standards, pass for a "tree".

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

This is not the failure of a Creationist knowing "Biology," (first point, *smile*, the proper scientific field in discussion is, BOTANY, or MYCOLOGY, not "Biology," but that's beside the point), the issue is not a matter that a Creationist has failed to understand Botany, but that the Atheist has proven itself illiterate of the Hebrew language, and Biblical context.
If you want to get technical, Mycology is the study of fungi or perhaps even this question might fall under Paleobotany, the study of plant fossils (Since afterall, the organism was once classed as a conifer). Biology is the study of (animal) life. Plant biology (a. k. a. Botany) (at least once it were so) included the study of bacteria, algae, and fungi. See, Ohio University, Botany Department.

First and foremost,

That scientists chose to name the "fruiting fungi" a FRUITING fungi, is probably the best evidence of all, that even in English, it stands to reason that edible "fruit" from the fungi, is in fact its "fruit". *smile* that wasn't difficult at all.

Secondly, the fruiting fungi, ancestors of Prototaxites, were indeed trees, and called so by scientists, mistaken for about a century as a conifer. But later this primitive fossilized organism was verified to be a "Fruiting Fungi".

Thirdly, and most amusing, the Hebrew language referred to many things as "seed." As was explained early on in this blog, the Hebrew language was restricted to a few 1000 words, in contrast to the English language which contains a few million words, so in Hebrew, yes, spores would have been "seed". See excerpt below from Strong's Concordance. Even one's descendents are referred to as "Seed," whether or not the English language incorporates ten or twenty synonyms to say, "descendants," the Hebrew did not. Likewise, spores, semen, descendants, seed(in the modern sense), all are interpreted as "seed" in Hebrew.

Fourthly, Darwin's dilemma, to explain why the earth left little trace of life before the Cambrian Explosion is indeed explained by all reasonable scientific standards that (see Epoch Four vs. Epoch Five, in Genesis) sunlight was not reaching the earth for the first 3.5 billion years of Earth's history, and the fossil record was primarily vacant. Yet, despite theories by scientists which hint at a dark, damp, sunless world, such as "soft bodied organisms," and admissions that fungi and other botanical organism existing during the Precambrian, such as algae (fossil evidence spanning back as far as 3.5 billion years), where was life during that vast expanse of time? Science can not, and never will adequately explain this, except with the absence of sunlight. This dilemma raised by Charles Darwin, his contemporaries and scientists who followed him, establishes that though such organisms may not have left fossil remains, with certainty, they existed! Therefore, let it be deduced, non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) organisms existed before the sun began nuclear fusion, the sun (Epoch Four/Genesis) newly providing life on earth with a source for light energy/photosynthesis, and abundant proliferation of life (Epoch Five/Genesis) began. According to evolution theory itself, organisms evolve according to their environment and, would not have evolved their non-photosynthetic properties, without a cause, that being, logically, the absence of sunlight.

It is not the Creationist who lacks knowledge of Botany, but that the Atheist has failed to comprehend the fundamentals of Biblical Hebrew.

If the Biblical Hebrew meant, "spore" in contrast to "seed," we would find a Hebrew term for "spore" in Strong's Concordance. Rather, "spore" is absent. As pointed out, ancient Hebrew was absent of such a word and the word "seed" was used in Hebrew to define numerous things, including "spores".

Fifthly, to address,

"...just because fungi are non-photosynthetic does NOT mean they were around before the sun existed!"

I am attaching an image (below) which provides approximates for the current, modern day size comparisons between the sun (a gas giant) vs the cold gas giants Jupiter and Saturn. Then, note comparison to size of Earth.

