Friday, February 23, 2018

What was evolution like originally? looking at Ernst Haeckel's "History of creation Vol. 1" chapter 13

As more evidence supports creationism our contemporary evolutinists have been putting up " smoke screens and bait-n-switch definitions of evolution in hopes of skating by the fact that evolution was already debunked.  However as we look back in the past we see the forefathers of evolution like the german evolutionary forefather ernst haekyl singing a different tune.
Here is the 13th chapter in full and uninterrupted.

The History of Creation, Vol. I (of 2), by Ernst Haeckel



History of the Development of the Earth.—Kant’s Theory of the Development of the Universe, or the Cosmological Gas Theory.—Development of Suns, Planets, and Moons.—First Origin of Water.—Comparison of Organisms and Anorgana.—Organic and Inorganic Substances.—Degrees of Density, or Conditions of Aggregation.—Albuminous Combinations of Carbon.—Organic and Inorganic Forms.—Crystals and Formless Organisms without Organs.—Stereometrical Fundamental Forms of Crystals and of Organisms.—Organic and Inorganic Forces.—Vital Force.—Growth and Adaptation in Crystals and in Organisms.—Formative Tendencies of Crystals.—Unity of Organic and Inorganic Nature.—Spontaneous Generation, or Archigony.—Autogony and Plasmogony.—Origin of Monera by Spontaneous Generation.—Origin of Cells from Monera.—The Cell Theory.—The Plastid Theory.—Plastids, or Structural Units.—Cytods and Cells.—Four Different Kinds of Plastids.
In our considerations hitherto we have endeavoured to answer the question, “By what causes have new species of animals and plants arisen out of existing species?” We have answered this question according to Darwin’s theory, that natural selection in the struggle for existence—that is, the interaction of the laws of Inheritance and Adaptation—is completely sufficient for producing mechanically the317 endless variety of the different animals and plants, which have the appearance of being organized according to a plan for a definite purpose. Meanwhile the question must have already repeatedly presented itself to the reader, how did the first organisms, or that one original and primæval organism arise, from which we derive all the others?

This question Lamarck(2) answered by the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, or archigony. But Darwin passes over and avoids this subject, as he expressly remarks that he has “nothing to do with the origin of the soul, nor with that of life itself.” At the conclusion of his work he expresses himself more distinctly in the following words:—“I imagine that probably all organic beings which ever lived on this earth descended from some primitive form, which was first called into life by the Creator.” Moreover, Darwin, for the consolation of those who see in the Theory of Descent the destruction of the whole “moral order of the universe,” appeals to the celebrated author and divine who wrote to him, that “he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that he created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws.”
Those to whom the belief in a supernatural creation is an emotional necessity may rest satisfied with this conception. They may reconcile that belief with the Theory of Descent; for in the creation of a single original organism possessing the capability to develop all others out of itself by inheritance and adaptation, they can really find much more cause318 for admiring the power and wisdom of the Creator than in the independent creation of different species.
If, taking this point of view, we were to explain the origin of the first terrestrial organisms, from which all the others are descended, as due to the action of a personal Creator acting according to a definite plan, we should of course have to renounce all scientific knowledge of the process, and pass from the domain of true science to the completely distinct domain of poetical faith. By assuming a supernatural act of creation we should be taking a leap into the inconceivable. Before we decide upon this latter step, and thereby renounce all pretension to a scientific knowledge of the process, we are at all events in duty bound to endeavour to examine it in the light of a mechanical hypothesis. We must at least examine whether this process is really so wonderful, and whether we cannot form a tenable conception of a completely non-miraculous origin of the first primary organism. We might then be able entirely to reject miracle in creation.
It will be necessary for this purpose, first of all, to go back further into the past, and to examine the history of the creation of the earth. Going back still further, we shall find it necessary to consider the history of the creation of the whole universe in its most general outlines. All my readers undoubtedly know that from the structure of the earth, as it is at present known to us, the notion has been derived, and as yet has not been refuted, that its interior is in a fiery fluid condition, and that the firm crust, composed of different strata, on the surface of which organisms are living, forms only a very thin pellicle or shell round the fiery fluid centre. We have319 arrived at this idea by different confirmatory experiments and reasonings. In the first place, the observation that the temperature of the earth’s crust continually increases towards the centre is in favour of this supposition. The deeper we descend, the greater the warmth of the ground, and in such proportion, that with every 100 feet the temperature increases about one degree. At a depth of six miles, therefore, a heat of 1500° would be attained, sufficient to keep most of the firm substances of our earth’s crust in a molten, fiery, fluid state. This depth, however, is only the 286th part of the whole diameter of the earth (1717 miles). We further know that springs which rise out of a considerable depth possess a very high temperature, and sometimes even throw water up to the surface in a boiling state. Lastly, very important proofs are furnished by volcanic phenomena, the eruption of fiery fluid masses of stone bursting through certain parts of the earth’s crust. All these phenomena lead us with great certainty to the important assumption that the firm crust of the earth forms only quite a small fraction, not nearly the one-thousandth part of the whole diameter of the terrestrial globe, and that the rest is still for the most part in a molten or fiery fluid state.
Now if, starting with this assumption, we reflect on the ancient history of the development of the globe, we are logically carried back a step further, namely, to the assumption that at an earlier date the whole earth was a fiery fluid body, and that the formation of a thin, stiffened crust on the surface was only a later process. Only gradually, by radiating its intrinsic heat into the cold space of the universe, has the surface of the glowing ball become condensed into320 a thin crust. That the temperature of the earth in remote times was much higher than it is now, is proved by many phenomena. Among other things, this is rendered probable by the equal distribution of organisms in remote times of the earth’s history. While at present, as is well known, the different populations of animals and plants correspond to the different zones of the earth and their appropriate temperature, in earlier times this was distinctly not the case.

