Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
Articles 4 Kids adj

The Abominable Mystery of How Flowers Originated

Posted on

Virtually every person on earth is attracted to flowers.  They come in all kinds of sizes, shapes and colors.  They come in singles and clusters.  They can smell sweet and fragrant or stink worse than a campground outhouse.

One of my favorite types of flowers is daylilies.  Currently, I have over seventy different varieties of daylilies planted around my house.  We have white, yellow, pink, orange, red, violet, lavender and purple daylilies.  Some are all one color and others are two or three tone.  There are dark and light colored daylilies.

You can see flowers along roadways, in the mountains and the deserts.  Many people today find their flowers in a flower store.  But have you ever wondered where flowers came from to start with?

Evolutionists believe that the first flowering plants evolved about 150 million years ago.  Somehow, non-flowering plants developed flower parts and beautiful color.  But they have no idea of how it happened.  Charles Darwin referred to the question of the origin of flowers as an abominable mystery.

A research team from the United States, Germany and France, have been working on the abominable mystery and believe they may have a possible explanation.  They searched and studied the extensive fossil record of Europe.  Their study focused on environmental changes that appeared in the fossil record in conjunction with the fossils of flowering plants.

From their study of the fossil record, the team concluded that the first flowering plants evolved about 150 million years ago along wetlands or lake.  Between 120 to 100 million years ago, these primitive flowering plants worked their way into the understory of floodplains.  Then about 100 to 84 million years ago, the flowering plants migrated to natural levees and swamps.

The one thing I noticed, that was obviously missing from their report, was an explanation for the origin of the flowering plants.  All they did was theorize of how the plants spread over millions of years and nothing more.

They also didn’t address the problem that evolutionists have with the time difference between the evolution of plants and the insects that relied on them.  According to evolutionary theory, flowering plants evolved about 150 million years ago, but insects evolved about 340 million years ago.  Many of those insects rely on plants for their survival.  The obvious question is how did the insects live for over 190 million years with the plants they needed?

So it seems that the origin of flowering plants remains an abominable mystery to those who believe in evolution.

However, the origin of flowering plants is not a mystery if you turn to the one book that contains the true history of the earth.  In versus 11-13 of the first chapter of the first book contained in that history book, the Bible, we read:

And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

God tells us about the origin of all plant life, including flowering plants and it all happened on the 3rd day of creation.  Two days later on the 5th day of creation, God created everything that flew and swam and on the 6th day of creation, He created all land animals including the dinosaurs.

According to God’s Word, flowers were created before insects, not the other way around as evolutionists claim.  All you have to do is decide whether to believe the word of men who constantly make mistakes and change their minds or God, who has never made a mistake and whose Word is unchanging.  In my mind there isn’t any question who I believe and I pray there isn’t any question in your mind either.

Reference:

Harper, Michael.  Solving A Mystery: Where Did Flowers Come From?, Red Orbit, Dec. 6, 2012.

2013 Creation Calendar

God’s Astounding Designs

Your 2013 Creation Calendar

Adorn your home with dazzling creations from around the world.
Month-by-month be captivated by the Astounding Designs in the living world.

Learn how these stunning animals and plants confirm the truth of the Bible.

Your calendar for 2013 is a feast of color and beauty.

It’s available now.

Fascinating! Inspiring! Spectacular!

Gaze across lush valleys, towering cliffs and glorious bays. Learn fascinating facts about each place. Discover new insights that the Bible reveals, including why they are significant and where to find more information.

Your calendar features these amazing creations from the world around us.

 

  • Pygmy Seahorse
  • Garden Spider
  • Regent Bowerbird
  • Humpback Whale
  • Liquid Amber leaves
  • Tawny Frogmouth
  • Dorid Nudibranch
  • Lacewing Butterfly
  • Indian Peafowl
  • Anemone Fish
  • Purple Coneflower
  • African Penguins
  • European Honey Bee

Enjoy the pictures by distinguished wildlife photographer Gary Bell, whose images have featured in major nature magazines likeNational Geographic.

Think too that this calendar is a great evangelistic tool. Give them to your friends and loved ones so they can be reminded of you and things eternal. Bulk discounts apply.

Be encouraged by promises from God’s Word that have stood the test of time.

The astounding designs in the living world point to the wisdom and care of our heavenly Father who made the world, loves us all and gives strength and stability in time of constant change.

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Apologetics, Botany, Christian Values, Creation Worldviews, Design, Environment, Evolution, History, Origins, Paleontology, Science, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • edc

    God created all things at a mature age that could reproduce, hedid not create baby people, animals or plants. He created all with the appearance of age and light from the heavenly bodies as already here. God is not restricted to time limits as we are. He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

    • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

      Then your god lied to you, because some of the starlight we see today is from suns that have burned out billions of years ago.

      • Wordmahn

        There is evidence that the speed of light was once higher. If the speed of light was near infinity at the moment of creation, decayed exponentially, and is now tracking in the flat part of an exponential curve, it would explain the fact that we can see the light of stars that are millions of CURRENT light years away.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          What does the idea that something could be almost infinite actually mean? And please show this evidence.

          • Mex Seiko

            Jeff, focus. Don’t distract. Humor the guy by entertaining the point he’s making. Lets say he meant immediate minus an infinitesimal fraction of time. Go!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am focused. I am asking him to clarify what is a nonsensical statement. And if you understand him, then please show the source of this information.

          • Esther

            Why don’t you read Jeff’s posts with understanding? You do not have to be a follower or an advocate of his beliefs to learn something from a man who has done his homework!

        • Esther

          The question is would a Dad do such a thing to confuse his children? My understanding is that even the best of dads have to obey the rules they make, if for no other reason than to be a good example to his children. At least that is one consistent thing that he should do since it is in the book of rules that we should follow good examples. So no, I do not think a higher speed of light is possible. In science we just have to go with reason. Also, yes, let’s see the evidence of a higher speed of light though it is certainly not coherent with any physics or Einstein theory. If we believe there are no questions we will just be bored to tears any way, which is another reason to neglect Wordmahn’s suggestion.