From Prison Planet, where they mention ironically, "experts" fail to get even the most basic facts correct,"

Note, sidebar,

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

There was a major difference between Earth forming in its early stages, with ice and rock; debris compressing as gravity pulled the Earth into its final form (as Genesis states, "the earth was without form...," gravity taking its toll, leading to friction, therefore intense heat and ultimately, early Earth becoming an orb of molten rock. It must be noted, there is indeed a significant difference when comparing early Earth (composed of rock) vs a gas giant. As it is written in Genesis, God said "Let there be light," and there was light. That is, Light from hydrothermal vents to provide algae with a source of light energy.
It is feasible to suggest, (in all scientific light) that the Earth was set ablaze long before the sun. The fossil record bears testimony: Due to a lack of proliferation of animal life, yet with just enough light energy to support the spawn of simple algae and bacteria. Otherwise, the fossil record is primarily empty. Charles Darwin was not mistaken.
The sun, on the other hand, like Jupiter and Saturn would need a heavy enough compression, leading to nuclear fusion. Compression of hydrogen atoms within the core, due to gravity pressing inward. This is not heat caused from friction and compression, but completely and solely compression of gas. How long did it take the sun to reach this state? We have Earth's fossil record that tells us when sunlight was present, and when it was not. For 3.5 billion years, the fossil record is vacant, therefore, there was no sun. The question is, 4 billion years ago when the Earth was in a state of molten rock, blanketed by heavy steam... was the sun yet of size, compression enough to create the force necessary to trigger nuclear fusion? In all probabilty, the answer is NO, and again, the fossil record testifies to this! Therefore, evolution took the primarily non-photosynthetic (and soft-bodied) route. Despite the massive size of Jupiter and Saturn (both gas giants with similarities to the sun), they do not have the nuclear fusion in their core as evidenced with the sun, or you'd see these giant planets set ablaze, like nuclear bombs being detonated..., like two small suns burning in the distant heavens.
The sun, in contrast,

...that is, about 100 billion H-bombs every second!"
The Sun, Physics Department, FSU.EDU

Sixthly, the question is, do Atheists know the difference between Science and Theology? Take note and observe where he posted a question on BOTANY. Did this Atheist genuinely hope to receive an answer from a Botanist or even a Biologist under the "Religion and Spirituality" category? Is the Atheist even aware that Science and Theology are separate entities? It is not the "Creationist" who is confused, but rather, the Atheist. It can be deduced that an answer was not being sought by an actual Scientist, but the question was directed at fellow Atheists, who are not, Scientists.

Religion and Spirituality Category. Atheists are confused, and can not distinguish between philosophy and empirical science today.

Let the words of Charles Darwin address this problem of Atheists who confuse thier religion, with the field of Science. Unlike Atheists, Darwin was a Scientist who did indeed distinguish a clear difference between Science and Religion:

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

Science and Theology, are two independent fields of study, separated, like the east is to the west. The man was a genius. Or perhaps, possibly a simple man like myself who asked simple questions, and exercised a thing in short supply these days: COMMON SENSE, which militant, religious Atheists (who go to Category:RELIGION, for answers on Mycology and Botany), need more of.

Seventh, and lastly: Do you realize how frustrating it is, to read Atheists mindlessly attacking Christians (amounting to nothing more than good old fashioned prejudice and religious bigotry of their own); because they have been brainwashed to believe the lie, that Faith=Lesser intellect. I have an IQ of 129. In fact, I feel quite confident that I'm by far more educated than the average atheist, therefore I strongly resent the stereotype.

Genesis and the Fossil Record

I have looked up the term "plant" in Strong's Concordance.
The first time that Hebrew term for "plant" appears, is in Genesis 2:5 and distinguishes "herbs" from "plants".

Medical Toxicology of Natural Substances.
Foods, Fungi, Medicinal ... Apr 8, 2009 ... Toxicology of Natural Substances—Foods, Fungi,. Medicinal Herbs, Plants, and Venomous Animals, by Donald G. Barceloux, efficiently fills ...
doi wiley com/10.1002/anie.200902139

So I'm to assume the Hebrew terms distinguish "plants" as quite different from "herbs". In Science, herbs are defined as a vegetation with medicinal characteristics.

What is interesting here, is the fossil record establishes true "plants" did not exist in the earliest fossil record. They were a latter introduction into the fossil record. "Plant" is not mentioned in Genesis 1:11. I tend to rely on the King James version. Other translations appear to be prejudiced, (interpreting the Hebrew without any comprehension of the fossil record).

This small point, too, correlates within the time frame /fossil record.

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

vs.