We see from the distribution of fossils in the remoter ages, that it was only at a very late date, in fact, at a comparatively recent period of the organic history of the earth (at the beginning of the so-called cænolithic or tertiary period), that a separation of zones and of the corresponding organic populations occurred. During the immensely long primary and secondary periods, tropical plants, which require a very high degree of temperature, lived not only in the present torrid zone, under the equator, but also in the present temperate and frigid zones. Many other phenomena also demonstrate a gradual decrease of the temperature of the globe as a whole, and especially a late and gradual cooling of the earth’s crust about the poles. Bronn, in his excellent “Investigations of the Laws of Development of the Organic World,” has collected numerous geological and palæontological proofs of this fact.
These phenomena and the mathematico-astronomical knowledge of the structure of the universe justify the theory that, inconceivable ages ago, long before the first existence of organisms, the whole earth was a fiery fluid globe. Now, this theory corresponds with the grand theory of the origin of the universe, and especially of our planetary system, which,321 on the ground of mathematical and astronomical facts, was put forward in 1755 by our critical philosopher Kant,(22) and was later more thoroughly established by the celebrated mathematicians, Laplace and Herschel. This cosmogeny, or theory of the development of the universe, is now almost universally acknowledged; it has not been replaced by a better one, and mathematicians, astronomers, and geologists have continually, by various arguments, strengthened its position.
Kant’s cosmogeny maintains that the whole universe, inconceivable ages ago, consisted of a gaseous chaos. All the substances which are found at present separated on the earth, and other bodies of the universe, in different conditions of density—in the solid, semi-fluid, liquid, and elastic fluid or gaseous states of aggregation—originally constituted together one single homogeneous mass, equally filling up the space of the universe, which, in consequence of an extremely high degree of temperature, was in an exceedingly thin gaseous or nebulous state. The millions of bodies in the universe which at present form the different solar systems did not then exist. They originated only in consequence of a universal rotatory movement, or rotation, during which a number of masses acquired greater density than the remaining gaseous mass, and then acted upon the latter as central points of attraction. Thus arose a separation of the chaotic primary nebula, or gaseous universe, into a number of rotating nebulous spheres, which became more and more condensed. Our solar system was such a gigantic gaseous or nebulous ball, all the particles of which revolved round a common central point, the solar nucleus. The nebulous ball itself, like all the rest, in consequence322 of its rotatory movement, assumed a spheroidal or a flattened globular form.
While the centripetal force attracted the rotating particles nearer and nearer to the firm central point of the nebulous ball, and thus condensed the latter more and more, the centrifugal force, on the other hand, always tended to separate the peripheral particles further and further from it, and to hurl them off. On the equatorial sides of the ball, which was flattened at both poles, this centrifugal force was strongest, and as soon as, by increase of density, it attained predominance over the centripetal force, a circular nebulous ring separated itself from the rotating ball. This nebulous ring marked the course of future planets. The nebulous mass of the ring gradually condensed, and became a planet, which revolved round its own axis, and at the same time rotated round the central body. In precisely the same manner, from the equator of the planetary mass, as soon as the centrifugal force gained predominance over the centripetal force, new nebulous rings were ejected, which moved round the planets as the latter moved round the sun. These nebulous rings, too, became condensed into rotating balls. Thus arose the moons, only one of which moves round our earth, whilst four move round Jupiter, and six round Uranus. The ring of Saturn still shows us a moon in its early stage of development. As by increasing refrigeration these simple processes of condensation and expulsion repeated themselves over and over again, there arose the different solar systems, the planets rotating round their central suns, and the satellites or moons moving round their planets.

The original gaseous condition of the rotating bodies of323 the universe gradually changed, by increasing refrigeration and condensation, into the fiery fluid or molten state of aggregation. By the process of condensation, a great quantity of heat was emitted, and the rotating suns, planets, and moons, soon changed into glowing balls of fire, like gigantic drops of melted metal, which emitted light and heat. By loss of heat, the melted mass on the surface of the fiery fluid ball became further condensed, and thus arose a thin, firm crust, which enclosed a fiery fluid nucleus. In all essential respects our mother earth probably did not differ from the other bodies of the universe.
In view of the object of these pages, it will not be of especial interest to follow in detail the history of the natural creation of the universe, with its different solar and planetary systems, and to establish it mathematically by the different astronomical and geological proofs. The outlines of it, which I have just mentioned, must be sufficient here, and for further details I refer to Kant’s 5 “General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.”(22) I will only add that this wonderful theory, which might be called the cosmological gas theory, harmonizes with all the general series of phenomena at present known to us, and stands in no irreconcilable contradiction to any one of them. Moreover, it is purely mechanical or monistic, makes use exclusively of the inherent forces of eternal matter, and entirely excludes every supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious action of a personal Creator. Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory consequently occupies a similar supreme position in Anorganology, especially in Geology, and forms the crown of our knowledge in that department, in the same 324way as Lamarck’s Theory of Descent does in Biology, and especially in Anthropology. Both rest exclusively upon mechanical or unconscious causes (causæ efficientes), in no case upon prearranged or conscious causes (causæ finales). (Compare above, p. 100-106.) Both therefore fulfil all the demands of a scientific theory, and consequently will remain generally acknowledged until they are replaced by better ones.
I will, however, not deny that Kant’s grand cosmogeny has some weak points, which prevent our placing the same unconditional confidence in it as in Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. The notion of an original gaseous chaos filling the whole universe presents great difficulties of various kinds. A great and unsolved difficulty lies in the fact that the Cosmological Gas Theory furnishes no starting-point at all in explanation of the first impulse which caused the rotary motion in the gas-filled universe. In seeking for such an impulse, we are involuntarily led to the mistaken questioning about a “first beginning.” We can as little imagine a first beginning of the eternal phenomena of the motion of the universe as of its final end.
The universe is unlimited and immeasurable in both space and time. It is eternal, and it is infinite. Nor can we imagine a beginning or end to the uninterrupted and eternal motion in which all particles of the universe are always engaged. The great laws of the conservation of force(38) and the conservation of matter, the foundations of our whole conception of nature, admit of no other supposition. The universe, as far as it is cognisable to human capability, appears as a connected chain of material phenomena of motion, necessitating a continual change of325 forms. Every form, as the temporary result of a multiplicity of phenomena of motion, is as such perishable, and of limited duration. But, in the continual change of forms, matter and the motion inseparable from it remain eternal and indestructible.
Now, although Kant’s Cosmological Gas Theory is not able to explain the development of motion in the whole universe in a satisfactory manner, beyond that gaseous state of chaos, and although many other weighty considerations may be brought forward against it, especially by chemistry and geology, yet we must on the whole acknowledge its great merit, inasmuch as it explains in an excellent manner, by due consideration of development, the whole structure of all that is accessible to our observation, that is, the anatomy of the solar systems, and especially of our planetary system. It may be that this development was altogether different from what Kant supposes, and our earth may have arisen by the aggregation of numberless small meteorides, scattered in space, or in any other manner, but hitherto no one has as yet been able to establish any other theory of development, or to offer one in the place of Kant’s cosmogeny.
After this general glance at the monistic cosmogeny, or the non-miraculous history of the development of the universe, let us now return to a minute fraction of it, to our mother earth, which we left as a ball flattened at both poles and in a fiery fluid state, its surface having condensed by becoming cooled into a very thin firm crust. The crust, on first cooling, must have covered the whole surface of the terrestrial sphere as a continuous smooth and thin shell. But soon it must have become uneven and hummocky; for,326 since during the continued cooling, the fiery fluid nucleus became more and more condensed and contracted, and consequently the diameter of the earth diminished, the thin cold crust, which could not closely follow the softer nuclear mass, must have fallen in, in many places. An empty space would have arisen between the two, had not the pressure of the outer atmosphere forced down the fragile crust towards the interior, breaking it in so doing. Other unevennesses probably arose from the fact that, in different parts, the cooled crust during the process of refrigeration contracted also itself, and thus became fissured with cracks and rents. The fiery fluid nucleus flowed up to the external surface through these cracks, and again became cooled and stiff. Thus, even at an early period there arose many elevations and depressions, which were the first foundations of mountains and valleys.

