I joined today

Post Reply New Topic

Yes, perhaps more intelligent (judging by their brain size). But some environmentalists point out how dolphins are exploited by humans for various reasons and its not very good for the Dolphins. They are intelligent -- sometimes they turn on their trainers (such as the recent example) at Sea World... at least they are changing some rules where the trainers do not get so close to the dolphins.



China is communist of course, and so-called capitalism vs. communist economy is laughable. They have no real restrictions/regulations except on a very few creatures, some endangered species... and they pollute their entire environment because there's so few to no regulations for the environment/wildlife. I saw one documentary on counterfeit meds being produced in China and shipped into U.S., (NBC documentary) -- they were using yellow road paint which is toxic to coat the yellow counterfeit pills. The Humane Society has went into China and investigated the brutal treatment of animals (i.e., growing cats and dogs for "furs" to be distributed around the world, and not only this, but simply rip their fur from their body while the animal is still living and breathing.) Our government gives China preferential trade while a holocaust continues in China.... and other communist regimes, this is insane.



In the 1980's, while my Dad was alive, _twice_ he took the family in the van, and we went through the southern states (yes, Tennessee and it was beautiful to see the mountains) and out to the west coast through Grand Canyon, Death Valley and then northward into Redwood Forest, California, then north, through Yellowstone and Mt. Rushmore South Dakota... it was such wonderful memories to hold on to, despite the cabin fever of so many days in a van cramped together (and not all of the siblings got along)... there was some serious Aspergering going on with some, everyone confined so closely in such a small space.



What you described sounded hauntingly familiar. When I was 19, I toyed with "activism" for freedom of speech / rock music, and stumbled upon the magic of media ... it is so easy to do something and end up with mass-attention from magazines / television / MTV.
Shortly after that, I got involved with a little sideline work (volunteer) there was KISS (Gene Simmons, Paul Stanley, etc) and a guy named Vinnie Vincent left KISS.... Vinnie Vincent formed his own band... but they had a falling out, and Mark Slaughter came out of Vinnie Vincent's group. Slaughter struck out as their own band. I had a newsletter / metal fan club, and Slaughter's PR's contacted me... I had contest for the posters and other stuff they sent me.
It was really fun stuff back then.
GOD ... this was back when I was a kid. But you may remember the Freddy Kruger / Nightmare on Elm Street series. Mark Slaughter does the song w/Vinnie Vincent on guitar in the movie.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
Category: Music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZC2LiVhehg
Tags: nightmare on elm street 4:the dream master vinnie vincent invasion love kills metal

Long long time ago...

Years, years later.. after some sporadic interests, I took up an interest in Creation vs. Evolution debate / theology, and stumbled across a fellow who was at University, heavily involved and educated in Science/Theology debates, and we became friends... he sent me emails, and was sincere I think, when he spoke cynical of hopes of seeing his book republished in paperback. He told me that they'd spoken of it, but it happened for years.
I took his posts out of Yahoo Groups and other forums, cleaned and edited them, built him a website, then approached the publisher that I'd advertise his book on all pages, if they'd consider re-releasing his book.

He didn't know how to feel, when the publication house was communicating with me, instead of him, about re-issuing the book. Sure enough, it turned up on Amazon in paperback... he wrote me, when he found out "Today I am the Man!! !"

I like doing things like that... sort of in the background, causing things to happen... but not really wanting the spotlight on myself. I guess when I saw his dream of getting republished, my own success (abilities) were wrapped up in it as much, as if it were my own book.



You'll go far, with the positive outlook you have.

Last edited by AspieForty on 10 Apr 2010, 1:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

Welcome to WrongPlanet and welcome to my time warp.

Yep... this is a human brain when it's not on drugs. This is a dolphin brain when not on drugs. Who's more intelligent? Hmmm... tough question, get back to you on that. So I heard about the incident at Sea World.. felt sorry for what happened. Sometimes, it's a good idea to let dolphins have their own territory.

Ha ha ha ha.. just kidding. I didn't know that so few restrictions occurred. I'm not surprised that so much pollution occurred. Seemed to be a lot, but that much? Wow. I remember when seeing the 2008 Beijing Olympics how smoggy the conditions were. Could have contended with LA for top honors. As for counterfeit stuff, sickens me. I remember when Wal-Mart started having Chinese made stuff in their stores. Didn't hear much about problems. Over the course of time, that got worse. The idea of using yellow road paint to coat yellow counterfeit pills? I may as well run for the hills LOL. Make that mountains.. make that the Atlantic Ocean. Or somewhere. The thought of seeing fur ripped from live animals is worse than hearing fingernails scratching across the chalkboard, as is. I won't even go there with Venezuela and Hugo Chavez either.

You crack me up.. best to be careful with that tongue LOL. That would be an awesome road trip to take. In a RV or whatever. Nah not an RV. Gas guzzlin' vehicles the way they are. I am so anti-gas guzzlin' stuff. Do the words, Sierra Club, ring a bell? The first time I saw a non-military Hummer on the road, I shook my head back and forth in disbelief. I'm the only relative in my immediate family who has AS, so I never knew what it was like being around others who were.

Interesting to read about your experience with KISS. That was my bro's stuff (along with Motley Crue, Black Sabbath, AC/DC, you name it he listened to it). I avoided my bro's music like the plague. Was too much into easy listening, smooth jazz, classical, all that stuff. Now, I find myself kinda living my teenage years (but already having had my mid-life crisis when I was a teenager) listening to some of the same stuff as my brother did. And all this time my brother going to completely country music. Thought I'd lost my mind when my bro told me that. I was like, "You gotta me kiddin' me..you and country music?" LOL. PR can be interesting stuff. I mean I could write copy to convince people of something if I wanted to scare them and such LOL.