King James Bible (Genesis 2:5)
And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

I stand by the opening chapters of the Bible as being in beautiful harmony with Science, however, as the Hebrew people fell away from the Commandments, from truth (God and the Prophets rebuked the Hebrews continually until the day God destroyed Israel), taken captive with no remembrance of them, while Judah was scattered among the nations and known by name only), as they fell farther and farther from grace -- I'm not surprised if they fell to a state of darkness and ignorance.

Would God share science, or any knowledge, with a people who refused to obey the simple Ten Commandments? Therefore if the latter books are riddled with superstition and ignorance, I am not amazed. God closed off the Bible (the book of Revelation), with the mythology they worshiped and loved so dearly.

Was Charles Darwin an Atheist or a Christian?

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

So scientists have observed a seemingly "random" scheme of things, that plants and animals "evolved" some without any "purpose" behind them... leading to a dead end and extinction? 95% of all species which ever lived went extinct? ATHEISTS! Please point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in the text of Genesis! God commanded the Earth to bring forth.. and to your human eye, would appear just as it was observed by Darwin, living organisms emerging on the Earth... transforming "after their kind," -- species going extinct, whilst others surviving. Well, out the window goes "intelligent design" because the word "design" appears no where within those verses. Does it??

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth (tender) grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

THAT INCLUDES THE ATTACKS ON CHARLES DARWIN.

Despite the ceaseless flood of hate and attacks, Darwin never reduced himself to making attacks on religion out of respect for his family. The man was a paleontologist and avoided "religion". They battle to this day, trying to know whether or not the man was an atheist or christian.
HE WAS A SCIENTIST. As much as it may pain some, he avoided the subject of religion altogether.

"...I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..." and, "I may, however, have been unduly biased by the pain which it would give some members of my family , if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.— I am sorry to refuse you any request..."
~ Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of an Atheist publication to his name.

He made the scientific observation of the literal, black and white text, in Genesis epoch three. God commanded THE EARTH to bring forth... and THE WATERS to bring forth, it does not say nor imply "design". God maintained a hands off policy with exception of some limited fine-tuning of surviving species..

"...I emphasize and re-emphasize, strict, unadulterated, uncompromised _Science_ which the schools are trying their damndest to teach. But between the ignorance of Atheists pawning lies like the feathered dinosaur myths (which Dr. Feduccia came out blasting in media) and Creationists outright denying and distorting science....... science can't get a fair hearing."

Atheists attack... for observing and speaking, a scientific truth

Just a note of interest. I saw on Google where an atheist forum was attacking me, and for what? I'm innocent. Because I made an observation based on a scientific fact? Oh crucify me for speaking the truth! Non-photosynthetic fungi (which do bear seed[spores] in them, have fruit[the fruiting fungi variety] etc., and have been found in "tree" form.) Their comment was something like, "What else will they have up their sleeve?" who is this "they" which they speak of? Excuse me, but I don't have anything "up my sleeve" unless that's a mighty big sleeve, because I couldn't explain the riddle of Genesis with the fossil record! Then I prayed to God to reveal the answer. Within a couple hours I was lead to Prototaxites,

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

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

...and a book accompanying it on edible foods, explaining a fruiting fungi is non-photosynthetic, with spores that act like seed, and can be eaten. I was in disbelief.

Extract from Foods and feeds - Google Books Result, by Dilip K. Arora, K. G. Mukerji, Elmer H. Marth - 1991 - Science - 621 pages:

My view is not like "them" (the old "us" vs. "them" of paranoid Atheist hatemongers who have a religion of their own to pawn on the masses so they can destroy the U.S. and other nations, just like they brought the USSR to its knees in poverty, warfare, genocide, famine of millions... hardly "science" at work. I am not "religious," and my view is this, unlike creationists, I SAY, stick to strict, unadulterated, uncompromised science... and keep religion out of the classroom. Every truth which scientists have discovered, will explain the verses in Genesis. Not vis versa.

Meanwhile, with that understanding in mind that Epoch Three speaks of non-photosynthetic fungi like ancestors to Prototaxites, and at best, Algae which derived photosynthetic energy directly from hydrothermal vents (explaining Darwin's dilemma why 3.5 billion years of "nothing" in the fossil record, for lack of the sun's light energy). Soft organisms (suited to a dark, damp world at best).

