Observations of Science and Introduction of Agriculture Genesis 2:5

0

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lactuca serriola, the ancestor of lettuce.

There were many nomadic humans, but no farmers.

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

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

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

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

Genesis is Evidence for Science

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

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

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

Read More »

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

3

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 it’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 it’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)

Read More »

What Does In The Image of God Mean?

0

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.

Read More »

A Creationist Speaks : Keep Creation Science Out of the Classroom

0

What I've been waiting for.‏

Somebody who understands science (a positive). A big postive.

State  :  Virginia City  :  Troutville Lat/Long  :  37.4482, -79.9986 (Map)
Language		English (U.S.) en-us
Operating System		Microsoft WinXP
Browser		Internet Explorer 7.0 Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; Trident/4.0; GTB6; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Javascript		version 1.3
Monitor		Resolution  :  1143 x 857 Color Depth  :  32 bits
Time of Visit		Nov 4 2009 8:56:08 pm
Last Page View		Nov 4 2009 8:56:08 pm
Visit Length		0 seconds
Page Views		1
Referring URL		http://www.google.co...losion&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Search Engine		google.com
Search Words		genesis theory of cambrian explosion
Visit Entry Page		http://genesis-scien...four-of-genesis.html
Visit Exit Page		http://genesis-scien...four-of-genesis.html

Very weird feeling... extreme weird. After years of being in the middle of fighting "Creation Science," here I find myself promoting it. The only exception is, I'm basing the interpretation on *literal Genesis* and actual science... aligning the two.

Somebody from Troutville, Virginia... the first person I've found with a specific search string related to what I've proposed for explaining the text of Genesis Chapter One. Somebody who maybe does understand the significance of "Cambrian Explosion". It would be nice.

I am not underestimating or overestimating the significance of the Cambrian Explosion, just as Darwin himself made an ordeal over it, grieved until he went to his grave... incapable of explaining the phenomena in the fossil record. It's got to be the greatest mystery, perplexing scientists worldwide to this day.

Sort of leaves me with a sick feeling though, after seeing all the damage (my entire life) personally victimized by ignorance the church taught. They taught me in my youth, the earth was only around 6,000 or 10,000 years old, and made to look like a numbwit when discussing European history with a pagan, back in 1991. First "debate" I'd ever been in with anyone. I'd never acquainted anyone who believed in Evolution, until that day. He said the European people had lived in Europe around 30,000+ years. I thought he was nuts... I wrote an organization I trusted for verification, and they sent Xerox of an article showing a "Venus" from Vienna, dated around 32,000 -- a male human, with a lion's head.

Here is that very article, which caused me to lose belief in a Young Earth Creation to a believer in Human Evolution. (Although, in 1991 I was far from having any real understanding of the fossil record.) It comes from National Geographic, October 1988, "The Search for Modern Humans"



In his correspondence, which consisted of snail-mail at that time, the man claimed the eldest known "Venus" was a female idol dating 30,000 years. I realized, he was wrong from what the article said... aye! victory.... it was 1) Male and 2) Older than his date, but, oooo, I learned at the same time that ancient people did indeed exist since tens of thousands of years ago -- and my faith in organized religion was shot down. I was already having doubts in 1991 and had dropped from the church.

Upon reading the article and realizing I had been prevented from trusting the school system / science, lending to darkness and ignorance, helped lead to packing away the Bible and forgetting it, rejecting it, as a book of myths.

Even now, having re-embraced Christianity fully and with all that I know of faith, and science included... I would stake everything that the full record of Paleontology can be aligned with the book of Genesis, however I would never want to see "Creation Science" taught in schools! Mainly, because mankind is not fit to teach even the Bible. Only God is fit to reveal truths, to the willing and open mind that trusts in Him. The scriptures say, "They will be taught by God."

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

Let them debate Genesis, until the cows come home... but keep it out of the class room (that includes Atheists and their revolting war on faith). So many people have been mis-educated about science, thanks to organized religion and its opponents who don't know Exegesis of the Bible, from a hole in the ground.