Ja, ja, ja, ja.. I remember Freddy Kruger, Jason vs. Freddy, blah blah blah. I avoided those movies like the plague too LOL. Oh, the creation vs. evolution debate is ALWAYS a good one. There was a debate on artificial intelligence in Kansas, while in graduate school there. I have my personal views on the creation/evolution debate, but will not mention them in an open forum like this. Congrats to your friend for getting published on Amazon. Very very nice. I wasn't published in grad school or anything as such, although I was on the back page for this one magazine about adult/nontraditional students.

I changed it to



I was a fan of KISS... not much... there were a couple things by them... but it was Vinnie Vincent who played on KISS, and whatever the rivalry politics were, Vinnie Vincent abandoned KISS and formed "Vinnie Vincent Invasion" -- whose singer was Mark Slaughter. Mark Slaughter leaves Vinnie Vincent, and starts his own band.
That's where I came into the picture. Slaughter's PR's had me to do some sideline publicity work because I had a newsletter... and I loved it.



The direction some heavy metal has taken, can be mistaken for classical.

One of the most beautiful pieces of music... played on cello.

Apocalyptica - The Unforgiven(Metallica Cover)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyw1X1tc5fE
If you are truly into classical, you can probably appreciate the talent involved in this composition. I find Metallica one of the most astounding bands, because of the diversity to interchange between "heavy metal" and true classical music... with such beauty.

Oh yes, and this too!

Metallica - Nothing Else Matters [Original Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAsA00-5KoI
A very large orchestra is present as they perform this piece.
I have read the lyrics to this song, and from what I can gather it is speaking of a very precious "soul mate" a close friend... very touching.

They are one of my favorite bands of all time.



When I was young I didn't. When I grew up, I realized it was unhealthy to fill the mind with those kind of horror movies. You are what you eat.



The Creation/Evolution debate is not a problem for me. I believe they are the same thing. i.e., Genesis does not say God designed the herbs in epoch (Heb. yowm for 'day') three, it merely says he commanded them to evolve from the earth, "after their kind" as in speciation. It does not say "create/design" it states, "Let the earth bring forth (Heb. tender) grass (algae first in fossil record), the herb yielding seed (fungi with spores for seed), and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself.
Creationists cannot explain "trees before sunlight". Well, I wrote Norman Geisler (theologian) and asked him to address this issue, to which he's been silent... and Atheists alike, have avoided addressing the matter. these "fruiting fungi" did exist early in the fossil record (and the 3.5 billion year gap with only limited algae would likely be explained by sunlight not reaching the earth as it were during the KT Boundary when the dinosaurs died out after a meteor impact and the sky blackened out... life only proliferates with photosynthesis. For 3.5 billion years of earth's early history, the planet was dormant, but fungi i.e., mushrooms can be cultivated in the total absence of sunlight, i.e., Prototaxites was a literal "tree" in the fossil record, that stood about 20 ft. in height, and is called by scientists, a "Fruiting Fungi" and was once (in the 1800's) confused as a conifer and considered a mystery... what it was doing that early in the fossil record. They are a tree... that bears fruit... and has seed (spores) within the fruit (like a mushroom, it is edible food).

Creationists will deny truth in their idiotic war on Science / Evolution / the fossil record. Atheists have tried to deny this as well, because it does away with the contradiction between Genesis / Paleontology... liars, liars ... neurotypicals with an Agenda. Its very clearly, what scientists have documented as indisputable fact. I only care about facts.

LIES
DIRTY LIES
"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
NASTY LIES
LIES

Modern science teaches no such thing! This is all lies, to deny evolution. Never trust organized religion to teach science. They cannot even be trusted to teach the Bible correctly.


Description Prototaxites Dawson1888.PNG, as reconstructed by Dawson, 1888
Date 1888(1888)
Source Hueber 2001, copied from Dawson (1888) "The Geological History of Plants". Appleton, New York, p290.
Author Dawson

Looks like a tree to me. A tree which could survive entirely in the absence of sunlight too.

Who knows? Could be another band on the way and they'll call on ya Seemed like you enjoyed it so very much, and so much a natural for it, too. Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you (a thank you for each of the four cellists) for sharing with me about "The Unforgiven". You opened my eyes this morning to how beautiful heavy metal could be. I sense from how loud my brother played his metal that I was turned off by anything associated with it. So, I never bothered to even imagine that something like "The Unforgiven" could be so.... so.... so.... so.... awesome!! !! ! I love string quartets very much, but didn't know having four cellists like this would be as awesome. Again, thank you very much.

My mom was one of those people who believed in a 60's theory, which suggested if pregnant women listened to classical music that their pregnant offspring would be highly intelligent. From what I understand, she listened to tons of classical music while I was in her womb. Then for most of my childhood, was nothing but easy listening and classical (with smooth/traditional jazz as a teenager) in my childhood. I so appreciated the Metallica piece and the talent involved. Again, never knew it was possible that heavy metal and classical could co-exist with one another.

I think the Creation/Evolution debate is a problem for a lot of people, because of the closemindedness involved. Thought your slant on it being the same thing was quite interesting. I look at it that everything is created, then evolutionized within the whole. I'm not for certain if they are the same thing or not. I am sure we could discuss this forever. As far as I know, none of the Biblical versions refer to what was grown on what day. The only way to know what happened would to have lived back in that day (if it was entirely possible to do so). I sense one of the reasons not much is written in a religious text with regard to evolution is because of the religious politics involved, and has been going on throughout the history of mankind.