          • Mex Seiko

            Esther, your reasoning of why light shouldn’t be or have been faster is a little strange, but understandable from the Moronic perspective that humans are or will become like God. That doctrine affords subscribers the audacity to demand features or characteristics from God that would resemble human idiosyncrasy rather than accepting the distinction of God’s superiority. It’s reminiscent of certain story involving a garden, a fruit, and a serpent.

            The biblical analogy of God’s parenthood is to demonstrate His love. Jesus’ love is typified as the love of a bridegroom, a husband, a friend, a brother.

          • Esther

            Way off topic as usual. I will try to address the whole thing but if you do not understand the rules of light, which, by a complex set of rules the atoms of water made water, for example, was made, naturally, that is your problem, but if you have a question about it, you can ask me a decent question. I happen to be a certified scientist, and my major project was light.

            About what your post was really about, here is my response:

            Who believes what you said about Mormons? I don’t and I know of no one who does. Do you believe all that is in your literature? Ha. Gotcha there, Mex. If you say yes, then you are more moronic than most. If you say no, then you deny your religion. You should be careful who you call moron claiming like you do those regions of religion you claim to be your base of salvation..

            Furthermore, I guess you think you know me because I am an ex-Catholic like you. No, I grew up in a much different way than did you. I grew up in a great, loving home that did not intimidate one for thinking and using one’s brain. I studied all disciplines with equal passion and my parents were all ears to hear the new histories I learned at school, looking back, especially about religions. I imagine you grew up in a home that Catholic church would put its stamp of approval also.. NO, I NEVER believed all what the priests said, they had maids that would occasionally get pregnant. I showed my respect for them and when as an adult they divulged what Pope Pius did during WWII, I fled them, knowing no true God would have me back in His kingdom if I supported that church. The fact that an occasional pregnant maid disappeared to Chicago to have her illegitimate baby fit right in also, with the Catholics, was nothing new even from the time of the Reformation in Europe.

            The next part of the story is the reason why I NOT “belong” to a Reformed protestant group today: because of their continual denial of what Luther saw, recorded, but did not rebel against and that is the legacy of the Catholics that is retained and that was passed to the Protestants. You may have guessed it. So don’t get all I-am-better-than-you on me, because you will not win.

            THE MORMON CHURCH IS SO FAR AHEAD OF THOSE TWO BRANCHES OF “CHRISTIANITY” IT IS NOT FUNNY. The attempt to marginalize the Mormon church is really an attempt to avoid the exodus from there if the truth were known.

          • Mex Seiko

            I’ll address your lengthy message with more time, but I wanted to address the moronic reference. It was a pun on you Angel Moroni who has an ironic name given the falsity of the doctrine.

          • Esther

            So you think blasphemy is a good thing… hmmmmm

          • Mex Seiko

            Blaspheming a blasphemy cancel each other. I’m good.

          • Esther

            I love Jeff Dixon’s posts as they show exactly the bigotry of your religion, you are the blasphemer; my Church of Jesus Christ requires that I only believe what is true; here, Jeff Dixon once again gives us a sweet taste of truth, quote:

            Of course the bible has changed over time.

            The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries, is undeniable. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution– some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles.

            Most Christians seem to think that the bible (as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses) has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent contrivance. The religious term “canon” refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster.

            New Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

            Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

            Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants, are Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.

            The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch.

            There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

            What ever happened to the Gospels according to Thomas, Jade, James, Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of the Preaching of Peter, of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Ignatius, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Marcion? They were all not considered inspired (or inspired enough). They did not get voted in. There were also the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and many others. If the bishops at the Council of Laodicea in 365 had voted differently, millions of Christians would have believed differently. The vote of the one is the belief of all the others. end quote

          • Mex Seiko

            You love Jeff Dixon posts because he concentrates more on attacking the truth and he’s not much concerned about your Mormon cult so h leaves you alone. You think he saves you some work so you copy&paste him without discernment or wisdom.
            Your objection about the Bible changes presupposes Mormon has not changed. The Mormonism of Mit Romney is not the same of his grandfather. Mormon is not without splints. You call polygamists idiots with some kind of self-righteous pomp, but you’re disavowing Mormon Orthodoxy as created by the racist and polygamist Joseph Smith, your mentor, leader, and inspiration. The website ya’ll point to is the “New and Improved” LDS. Mormon has changed into a more legal and socially acceptable cult. Local ads (enticements in reality) for Mormon Church, quote the Bible, but you don’t believe in the Bible as you show by quoting an Atheist’s rant against the Bible. It’s total hypocrisy. It’s bate and switch. Christians cling to the Bible. ok. so, bring your Bible and join us will exchange it with Book of Mormon.
            Face it, Esther. You left an apostate church and joined a cult. That’s from bad to worse. And that happened because you didn’t have a frame of reference with the truth.

          • Esther

            You have no respect for others. The simple truth hurts, but you will get over it.

          • Mex Seiko

            You’re the one who appears offended. I just told the truth perhaps with a little more boldness. I don’t mean to offend, but it’s true, at times truth does hurt and for that I’m sorry.

          • Esther

            Gays in your Catholic Church: http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Thanks to the good man Jeff Dixon.

          • Mex Seiko

            Are you saying there are gays in th Catholic Church thanks to Jeff Dixon. I don’t think your good friend will appreciate that.

          • Esther

            You are obtuse. Thanks to Jeff we have information available. But you know much of this already, having been Catholic for so many, many years, yes?

          • Esther

            Simply, I love Jeff Dixon’s honesty. And of course, he is compelling. He is right about that. I do not share his religious views but when it comes to science he is the best of anyone on the forum. I am a scientist and after 20 plus years of study, I know. I also know, you better face the terrors of your religion before you start pointing fingers where you know nothing about. I do not know at what generational level you are an American — where did you grow up? — , but I go back to its origins, 100 years before the Revolutionary war. I have many forefathers who fought for the right I have to chose my religion. No reprobate from God-knows-where will make demands of me. Your attitude to my American religion would be ludicrous, if it wasn’t so consuming. I know how consuming the Catholics are and you are a good example. Face it Max, You have not a clue about what I believe or the truth of the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. God bless the home of the brave and land of the free. Also, Jeff Dixon is a great American, born and bred, here in the U. S. A.. I have other colleagues like him who show less passion for science.