After the temperature of the cooled terrestrial ball had fallen to a certain degree, a very important new process was effected, namely, the first origin of water. Water had until then existed only in the form of steam in the atmosphere surrounding the globe. The water could evidently not condense into a state of fluid drops until the temperature of the atmosphere had considerably decreased. Now, then, there began a further transformation of the earth’s crust by the force of water. It continually fell in the form of rain, and in that form washed down the elevations of the earth’s crust, filling the depressions with the mud carried along, and, by depositing it in layers, it caused the extremely important neptunic transformations of the earth’s crust, which have continued since then uninterruptedly, and which in our next chapter we shall examine a little more closely.327
It was not till the earth’s crust had so far cooled that the water had condensed into a fluid form, it was not till the hitherto dry crust of the earth had for the first time become covered with liquid water, that the origin of the first organisms could take place. For all animals and all plants—in fact, all organisms—consist in great measure of fluid water, which combines in a peculiar manner with other substances, and brings them into a semi-fluid state of aggregation. We can therefore, from these general outlines of the inorganic history of the earth’s crust, deduce the important fact, that at a certain definite time life had its beginning on earth, and that terrestrial organisms did not exist from eternity, but at a certain period came into existence for the first time.
Now, how are we to conceive of this origin of the first organisms? This is the point at which most naturalists, even at the present day, are inclined to give up the attempt at natural explanation, and take refuge in the miracle of an inconceivable creation. In doing so, as has already been remarked, they quit the domain of scientific knowledge, and renounce all further insight into the eternal laws which have determined nature’s history. But before despondingly taking such a step, and before we despair of the possibility of any knowledge of this important process, we may at least make an attempt to understand it. Let us see if in reality the origin of a first organism out of inorganic matter, the origin of a living body out of lifeless matter, is so utterly inconceivable and beyond all experience. In one word, let us examine the question of spontaneous generation, or archigony. In so doing, it is above all things necessary to form a clear idea of the principal properties of the two chief328 groups of natural bodies, the so-called inanimate or inorganic, and the animate or organic bodies, and then establish what is common to, and what are the differences between, the two groups. It is desirable to go somewhat carefully into the comparison of organisms and anorgana, since it is commonly very much neglected, although it is necessary for a right understanding of nature from the monistic point of view. It will be most advantageous here to look separately at the three fundamental properties of every natural body; these are matter, form, and force. Let us begin with matter. (Gen. Morph. iii.)
By chemistry we have succeeded in analysing all bodies known to us into a small number of elements or simple substances, which cannot be further divided, for example, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur, and the different metals: potassium, sodium, iron, gold, etc. At present we know about seventy such elements or simple substances. The majority of them are unimportant and rare; the minority only are widely distributed, and compose not only most of the anorgana, but also all organisms. If we compare those elements which constitute the body of organisms with those which are met with in anorgana, we have first to note the highly important fact that in animal and vegetable bodies no element occurs but what can be found outside of them in inanimate nature. There are no special organic elements or simple organic substances.
The chemical and physical differences existing between organisms and anorgana, consequently, do not lie in their material foundation; they do not arise from the different nature of the elements composing them, but from the different manner in which the latter are united by chemical329 combination. This different manner of combination gives rise to certain physical peculiarities, especially in density of substance, which at first sight seems to constitute a deep chasm between the two groups of bodies. Inorganic or inanimate natural bodies, such as crystals and the amorphous rocks, are in a state of density which we call the firm or solid state, and which we oppose to the liquid state of water and to the gaseous state of air. It is familiar to every one that these three different degrees of density, or states of aggregation of anorgana, are by no means peculiar to the different elements, but are the results of a certain degree of temperature. Every inorganic solid body, by increase of temperature, can be reduced to the liquid or melted state, and, by further heat, to the gaseous or elastic state. In the same way most gaseous bodies, by a proper decrease of temperature can first be converted into a liquid state, and further, into a solid state of density.
In opposition to these three states of density of anorgana, the living body of all organisms—animals as well as plants—is in an altogether peculiar fourth state of aggregation. It is neither solid like stone, nor liquid like water, but presents rather a medium between these two states, which may therefore be designated as the firm-fluid or swollen state of aggregation (viscid). In all living bodies, without exception, there is a certain quantity of water combined in a peculiar way with solid matter, and owing to this characteristic combination of water with solid matter we have that soft state of aggregation, neither solid nor liquid, which is of great importance in the mechanical explanation of the phenomena of life. Its cause lies essentially in the physical and chemical properties of a simple, indivisible,330 elementary substance, namely, carbon (Gen. Morph. i. 122-130).
Of all elements, carbon is to us by far the most important and interesting, because this simple substance plays the largest part in all animal and vegetable bodies known to us. It is that element which, by its peculiar tendency to form complicated combinations with the other elements, produces the greatest variety of chemical compounds, and among them the forms and living substance of animal and vegetable bodies. Carbon is especially distinguished by the fact that it can unite with the other elements in infinitely manifold relations of number and weight. By the combination of carbon with three other elements, with oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen (to which generally sulphur, and frequently, also, phosphorus is added), there arise those exceedingly important compounds which we have become acquainted with as the first and most indispensable substratum of all vital phenomena, the albuminous combinations, or albuminous bodies (protean matter).
We have before this (p. 185) become acquainted with the simplest of all species of organisms in the Monera, whose entire bodies when completely developed consist of nothing but a semi-fluid albuminous lump; they are organisms which are of the utmost importance for the theory of the first origin of life. But most other organisms, also, at a certain period of their existence—at least, in the first period of their life—in the shape of egg-cells or germ-cells, are essentially nothing but simple little lumps of such albuminous formative matter, known as plasma, or protoplasma. They then differ from the Monera only by the fact that in the interior of the albuminous corpuscle the cell-kernel, or nucleus, has331 separated itself from the surrounding cell-substance (protoplasma). As we have already pointed out, the cells, with their simple attributes, are so many citizens, who by co-operation and differentiation build up the body of even the most perfect organism; this being, as it were, a cell republic (p. 301). The fully developed form and the vital phenomena of such an organism are determined solely by the activities of these small albuminous corpuscles.