You wrote, "Creationists cannot explain 'trees before sunlight.'" If you take the Bible, as is, believe a certain version of it, believe it word for word, then you take it as being a literal translation. Not a figurative one. Thus, the question becomes, "Why are there so many different translations of a same religious text?" If so many different translations exist, nothing can be taken literally, unless it's the version you see as being literal to you. So one version might have "trees before sunlight." Did I get way off base here? LOL

I thought atheists believed that no such God was possible, and that Darwin's view of evolution was highly accepted in the atheist community. If, as you suggest, "fruiting fungi" and algae existed as it did that long ago, why would atheist avoid such an issue? Makes no sense to me. Almost invalidates their belief system. Now that I did not know.. about mushrooms being able to grow in the absence of sunlight. I love eating mushrooms (just not the hallucinating kind ). Who would have ever thought that shitake mushrooms and other forms of fungi would be this good

Of course, creationists don't want to have anything to do with evolution. It goes against their literal views of what they sense took place. But atheist trying to deny science? Nah.. nah..nah..nah.. that's like atheist trying to deny that Darwinism (gotta love the -isms) ever existed. That's one of the foundations of which atheists base their views.
You wrote, "Modern science teaches no such thing! This is all lies, to deny evolution. Never trust organized religion to teach science. They cannot even be trusted to teach the Bible correctly." Metaphysics is better applicable here.

Saw the diagram of what you perceived to be a tree. Does look like something which could survive without sunlight.

The argument they have ongoing, is the question of "design". To command, "Let the earth bring forth.. after their kind." is an act of "creation," even if it does evolve on its own thereafter, but not an act of "intelligent design," which makes sense in Darwinian terms, survival of the fittest as 95% of species that have lived, have gone extinct.



All version give an order of six "days" but what is in question, is the meaning of yowm (Heb for 'day,' but is used elsewhere to denote an epoch in Hebrew (indefinate period of time).

The order is the same in all texts,

Day One -- Heaven and Earth (can mean simply space and matter)
Day Two -- Light appears in the form of volcanic molten rock (not the sun, but light within the Earth itself). This source of light would be enough for algae to proliferate on early earth. (As evidenced around 2006, with scientists discovering photosynthetic bacteria deep within the Pacific around hydrothermal vents in the absence of sunlight.) The troposphere acts a layer in the atmosphere to divide "waters" -- upper level moisture from lower level moisture and where weather happens. It also is responsible for cooling geo-thermal temps. The early earth, would have been a molten lava ball, surrounded by a blanket of hot steam... in need of cooling, and "waters divided" as in atmospheric cooling, and oceans to cool the earth surface... so this occured in the tropophere, called the "firmament" in the Genesis text. The troposphere is responsible for weather we experience.
Day Three -- "Plants" (Agriculture) are not described, but the earth brings forth vegetation, only described as herbs...
Day Four -- the sun is mentioned. It does not say that the sun and moon were created, but merely "two great lights" were placed in the heavens.

That, the appearance of the sun, would explain Darwin's dilemma why the sudden burst of life, merely (545 million years ago), the Cambrian Explosion.
When the sun is blacked out, life becomes extinct. Much like was seen during the first 3.5 billion years of earth's early history. But with the advent of the sun, it would give life the opportunity to proliferate. Charles Darwin saw that in the fossil record. It were as if the earth were dormant... then suddenly, hard-bodied organisms seemingly evolved out of nowhere.

Which follows with
Day Five - And God said, Let the Waters bring forth the moving creature... abundantly (cambrian explosion).
notably, science has long since concluded that water (the oceans) is where the evolution of animal life, began.
i.e., Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and. How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back To The Sea" and Richard Ellis' "Aquagenesis: The Origin and Evolution of Life in the Sea".

I see no contradiction between the two.



Specifically, they have enjoyed years of antagonizing their Young Earth Creationist (YEC) counterparts, and it is true, the YEC denies and twists, and mangles science, and if YEC were the only viewpoint to consider... then yes, there would be no substance to Genesis, and the Atheist do NOT want anyone disrupting the status quo... many Atheists seem to feel, by the act of blaspheming God, they've obtained an honorary PhD ... they believe by blaspheming God, they're "scientists" now. Science is not done that way. Don't rock the boat. Don't make waves. So I have Creationists who've attacked me with equal fervor as their Atheist counterparts. And why? Because of the truth I've pointed out, using nothing but scientific fact. The Atheist (who would like to see faith and religion driven from public life), wants to shed as much possible doubt on every verse in scripture and I've been around people on both side, Atheist and Creationist alike, who LIE.

Any means necessary to make a war on people of faith (the Atheist). Any possible way to make a war on Science (the Creationist). Neither of the two is the lesser evil. Neither of these religious world-view, equates to "science" and atheism, just like creationism belongs classified in "religion" or "philosophy". Philosophy has done NOTHING for the realm of empirical science. I've grown to have a deep appreciation for legitimate science but dislike the hardnose intolerance of both creationists and atheists, in equal measure.



They don't need Genesis to agree with Evolution to validate their belief system. That would be the last of their wishes... for Genesis to be interpreted accurately, through science? That would be the Atheist' nightmare. I know. I've had some to say, "Okay... that may be so, but what if even every word were this and that... it still doesn't make your god so..."

That's the next argument the Atheist offers. At least the Atheist isn't as illogical to deny the sequence of events, in their literal order, and on which day they fell.