          • Mex Seiko

            You’re so funny, Esther.

            I’m way off topic when addressing your Daddy subject in a stellar aging conversation. You guys also rush to put the whole of Christendom down to prop up the pseudo-Christian invention.
            You deny every false doctrine spilled out about Mormonism. There are people out there that know more about Mormonism than most Mormons, because the same way that JWs disavow their founder, the Mormon leadership has a website to show the new and improved LDS.
            Polygamy ha been part of the original Mormon doctrine. That’s why Romney’s grandpa fled to Mexico, so he could harvest his wives. Mormon’s original doctrine taught God was a mortal man who graduated to godhood. If you criticize Christianity for reformation, you must first look at a polygamist, racist, polytheist cult being “reformed” by men’s laws and society.
            I would have a little more respect for Joseph Smith’s concoction if he would’ve invented a totally original religious system instead of plagiarizing Christianity. It would’ve been better if George Lucas had been a contemporary of Joe Smith. They would’ve shared concept of “The Force” and it would’ve been fun.
            God’s name means I EXIST. I AM THAT I AM, really translates to I AM WHO EXISTS. His name is rather a statement of truth and it’s not even meant to differentiate Him from other gods because they’re not even acknowledged. They don’t exist.
            In the same way, I do not play the game of “my religion is better.” My God is just the ONLY God that exists, and His Word is contained in the Bible. My “religion” is not better than yours. It’s just the only TRUE religion under heaven and above heaven. The Bible states that there’s only one Name by which we can be saved, the Name of Jesus. There’s no works, no ritual, not a thing. He did it all.

          • Esther

            You are the funny one, denying your history. Just can’t wait to see the change in your posts when you do decide to check that out. If you do not change, then you do not understand what you read. I think the nicest word I can come up with is ignorant. If you ignore your history you will not be in good standing with your maker. In my church we are admonished to be nice enough to warn those who are way off the path. You are warned, Mex Seiko.

            Disclaimer: I do not believe in polygamy nor do I practice polygamy. There are idiots who do. They are excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ. The Church banned polygamy in about the 1860s so people who practice it, do so against the law.

            Having said the above,polygamy is rampid in your “Holy” bible. Look it up. Also, some women in the early days of the Saints evidently wanted children but would prefer to marry a good man then anyone they could find in the wild west bars, etc and they did. I do not recall any women in those early days, complaining about being married to the same man. What about the secret beatings women take from their men in the Catholic Church, not to mention the gays who are hiding in the priesthood and probably freely practicing their gay rights? I could go on. Your religion sickens our society. The Church of Jesus Christ is healthier, by far. .

          • Mex Seiko

            I hope you could differentiate between the evil performed by humans, including those depicted in the Bible and the actual teaching from God. If you can’t, further study is recommended. Else, your opinions are disqualified.
            It is simplistically foolish to presume that because Solomon had 600 wives that God commands we should marry at least 200. Perhaps that was Joe Smith’s error. Polygamy in the Bible is shown with the due bad consequences. You may lack this knowledge, but in the arrangement of the 12 tribes around the Tabernacle, the sons of the first wife had a closer and more prominent location than those of the second. God recognizes, only the first wife as legit. He did bless the second wife by answering her prayers, but God never commanded to have multiple wives.
            Polygamy may’ve been banned from LDS early on, but it was originally taught as “divine commandment” and Mormon doctrine, which you keep claiming it came from divine inspiration. Had Joseph Smith, founder of your religion, survived his assassination attempt, he would’ve been summarily expelled along with his 30 wives from his own creation. Further, from your own comment, you just posthumously referred to Joseph Smith as an idiot. It would be perfectly sensible to describe LDS as a chicken without a head.
            In regards to your statements about the Catholic Church, it’s foolish for you to point out the disobedience to its teachings as defects of the teaching. I’m not an apologist for Catholicism, but this applies to any religion including your own cult. For instance I point to the defects of the Mormon doctrines because they contradict teachings of the original Christianity on which it is based. You wrongly point to immoral priests as defects of the teachings they violate, which doesn’t make sense.

          • Esther

            Want more atrocities of your church, Mex Seiko? You are the one lacking in education not I.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Please show the evidence that the speed of light was once higher besides the ramblings of creationist scientists.

          • Esther

            Good luck with that. :)

      • Esther

        That, I agree with, and hundreds of independent scientists bear this out on a daily basis as the light reaches their spectrophotometers. No problem there. I do not think God lied, but His message was misinterpreted somewhere along the way, indeed, if He even left a message about it. The message edc received could have been made-up by men, for example.

        • Mex Seiko

          Or Joseph Smith could’ve lie to you and convinced you that the Bible is not the Word of God.

          • Esther

            Who believes everything a man said about God? Not I and no one I know and I know a lot of Saints. Sorry Mex. No cigar.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            On what basis do you accept anything that Joe Smith says then? Where do you draw the line?

          • Esther

            I go to church because I like the Mormon people. I have no idea if I even believe in God. I never question that much. I am never going totally into any religion. I told the missionaries when i was baptized how I regretted my association with Catholics, but I did love going to church with my parents. We had peace in our home, which I never had in my marriage. So who is Joseph Smith? He is the man who gave rise to a great bunch of people. Period. Beyond that I know little about him other than he had the courage to leave the Presbyterians church and started his own little group. He did not know how big it would grow. He simply could not abide the Presbyterians. And I can hardly abide them… you know: Despeville, et al. Can you?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I think you are being overly generous about his motives for creating this religion.

          • Esther

            I am not about to engage in destruction of a religion. I will leave a religion if I come upon some gross negligence it has commited, but relativly speaking, I do not see it. I like it there. Just like I like certain music. I am only one person here. I need my family but they are not here. My friends, more than they know, serve that need.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I doubt you could destroy it. The question is why do you embrace it? I know it makes you feel good, but is that worth accepting a lie?