It may be considered as one of the greatest triumphs of recent biology, especially of the theory of tissues, that we are now able to trace the wonder of the phenomena of life to these substances, and that we can demonstrate the infinitely manifold and complicated physical and chemical properties of the albuminous bodies to be the real cause of organic or vital phenomena. All the different forms of organisms are simply and directly the result of the combination of the different forms of cells. The infinitely manifold varieties of form, size, and combination of the cells have arisen only gradually by the division of labour, and by the gradual adaptation of the simple homogeneous lumps of plasma, which originally were the only constituents of the cell-mass. From this it follows of necessity that the fundamental phenomena of life—nutrition and generation—in their highest manifestations, as well as in their simplest expressions, must also be traced to the material nature of that albuminous formative substance. The other vital activities are gradually evolved from these two. Thus, then, the general explanation of life is now no more difficult to us than the explanation of the physical properties of inorganic bodies. All vital phenomena and formative processes of organisms are as directly dependent upon the332 chemical composition and the physical forces of organic matter as the vital phenomena of inorganic crystals—that is, the process of their growth and their specific formation—are the direct results of their chemical composition and of their physical condition. The ultimate causes, it is true, remain in both cases concealed from us. When gold and copper crystallize in a cubical, bismuth and antimony in a hexagonal, iodine and sulphur in a rhombic form of crystal, the occurrence is in reality neither more nor less mysterious to us than is every elementary process of organic formation, every self-formation of the organic cell. In this respect we can no longer draw a fundamental distinction between organisms and anorgana, a distinction of which, formerly, naturalists were generally convinced.
Let us secondly examine the agreements and differences which are presented to us in the formation of organic and inorganic natural bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 130). Formerly the simple structure of the latter and the composite structure of the former were looked upon as the principal distinction. The body of all organisms was supposed to consist of dissimilar or heterogeneous parts, of instruments or organs which worked together for the purposes of life. On the other hand, the most perfect anorgana, that is to say, crystals, were supposed to consist entirely of continuous or homogeneous matter. This distinction appears very essential. But it loses all importance through the fact that in late years we have become acquainted with the exceedingly remarkable and important Monera.(15) (Compare above, p. 185.) The whole body of these most simple of all organisms—a semi-fluid, formless, and simple lump of albumen—consists, in fact, of only a single chemical combination, 333 and is as perfectly simple in its structure as any crystal, which consists of a single inorganic combination, for example, of a metallic salt or of a silicate of the earths and alkalies.
As naturalists believed in differences in the inner structure or composition, so they supposed themselves able to find complete differences in the external forms of organisms and anorgana, especially in the mathematically determinable crystalline forms of the latter. Certainly crystallization is pre-eminently a quality of the so-called anorgana. Crystals are limited by plane surfaces, which meet in straight lines and at certain measurable angles. Animal and vegetable forms, on the contrary, seem at first sight to admit of no such geometrical determination. They are for the most part limited by curved surfaces and crooked lines, which meet at variable angles. But in recent times we have become acquainted, among Radiolaria(23) and among many other Protista, with a large number of lower organisms, whose body, in the same way as crystals, may be traced to a mathematically determinable fundamental form, and whose form in its whole, as well as in its parts, is bounded by definite geometrically determinable planes and angles. In my general doctrine of Fundamental Forms, or Promorphology, I have given detailed proofs of this, and at the same time established a general system of forms, the ideal stereometrical type-forms, which explain the real forms of inorganic crystals, as well as of organic individuals (Gen. Morph. i. 375-574). Moreover, there are also perfectly amorphous organisms, like the Monera, Amœba, etc., which change their forms every moment, and in which we are as little able to point out a definite fundamental form as in334 the case of the shapeless or amorphous anorgana, such as non-crystallized stones, deposits, etc. We are consequently unable to find any essential difference in the external forms or the inner structure of anorgana and organisms.
Thirdly, let us turn to the forces or the phenomena of motion of these two different groups of bodies (Gen. Morph. i. 140). Here we meet with the greatest difficulties. The vital phenomena, known as a rule only in the highly developed organisms, in the more perfect animals and plants, seem there so mysterious, so wonderful, so peculiar, that most persons are decidedly of opinion that in inorganic nature there occurs nothing at all similar, or in the least degree comparable to them. Organisms are for this very reason called animate, and the anorgana, inanimate natural bodies. Hence, even so late as the commencement of the present century, the science which investigates the phenomena of life, namely physiology, retained the erroneous idea that the physical and chemical properties of matter were not sufficient for explaining these phenomena. In our own day, especially during the last ten years, this idea may be regarded as having been completely refuted. In physiology, at least, it has now no place. It now never occurs to a physiologist to consider any of the vital phenomena as the result of a mysterious vital force, of an active power working for a definite purpose, standing outside of matter, and, so to speak, taking only the physico-chemical forces into its service. Modern physiology has arrived at the strictly monistic conviction that all of the vital phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation are purely physico-chemical processes, and directly dependent335 on the material nature of the organism, just as all the physical and chemical qualities of every crystal are determined solely by its material composition. Now, as the elementary substance which determines the peculiar material composition of organisms is carbon, we must ultimately reduce all vital phenomena, and, above all, the two fundamental phenomena of nutrition and propagation to the properties of the carbon. The peculiar-chemico-physical properties, and especially the semi-fluid state of aggregation, and the easy decomposibility of the exceedingly composite albuminous combinations of carbon, are the mechanical causes of those peculiar phenomena of motion which distinguish organisms from anorgana, and which in a narrow sense are usually called “life.”
In order to understand this “carbon theory,” which I have established in detail in the second book of my General Morphology, it is necessary, above all things, closely to examine those phenomena of motion which are common to both groups of natural bodies. First among them is the process of growth. If we cause any inorganic solution of salt slowly to evaporate, crystals are formed in it, which slowly increase in size during the continued evaporation of the water. This process of growth arises from the fact that new particles continually pass over from the fluid state of aggregation into the solid, and, according to certain laws, deposit themselves upon the firm kernel of the crystal already formed. From such an apposition of particles arise the mathematically definite crystalline shapes. In like manner the growth of organisms takes place by the accession of new particles. The only difference is that in the growth of organisms, in consequence of their semi-fluid state of336 aggregation, the newly-added particles penetrate into the interior of the organism (inter-susception), whereas anorgana receive homogeneous matter from without only by apposition or an addition of new particles to the surface. This important difference of growth by inter-susception and by apposition is obviously only the necessary and direct result of the different conditions of density or state of aggregation in organisms and anorgana.