Well, if it were actually "24 hour days" spoken of in Genesis -- why then non-photosynthetic organisms? Why not "create" modern plants that depend on sunlight? Would young earth creationists try to convince me, that a modern tree or any other modern plant couldn't withstand one night in the dark, approx. 12 hours, without light, until the next day...

Therefore, its easily deduced that Hebrew word "Yowm" is implying an indefinate period of time, an epoch, and not a literal 24 hour day. It's written in Genesis itself, "for times, seasons," wasn't even set until Epoch four, with the introduction of light from the heavens. Time did not even exist until Hebrew word, "Yowm" (Epoch) Four. It does not say the heavenly orb was created, but rather light itself, (photosynthesis), and thus providing a way to measure time.
"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" (Genesis 1:14)

God does not measure time on man's terms, period.

If it were a 24 hour day, could not young earther's modern angiosperms, survive through just one night without dying? Obviously, the riddle is solved by non-photosynthetic fungi (true to the fossil record). And that implies it was (true to science) millions of years in darkness. Modern photosynthetic plants, would've quickly went extinct in the environment described in Genesis Epoch Three. Only algae, fungi(herb) and organisms like Prototaxites (fruiting fungi trees) could've survived in that harsh environment of early earth. It can_not be a 24 hour day.

I am saying, (unlike Creationists and zealot Atheist hatemongers) for religion not to interfere with Science, because religion can't even properly teach the Bible (that includes Atheists who regularly take text of the Bible, completely out of context), but would be so arrogant as to attempt interpreting Science... a completely unrelated realm of knowledge!

Religion(including Atheism) mix with science like oil and water.

Observations of Science and Introduction of Agriculture Genesis 2:5

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of itâ€™s legs back.

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

While humans may regain tails,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

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

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

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

"The book of Genesis FAIL. A snake in China grew one of itâ€™s legs back.

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

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

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

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

Continue...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. Okay. You say.

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

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

Solomon's Idolatry (Excerpt from scribd.com)

What Science has done for Science, Or, Why Charles Darwin felt Atheism was Completely Useless

For certain persons of the Anti-Theist persuasion, who take pleasure in the delusion that "Atheism" has any way contributed to science? If this were so, where were the "Atheist Physicians, Physicists, Biologists, Chemists, etc.," 5,000 and 10,000 years ago? Before the time of Christ. Where is all the "Atheist" science achievements? If Atheism were truly "intellectual" as it claimed, we should have achieved human immortality in all this time, and paradise by now!

"...rapid increase in scientific progress with the introduction of atheism into society..."

Atheist propaganda, without any substance of truth in it. The first, true Atheistic experiment was the Paris Commune which lead to the immediate slaughter of people of religion, which was followed by another disastrous Atheist experiment in Russia, which would see around 50 million massacred, by the time ~~Satan~~ Stalin ~~was murdered by his staff who couldn't stand his paranoid~~ died of natural causes. Between that time, the disastrous experiment in Spain, China, and elsewhere, leading to genocide, widespread famine, poverty, warfare and human suffering.

Does this look like "Science" to you?

Because it sure doesn't look like Science to me.

Under Atheist Mao's regime, in the so-called "Great Leap Forward," 25,000,000 citizens starved to death due to idiotic political policies created by the Atheist ruling party. That is, Twenty Five Million. This is not counting the insane policies of Lenin (Five Million starvation victims) or the insane policies of Stalin (7 million between the short time span, of merely 1932-1933). Yet, Atheists boast that all progress is due to "introduction of atheism into society".

"...it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..."
- Charles Darwin, refusing dedication of his name in an Atheist publication,
http://friendsofdarwin.com/articles/2000/marx/

#1. "it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public"

Mr. Darwin did not say, the scientific illiteracy of Atheism "illuminates" and "opens the mind" .. if Mr. Darwin felt for one moment that Anti-Theist rabble-rousing had a "positive effect," he would've surely said so, but rather, Mr Darwin said, "Direct arguments/attacks on religion produce hardly any effect on the public." Therefore, Mr. Darwin saw no benefit, nor positive effect to be gained from Atheism (which belongs put away in a corner with philosophy... which is completely useless!) Mr. Darwin proceeds to separate himself from Atheism, by saying he AVOIDS writing on Religion. Yes, indeed Mr. Darwin distinguishes a clear difference between Atheist rabble-rousing hatemongering and genuine Science.