But for sake of argument and different versions of the Biblical text, what's interesting is...

COMPARE THE TWO TRANSLATIONS:

King James Bible (Genesis 2:5)
And every plant of the field *before itwas in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew ... and there was not a man to till the ground.

* compare meanings of before and after, "before it" and "after their kind".
and there was not a farmer on the earth, yet. (around 10,000 years ago... that's around the right time frame for science). Man cultivated his own food beginning 10,000 years ago, by learning to till the ground, and changing from nomadic lifestyles to settlements, growing thier own food. Man created the string beans, collard greens and broccoli, and the Young's translation confirms this, stating those forms of vegetation did not exist yet.

Young's Literal Translation (Genesis 2:5)
...and no shrub of the field is yet in the earth, and no herb of the field yet sprouteth, ...
bible cc/genesis/2-5.htm

Instead of these two verses contradicting, they compliment each other and tell a greater truth about early human history. Agriculture began around 10,000 years ago in Mesopotomia (the same region which Adam is described being 'created'). There were only wild herbs... none of the modern foods we know today.

The text also doesn't say there was "no man" on earth, it merely states "there was no man to till the ground," or cultivation of farms/agriculture Before that time, humans were hunter/gatherers and nomadic cave dwellers. Ancient man is described vaguely in Genesis 6:4, when the descendents of Adam (the "fallen ones," that is, "modern man" the sons of God) took women from among Ancient Man, whose children became the same "...mighty men which were of old." (Modern man's descendants were interbreeding with ancient man, and it was at the same time Cro-Magnon (40,000-10,000 years ago) went extinct in the fossil record.



Yup. Completely non-photosynthetic and the "fruiting fungi" is mentioned in the following book.

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




Their "young earth creation" view which leads to a war on science.



Atheists do not deny science. They deny the facts of what I have pointed out. Simply there was indeed a "fruiting fungi" tree, that existed early in the fossil record, classed among fungi and can exist independent from sunlight. When this was brought to their attention, they realized "We're not arguing with Young Earth Creationists." I think one accusation by Atheists was "what else do the creationists have up their sleeve?"
There's nothing up my sleeve. I simply worked for years, under the shadow of an Agnostic/Atheist who is a prolific writer on creation/evolution, a bachelor of science in biology and being his webmaster, I learned the arguments of both creationist vs evolutionist. He had been in the debate for around 30 years... so I'm familiar with what THEY have up their sleeve, not vis versa.



Actually, scientists thought it was a "conifer" -- a tree, yes, but they were mistaken. For a century it remained an evolutionary enigma until laboratory testing finally confirmed it was a giant (extinct) fruiting fungi. I've attached an extract from Google books, on these organisms and how they survive without sunlight.

Ah ok, "intelligent design" my fault on that one. Such the same that only 5% of species still living exist. Not sure why I was thinking "artificial intelligence" for.. AI has been used for quite some time. Now that rings a bell.. that is what was going on in the Kansas legislature while I was in grad school - "intelligent design". I have seen how the various versions have mentioned about a day being a thousand years, and a thousand years a day. Metaphorical, I'm sure. Who really knows how long a day was back then, anyway.

Sounds logical to me, from what I understand (not clearly as much as you). If this source of light was enough for algae to proliferate, wouldn't the hot lava from the volcano have destroyed the algae before it had any opportunity to grow? The concept of upper level moisture and lower level moisture intrigues me. Would this have anything to do with upper level and lower level winds as well? Kinda gives me the perception that somehow, someway that there was a division or separation. So..a blanket of hot steam surrounds a molten lava ball, then it will keep the ball hot for an infinite amount of time until condensation takes place. Per my second question above, winds would help with atmospheric cooling and oceans by directing which direction the cooling would take place.

Why do you conclude on day three that only herbs were described? Confused here. How does one come up with the traditional crops we know of today? Cross pollenization? Ok, and if "two great lights" were in the heavens, and only the sun is accounted for, I would reason that the other great light could have been something that was to a lesser degree than the main light (the sun). After all, if the sun itself shined brightly 24 hours a day, the need to have a second "great light" would not have been necessary. That is why there had to be a moon. As the secondary light, which shines at night, which doesn't give off a lot of radiation compared to the sun. I sense it's pretty much common knowledge if the sun were to be blacked out and no longer exist, you and I would not be sending posts back and forth on here.

Needed to look at Wikipedia to learn more about the Cambrian Explosion, since I know absolutely nothing about it (and odds are you would blow me out of the water with your vast knowledge of it). Thought the following to be quite interesting about that time (from Wikipedia): "Shortage of oxygen might well have prevented the rise of large, complex animals. The amount of oxygen an animal can absorb is largely determined by the area of its oxygen-absorbing surfaces (lungs and gills in the most complex animals; the skin in less complex ones); but the amount needed is determined by its volume, which grows faster than the oxygen-absorbing area if an animal’s size increases equally in all directions. An increase in the concentration of oxygen in air or water would increase the size to which an organism could grow without its tissues becoming starved of oxygen."

Yet, from what I have seen and such (unless it's all Hollywood), had all kinds of dinosaurs and various species. No idea how many animals existed back in that time. However, I would have figured the planet's supply of oxygen would have more than enough to support the needs of these animals. Back in that time, I would have sensed that rainforests and ecosystems would have reigned all throughout the planet. Meaning, that a shortfall of oxygen would not have been possible most likely. Perhaps, all the large animals came later than in the Cambrian Explosion. Would make sense from what you wrote, "notably, science has long since concluded that water (the oceans) is where the evolution of animal life, began. i.e., Carl Zimmer's "At the Water's Edge: Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs, and. How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back To The Sea" and Richard Ellis' "Aquagenesis: The Origin and Evolution of Life in the Sea".