          • Esther

            Doesn’t it mean anything to you that I do not have family here? They are like my family. I don’t think of it as a lie.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Perhaps we have different opinions on what a lie means. I generally assume that something I know to be false but say is true is a lie.

          • Esther

            That definition works for me as well. TRUE or FALSE usually applies to the analytically true or false. I just don’t think of these people as liars or Joseph Smith as a liar. I do not question that they believe, I enjoy being with people, Jeff. Do you associate with anyone but atheists?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Of course I associate with people besides atheists. But that not mean I label myself with a group name that I do not believe is true.

          • Esther

            I thought I explained time and time again why I like the Mormons and in fact compared to other religions, will defend them.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes, you have. However, defending them and calling yourself a Saint is two different things.

          • Esther

            I have had all the ordinances and I have remained worthy to attend the temple, which means I am keeping my covenants. I am a saint as much as any worthy mormon.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Which is why I said you have embraced a lie.

          • Esther

            Have I explained testimonies to you?

          • Esther

            Call it what you will, I will continue to increase my testimony of the goodness of these people and their work, which is what i am called to do as a saint. I consider myself a member, regardless of your interpretation which mainly comes from a lack of understaning on your part about what a testimony is. The testimony is an individual thing. It is my own and no one else has the same as i do. No one else is expected to have the same one as I do.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Wonderful. No one suggested or required you do anything else.

          • Esther

            Wonderful? I have told you this time and time again, Jeff. lol. You certainly had a few implied suggestions and they seemed like requirements.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Just more nonsense.

          • Esther

            Nonsense resulting from nonsense Jeff.

          • Esther

            here is one set of links I sent:

            Re: My reference to giants:
            I am talking about giants seven feet tall and higher, a race of them, and the awesome things they built and their down fall. It is a bit of a stretch but since you don’t know about them maybe you should look into who they are “mythically” what they did, how they are thought to have been destroyed, etc.

            Gen 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

            written source: Book of Enoch: http://reluctant-messenger.com… next, video source: Book of Enoch You tube History Channel:http://www.youtube.com/channel… , then there are many sites for this story, this one is an overview (turn off your sound) I watched the first one on top of the list. http://www.youtube.com/user/An

            Note: Greg Beale, Professor of Theology, Westminister Theological Seminary, Pennsylvania http://www.wts.edu/faculty/pro… has wrtten a book called A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New http://www.wtsbooks.com/produc… Greg has used all the ancient texts to explain the writting of the NT. I should let you discover this. His book is extremely well written. It’s about $30 and is a huge book.Get it online at the WTS bookstore.

          • Esther

            Have you noticed you are wrong about detachments I could not discern in scientists?

          • Esther

            I do not know if it is true, through and through. I investgate all of it from stem to stern! I am reading the books on the gospel of John, and the NT as it is expressed in the OT (Beals’s book using the book of Enoch, which is an ancient text that brings up the issue of egyptians in America!!! you want to know if I have proof of this kind!!!)

          • Esther
          • Esther

            Jeff, your conversed with Jay_tea:
            ==================
            Jay_tea Jeff Dixon • 2 hours ago
            And what pray tell does your comment clarify exactly? Your “bias?”

            Jeff Dixon Jay_tea • an hour ago
            It probably does. But I do not express my opinions as fact like Christians or any theists do.
            ===================
            Why do you call me a liar when I am honest with you, but you are just “probably” bias. I beg your reconsideration, but you are hard-hearted and I do not expect it.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I did not say you are lying.
            I said you are embracing a lie.

          • Esther

            Gee, can you explain. I know I am pretty dense where you are concerned. The second actually sounds worse now that I contemplate it a bit. Is it better or worse to embrace or tell a lie?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It really does not make any difference which one I think is worse.

          • Esther

            I do not believe it is either one.

          • Esther

            I say I am bias. You may be embracing a lie, Jeff. A lie is something you might do, but I do not.

          • Esther

            Are you sure you are not telling lies?

            Jay_tea Jeff Dixon • 2 hours ago
            And what pray tell does your comment clarify exactly? Your “bias?”

            Jeff Dixon Jay_tea • an hour ago
            It probably does. But I do not express my opinions as fact like Christians or any theists do.

          • Esther

            Right Jeff. I lie. You, however, are merely biased. lol.

          • Esther

            “Joe” Smith has gone to his final reward, if indeed it does exist. You asked for evidence of the Egyptians in America. I gave you that evidence is different ways several times. Yet you have not acknowledged. What’s up? True, it doesn’t it support your premise? Is that where you draw the line, Mr. Dixon?

            Also, recall the French book, Books on Fire. Might the evidence for any prior visitation gone up in smoke in the Alexandria libraries of Alexandria, Egypt? That would also clinch your theory, in fact protect it from being found out.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I remember you sending a link on the information but I did not read it. I was tired of our interactions by that point. But I will read it if you send it again.

      • edc

        As I said; God created all things as “grown ups” even planets, stars and light. Can you prove that what you say is true? Ypu’re taking the word of another human being as “truth”, whose “truth” changes with every new “discovery”, and sometimes even changes back to the original “truth”. I would rather take the word of my omniscient (all-knowing) God, He never changes.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Of course the bible has changed over time.

          The fact that the books of the bible, both the Old and New Testament, have undergone change throughout the centuries, is undeniable. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove this. The Scrolls, dating to about the first century C.E., demonstrate that there were several versions of scripture in distribution– some that are claimed by scholars to be even more extensive, and of better quality, than those found in our modern bibles.

          Most Christians seem to think that the bible (as it is now, with its sixty-six or so books, divided into chapters and verses) has existed for thousands of years. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the bible that most Christians are familiar with is a fairly recent contrivance. The religious term “canon” refers to the divinity of a specific set of writings. Just which books are canonical and which are not has been the subject of debate among Judeo-Christian leaders for the last two thousand years. The Protestant Church did not agree on which books should be contained in the bible until as late as 1647, at the Assembly of Westminster.

