Polydactyly has been going on for over 300 Million Years... if Evolution (the Atheistic Variety) were merely trying to devise new body plans, it should've happened long before now...
Dr. Kenneth Miller provided actual _evidence_ of (Chimp Chromosome #2) a genetic link between old world apes, and earliest man-forms. The Atheists have provided NOTHING... NADA... ZIP. Did Chimp Chromosome #2 disprove Genesis, or did it establish what was actually written in Genesis 1, thousands of years ago. Strawman arguments: Because YEC misinterpreted, and ignored the vegetarian nature of early man... denying Paleontology, all of which Atheists base their pitiful arguments on... therefore, Genesis is disputed? Not hardly.
Genesis speaks of Vegetarian early man. They were an intermediate between ape and man, and I showed that in the video. They did everything described, from "dominating the fish" to subdueing the Earth.
Science/Genetics, is indisputable. YEC can misinterpret until the cows come home, and Atheists can base a million strawman arguments on YEC interpretations... still, everyone is failing to address what Genesis 1 actually has written in it. The book of Genesis, has been completely avoided by YEC and Atheists.
Those two warring factions have been the two most destructive forces, to the advancement of science.
So, let's stop discussing YEC, and start discussing the actual, literal text of Genesis 1 and Paleontology. Dr. Kenneth Miller only established a coherent, feasible understanding of what Epoch Six means... man was given the "herb" for meat... Robustus is theorized to have been a vegetarian due to his denitition. Let's stick to the text of Genesis, and actual science already, shall we? If Creationists take an interest in Genesis 1 and 2 and actual Paleontology/Science.. I will be satisfied.
I have nothing to "prove" to Atheists. God is not a holy Houdini who exists for entertaining Atheists... but God, being as temperamental as She is, may decide to send some plagues and curses on those Atheists for their idle, evil blaspheme. Patience can wear thin....
Yes, I meant "She" . . . as in "Let us create man," (Hebrew, for Plural Majesty), as in plural, 1)male and 2)female. God created the Human in the image of God. Have false teachers like Augustine and Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... shame, to say she is created too, in the image of God?
Augustine:
"How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."
How they fail to read with comprehension, God is giving off a list of clear, evident curses, and, To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children..." oh and by the way, this man who refused to obey my commandments will rule over you."
How they lead each other astray in their arrogance, and false teachings, believing they have "Holy Hands" when even Jesus said, "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone." Luke 18:19
NOT ANYMORE. It becomes so apparent, from the narrow dark minds of men that hate, why it was not a blessing.. not a commandment, but a CURSE on woman that man would rule over her.
Such idolatrous men exalted themselves above woman, above the teachings of Jesus... above God himself.
Saint Jerome:
"I am aware that some have laid it down that virgins of Christ must not bathe with eunuchs or married women, because the former still have the minds of men and the latter may present the ugly spectacle of swollen [pregnant] bellies. For my part I say that mature girls must not bathe at all, because they ought to blush to see themselves naked."
Tertullian:
"God's sentence hangs over the female sex, and His punishment weighs down on you. You are the devil's gateway. You first violated the forbidden tree and violated God's Law. You shattered God's image in man. And because you merited death, God's Son had to die."
Have false teachers like Tertullian, made women so ashamed, eternally condemned to carry a cross and the burden of man's sin, when Jesus has already did it for them... forced to live in eternal shame and self-hatred? Did Jesus die in vain, or did he not die for the sins of mankind? Yes or No?
Augustine:
"How can woman be the image of God? ... Woman, compared to other creatures, is the image of God, for she bears dominion over them. But compared unto man, she may not be called the image of God, for she bears not rule and lordship over man, but ought to obey him."
Thomas Aquinas:
"Woman is defective and misbegotten. For the active power in the male seed produces a perfect male likeness. A female comes from a defect in the male seed, or some indisposition, such as the south wind being too moist."
John Knox:
"Women are weak, they are frail, impatient, feeble, and foolish. They are inconstant, they are cruel, and lacking of spirit, and counsel. Woman in her greatest perfection was made only to serve, and obey men."
Martin Luther:
"Men have broad shoulders and narrow hips, so they have intelligence. Women have narrow shoulders, and broad hips to sit upon, so they ought to stay home, keep the house, and raise children. The woman differs from the man. She is weaker in body, in honour, in intellect, and in dignity."
and...
"Take women away from their house-wifery, and they are good for nothing. If they get tired, and die from bearing children, that is no problem. They are made for that."
See University of North Carolina, Oppression of Women in Early Christianity
http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm
This statement alone, sounds bells and whistles it's a forgery:
"as the law also says (Genesis 3:16)"
By very virtue that any man was calling the CURSE in Genesis on woman, a "Law," proves he did not have any understanding of scripture.
God did _not_like men committing adultery or abusing women.
However, what's written in the Pauline forgeries, was _NOT_ a law, _NOT_ a Commandment, and _NOT_ a blessing that man would rule over women. It was a _CURSE_.
No more than its in any of the laws, that if a man goes out to till his field, "MEN BETTER DRIP SWEAT OR ELSE."