#2. "...freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds, which follow from the advance of science."

Mr. Darwin did not say, "illumination of men's minds follows the advance of atheist rabble-rousing and hatemongering." Instead, Mr. Darwin made it abundantly clear, "illumination of men's minds follows the advance of SCIENCE," Did Mr. Darwin say Atheism leads to human progress? No, he did not. Mr. Darwin said SCIENCE alone, leads to human progress... not, ignorant foam at the mouth atheist bigotry and hatemongering. In fact, Mr. Darwin seems to indicate in his statement, that while atheism has zero positive effect on the public, Science does have a positive effect.

Therefore, Mr. Darwin's legacy to the world is, Atheism is completely useless and worthless in any relationship to "Science".

#3 "..therefore, always been my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science..."

Mr. Darwin clearly separated himself from all worthless philosophical areas (such as anti-theism and religion which are completely unrelated to Science) and has confined himself to *Science*. If Mr. Darwin had earnestly felt Atheism had anything to do with "Science," then why does he emphasize he has no desire for entanglements in such philosophical areas, With an emphatic "AVOID WRITING ON RELIGION,". Obviously, Darwin feels that ATHEISM BELONGS CLASSED AMONG RELIGION, and in his life work and experience arrived to the conclusion: Atheism is completely worthless in regard to Scientific progress.

It can be deduced that Charles Darwin felt,
1. Science alone, has the power to enlighten and illuminate the human mind.
2. Atheism, is completely useless.

What Does In The Image of God Mean?

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

November 18, 2009...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heyyyy, that's an insult.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis is identical chronology w/fossil record.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's modern man.

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

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

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

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

Of interest too, "I have given you every herb bearing seed...upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is written, God repented making man.

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

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

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

So God must answer you. I cannot.

"So God must answer you. I cannot."

Thats the way I see it also.

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

--

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

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

Man does create God in his own image though.

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

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

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

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

If educated and reason-minded Christian men of science like Louis Agassiz found it plausible to embrace the concept of a supernatural entity at work in nature, then the possibility is good enough for me.

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."
The entire commentary (link).
The Earth is not Young, but the Sun's nuclear reaction, is... based on fossil evidence, a wee 500 million years old.

Astronomers Discover Coldest Star Ever [VIDEO]

But what about Stromatolites and photosynthesis 3.5 billion years ago?

That's covered here in full.

Had there been any sunlight, it would have never reached the surface of the Earth, anyway.

I profess my innocense of the crime of Bibliolatry, however, I am scathed with certain Atheists who've somehow came to the conclusion their deconversion (which soon lead to blasphemous attacks on people of faith and anti-religious tyrades) supposedly equal a one size fits all, "patent truth"(TM), or even worse, a "scientific truth." Only the religious minded are under the delusion they advance their creeds by deception and claims to possess a monopoly on "absolute truths". Not unlike their counterparts Theistic Fundamentalists, who also believe they monopolize some sacred "Truth of Truths"(TM)... yet in my years acquainting both extremes, not much appears to be about an actual search for greater truths, understanding or knowledge. Rather, hatred and bigotry tend to be the motivating factor behind their many senseless squabbles.

Straight from Scripture Commentary:

See the King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991 for yet another reprint of this century-old LIE. This EVIL lie has been told and retold by theologians, biblical scholars, preachers and priests to paralyze brains of the religious, so that they may continue unabated generating billions in tithes and donations from the faithful, never again to question the dishonest anti-Darwinist rhetoric, so the church can continue fighting to stamp out truth and enlightenment. These men within the hallowed halls of the establishment of organized religion, just as those priests, the murderers of Jesus, are the enemies of God because "God" can only be found on the side of what is proven to be TRUTH. And I present the truth here vs. their evil lies that have deceived millions.

Prototaxites, A Fossil Fruiting Fungi, 'Tree'
Scientists discovered this fossilized, non-photosynthetic, fruiting "tree," and call it Prototaxites.