          New Testament Books which are now accepted by Christians, but which were for a time rejected, are Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

          Books now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the New Testament, are Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.

          Books accepted as canonical by some Jews, and for most part by the Greek and Roman Catholic churches, but rejected by the Protestants, are Baruch, Tobit, Judith, Book of Wisdom, Song of the Three Children, History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasseh, Ecclesiasticus, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 5 Maccabees.

          The only books of the bible which are accepted as divine by all Jews and all varieties of Christians are the first five books of the Old Testament: the Pentateuch.

          There are lost books of the bible, which should have been included into the canon. These books are cited by writers of the Bible, and they are: Book of the Wars of the Lord, Book of Jasher, Book of the Covenant, Book of Nathan, Book of Gad, Book of Samuel, Prophecy of Ahijah, Visions of Iddo, Acts of Uzziah, Acts of Solomon, Three Thousand Proverbs of Solomon, A Thousand and Five Songs of Solomon, Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, Book of Jehu, Book of Enoch.

          What ever happened to the Gospels according to Thomas, Jade, James, Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians, of Perfection, of Judas, of Thaddeus, of the Infancy, of the Preaching of Peter, of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Pastor of Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the Revelation of Paul, the Epistle of Clement, the Epistle of Ignatius, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Nicodemus and of Marcion? They were all not considered inspired (or inspired enough). They did not get voted in. There were also the Acts of Pilate, of Andrew, of Mary, of Paul and Thecla, and many others. If the bishops at the Council of Laodicea in 365 had voted differently, millions of Christians would have believed differently. The vote of the one is the belief of all the others.

          • edc

            And this proves that God has changed? Just shows that man is capable of making mistakes, no matter how hard we try to be perfect. God is like a mountain, the closer we get to Him the larger and more glorious He becomes in our eyes. Likewise the further away we move the smaller and more insignificant He becomes in our eyes. You are living proof of that.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You said you take his word. And his word is supposedly what is written in the bible. I showed that the bible has changed and is not consistent. You also just accepted that and said man is capable of mistakes. Therefore, you have no way to know what parts of the bible you can rely on. You are relying on the written statements of men. Which you said you cannot trust.

          • edc

            The content of the books of the Bible has not changed, the wording by translators has been mis-translated in some places in different translations but the content has always been the same; God is glorious and worthy to be praised and Jesus is the only way to Him. The whole Bible teaches, from Genesis to revelation, that it’s faith in the death, burial and ressurection of Jesus that saves us and gives us hope. No other way. You don’t have to believe it, that’s the thing about God, He never forces you to do anything you do not want to do, but you have to live (and die) with the consequinces.If there is a huge, never ending, wall in front of you and you need to get to the other side, you don’t have to believe the wall is there but you will still have to use the door that is provided in order to get there. You can believe or not believe anything you want, but unless you do it Gods way, you will continually hit the wall.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The Dead Sea scrolls show your comment is completely wrong. The content has changed.

          • edc

            Where did it change the fact that Jesus is the “Way,the Truth and the Life”? How did they change the fact that God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent? How did they change the fact that the duty of man is to glorify God and worship Him and only Him? How did they change the central theme of the Bible? It is and has always been Jesus, the Mesiah, the only way of salvation for all men.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            “They speak of a Teacher of Righteousness and a pierced messiah, of cleansing through water and a battle of light against darkness.

            “But anyone looking to the Dead Sea Scrolls in search of proof, say, that Jesus of Nazareth was the messiah presaged by the prophets, or that John the Baptist lived among the scroll’s authors, will be disappointed.”

            News items are circulating about how “hints” and “insights” contained in the famous Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in caves near the ancient site of Qumran can be found in the Bible. In other words, certain ideas in the scrolls also appear in the New Testament, meaning, of course, that the impression of Christianity as a “divine revelation” appearing whole cloth miraculously from the very finger of God is clearly erroneous.

            Few scholars today claim that any of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”) date to the time after Christianity was allegedly founded by a “historical” Jesus in the first century of the common era. Indeed, it is agreed that most of the scrolls pre-date the turn of the era and that none of them show any knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity.

            In my book The Christ Conspiracy, I demonstrate that Christianity is an amalgam of the many religions, sects, cults and brotherhood traditions of the Mediterranean and beyond. One of the major influences on Christianity is that of Jews, obviously, including those mentioned in the New Testament, i.e., the Pharisees and Sadducees. Ancient Jewish historian Josephus also mentions the sect of the Essenes, who are traditionally associated with Qumran, in a “by default” argument. However, scholar Solomon Schecter – who discovered a scroll at Cairo that was later found at Qumran – points to a heretical sect of Sadducees or Zadokites, as they are called in both the Bible and DSS. In The Christ Conspiracy, I discuss thisZadokite origin of the DSS and this group’s obvious influence on the New Testament.

            What this rumination all means, of course, is that Christianity is, as I contend in my books, largely unoriginal, representing not fresh and new “divine revelation” but, again, the amalgamation of not only the ideas of the Zadokite authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls but also influences from the Essenes, Jews, Samaritans and many others.

            Hints of the Scrolls in Bible

            To understand how the Dead Sea Scrolls influenced early Christianity, just turn to the New Testament.

            Take, for example, the Great Isaiah Scroll, a facsimile of which is on display as part of the Milwaukee Public Museum’s Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit. Written around 125 B.C. and the only scroll to emerge virtually intact from the caves at Qumran, its messianic message is quoted in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Luke, the earliest of which wasn’t written until around A.D. 65.

            The scrolls’ so-called “Son of God” text reads much like the story of the Annunciation in the Gospel of Luke. And the Scrolls’ “Blessing of the Wise” echoes the beatitudes of Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount….

            This early dating of the gospels, it should be noted, is based only on the a priori assumption that the story they relate is at least partially true in recounting a “historical” Jesus who truly walked the earth at the time he is claimed in the gospels themselves. There is no external evidence whatsoever for the existence of any canonical gospel at this early a date. In fact, the canonical gospels as we have them do not show up clearly in the historical record until the end of the second century.