As far as I am concerned, Christians and Atheists will continue going at it with each other for who knows how long. I used to be a Christian fundamentalist who took things very literally a long time ago. That changed, when I lived in Kansas for a couple of years. Then, I began my spiritual journey, which continues to this day and onward into the future. Let's just say I learned more about myself than I did in my graduate classes. Call it an "eye opening experience" or whatever. I feel that both Christians and Atheists think their viewpoints are the only one to consider. Atheists don't want anyone to disrupt the "status quo"? What about all the organizations stuck within "religious dogma"? Wouldn't that count as well? I'd sense so. I'm curious of something. What do you consider yourself to be, if that is not too personal a question?

You wrote, "Philosophy has done NOTHING for the realm of empirical science. I've grown to have a deep appreciation for legitimate science but dislike the hardnose intolerance of both creationists and atheists, in equal measure." Please respect me for being a philosophical kind of person. I believe the Enlightenment at the end of the 18th century was crucial to higher learning, and gave reason to question religion at that time. Why science became so much more important. I read the two translations from the two versions. Very nice for a change that translations actually compliment, and not contradict, one another. In addition to agriculture beginning 10,000 years ago, I reflected upon food practices right now. If they could have been organic as they were back then, maybe people would be making healthier food choices. We would not have agricultural corporations like we do today. People could go out, plant crops, and make a living for themselves.

"I think one accusation by Atheists was 'what else do the creationists have up their sleeve?' There's nothing up my sleeve. I simply worked for years, under the shadow of an Agnostic/Atheist who is a prolific writer on creation/evolution, a bachelor of science in biology and being his webmaster, I learned the arguments of both creationist vs evolutionist. He had been in the debate for around 30 years... so I'm familiar with what THEY have up their sleeve, not vis versa."
** Always good to know. I have never been in that position. I read the extract about hw these organisms survive without sunlight. Thank you for sharing the extract.

No. (Cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, blue-green bacteria or Cyanophyta, is a phylum of bacteria that obtain their energy through photosynthesis. - Wikipedia)
Chemosynthesis
Scientists are particularly interested in bacteria from hydrothermal vents ... microbes live in high-temperature environments such as hydrothermal vents.
- ceoe.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/chemistry/chemo.html

Fossil evidence shows algae as the first life on earth, and to have existed around 3.5 billion years ago. Indeed, it can survive in high temperatures, around hydrothermal vents. It's theorized already by many scientists that life in its earliest era, began around hot springs, where algae/bacteria thrive, such as the example in 2006 where photosynthetic bacteria was extracted deep within the Pacific, in the total absence of sunlight, deriving nutrition entirely from the earth's own light energy.

There's numerous ways to derive energy :

1. Holophytic - Obtain nutrients through photosynthesis.
2. Holozoic - Depend on plants and animals for food.
3. Saprophytic - Asorb organic matter through the cell wall.

And, there are entire ecosystems thriving around hydrothermal vents or hot springs.

Home > Ocean > Life in the Deep > Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents
"Scientists have gone down to explore and study these deep ocean hydrothermal vents and were completely surprised to find the areas immediately around the vents teeming with abundant life. The temperature of the water coming out of the vents has been measured at the source and it varies from just 68 degrees to as much as 600 degrees Fahrenheit. At sea level, water reaches the boiling point at 225 degrees Fahrenheit, but down in the deep ocean around hydrothermal vents where the water can reach well over the boiling point, the water coming out of the vents doesn’t boil! What prevents the scalding hot seawater from boiling (turning into vapor) is the extreme hydrostatic pressure of all the overlying water. What surprised scientists was that there was an entire ecosystem, a community of diverse life forms, absolutely thriving in conditions that were previously thought to be inhospitable to any kind of life."
- extremescience com



Because that is the Hebrew word, translated to English as "Herb". The King James Version is clear, in distinguishing between Genesis Chapter One (Herbs) and later chapters in which the word "Plant"(of the field) is distinguished. One refers to vegetation which grows wild, the other refers to cultivated foods/vegetables.



No, there is an absence of Angiosperms in Genesis chapter one. Seems "mere babylonian mythology" would've at least thought to mention flowers, but the text is absent and still correlates in harmony with paleontology. Angiosperms were a late introduction into the fossil record.

Spores are "seed" -- the Hebrew language was limited on the number of words used in description, so one word may describe several things. Any substance involved with reproduction, was called seed, including one's offspring and reproductive fluid... "spores" found in fungi, would be called seed as well.



If the earth were flat. How odd for mere babylonian mythology. Even moreso, true babylonian and egyptian mythology did not call the sun and moon a "light" they referred to them as gods. In that sense, Genesis does not follow in the footsteps of its ancient near-east counterparts.



No, there's no reason to assume that. If the sun were blacked out, it would take at least a few years for life to go extinct on earth.

Extinction works like a domino effect. First the grasses die, then the cows die, without wheat and meat and other food necessary to survive.. humans die. It doesn't happen overnight, but a chain of events. That desolation of extinction, is seen in the first 3.5 billion years of earth's history, and Charles Darwin couldn't explain it. The only periods in geology, when there were extinctions of similar proportion, would be with examples such as the KT Boundary. Life was thriving, a meteor strikes the earth, setting off smoke in the atmosphere, blocking out sunlight... voila... the chain of extinction begins. After a few million years, life begins evolving again.