They said it couldn't be done, but here it is, thanks to modern science and praise to God for revealing the truth about the fossil record. Still waiting on evangelicals to address this fossil discovery and begin owning up to their wretched LIES and DAMNED LIES for over a century... if it looks, waddles and quacks like a tree... its probably a tree.
"The various attempts to join together the biblical account of creation and evolution are not supportable by the various gap theories because the order of creation is in direct opposition to the views of modern science (e.g., the creation of trees before light.)"
Source: King James Hebrew-Greek KeyWord Study Bible, AMG Publishers, 1991

Yes, finally, trees exactly as described in Genesis, before, and without sunlight. And no, it's not another lame hoax. (Short) and (Long). See, Prototaxites, Fossilized "Fruiting Fungi," 'Tree'.

Also see Evolution of the Earliest Plant Organisms, specifically the "Fruiting Fungi" which fits an identical description,
1. Has fruit with "seed" (spores) inside itself, and
2. Can survive without sunlight (exactly as described in Genesis). Such organisms would have certainly existed during the Vendian/Precambrian.
3. For a long time, scientists presumed or presume a giant "mystery fungi" was a tree, a conifer, to be precise... and some have now described it as one of the "Fruiting Fungi".

Also, see "Fruit Trees Before Sunlight".

I Challenge All with this Thousand Dollar Question:
Please engage brain and point out where either term, "Create" or "Design," even appear in this text of Genesis?
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.

Still Waiting...

When you Atheists or Fundamentalist Xtian Darwin-haters can squeeze "creation" or "design" out of any of those verses which imply natural selection, let me know.

And yes Atheists... please spare your sermon. Don't preach to the choir. I know all too well what you believe.

Just because people become familiarized with Atheism, hardly means they are so blown away... so mesmerized with "The Truth"(TM) and taken in by a few persuasive argument fallacies that they automatically deconvert and lose faith. That they didn't accept your religion, hardly constitutes a lack of understanding. Perhaps it's just that Atheism is that unappealing. *The Shock* *The Awe* -- how could everyone not see things your way? They're just in denial. (Sound familiar?) Every religious adherent is *in shock* and *in awe* when others do not want to buy into their brand of religion and they fail to convince potential converts. Just as my views might not interest you, well, perhaps I am fully understanding your views and yet, Atheism still remains just that unappealing. Mainly because of the hateful attitudes and blatant lies that often accompany "The Truth"(TM). Any religion that has that extent of negativity in it can't be good for anyone's emotional well-being. Meanwhile, I fully understand why most people will not subscribe to my views. Foremost, it requires a minimal amount of knowledge of several scientific fields of study and secondly, reasoning that requires "thinking outside the box". Lastly, I'm not proposing to have any "One and Only Truth(TM)". Just presenting scientific facts whilst challenging long-held cherished falsehoods as well as faith in people to exercise critical reasoning and make up their own minds, and whatever conclusion people may arrive at is fine with me.

Documentary from "The Soviet Story,"

Jim Jones was a Communist

The religious establishment and their twisted evil twin, anti-religion baiters said it couldn't be done, yet...

TREES INDEED!

Vegetation, Herbs and Trees Before Sunlight.
Oh well, I guess that dashes arguments of Atheists and Science-Hating fundamentalists to little itsy bitsy pieces.
(and more found here)

Karl Marx Created Adolf Hitler
Darwin's theory did not create Hitler as some have accused, nor did Hitler's Socialism have anything to do with Jesus Christ or Christianity. Besides Eugenics programme in early American history and over 27 states which had sterilization laws on the books before the time of Nazi Germany, Hitler derived his version of Communist ideologue, "National Socialism" directly from the Socialism of Karl Marx, advocate of the most malevolent version of toxic Atheism, and author of The Communist Manifesto which lead to the bloody death toll of at least 100 million in the 20th Century alone and the killing continues ...
See Anti-Communism

For more information on Communism, and the ghastly death tolls:

The Black Book of Communism

Harvard University Press Communist regimes around the globe are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement. It takes a brick of a book to provide the crushing scope of this murderous ideology, that killed tens of millions in the 20th Century and that will continue to kill.