Therefore, thanks to that very ignorance, the last total I read, reveals a whopping statistic of something like Christianity branching into 20,000+ sects and denominations and they can not even agree among themselves.. above all, afraid to teach the truth about the simplest of things -- a great falling away has resulted because of the failure of the Church! But would be so bold as to propose over-taking education? God is not the author of confusion. Man is the author of the confusion.

One body in Christ Jesus? Nobody is teaching the truth anymore... either they don't know the truth, or they're too afraid to teach it to the masses. Seriously, why is it I can purchase scholars texts and critical commentaries like some on my book shelves, i.e., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," written by Dr. Norman Geisler, and even in his conservative rationale he is allowed to say in the book that the Hebrew word being used regarding the flood can imply a "localized flood" and all geological evidence confirms a "worldwide flood" is impossible, yet, the typical preacher tells an entirely different version to the people who sit in the pews every Sunday.
Being associated with an Agnostic / Anti-Theist / Evolutionist for a number of years now... I've been seeing, first-hand (being in the midst of Skeptic circles; Atheists and Agnostics), what results when organized religion relies on man's ignorance to interpret scripture: People drop out and become foam at the mouth Atheists and Agnostics, and other enemies to Christ. You can blame the church itself, for this. Thier refusal to teach the truth, including the unpopular truths, is completely to blame. Believers are not equipped to deal with questions, nor are they prepared to face some of the simplest tests of their faith, such as discrepancies in scripture. Once the average pew-sitter becomes aware of some of the smallest issues, which are normal questions faced by theologians every day, the delusion of inerrancy is shattered, and sometimes, that person may even receive the big "please don't come back," brush off when they ask too many questions, which leads to alienation and quite possibly becoming another typical Atheist with the typical story of becoming a "former fundamentalist". The church has failed them! So the bitterness of Anti-Theists is no real surprise.

My first loss of belief was in the church I was raised and groomed in (The Worldwide Church of God).. completely fundamentalist, and alongside attacks on science, it steadily waged a war of slander against Christianity itself. The WWCG was strict and legalistic in Orthodox laws, very much like Judaism in many ways. In 1991, when I began to see the cult fall apart following the death of the founder, and after a lifetime of being taught "this is the one true truth," my delusion about a "one true religion," and blindly following a man, was shattered. I felt like the fabric of my entire world had been pulled from my feet... I woke up and realized, you can not trust a church... nothing is forever.

Then, I prayed for God to reveal the truth to me himself. What happened instead, was an "answered prayer," and a rather rude awakening when my brother (who had since became Atheist) up and decided to trek all the way from California (1993) and set down a stack of Atheist literature in front of me, challenging me to read it if I had an open mind. There, I learned things the church never told me.

And you know what? The atheists weren't lying... it didn't take much -- just reading scriptures themselves. Taught since birth, "The Bible has no errors or contradictions." But that book, the Bible Handbook (Atheist book) challenged me to open my own Bible, and compare various scriptures. I challenge any Christian to do the same, but keep in mind, to pray for God to reveal the explanation to you. Remain faithful, because it may take years of study, before you are lead to a full understanding. Be my guest, but such Atheist literature is drawing straight from the Bible itself to deceive people and lead them from the church, and the body of the Anti-Christ is growing, because the Church has failed to teach the truth. They fear to teach the truth. The adherents of Christianity have put their faith into too many Jimmy Swaggarts, Ted Haggards and Jim Bakkers, instead of relying totally on faith in Jesus Christ and calling out to God himself to teach them. Therefore, the Church has became weakened and has failed, with a great falling away from truth, that began, even many centuries ago.

I did just that... I was not afraid to confront a truth, and believed I was strong enough in faith to take on anything! I was mislead by the Church. I did not have the knowledge to read and understand scriptures. I would go as far as to say, the Church had convinced me that I was incapable of reading scriptures and understanding without a preacher interpreting for me, when that false doctrine itself (taught by wicked men who sought to have power over the masses) contradicts the teachings of Jesus and the prophets!