Yup. Early earth would've been heavily concentrated with high levels of Co2. But here's Darwin's dilemma... for 3.5 billion years, there was a gap with _nothing_ except algae populating the planet. If the sun was really there, readily available for mass-photosynthesis and high levels of Co2... as some presume, why! That is a big, huge _why_ a perfect environment conducive to spawning plant life -- not only a few plants... but heavily covering the earth in thick foliage. Why, complex life should've proliferated at least 3 billion years ago, instead of a mere 450 million years ago... in fact, actual "plants" as they're known today, didn't even exist until well into the time of the tetrapods (around 400 million years ago)-- their forerunners were mysterious organisms, like (soft-bodied plan) fungis, or some other uncertain forms... ones known today, thrive without sunlight -- interesting how evolution acts according to the environment, why didn't "evolution" (the atheistic variety) kick in with diversifying life 3 billion years ago or earlier for that matter? Charles Darwin knew there should be a chain of fossils going back all the way to the first organisms (hard-body plans... that could with-stand the sun's rays), but there wasn't.

Why the absence of fossils for 3.5 BILLION years? Darwin went to his grave perplexed. Theories have been postulated and overturned.
This is an old question, and Darwin never once considered this fact :

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 fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs..." (Gould, Stephen Jay., The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.) The Cambrian period (thought to have started 540 million years ago) is a huge evolutionary enigma. Scientists at one time postulated that evolution of phyla took more than 75 million years. Even that period of time was vastly insufficient for this major evolutionary step. Now Darwinists believe that this happened in a few million years. Supposedly nothing but blue-green algae and bacteria lived for billions of years and then in a geologic instant all of the major types of animals sprung into existence! This has been called the Big Bang of Biology. No real progress has been made by evolutionists since Darwin’s day and "The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery." (Eldredge, N., The Monkey Business, 1982, p. 46.)




At what time? 3.5 billion years ago? Impossible.

I am attaching a geological time-line so you can have a better picture in your mind of the geological periods, and mass extinctions which took place. "Back then," could cover a lot of time periods ... including the Earth's geological evolution from a boiling lava ball surrounded by a blanket of hot steam, to the cooling phase, to the creation of dry land and oceans... (incidentally, that's mentioned in Genesis).

The earth was covered in volcanic activity. Oceans began forming... and shallow at best, volcanos became what's known today as "hot springs" or hydrothermal vents, most were were still on the surface of the earth. Back then, the oceans were not deep nor surrounding dry land, as they are today. There would've been enough light from volcanic activity (hot springs) to support the proliferation of photosynthetic algae, but not complex organisms. The planet would have been completely inhospitable to more complex organisms.

Not until the sun was introduced to our atmosphere, would it enable an event as massive as the Cambrian Explosion -- noted by Charles Darwin, with the "explosion" of diversity of life in the fossil record. It baffled Darwin. Namely, hard-bodied organisms. For what purpose did they develop protective coverings? Earlier fossils (Vendian period) show organisms which do not bear any signs of defense, or means to prey on others (i.e., teeth). There is one thing in this cosmos that demands a protective covering: heat and cold. The sun will bake any soft-bodied organism which is exposed to it, even in shallow waters.

Not only that, but scientists have already proposed half of the equation. That life existed before the Cambrian, without hard-body designs -- that is, soft-bodied designs? It defies evolution to say that environment does not influence and force organisms to change out of necessity. Where were the hard-bodied organisms, plants, hard-structures... say 2 billion years ago... or 3 billion years ago?

The fossil record is absent of them. Its absent, and Darwin himself knew, according to evolution theory... the organisms, should be there. Without the sun, they cannot exist. We know this today. Life on our planet would go extinct, if the sun were blacked out. Period...unless, you go the non-photosynthetic route, such as fungi.

There's one explanation that comes to mind here, if scientists are going to theorize "soft body plans," to fill in the fossil record, then organisms are ideally suited to thrive in a dark, damp environment. Yes? At that period in history, the oceans were shallow... the creatures would've been scalded under the sun's brutal rays (wahoo, all that talk about "greenhouse gases" -- Co2 and the sun and the atmosphere heating up) had there been a sun. They'd been forced into hard-body plans, go extinct, or live underground. But the Vendian period fossils, shows science that is NOT the case, that there were organisms indeed living at the time, but were soft-bodied... and on the surface of the earth, not deep seas. But the larger question remains, where were all the plants for 3.5 billion years. The environment was perfectly suited for plants... and yet, there were none.

Soft bodied... therefore, they did not leave fossils.

The Origin of the Earth
The Earth's surface was originally molten, as it cooled the volcanoes belched ... Such early forms of life existed in the shallow oceans close to thermal ...
moorlandschool co uk/earth/earthorigin.htm

WikiAnswers - Do you get a sunburn faster in salt water
Skin Disorders question: Do you get a sunburn faster in salt water? Yes, the salt water dries out your skin a lot faster, sucking all the moisture out,

Such organisms would've been suited for a dark, damp environment -- or either living where they could escape the brutal rays of the sun.



Even today, plant life and/or photosynthetic bacteria, is necessary to produce oxygen. Complex organisms like mammals, cannot exist without oxygen. That's the food chain as well as the air we breathe. Plant life (bacteria as well) produce oxygen, so plant/bacteria _must_ exist first, to produce the oxygen in the atmosphere, to be able to support complex organisms. Early earth could not support such organisms... all that existed, was limited algae ... and around hydrothermal vents, which explains _why_ earth lay dormant for 3.5 billion years.