            Moreover, the Sermon on the Mount – supposedly the original monologue straight out of the mouth of the Son of God Himself – can be shown to be a series of Old Testament scriptures strung together, along with, apparently, such texts from Qumran. No “historical” founder was necessary at all to speak these words, as they are a rehash of extant sayings. (Even in this patent literary device the gospels cannot agree, as Luke 6:17-49 depicts the Sermon as having taken place on a plain.)

            It is easy to see why the Catholic Church would blanch upon the discovery of these scrolls, as it could be – and has been – argued that these texts erode the very foundation of Christianity. It appears that this news, however, when released slowly has little affect on the mind-numbing programming that accompanies Christian faith.

            The bottom line is that the existence of the Old Testament and the intertestamental literature such as the Dead Sea Scrolls shows how Christianity is a cut-and-paste job – a fact I also reveal in The Christ Conspiracy, in a chapter called “The Making of a Myth,” which contains a discussion of some of the texts obviously used in the creation of the new faith. These influential texts evidently included some of the original Dead Sea Scrolls, serving not as “prophecy,” “prefiguring” or “presaging” but as blueprints of pre-existing, older concepts cobbled together in the New Testament.

            http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280:dead-sea-scrolls-prove-bible-unoriginal

          • edc

            Esther and Jeff, I refer you to 2 Timothy 3 and especially verse 7;” ever learning and never able to come to the TRUTH” This seems to be your theme as you are both very intelligent from what I have read from you, but intelligence is not required when it comes to knowing God. Wisdom is far better than all of your intelligence because you will never be more intelligent than The God whom I serve.As you ‘speculate’ on fragments of history, He was there and is still here as history is made on a second by second basis. You will never persuade me to doubt God. Can anyone persuade you that you were never born? Neither can you persuade me that I was not “born again”. As the old song goes; “I was there when it happened, so, I guess I ought to know.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Intelligence is the worse possible thing to have if one wants to believe in a god. That belief requires a complete suspension of rational thought.

          • Esther

            Are you sure about this? Please expound. I have the tendency to not totally agree. There is so much in life that is felt, with no strict intelligible reason attached. The belief in God might be associated with that part of the brain, unrelated to strict analytical thinking. There are two sides of the brain.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            A study has shown atheism in the West to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed “disbelief or doubt in the existence of God” (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[17]

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

            People who spend their life studying the world end up not believing in a god.

          • Esther

            Yes, Jeff, I can believe its true that many scientists do not believe in a God. And many of those people live lives of quiet desperation, not knowing how to enjoy those things that are felt only through the senses of the creative side of the brain. I find that both sides of the brain need special attention. Science has found these differences, by the way. They do exist. And if that creative part is not exercised it will not develop… same as the analytical side. Just saying. I do not claim to know it all. I know that I have often denied myself the pleasures of music, art, personal relationships, at the expense of my scientific work. There are definitely the two aspects of life and to ignore the creative side for the pure reason side is detrimental to one’s total health. Perhaps religion is not necessary for that former one but it is nice, just like a good violinist is nice to hear.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Oh please, stop with the religious nonsense. They are not living lives of quiet desperation. That is simply a silly statement that people offer to try and make their views sound important.

          • Esther

            Hi Jeff: Now really, you have never spent a moment in a science laboratory with near as many scientists as I have. I know several that have had very happy lives, but I know for a fact they were religious men with good marriages, whose wives took them to concerts, plays, museums often. I don’t know it all. I said that. But I do know scientists who deny the pleasures of that sort. They are not happy people. They are on the little wheel like a gerbil. and they are murder on students in a classroom. Important? I don’t know how important I sound. Few people think what I have to say is important. I just report what my experience is, over 20 years of it. Take it or leave it. You are the only admitted atheist that I know and I know you like music, so you don’t count where my personal stats are concerned when it comes to happy/successful vs barely-making-it scientists. But you are in an analytical field, also your avocation is analytical, Do you think what I said about the two sides of the brain being analytical and creative, resp., is a hoax?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I accept that the brain has two sides. I do not accept that people who are dominated by one side are happier or more successful than people who are dominated by the other side. We see people of all types being successful.

          • Esther

            True. I think the analytical ones are happiest when they do not avoid developing associations that help their creative process. That is what I see in happy scienctists I know.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            But that is substantially different than stating that Atheist scientists are living lives of quiet desperation.

          • Esther

            I said scientists are living lives of quiet desperation, and the happy scientists I know seek music, the arts, religion.. with their spouses… did I say atheists live lives of quiet desperation?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes

            Esther Jeff Dixon • 2 hours ago

            −Yes, Jeff, I can believe its true that many scientists do not believe in a God. And many of those people live lives of quiet desperation, not knowing how to enjoy those things that are felt only through the senses of the creative side of the brain

          • Esther

            Did you miss the part where I said “they would be happier being atheists” I could not find the quote

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I saw it. It did not make much sense given your earlier postings. If they are living lives of quiet desperation, they could not be happy. If they are happy, they are not living lives of quiet desperation .

          • Esther

            Yes , that is right. I agree. Sorry for my off topic convolutions… that is a standing apology by the way. some times I have to re read my own several times and rewrite. for clarity

          • Esther

            Jeff, I bsically meant scientists “those people” who are unhappy:

            “Yes, Jeff, I can believe its true that many scientists do not believe in a God. And many of those people live lives of quiet desperation, not knowing how to enjoy those things that are felt only through the senses of the creative side of the brain.”

            I did not mean atheists, although there might.

            Later, I said: … they would be happier being atheists …

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            What do you think a scientist who does not believe in god should be called? I call them atheists.

          • Esther

            I do not know if they are atheists, you are the first person in my life who has ever admitted he is an atheist… all I know is that there are lots of scientists who do not profess any kind of caring for people

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I would accept that many people who go into the sciences are more analytic. And that often means they are more detached. But being detached does not mean they do not not care. They generally just do not know how to express that type of emotion.

          • Esther

            That is a good observation. I hope I never insuted one. I usually just stand aside and let that person work as he would.

          • Esther

            How many years have you actually spent in doing science?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have never claimed to be a scientist. What other straw-man comments do you what to offer up?