Unfortunately I cannot here follow in detail the various exceedingly interesting parallels and analogies which occur between the formation of the most perfect anorgana, the crystals, and the formation of the simplest organisms, the Monera and their next kindred forms. For this I must refer to a minute comparison of organisms and anorgana, which I have carried out in the fifth chapter of my General Morphology (Gen. Morph. i. 111-160). I have there shown in detail that there exist no complete differences between organic and inorganic natural bodies, neither in respect to form and structure, nor in respect to matter and force; and that the actually existing differences are dependent upon the peculiar nature of the carbon; and that there exists no insurmountable chasm between organic and inorganic nature. We can perceive this most important fact very clearly if we examine and compare the origin of the forms in crystals and in the simplest organic individuals. In the formation of crystal individuals, two different counteracting formative tendencies come into operation. The inner constructive force, or the inner formative tendency, which corresponds to the Heredity of organisms, in the case of the crystal is the direct result of its material constitution or of its chemical composition. The form of the crystal, so far as337 it is determined by this inner original formative tendency, is the result of the specific and definite way in which the smallest particles of the crystallizing matter unite together in different directions according to law. That independent inner formative force, which is directly inherent in the matter itself, is directly counteracted by a second formative force. The external constructive force, or the external formative tendency, may be called Adaptation in crystals as well as in organisms. Every crystal individual during its formation, like every organic individual, must submit and adapt itself to the surrounding influences and conditions of existence of the outer world. In fact, the form and size of every crystal is dependent upon its whole surroundings, for example, upon the vessel in which the crystallization takes place, upon the temperature and the pressure of the air under which the crystal is formed, upon the presence or absence of heterogeneous bodies, etc. Consequently, the form of every single crystal, like the form of every single organism, is the result of the interaction of two opposing factors—the inner formative tendency, which is determined by the chemical constitution of the matter itself, and of the external formative tendency, which is dependent upon the influence of surrounding matter. Both these constructive forces interact similarly also in the organism, and, just as in the crystal, are of a purely mechanical nature and directly inherent in the substance of the body. If we designate the growth and the formation of organisms as a process of life, we may with equal reason apply the same term to the developing crystal. The teleological conception of nature, which looks upon organisms as machines of creation arranged for a definite purpose, must logically acknowledge the same also338 in regard to the forms of crystals. The differences which exist between the simplest organic individuals and inorganic crystals are determined by the solid state of aggregation of the latter, and by the semi-fluid state of the former. Beyond that the causes producing form are exactly the same in both. This conviction forces itself upon us most clearly, if we compare the exceedingly remarkable phenomena of growth, adaptation, and the “correlation of parts” of developing crystals with the corresponding phenomena of the origin of the simplest organic individuals (Monera and cells). The analogy between the two is so great that, in reality, no accurate boundary can be drawn. In my General Morphology I have quoted in support of this a number of striking facts (Gen. Morph. i. 146, 156, 158.)
If we vividly picture to ourselves this “unity of organic and inorganic nature” this essential agreement of organisms and anorgana in matter, form, and force, and if we bear in mind that we are not able to establish any one fundamental distinction between these two groups of bodies (as was formerly generally assumed), then the question of spontaneous generation will lose a great deal of the difficulty which at first seems to surround it. Then the development of the first organism out of inorganic matter will appear a much more easily conceivable and intelligible process than has hitherto been the case, whilst an artificial absolute barrier between organic or animate, and inorganic or inanimate nature was maintained.
In the question of spontaneous generation, or archigony, which we can now answer more definitely, it must be borne in mind that by this conception we understand generally the non-parental generation of an organic individual, the339 origin of an organism independent of a parental or producing organism. It is in this sense that on a former occasion (p. 183) I mentioned spontaneous generation (archigony) as opposed to parental generation or propagation (tocogony). In the latter case the organic individual arises by a greater or less portion of an already existing organism separating itself and growing independently. (Gen. Morph. ii. 32.)
In spontaneous generation, which is often also called original generation (generatio spontanea, æquivoca, primaria etc.), we must first distinguish two essentially different kinds, namely, autogeny and plasmogeny. By autogeny we understand the origin of a most simple organic individual in an inorganic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which contains the fundamental substances for the composition of the organism dissolved in simple and loose combinations (for example, carbonic acid, ammonia, binary salts, etc.). On the other hand, we call spontaneous generation plasmogeny when the organism arises in an organic formative fluid, that is, in a fluid which contains those requisite fundamental substances dissolved in the form of complicated and fluid combinations of carbon (for example, albumen, fat, hydrate of carbon, etc.). (Gen. Morph. i. 174, ii. 33.)
Neither the process of autogeny, nor that of plasmogeny, has yet been directly observed with perfect certainty. In early, and also in more recent times, numerous and interesting experiments have been made as to the possibility or reality of spontaneous generation. Almost all these experiments refer not to autogeny, but to plasmogeny, to the origin of an organism out of already formed organic matter.340 It is evident, however, that this latter process is only of subordinate interest for our history of creation. It is much more important for us to solve the question, “Is there such a thing as autogeny? Is it possible that an organism can arise, not out of pre-existing organic, but out of purely inorganic, matter?” Hence we can quietly lay aside all the numerous experiments which refer only to plasmogeny, which have been carried on very zealously during the last ten years, and which for the most part have had a negative result. For even supposing that the reality of plasmogeny were strictly proved, still autogeny would not be explained by it.