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

I read the verses, and compared them from my own Bible and gained a knowledge I had never knew. I read until the sun rose, I was speechless. I resented my Atheist brother for showing me the truth, but... I remember that sick feeling, he was right and I speechless, thinking "I don't want to discuss."

I became an Atheist for about 2 minutes... then remembered an apparition me and a friend saw years before, knowing "okay, so something exists beyond, but what?!" now believing the Bible couldn't answer that question, I settled into becoming Deistic... not having any clue, "Where do I go next?" In 1993, I even wrote the Atheist publisher, Farrel Till (exposed to the "Skeptical Review," publication by my brother), and Mr. Till published the letter. (Round about the spring 1993 edition, Letters to the Editors section). Mr. Till responded in kind, that he was tremendously disillusioned upon realizing the "damaged bag of goods" he too had been sold by religion.

Over that span of 2 years, I had the rug pulled from under me, twice. In 1991... faith in organized religion blown to shreds. And in 1993... faith in the Bible itself, blown to shreds.

I packed away the Bible for 7 years and mostly forgot about it. Seldom did the Bible enter into my mind, except with disdain and resentment for how the ancient book had been used by certain men in organized religion, in their agenda to control me, to bridle me with a ton of perpetual guilt, typical "God hates you" sermons about hell and brimstrone... fear, to control the faithful. And, as we all know, there's 1000's of religions, and they all hold the monopoly on the "one true truth".

In late 1999 - early 2000, I began feeling something tugging on my spirit to accept Christianity. I couldn't do that though, I thought, because, the Bible had errors and contradictions -- and long before, the Worldwide Church of God had already convinced me that Christianity itself was the "spawn of Satan," with its Christmas Trees (tree worship), and steeples sitting on the Christian Church (Egyptian obelisk)... Herbert Armstrong's teachings of Christianity itself being the "Babylon Mystery Religion". Therefore I could not be Christian. I went through a miserable spiritual conflict.

But something kept tugging on my spirit, I had to believe... I just had to take a leap of faith, anyway... the force was convincing my mind, "you never gave Christianity a chance...." So, being fair and open-minded, I decided, I'd give it a try... despite what I knew of scripture being a "book of myths". I set out on a journey then, to explain the discrepancies in scripture and prove the Bible true to myself.

I did not have any proof, and every reason not to believe, but converted anyway on a blind leap of faith.

After converting, I soon saw the ignorance and superstition in the people in Christianity... the preacher at the local church even warned me the dangers of asking too many questions. Such as, "Where does the Bible come from?" Amazing... nobody knew! The first break I got was when my Atheist brother called me up out of the blue, and offered a "Children's School Primer," which explained the origins of the Bible, from its beginning on Papyrus to later day scribes hand-copying text, generation after generation.
And when I asked a Sunday School teacher, "Have you ever actually read the Bible," and his answer was "NO" -- I asked him, "Well how then do you know its the Word of God?" I made people angry enough, that I was soon accused of Demon Possession.
The good Lord saw to it that I moved away from that church to study science and Genesis and the actual scripture and praying to God to reveal THE TRUTH.

Needless to say, the same preacher who warned me how Christians hate knowledge, was soon fired because he introduced a slightly upbeat rhythm in music... to cater to a younger generation of Christians. Before he was fired, he had encouraged me to call Christian Book Distributors, and check out their selection of scholars texts and a full line of books read by those who are theologians and attend seminary (like Preachers).

I began a new path... the search for knowledge and truth.

Instead, what I got was caught up with somebody who _did_ know scripture very well... enough to answer EVERY QUESTION, and enough knowledge about scripture to deceive, distort and twist scripture to bring about serious doubts in my mind. I fell in with Atheists, who spend their time pouring over the Bible, tearing into it verse by verse (former fundamentalist Christians), tearing into it with a passion, but with one goal in mind: to disprove it. If only Christians had an ounce of the same fervent passion, surely God would be pleased! God loves the zealous heart and mind. If Christians would do so, there just might be some decent defense of the Bible for a change. It was answers (perhaps not the right ones)... but answers, all the same. It was more answers than I had gotten from the religious establishment. (You know, the same religious establishment that crucified Jesus?) No preachers in this day and age, dare openly discuss truth... and often being, the same truth they are taught in seminary! Shame on them.