No, there were no large animals during that time. Here is a geological time chart to give you an idea of the age of the earth and how briefly complex life forms like reptiles came to be, and have existed... before that, there was nothing except limited algae. According to evolution theory (the atheistic variety) -- that's a mighty big... HUGE... gap to explain with all the available Co2 and supposed bombardment of sunlight readily available for mass-photosynthesis... but ah, the fossil record is empty.







An advocate of science.

"...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.



And Darwin was sensitive to certain elements who were making attempts to latch on to his scientific theories, to promote their Atheist cause. Such as Karl Marx' crusade to promote Communism.. which lead to a death toll of around 100 million in the past century. Charles Darwin wanted nothing to do with their religious crusades. He was a scientist, a paleontologist... and respected religious practice of the private individual.

The problem is. There were CHRISTIAN scientists around long before Darwin.
Why has this not been taught in the education system? Why do Atheists try to bedeck themselves in stolen plummage... as if Charles Darwin's theory were the first and only of its kind? Because perhaps, Darwin's "theory" of natural selection seems to support atheism... therefore, we do not hear about the other scientists such as Louis Agassiz, and other contemporaries, who had long before theorized "Transformation" of species, aka another way of saying evolution. Charles Darwin had a theory he postulated, built on ideas that were proposed by his forerunners and already in circulation at the time. I'm sorry to disappoint, but he was not the "renegade scientist" some have made him out to be.

"...In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to "epochs of creation."

Why don't the creationists discuss Louis Agassiz?
Why is Agassiz absent from mention in the public school system?

Louis Agassiz certainly did not believe in a 6,000 year old earth. Agassiz firmly believed in an Old Earth... but some Atheists / Agnostics I've heard tell it, all Christians must believe in a young earth, and "ignorant" of science. Interesting... stereotyping an entire group of people because of a few... generalizations and sometimes blatant lies (I have kept some of them documented and will share them with you one on one, if you have doubts. I enjoy being an "Equal Opportunity Critic" and dissecting lies of both Creationists and Atheists, in equal measure... for sake of science. I love science.

AGASSIZ, LOUIS JEAN RODOLPHE (1807-1873), Swiss-American naturalist, born at Motiers, Switzerland. He studied medicine and natural history at Zurich, Heidelberg, Erlangen, and Munich. In 1826 he prepared a description of Brazilian fishes from materials collected by the Bavarian naturalist, Spix, a work which attracted the notice of Cuvier, with whom Agassiz afterward studied in Paris. From 1832 to 1846 Agassiz was professor of natural history of Neuchatel. During this time (1832-42) he prepared and published his Researches on Fossil Fishes (5 vols., 311 plates). Repeated visits to England gave him material for his work Fossil Fishes of the Old Red Sandstone (1844). He spent the summers of this period in studying the glaciers of the Alps, which gave him material for his works, Studies of Glaciers (1840) and The Glacial System (1847), in which he advanced views then new in geology, including his theory of a "glacial epoch," which attracted great attention and interest. In 1846 Agassiz delivered a course of lectures at Lowell Institute, Boston, which resulted in his appointment in 1848 as Professor of Natural History in the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University, which position he held until his death, except for 2 years (1852-54) spent at Charleston, although his later life was given to lecturing and exploration, rather than to teaching.
In opposition to the Darwinian theory of evolution, Agassiz held to "epochs of creation." His explorations in the United States included the Lake Superior region (1848) and the Florida coral reefs (1850-51). From 1865-1866 he was in Brazil and published his researches there under the title of A Journey in Brazil (1868).
In 1872 he made a journey to California around Cape Horn. In 1873 he held the first session of the summer school of zoology on Peniske, Is., Buzzards Bay, Mass. He was buried at Mt. Auburn, where his monument is a boulder from the Swiss glacier of the Aar.
- Republished from Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia, ©1950

Yeah, being in isolation isn't the greatest thing in the world, at least to me anyway. I value my friendships with people. I don't like to go very long with "caving time" before getting back out into the world. With as many obligations as I have, alone time is at a premium. That's why I am glad I found out about WP. I need interaction, even if it's online, with other AS. '

Thank you for explaining about algae. Sounds like to me that algae could survive in low temperatures as much as it could in high temps. I knew I liked hot springs for a reason After all, if that's where the first place where bacteria thrived, good enough for me.
Thought the part you mentioned how water doesn't boil around the hydrothermal vents to be quite interesting. Didn't think that would be possible, when water was 600 degrees. However, it is amazing how the Universe keeps supplying the needs to everything under the water. Amazing!

Makes sense about spores being "seeds." Oh my "if the earth was flat"? Chuckle chuckle. Egyptian mythology would have referred to the sun god as Ra. In the Greek, the goddess of the moon was Diana. In the Roman, Luna. Which means, in the French, the classical piece Claire de Lune is "the clear moon." Nice. I'd venture to guess that the reason why Genesis doesn't follow the footsteps of its ancient near-east counterparts was due to the idea of "one God". And if there's just one God, impossible to have a separate God or Goddess for the sun and the moon.

You wrote, "If the sun were blacked out, it would take at least a few years for life to go extinct on earth." Because the sun is this big ball of heat and thus it would take longer for the sun to lose heat due to the size of its mass than say the moon. I see about "domino theory." That does make perfect sense to me. If natural resources like grasses and water no longer exist, then it has an effect on everything. Eventually, everything snowballs, and extinction occurs. Googled KT Boundary online. A lot of what I read is like way up there (drawing a line way above my head). However, I can imagine the impact of what caused the boundary. I'm just surprised this planet hasn't been impacted by a giant crater all this time, compared to times past before civilization occurred. Life and its natural rhythms of evolving/creating.