The experiments on autogeny have likewise as yet furnished no certain and positive result. Yet we must at the outset most distinctly protest against the notion that these experiments have proved the impossibility of spontaneous generation in general. Most naturalists who have endeavoured to decide this question experimentally, and who, after having employed all possible precautionary measures, under well-ascertained conditions, have seen no organisms come into being, have straightway made the assertion, on the ground of these negative results: “That it is altogether impossible for organisms to come into existence by themselves without parental generation.” This hasty and inconsiderate assertion they have supported by the negative results of their experiments, which, after all, could prove nothing except that, under these or those highly artificial circumstances created by the experimenters themselves, no organism was developed. From these experiments, which have been for the most part made under the most unnatural conditions, and in a highly artificial341 manner, we can by no means draw the conclusion that spontaneous generation in general is impossible. The impossibility of such a process can, in fact, never be proved. For how can we know that in remote primæval times there did not exist conditions quite different from those at present obtaining, and which may have rendered spontaneous generation possible? Indeed, we can even positively and with full assurance maintain that the general conditions of life in primæval times must have been entirely different from those of the present time. Think only of the fact that the enormous masses of carbon which we now find deposited in the primary coal mountains were first reduced to a solid form by the action of vegetable life, and are the compressed and condensed remains of innumerable vegetable substances, which have accumulated in the course of many millions of years. But at the time when, after the origin of water in a liquid state on the cooled crust of the earth, organisms were first formed by spontaneous generation, those immeasurable quantities of carbon existed in a totally different form, probably for the most part dispersed in the atmosphere in the shape of carbonic acid. The whole composition of the atmosphere was therefore extremely different from the present. Further, as may be inferred upon chemical, physical, and geological grounds, the density and the electrical conditions of the atmosphere were quite different. In like manner the chemical and physical nature of the primæval ocean, which then continuously covered the whole surface of the earth as an uninterrupted watery sheet, was quite peculiar. The temperature, the density, the amount of salt, etc., must have been very different from those of the present ocean. In342 any case, therefore, even if we do not know anything more about it, there remains to us the supposition, which can at least not be disputed, that at that time, under conditions quite different from those of to-day, a spontaneous generation, which now is perhaps no longer possible, may have taken place.
But it is necessary to add here that, by the recent progress of chemistry and physiology, the mysterious and miraculous character which at first seems to belong to this much disputed and yet inevitable process of spontaneous generation, has been to a great extent, or almost entirely, destroyed. Not fifty years ago, all chemists maintained that we were unable to produce artificially in our laboratories any complicated combination of carbon, or so-called “organic combination.” The mystic “vital force” alone was supposed to be able to produce these combinations. When, therefore, in 1828, Wöhler, in Göttingen, for the first time refuted this dogma, and exhibited pure “organic” urea, obtained in an artificial manner from a purely inorganic body (cyanate of ammonium), it caused the greatest surprise and astonishment. In more recent times, by the progress of synthetic chemistry, we have succeeded in producing in our laboratories a great variety of similar “organic” combinations of carbon, by purely artificial means—for example alcohol, acetic acid, formic acid. Indeed, many exceedingly complicated combinations of carbon are now artificially produced, so that there is every likelihood, sooner or later, of our producing artificially the most complicated, and at the same time the most important of all, namely, the albuminous combinations, or plasma-bodies. By the consideration of this probability, the deep chasm which was343 formerly and generally believed to exist between organic and inorganic bodies is almost or entirely removed, and the way is paved for the conception of spontaneous generation.
Of still greater, nay, the very greatest importance to the hypothesis of spontaneous generation are, finally, the exceedingly remarkable Monera, those creatures which we have already so frequently mentioned, and which are not only the simplest of all observed organisms, but even the simplest of all imaginable organisms. I have already described these wonderful “organisms without organs,” when examining the simplest phenomena of propagation and inheritance. We already know seven different genera of these Monera, some of which live in fresh water, others in the sea (compare above, p. 184; also Plate I. and its explanation in the Appendix). In a perfectly developed and freely motile state, they one and all present us with nothing but a simple little lump of an albuminous combination of carbon. The individual genera and species differ only a little in the manner of propagation and development, and in the way of taking nourishment. Through the discovery of these organisms, which are of the utmost importance, the supposition of a spontaneous generation loses most of its difficulties. For as all trace of organization—all distinction of heterogeneous parts—is still wanting in them, and as all the vital phenomena are performed by one and the same homogeneous and formless matter, we can easily imagine their origin by spontaneous generation. If this happens through plasmogeny, and if plasma capable of life already exists, it then only needs to individualize itself in the same way as the mother liquor of crystals individualizes itself in crystallization. If, on the other hand, the spontaneous generation344 of the Monera takes place by true autogeny, then it is further requisite that that plasma capable of life, that primæval mucus, should be formed out of simpler combinations of carbon. As we are now able artificially to produce, in our laboratories, combinations of carbon similar to this in the complexity of their constitution, there is absolutely no reason for supposing that there are not conditions in free nature also, in which such combinations could take place. Formerly, when the doctrine of spontaneous generation was advocated, it failed at once to obtain adherents on account of the composite structure of the simplest organisms then known. It is only since we have discovered the exceedingly important Monera, only since we have become acquainted in them with organisms not in any way built up of distinct organs, but which consist solely of a single chemical combination, and yet grow, nourish, and propagate themselves, that this great difficulty has been removed, and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation has gained a degree of probability which entitles it to fill up the gap existing between Kant’s cosmogony and Lamarck’s Theory of Descent. Even among the Monera at present known there is a species which probably, even now, always comes into existence by spontaneous generation. This is the wonderful Bathybius Hæckelii, discovered and described by Huxley. As I have already mentioned (p. 184), this Moneron is found in the greatest depths of the sea, at a depth of between 12,000 and 24,000 feet, where it covers the ground partly as retiform threads and plaits of plasma, partly in the form of larger or smaller irregular lumps of the same material.6

Only such homogeneous organisms as are yet not differentiated, and are similar to inorganic crystals in being homogeneously composed of one single substance, could arise by spontaneous generation, and could become the primæval parents of all other organisms. In their further development we have pointed out that the most important process is the formation of a kernel or nucleus in the simple little lump of albumen. We can conceive this to take place in a purely physical manner, by the condensation of the innermost central part of the albumen. The more solid central mass, which at first gradually shaded off into the peripheral plasma, becomes sharply separated from it, and thus forms an independent, round, albuminous corpuscle, the kernel; and by this process the Moneron becomes a cell. Now, it must have become evident from our previous chapters, that the further development of all other organisms out of such a cell presents no difficulty, for every animal and every plant, in the beginning of its individual life, is a simple cell. Man, as well as every other animal, is at first nothing but a simple egg-cell, a single lump of mucus, containing a kernel (p. 297, Fig. 5).
In the same way as the kernel of the organic cell arose in the interior or central mass of the originally homogeneous lump of plasma, by separation, so, too, the first cell-membrane was formed on its surface. This simple, but most important process, as has already been remarked, can likewise be explained in a purely physical manner, either as a chemical deposit, or as a physical condensation in the uppermost stratum of the mass, or as a secretion. One of the first processes of adaptation effected by the Moneron originating by spontaneous generation must have been the condensation346 of an external crust, which as a protecting covering shut in the softer interior from the hostile influences of the outer world. As soon as, by condensation of the homogeneous Moneron, a cell-kernel arose in the interior and a membrane arose on the surface, all the fundamental parts of the unit were furnished, out of which, by infinitely manifold repetition and combination, as attested by actual observation, the body of higher organisms is constructed.
As has already been mentioned, our whole understanding of an organism rests upon the cell theory established thirty years ago by Schleiden and Schwann. According to it, every organism is either a simple cell or a cell-community, a republic of closely connected cells. All the forms and vital phenomena of every organism are the collective result of the forms and vital phenomena of all the single cells of which it is composed. By the recent progress of the cell theory it has become necessary to give the elementary organisms, that is, the “organic” individuals of the first order, which are usually designated as cells, the more general and more suitable name of form-units, or plastids. Among these form-units we distinguish two main groups, namely, the cytods and the genuine cells. The cytods are, like the Monera, pieces of plasma without a kernel (p. 186, Fig. 1). Cells, on the other hand, are pieces of plasma containing a kernel or nucleus (p. 188, Fig. 2). Each of these two main groups of plastids is again divided into two subordinate groups, according as they possess or do not possess an external covering (skin, shell, or membrane). We may accordingly distinguish the following four grades or species of plastids, namely: 1. Simple cytods (p. 186, Fig. 1 A); 2. Encased cytods; 3. Simple cells (p. 188,347 Fig. 2 B); 4. Encased cells (p. 188, Fig. 2 A). (Gen. Morph. i. 269-289.)