These forgeries do not stop there, they go even farther! They say that the male is immune from sin, having "holy hands"... while woman is forced to carry the cross with Jesus, eternally hanging her head in shame.
I picked up this piece of info on University of NC about these FORGERIES in the New Testament :
(~ http://people.uncw.edu/zervosg/Pr236/Ehrman23.htm)
Scholarship May have Found a Solution to this Problem . . .
As Ehrman (p. 346) states concerning "the harsh words of 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. Indeed, this passage is so similar to that of 1 Timothy 2:11-15, and so unlike what Paul says elsewhere, that many scholars are convinced that these too are words that Paul himself never wrote; rather they were later inserted into the letter of 1 Corinthians by a scribe who wanted to make Paul's views conform to those of the Pastoral epistles."
Our Father and Mother, who art in Heaven!
Nelson's King James Bible, © 1972, Thomas Nelson Publishers Inc.I may have got a little off topic, but at least, it's related to scriptures in Genesis
Most of what atheistic, so-called Darwinists (more specifically, Atheists which make lame attempts to make war on God, camouflaging the agenda behind "Science," -- Darwin would have nothing to do with the Atheist fanatics, and duly noted he had confined himself to matters of Science), so more properly described as *Atheist* attacks on religion, merely requires some common sense to refute. That is to say, the information on which they base their argument to disprove God, proves nothing.
I retrieved some photos of a local cat with six toes. Polydactyly supposedly presumes the body plan is attempting to "evolve" into some new species, instead of the genetic throwback to the past... a genetic mutation? Or dormant genes that permit a sixth toe to pop out on a rare occasion. This phenomena has been going on for epochs. It is nothing new. The majority of tetrapods have the same ole five toes. If it were intended for creatures to "randomly evolve" into six-digit creatures as some Atheists are theorizing... I think, it would've happened sometime within the past 300 Million years.
See "An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12097908
University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK. The fossil record of early tetrapods has been increased recently by new finds from the Devonian period and mid-late Early Carboniferous period. Despite this, understanding of tetrapod evolution has been hampered by a 20-million-year gap ('Romer's Gap') that covers the crucial, early period when many key features of terrestrial tetrapods were acquired. Here I describe the only articulated skeleton of a tetrapod, Pederpes, yet found from the Tournaisian epoch (354-344 million years ago (Myr)). The new taxon includes a pes with five robust digits, but a very small, possibly supernumerary digit preserved on the manus suggests the presence of polydactyly. Polydactylous early tetrapods may have survived beyond the end of the Devonian and pentadactyly cannot be assumed for the pes. However, the pes has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms. Pederpes is the earliest-known tetrapod to show the beginnings of terrestrial locomotion and was at least functionally pentadactyl. With its later American sister-genus, Whatcheeria, it represents the next most primitive tetrapod clade after those of the Late Devonian, bridging the temporal, morphological and phylogenetic gaps that have hitherto separated Late Devonian and mid-Carboniferous tetrapod faunas.
PMID: 12097908 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Evidently, they continue on, "after their kind," -- six toed tetrapods existed, in the earliest times, as they still do today... the same ole' same ole'... a genetic throwback to their origins. Now where are, all the six-toed creatures adapted as entire species... it seems as though atheistic, Darwinian Natural Selection explanation for evolution in the fossil record, has a serious case of constipation... where are all the speciations of six-toed creatures?
Worst of all, is the feeble argument, "My cat has six toes, therefore, God does not exist."
Please read that once again, and realize the feeble line of logic Atheists are followng in thier reasoning.
The Fundamentalist said, "it was a perfect creation, God created every creature." Somewhat like a fairy tale impression of the world, therefore, when Atheists point out anamolies in nature, it refutes God? or even Genesis?
The Atheist is merely making an argument to dispute human interpretations. The Atheist has yet to address a single point in what Genesis is actually saying, even further, utterly failed to provide "evidence" and dispute what is literally written in Genesis 1... including other aspects of the Bible, such as God doing away with the earth as it is known, and there being "A New Heaven, and New Earth." Obviously, God did not feel the world was perfect, as Fundamentalists claim.
Atheists have built every strawman argument upon Fundamentalist interpretations, which have nothing to do with actual Science (Paleontology) or the chronology of Genesis. To attempt to do so, will leave the Atheist scrambling, and denying Science itself.
Furthermore, if you read Genesis Epoch #3, the word "Created" is not even in the text. Epoch #4 goes one further, to indicate a randomness on God's command for the "waters to bring forth moving creatures," (that is, the waters creating the creatures... which brings to mind, Darwin's own theory) -- and like Epoch #3, still was not a direct act of creation. Followed by the first actual mention of "creating" -- God touching up on the already living (presuming, "every living" may possibly mean "extant") creatures, and "creating them after their kind." A vast majority of what the literal text in Genesis implies, from God's perspective, is as Forrest Gump put it, "Life is like a box a chocolates. You never know what you'll get." and God simply worked with what the earth and waters brought forth.