So that's how I got deceived a second time, and lead away from Jesus.

In 2007, when my eyes were re-opened (I was compelled to begin purchasing books from Amazon on the history Communism, and combined with about 20 years of what I'd learned about history came pouring in) -- it was like waking up staring a devil in the face. I remember that feeling of uncertainty and horror. I knew that I might not have one single answer about the Bible (I was not any wiser than when I started out seeking to reconcile the scriptures) but I was certain with what I knew about Socialists (leftwing/liberals)... their war against people of faith under Communism, whatever side Atheists/Agnostics were on, I'm not on that side.

Although, in my mind -- I do believe that some Atheists are sincere about their beliefs, (perhaps due to lack of knowledge about the whole spectrum of issues). For instance, they are not aware of what their brethren have committed in the name of the Atheist Apostle Karl Marx. In fact, oddly enough, the first mention of "Pol Pot" and "Mao" was offered up by an Atheist. He stated to me in correspondence, how often we'd heard of the wanton mayhem of Hitler's millions, but never hear of those death tolls under Communist tyrants. So, there are some Atheists who probably do genuinely believe they are following a path in life, paved with with good intent... especially, once they are made aware of the brutalities committed under the power of church and state, under the Popes of Old Europe... though completely unaware of Atheism's own bloody history: 100 Million slaughtered in the 20th Century (counting until 1989), for verification see "The Black Book of Communism" (Harvard University Press).

When I re-embraced my faith, I could not prove anything to myself at that moment for truth of the Bible, but I was certain with all that I had seen and known: "I'm taking the Bible and Jesus Christ, on faith and let God do the rest."

I know full well why Atheists and Agnostics *hate* the church so much... and the church is very much to blame for that. The establishment with-holds information, they do not teach the full truth to adherents, that preachers and theologians claim the luxury for themselves to know. Therefore, people are slipping away from the faith. But the grass is not greener on the other side. Due to a little knowledge which, in the wrong hands can be a very dangerous thing. I was slowly deceived to join in with Anti-Theists. In 2007, I had awaken to find myself guilty of making hostile attacks on religion and, on many occasions. Just because a person believes in a God, does not make them a friend to Christianity by default.

Yes, with all I have seen and learned, I say keep the "creation science" out of the classroom. If the religious establishment is failing to even correctly teach the Bible, then how much less is it capable of teaching "Science," an area totally un-related to Theology?

Why does the church refuse to teach people the truth of the Scriptures and God? It took no time at all to understand, as one preacher explained the "miracle of the torn veil on the temple," symbolized that _any person_ could enter into the presence of God, without fear of being stricken dead, through grace in Jesus Christ. But people are looking to men like Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jim Jones (actually he was an Atheist, a Marxist-Leninist, but whose counting?)

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."
~ Matthew 15:14

Following men... not following Jesus, not asking for God to teach them as was promised by Jesus and the prophets. They follow men, and are therefore lead astray into darkness. Yet complain about what Scientists are teaching to children and Atheists who lead people astray? The greatest enemy that any Christian should fear, is within the church itself because the leaders of the religious establishment REFUSE to teach the truth. For posterity, I'll say it once again: it is the same religious establishment who crucified Jesus Christ who came to fulfil the law and teach none other, than the truth. For this, the religious establishment hated him (and without cause).

"It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."
~ John 6:45

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."
~ Hebrews 8:10-11

"And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you."
~ Luke 11:9

Those truths which Jesus and the Apostles taught, could be very threatening to certain men who seek power and domination over the masses in the establishment of organized religion, no middle men, with Jesus as the only intermediator between a man/woman, and God.

Read More »