Concerning the relation of these four forms of plastids to spontaneous generation, the following is the most probable:—1. The simple cytods (Gymnocytoda), naked particles of plasma without kernel, like the still living Monera, are the only plastids which directly come into existence by spontaneous generation. 2. The enclosed cytods (Lepocytoda), particles of plasma without kernel, which are surrounded by a covering (membrane or shell), arose out of the simple cytods either by the condensation of the outer layers of plasma or by the secretion of a covering. 3. The simple cells (Gymnocyta), or naked cells, particles of plasma with kernel, but without covering, arose out of the simple cytods by the condensation of the innermost particles of plasma into a kernel, or nucleus, by differentiation of a central kernel and peripheral cell-substance. 4. The enclosed cells (Lepocyta), or testaceous cells, particles of plasma with kernel and an outer covering (membrane or shell), arose either out of the enclosed cytods by the formation of a kernel, or out of the simple cells by the formation of a membrane. All the other forms of form-units, or plastids, met with, besides these, have only subsequently arisen out of these four fundamental forms by natural selection, by descent with adaptation, by differentiation and transformation.
By this theory of plastids, by deducing all the different forms of plastids, and hence, also, all organisms composed of them, from the Monera, we obtain a simple and natural connection in the whole series of the development of nature. The origin of the first Monera by spontaneous generation348 appears to us as a simple and necessary event in the process of the development of the earth. We admit that this process, as long as it is not directly observed or repeated by experiment, remains a pure hypothesis. But I must again say that this hypothesis is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation, that it has absolutely nothing forced or miraculous about it, and that certainly it can never be positively refuted. It must be taken into consideration that the process of spontaneous generation, even if it still took place daily and hourly, would in any case be exceedingly difficult to observe and establish with absolute certainty as such. With regard to the Monera, we find ourselves placed before the following alternative: either they are actually directly derived from pre-existing, or “created,” most ancient Monera, and in this case they would have had to propagate themselves unchanged for many millions of years, and to have maintained their original form of simple particles of plasma; or, the present Monera have originated much later in the course of the organic history of the earth, by repeated acts of spontaneous generation, and in this case spontaneous generation may take place now as well as then. The latter supposition has evidently much more probability on its side than the former.
If we do not accept the hypothesis of spontaneous generation, then at this one point of the history of development we must have recourse to the miracle of a supernatural creation. The Creator must have created the first organism, or a few first organisms, from which all others are derived, and as such he must have created the simplest Monera, or primæval cytods, and given them the capability349 of developing further in a mechanical way. I leave it to each one of my readers to choose between this idea and the hypothesis of spontaneous generation. To me the idea that the Creator should have in this one point arbitrarily interfered with the regular process of development of matter, which in all other cases proceeds entirely without his interposition, seems to be just as unsatisfactory to a believing mind as to a scientific intellect. If, on the other hand, we assume the hypothesis of spontaneous generation for the origin of the first organisms, which in consequence of reasons mentioned above, and especially in consequence of the discovery of the Monera, has lost its former difficulty, then we arrive at the establishment of an uninterrupted natural connection between the development of the earth and the organisms produced on it, and, in this last remaining lurking-place of obscurity, we can proclaim the unity of all Nature, and the unity of her laws of Development (Gen. Morph. i. 164)"

Monday, February 12, 2018

miscellaneous creation info

After a couple of years of administating the facebook group "literal Fundamental Creationists"
I have collected notes and links of added information. I focused on youtube links that were not on my normal channels and things I did not normally access.   Enjoy!
kent vs berkely

petrification kent hovind
edward bordreaux

darren marlar

doreen finkle show


yecheadquaters flood youtube


evolution hoaxes
liberal christian band

Drake equation

e coli
by ikester7579
A_e_coliI was debating an atheist the other day and they left a link to a site where they were doing a long-term experiment. He said that because they were able to get 50,000 generations out of E coli, that proved evolution. In which I responded: You still don’t get it. After 50,000 generations was the E coli still E coli? Of course he knew where I was going with this and refused to address the question.
Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.
The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.
If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.
Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.
debunking evolution
baby brain stem mt st helen  peer review episode

Rhino video carbon 14 dino fish fossils protein probability vardiman RATE  anti-matter

******** 101 arguments!…/60-000-antelope-died-four-days-no-…
Also see this article, "Mass Animal Death Events Worldwide"

fake pelvis

end times earth

spike psarris  Teno

***  hydroplate    brain

One of the forefathers of the megachurch movement endorses a pro evolution ministry.
""A wise, constructive rapprochement between faith and science is one of the world’s urgent needs, and this need will only intensify as the global era raises a host of new ethical issues. Few people have the expertise, wisdom, and prestige to make such a contribution. I welcome BioLogos warmly.
" - Dr. Os Guinness, Author and Social Critic - See more at:


RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES ANOTHER BLUNDER IN HIS DEFENSE OF FAIRY TALES (Friday Church News Notes, November 13, 2015,,, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from “Richard Dawkins Chides a Real Scientist,” Ken Ham, Answers in Genesis, Nov. 2, 2015: “On CNN, November 1, TV host Fareed Zakaria interviewed atheist/religious zealot Richard Dawkins. And no surprise, Dawkins, in his usual disparaging style, derided anyone who believes God created the universe and all life and who reject the fairy-tale belief that all life arose by natural processes. Dawkins particularly disparaged Dr. Ben Carson, running for US President. In this interview, Dawkins made the false claim (that he’s made many times) that ‘evolution is the bedrock of biology and biology is the bedrock of medicine.’ He went on to say this about Dr. Carson: ‘He clearly doesn’t understand the fundamental theorem of his own subject. That is a terrible indictment.’ Actually, by making such an ignorant and nonsensical statement, Dawkins is disproving his own accusation! Obviously, Dr. Carson didn’t need to believe in evolution to become a world-renowned pediatric neurosurgeon with sophisticated skills at age 33, receive 67 honorary doctorate degrees, separate conjoined twins, become a member of the Alpha Honor Medical Society, be named to the Horatio Alger Society of Distinguished Americans, be picked by Time magazine as one of the nation's 20 foremost physicians and scientists, for the Library of Congress to select him as one of 89 ‘Living Legends’ ... along with many other accomplishments. How does that impressive list line up with what Richard Dawkins has accomplished in this world? And if Dr. Carson can achieve all these accomplishments without believing in evolution, what then does evolution have to do with medicine? As I challenged TV’s Bill Nye ‘the Science Guy’ (and I have also challenged Dawkins), name one technological advancement (including one medical advancement) that could not have come about without a belief in evolution? Well, there are no such examples. Evolution is not the ‘bedrock’ of biology or medicine! Evolution is a fairy tale, akin to Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs!”