If there's heavy concentration of buildups with Co2 and lack of ecosystems, this planet's in huge trouble. That fascinates me - 3.5 billion years of algae populating this planet. Nothing else. I like how you go into asking why. Very good. You asked, "why didn't "evolution" (the atheistic variety) kick in with diversifying life 3 billion years ago or earlier for that matter? Charles Darwin knew there should be a chain of fossils going back all the way to the first organisms (hard-body plans... that could with-stand the sun's rays), but there wasn't." Perhaps, if Darwin would have had more time, he could have considered the science fact you mentioned to me. What do you think would happen if immense progess would have been made on the Big Bang of Biology? I understand about the creation of dry land and ocean, and yes it was mentioned in Genesis.

I am attaching a geological time-line so you can have a better picture in your mind of the geological periods, and mass extinctions which took place. "Back then," could cover a lot of time periods ... including the Earth's geological evolution from a boiling lava ball surrounded by a blanket of hot steam, to the cooling phase, to the creation of dry land and oceans... (incidentally, that's mentioned in Genesis). I understand that a lot of land was created as a result of volcanoes and such. If you don't have something as powerful as the sun, you wouldn't need a protective covering. You wrote, "The sun will bake any soft-bodied organism which is exposed to it, even in shallow waters." This makes sense, because people don't think it's possible to get a sunburn being even in shallow water or when it's cloudy outside. They forget about ultraviolet A and B rays being emitted. Well, ok, tell ya what.. if the sun is blackout, I say let all the non-photosynthetic fungi grow to its delight, deal?

Totally, I understand that carbon dioxide emitted from ecosystems and other plant life are critical to creating oxygen. Without it, we die, due to the lack of oxygen in our bloodstreams to help support us. From looking at the geological time chart about the age of the earth, I see that at about the Permian Era is when animals came into being.
I can tell you're an advocate for science; I feel your passion from reading the posts. At least, Darwin was able to keep himself from being biased in different ways. Good on him. I feel people should come to their own conclusions of what to believe - much as I did when living in Kansas from 2003 to 2005. People should not have to choose from a dichotomy of options. I respect Darwin's view highly - "and respected religious practice of the private individual." I don't feel it's my responsibility to tell people what to believe. That is each person's choice, and their free will to make that decision. That came to be part of my philosophy of life in 2003, continues to this day, and will continue until the end of this lifetime for me.

Why hasn't this been taught in the education system? It's called "the influence of power." Christians, depending on what denomination or view each takes or whatnot, see Darwin as the "enemy" because of how it supports atheism (as you suggest). Thing is, Darwin's name is more obvious to the American public than say, Agassiz. You wrote, "I'm sorry to disappoint, but he was not the "renegade scientist" some have made him out to be." True, but everything is all about perception. It's about presumptions and assumptions (and we both know what assume means) to some more than others. Because of the fundamentalist views some which to keep, Darwin won't be introduced into the educational system. The argument they'll make is "we don't want to corrupt the minds into thinking something they should not." So, keeping form to the puritanical views that are over 400 years old since the Puritans emigrated from England into the American colonies (at that time), education systems will want to maintain the status quo (which I so dislike, because that prevents in "managementspeak" lingo, thinking "outside the box." (as cliquish as that may be).

Why don't creationists mention/discuss Agassiz? Who is to say, really. Agassiz may not have "believed in a 6,000 year old earth. Agassiz firmly believed in an Old Earth... but some Atheists / Agnostics I've heard tell it, all Christians must believe in a young earth, and "ignorant" of science. Interesting... stereotyping an entire group of people because of a few... generalizations and sometimes blatant lies (I have kept some of them documented and will share them with you one on one, if you have doubts. I enjoy being an "Equal Opportunity Critic" and dissecting lies of both Creationists and Atheists, in equal measure... for sake of science. I love science. "

Yes, I know you love science, as your passion shows it. Please do share them with me via PM if possible, unless you so wish to share them on here. Doesn't matter to me. I like that you have what's called a "multidimensional intelligence." Otherwise, better known as being able to see things from many points of view on the same issue.
Taking a class in consumer law taught me much about the ability to think critically, and to see things from various points of view. This is why I am giving you all these questions, because I am nowhere as knowledgeable as you are about paleontology and those things. That, and I find what you have shared to be most interesting, intriguing, and fascinating

Hello Scott, welcome, enjoy your stay on the Wrong Planet!

I was diagnosed 6 months ago with aspergers, welcome aboard Jazz

Thanks, Scientist.. welcome yourself as well.

Thanks, autumn.. how are you doing with adjusting to AS? Took me two years before I adjusted. Was a very rough time for me. However, all people are different. Some adjust sooner than others.

Jazz

Here's something I had to share.
It is absolutely beautiful... and kept me company during this past Christmas/New Years. Such a young woman, and she can play so beautiful.

Auld Lang Syne
A girl from the German mountain infantry band and the orchestra of nations.
Conductor: Lieutenant Colonel Martin Koetter sax solo: ? Military Tattoo Bremen 2006
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR_v9sAr0Cc[/youtube]

Thanks, AF. That young woman has amazing talent and plays great. At first, when I saw the soprano sax, Kenny G was the very first person who came to mind. The public associates the soprano sax with Kenny G. I downloaded to video, which will soon be on my iPod. Looking forward to playing it.