          • Esther

            That is one that offer up practically every day.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have no idea what that post even means. Care to try again without using babble?

          • Esther

            just insert “you”… I will let you figure out where it goes

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Since I have never claimed to be a scientist, your post, as usual, is nonsense. I also will remind you that you have posted several times that I am as close to a scientist as anyone on these sites could be. But now that your ego has been bruised you try to say something different. No big concern. I am used to theists being inconsistent.

          • Esther

            I said that because you don’t seem to respect my achievement which you know absolutely nothing about, yet you decry it as meaningless. Yes, I complimented you for your passion for the subjects you discuss, but you do not have a grain of sense about what I do. When I have asked for references about the stars most recently, which do border on my work, you ignore my request. You just want me to be nothing and that is quite clear.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You are nothing to me, other than a way to show theist stupidity. Have you not realized that yet? I guess you truly are that stupid.

          • Esther

            That is quite clear, Jeffrey Dixon. You have managed to get that across. You are so brilliant in that way, really.

          • Esther

            “Love one another as I have loved you” ~ Jesus Christ

          • Esther

            Ha. Not really fraud. You just gave yourself away. Guess how! In the meantime, I am laughing.

          • Esther

            Of course, Jeff. They should rightly be called atheists. But I am only surmising they may have been. You are the only person I have ever known to say it,

          • Esther

            You are still the only atheist I know. I have read testimonies of others who claim that the more intricate the details the stronger one’s testimony is for the existence of God among scientists.

          • Esther

            If that makes you happy, Jeff, go for it.

          • Esther

            Ok. I admit God, per se, is not needed to enjoy music, I am just noting that a feeling or a desire to believe in God comes not from the analytical side of the brain but the ceative side.

          • Esther
          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Left brain vs right brain has nothing to say about whether scientists are actually living lives of quiet desperation.

          • Esther

            Some just seem that way. Some are certainly miserable in their work.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I would bet money that some are. That does not mean it is based on whether they are atheists or theists.

          • Esther

            I guess you mean some are miserable? If so, I definitely agree… and I think it is in the race for getting funding, then reporting the new results they expected to find, that did not come to the fore… they just do not know or appreciate what new information is and the tiny increments at which the truth is found… they do not get the nobel prize so they are miserable… they would be better off being atheists where they would get support for their quest for pure knowledge… too many fraudulent people in the field.. I hated it. Only five people on earth appreciate what I did and the Chinese would steal it in a minute if they could, only they know I am on to them for their thieving behavior… like Mitt Romney is. Also the Middle easterners I worked with: I caught them using information from a scientist I had introduced them to who was famous in the field where they needed consultation, and they ended up using the information which was his alone, without referencing the source, taking top prizes in the state for their “discovery.” It is out and out fraud. I asked why was his hisn name not on their paper and presentation… His was THE major contributor… THEY were very incomfortable. THAT is the reason I no longer work there and will remain under their radar and anon. I keep getting their invitations, they want to know where I am at all times. No way.

          • Esther

            I bet the miserable ones are from both sides of the question.

          • Esther

            Our Father in Heaven gave us the intelligence to investigate His creation. Why is this not good enough? The intelligent mind of man has made this computer possible, has made medicine possible, these things are through the efforts of the intelligence of man.

          • Tout

            We see the Pope as a human person. When the Pope says “It’s going to rain” he can be wrong. But when the Pope speaks as representing Jesus, he can not be wrong. The Pope declares that Mary, the mother of Jesus, stayed a virgin, so we know that Mary was a virgin during her whole life.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I know you do. But just because you believe it, does not mean it is true.

          • Esther

            I believe that a belief in the God of the Catholics is totally irrational, let me be clear.

          • Seymour Kleerley

            I did not know that people still believed that about the Pope. How does a virgin give birth on this planet? Please avoid fairy tales and use your God given intellect. Did you take biology and pass?

          • Esther

            I found the Book of Enoch is being used by a prominent seminarian in his new book about the reflection of the OT in the NT. These works are called pseudopigraha.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            That is a very common issue with the books of the bible.

          • Esther

            Very true. I find this kind of research very exciting. I never stop investigating what the Reformed scholars think. They have strengthened my ir-religion more then you could know. That is why I recommend them to you. They are constantly rewriting thre bible. Now Beale is using the book of Enoch!!!

          • Esther

            Are you familiar with all the ancient books (which includes the pseudopigrapha?)

          • Esther

            Old question I never got your answer: Two particles, a positive (+) particle separated about a block apart from a negative (-) particle? What will happen if anything?

            Re: My reference to giants:
            I am talking about giants seven feet tall and higher, a race of them, and the awesome things they built and their down fall. It is a bit of a stretch but since you don’t know about them maybe you should look into who they are “mythically” what they did, how they are thought to have been destroyed, etc.

            Gen 4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

            written source: Book of Enoch: http://reluctant-messenger.com… next, video source: Book of Enoch You tube History Channel:http://www.youtube.com/channel… , then there are many sites for this story, this one is an overview (turn off your sound) I watched the first one on top of the list. http://www.youtube.com/user/An

            Note: Greg Beale, Professor of Theology, Westminister Theological Seminary, Pennsylvania http://www.wts.edu/faculty/pro… has wrtten a book called A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New http://www.wtsbooks.com/produc… Greg has used all the ancient texts to explain the writting of the NT. I should let you discover this. His book is extremely well written. It’s about $30 and is a huge book.Get it online at the WTS bookstore.

          • Esther

            Here is an older post sent to you:

            See Ancient Giants Series (several parts): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaKkgDK9L3k

            See Anunnaki History Book of Enki The Elohim (these follow the giants series GIVEN above)

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_ZEOVrF3zw

            In the tablets of the Summarians: Anunnuki History, Synopsis of 11th Tablet. @ 10:43 youtube, I read to the effect: Marduk is entombed in a chamber in the greatest pyramid, his wife Sarpanit and son Nabu obtain his release through Ningishzidda who knew the secrets of the pyramids. Marduk then goes into exile in North America. Later Ningishzidda gets exiled to the Americas. Evidently, there is plenty of gold for Egypt that comes from America, there is an implication large mining operation in the Americas. No details of this on this site but there is the name of a professor who wrote the text; online, it is just a synopsis.