And while we're on the subject, let's set the record straight about Jim Jones, another evil, toxic atheist and Marxist-Leninist.
"How could I demonstrate my Marxism? The thought was, infiltrate the church."
- Jim Jones, founder of the murderous "People's Temple," a disgusting Atheist and Marxist degenerate camouflaged under the guise of being "A man of God".
Carried out to the instruction as Marxist Revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, founder of the USSR, stated a necessity to infiltrate the Church, because the religious will '"swallow anything" if it is wrapped in religious terms.'

Hitler, Messiah, Anti-Christ
Like Atheist Stalin, Hitler wages a war against people of all religion.
(See Commentary Link.)

Communists murdered 100 Million over the past century.

Communist party members are Atheists.

And no, sorry, but Joseph Stalin was not a Christian because he attended seminary once and Christianity did not turn him into a butcher. George Bernard Shaw was no Christian either when he openly supported Hitler and mass genocide by gassing.

“I’m an atheist and I thank God for it.”
- George Bernard Shaw

Atheists know this doesn't look good when they attempt to convert people to Atheism, and people are aware of the death tolls under Communist regimes so Atheists will do mental cartwheels to conveniently deny history or come up with some other lame twisted argument fallacy to explain away the atrocities committed by Atheists, such as, "Communists worship the state," I suppose therefore they're not Atheists?? Hogwash! Enough of the silly grammar school semantics!! That's not what the Communist Party is saying, Atheists!! To become a member of the ~~Atheist State Religion~~, ooops, I mean Communist Party, you must be a sworn Atheist. No exceptions!

Darwin was never the problem. ATHEISM was the problem!? No wonder Christians rejected Darwin's theory after people like George Bernard Shaw and Karl Marx latched on to it like the parasites they were!

I believe in the religion of Love which the Prophet Jesus Christ taught.
So, Atheists! Looks like that agenda to convert the world to your religion of atheism has alas backfired. Your hate propaganda has turned people off. People as a whole are still as spiritual as ever, if not more so. Oh, don't delude yourself, people understand very very well what you believe, and I know all too well what you believe with your religion of hate. Whatever side you're on, I'm not there!!!

My favorite Atheist, Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam, whose wonderful song "Jeremy" brought attention to the anguish of kids who deal with school bullies vs. my least favorite

Mr. Brian Warner, aka Marilyn "Who Needs Fred Phelps?" Manson? guilty of regularly bullying and abusing his employees, both physically and mentally. THE VIDEOS ARE DISTURBING. Just "boys being boys"? or more age old ignorance that leads to a society of bullies. Most people have heard about the evil antics, but remain oblivious to the level of inappropriate bullying and ruthless violence even band members apparently have grown weary of.

Saving the best for last.

Sorry 'tis not Atheist that I can tell, but it is Alice in Chains. My favorite band of all time, brazenly questioning religious dogma and rhetoric.

And not to forget my commentary on the meaning of Soundgarden: Black Hole Sun A must read... or at least, a must-listen!

This blog was published quite a good number of years ago. I have came to a very different conclusion about Genesis ... as well as Evolution:
"Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy".

Genesis in the Ancient World
"One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

"All things are possible until they are proved impossible and even the impossible may only be so, as of now."
-Pearl S. Buck

ag·nos·tic
noun
"A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

Atheism is a personal and philosophical non-belief in God's existence. Since an individual can not use any established scientific method to determine the existence or non-existence of God, this confirms "Atheism" is not Science. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God, using scientific methods or science itself. Therefore, Atheism, as a belief, is not founded in Science.

Worthy Quotes By Atheists

With Commentary Follow-Up: WHY Atheism Is IRRELATED To Science

"The ironic part is that most atheists couldn't pass high school chemistry. Just as dimwitted, yet ten times more arrogant about their omniscience. [...] so let's continue having both sides yelling at each other and making fun of each other, and I'm sure everything will turn out for the better."
— UncleMejija (Yes, an Atheist... with a working brain)

For more on this issue, see "Theism and Atheism = Mental Illness."

Paul preaches about the "Unknown God," which translates to "Agnostic" (as depicted by Gebhard Fugel.)
< Greek ágnōst (os), variant of ágnōtos not known, incapable of being known ( a- a-6+ gnōtós known, adj. derivative from base of gignṓskein to know) + -ic, after gnostic; said to have been coined by T.H. Huxley in 1869.
n.
1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic ). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism. (Source)