            I am researching the book of Enoch, since there are giants in the text in the bible about him. Not much about him actually in the bible but there are books of Enoch called pseudapigrapha that are writings under assumed names thought to be his for the topics, and those are referenced in a book I have on the OT reflected in the NT, a book I bought when I attended classes at seminary. Just started connecting these dots.

            NOTE: Contraversy surrounds Sitchin, the professor who analyzed the Sumer tablets… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

          • Esther

            Thanks Jeff I copy/pasted to Mex.

          • Tout

            Jesus died. He chose the apostle Peter as his representative. The apostles formed the early Church after Jesus died. Peter with the apostles, guided by God, started the decision which books formed the true Bible..

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Nonsense. The bible as we know it today has been changed numerous times.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          http://photon.phys.clemson.edu/wwwpages/StarLife.html

          This is a good link on the ages of stars.

          • Esther

            Thank you Jeff

        • Seymour Kleerley

          How did God tell you anything? The bible was written by men. Or maybe angels in your world.

          • edc

            If you ever really tried Jesus, you would “see more clearly”, until then you are blinded by the world and your own selfish desires.

          • Seymour Kleerley

            If you used your God given intellect you’d be insulted by Religion. You’d also be free to concentrate on Christ’s divine message and make his sacrifice pay off.

          • edc

            I am insulted by mans religion,but not by Christianity. Religion is man seeking God in mans way, Christianity is God saving man in His way. (“by grace are you saved through faith and that not of youselves, it is the gift of God, not of works lest any man should boast.” Eph 2:8,9)

    • Esther

      That is what the bible told you, not God! God gave us a brain to discern reason. We just done have all the pieces to the puzzle yet.

      • edc

        I have discovered the answer… it’s in the person of my Savior, Jesus Christ, The Son of the living God and creator of ALL things.

        • Esther

          I am just like my Father made me, curious and very reasonable. I am not an evangelical but I am an ardent follower of Christ, in the most simplest lessons that he gave us that are reasonable, he knows it and I am blessed by it. I refuse the contortions of Christ given him by the Catholic and Protestant churches.

        • Seymour Kleerley

          Did you “discover” that at 5 years old like the rest of us?

          • edc

            I was 13 when I accepted the Lord Jesus into my heart and life. I have not always been as true to Him as I wish I had been, but He has always been true to me. He never changes. Try Him.

          • Seymour Kleerley

            Had you been involved In religious schooling before that? Nobody will admit to this! Am I the only one to have been indoctrinated at 6 years old!

          • edc

            No. I’ve been “born again” for over fifty years and have no regrets. God has been better to me than I deserve and it could be so for you.

      • Mex Seiko

        Denying that the Bible is the Holy Word of God is a condition, Esther.. A serious one. It’s also reminiscent of someone in some garden telling someone else that what God had said wasn’t really what He said and there will be no consequences.

        • Esther

          Yes, then you are really in for it Mex.

        • Seymour Kleerley

          Tell that to Pat Robertson.

          • Mex Seiko

            Whoever.

  • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

    Sigh, so another argument from ignorance. How pathetically sad.

    • Wordmahn

      Well, oh knowing one, then how did flowers that need insects for reproduction evolve without insects?

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Are you unaware that there are flowers today that do not need insects to reproduce?

        • Esther

          Abiotic pollination refers to situations where pollination is mediated without the involvement of other organisms. Only 10% of flowering plants are pollinated without animal assistance. The most common form of abiotic pollination, anemophily, is pollination by wind. This form of pollination is predominant in grasses, most conifers, and many deciduous trees. Hydrophily is pollination by water, and occurs in aquatic plants which release their pollen directly into the surrounding water. About 80% of all plant pollination is biotic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollination

        • Mex Seiko

          You’re 100% correct. The roots of those plants in Alaska were “designed” to reproduce on their own.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Face it Mex, you have no idea how the world operates or what the sciences say on the matter. You should put down your bible and pick up a science book.

          • Mex Seiko

            Well, since you’re an expert on how the world operates, are you suggesting that flower reproduction is evolving into a system requiring no foreign intervention?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I am not sure what you mean. Can you rephrase the question?

          • Mex Seiko

            Sure!

          • Esther

            Go ahead Mexico, rephrase your question.

          • Mex Seiko

            No.

          • Esther

            LOL, because your stupid statement is irrevelant and even you do not understand the nonsense of it. But you troll others conversations in your efforts to control others, COMMIE MEXICO, because that is all you’ve got. Go cry to your mommy now.

          • Mex Seiko

            You’re trash talking like a sore looser, Esther. It’s pathetic. Stop embarrassing yourself. Keep your self-respect.

          • Esther

            LOL. Mexico, you wish that were true. Go cry to your mommy or Joe Anzilotti. It is in one ear and out the other here.

      • Esther

        wind,

    • Esther

      What? Jeff do you have “any question in your mind?” :) She tried so hard to solve the mystery for you. :(

  • http://www.facebook.com/SnakeArbusto Sharbard Stradtlater

    I thought it was the flowering plants that needed the insects for survival, and not the other way around. I see it as a parallel to how creationists need science…
    Folks, start enjoying life. Whoever created it – the white male with the big white beard or blind evolution – also created love and music and friends and family for us to enjoy, didn’t He/it? So stop struggling to get other folks to believe what you believe and celebrate Life – wherever it came from. God can get along just fine on His own.

    • Tout

      Yes. But then there was the fall of Adam & Eve. And we will still exist after our bodies die.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        There is nothing known to support that view. It is simply another desire.

    • Seymour Kleerley

      God created nature. That solves everything.

  • Seymour Kleerley

    Should we believe men who make mistakes or God? Think how ridiculous that is unless you think God wrote the Bible. This is not the year 923!

ABOUT US | MEDIA KIT | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Proudly built by WPDevelopers