***  mastodon monkey unclean meat monkey song crystal bernard

So it is my theory that in extension to the inclusion of evolution into Christian theology the doctrine of atonement will suffer. The reason is that an old earth means that there was death before the Fall making death not the result of Man's sin, and blood not a real means of atoning for that sin. Therefore evolutionary "christians" will want to veer away from the the literal blood propitiation of our sins.
Tonight I was looking through a systematic theology. "God, Man & Salvation" a "biblical theology" of 3 Nazerene denomination theologians W.T. Purkiser, Richard S. Taylor, and Willard H. Taylor.
I noticed this....
"While the account of creation in the bible is not mythological, neither is it intended to be cosmological or scientific. It is not designed to answer the question "Where did the world come from?'" pg. 56
"Wiley wrote: The best Hebrew Exegesis has never regarded the days of genesis as solar days but as day periods of indefinite duratin..." pg 58
"and to the Romans He writes that God put forward (proetheto) Christ 'as an expiation by his blood' 3:25;cf. 1 John 2:2." page 358
"Death in mankind's history thus stands as the symbol of the tragic alienation between God and man because of sin." pg. 389
"Other interpretative factors are part of the meaning of the cross, but in this case Christ experience of death paradoxically declares that through death we can be victorious. It has been said that "the death of Christ transforms our thinking about death," Indeed it transforms our understanding of our existence;" 389
"Paul and the author of Hebrews emphasized that Christ acted in obedience to God's demands and in doing so the benefits accrued to mankind. In the representative deed of the cross Christ's obedience provided the possibility of our obedience and salvation." pg. 389
"The second Adam by obedience regained for us what was lost by the first Adam. Our obedience to the obedient son is the hope of our salvation." pg. 391
"Expiation is not directed chiefly toward the offended party. Rather it is directed towards that which has caused the break down in relationship" pg. 396 "According to these interpreters hilastrerion is not an act of placating an angry wrathful deity but an act of covering sin or annulling it's guilt." pg 397
Now for those new to theology these quotes seem fine with just a little confusion. However the devil is in the details!
So the theologians deny the scientific accuracy of genesis 1 and assume the day is ok with old earth.
As I stated blood and death are a part of nature within evolution. So there is nothing special to it and it makes you wonder why sin requires death or why death has the ability to reconcile God and man's relationship.
Bible believing evangelical scholars across the spectrum have come to deny "expiation" as the proper translation in Romans 3:25 and 1 John 2:2
Rom. 3:25 whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;"
1 John 2:2 and he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
Propitiation appeases the wrath of God. Does God have wrath?
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; "
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2 wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3 among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."
Revelation 6:16 and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 17 for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"
So then death is not a part of nature. Death is the penalty of sin and a sign of God's wrath!
Which is that which exalts the power of his grace!
Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: 13 (for until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) 18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
BTW, In Jesus obedience we have our imputed righteousness. We are not righteous on our own merits, we are righteous on Christ alone. And it is in that imputed righteousness that we can live for Christ without dead religion but in the spirit.
Romans 4: 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23 for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24 being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
Phil. 3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 that I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 2:15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
So we are saved by grace and not by law. The blood is where we get our grace and it has to propitiate the wrath of God, because we are sinners and our obedience is "dung" only his blood counts. But if blood does not count salvation does not work.

In his review of Dennis Sewell's book The Political Gene, creation scientist and author Dr. Jerry Bergman mentions one of the most deplorable events in evolutionary history – the story of Ota Benga. A pygmy from the Congo, Benga attracted a great deal of attention when he was put on display at the Bronx Zoo. He eventually ended his life by firing a bullet into his heart in 1916.
Promotional photo of Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in 1906. Ten years later he committed suicide at the age of 32.Ota Benga and an orangutan of similar height were placed inside a locked cage. Quite naturally, the display had people asking if Ota Benga was a monkey or a man. The zookeeper answered that he was a transitional form between man and monkey – the missing link. Sewell's book points out that evolutionists defended the display by noting that evolution is taught in the school textbooks and is, quote, "no more debatable than the multiplication table."
African American clergymen complained to zoo officials about the exhibit, saying, "The Darwinian theory is absolutely opposed to Christianity, and a public demonstration in its favor should not be permitted." But the New York Times disagreed, saying: "We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter. It is absurd to … moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies ... are very low in the human scale…"
The tragic story of Ota Benga clearly reveals the stark contrast between those who follow Christ and those who follow Darwin. Whose side are you on?  immaterial mind

rom CMI
Did Noah need oxygen above the mountains?
Ceinturion, wikimedia commons
The replica ark that Dutchman Johan Huibers built.
by Don Batten
Question: If mountain climbers need oxygen tanks to climb Mount Everest, how were Noah, his family, and the animals able to breathe on the Ark when they were above the mountains (‘ ... and the mountains were covered.’, Genesis 7:20)?
Answer: This question presupposes that Mount Everest was the height it is now (8,848 m = 29,028 ft), and that the air pressure would not have changed at that height above normal sea level with the addition of the flood water.
Mount Everest was not the height it is now during the Flood. Earth’s highest mountains have fossils of sea creatures at their tops, showing they were once under the sea. The possibilities are that the sea rose to cover the mountains, or the mountains were once under the sea and have since risen out of the sea, or a combination of the two.
Many creationist scientists think that mountains such as the Himalayas were probably built by catastrophic movement of the earth’s continental plates during and after the Flood (see Q&A: Plate Tectonics). Measurements indicate that the Himalayas are still rising. The rate of rise now measured is just the remnant of the processes that occurred much faster in the past.
Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height.
Mountain building occurred as a part of the geologic processes that deepened the oceans to take the waters off the land towards the end of the Flood. Some mountains could have existed before the Flood, but none like the current Himalayas, Alps, or Andes in height. In any case, there is only enough water on all the earth to cover mountains about 3 km (2 miles) high, if all the ocean basins were raised. So, if the waters were not 9 km deep, but much less, the question is no longer an issue.
Even if the flood waters were 9 km deep, would Noah and company have had trouble breathing?
Absolutely not. Air pressure is caused by the weight of air above the point where the pressure is being experienced. If the water was 9 kilometres deep, then the air that was in that 9 kilometres deep volume of what was atmosphere would have been pushed out and would then have sat above the water at 9 kilometers above the earth’s former surface.
However, if we assume the worst case scenario of the radius of the earth increasing by 9 km due to the water, the surface area of the earth plus water would have been greater than the earth so that the weight of air would have been spread over a bigger area so that the pressure would have been less.
How much would the air pressure have been reduced? Less than 0.3%. This is equivalent to standing on top of a 30-m (100-ft) high building at sea level! There would also have been a negligible effect on the pressure due to changes in the force of gravity (which affects the weight of the air).
It is certain, therefore, that those on the Ark would have had no trouble breathing—without oxygen tanks.
mark armitage wins lawsuit  milky way moving

Biologos claims:
• “Our worldview is based on a belief that the Bible is true – cover to cover, from Gen. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21.” -…/a-geological-response-to-the-movie-is…
Similarly, Mary Baker Eddy and a long series of cult leaders have also claimed this. However, they had claimed that Scripture couldn’t be understood as it appeared. Why not? Because Scripture is allegorical! Instead, only they had the key to understand the Scriptures. Thus, these leaders effectively built a wall between the Scriptures and the faithful.
Biologos has done the same thing. They too have built an insurmountable wall between Scripture and the Christian by claiming Genesis 1-11 to be allegorical and non-historical. Why have they done this? Because if Genesis is not historical, then they have succeeded in making room for evolution in a Bible that can no longer contradict its claims.
However, to remove the historical context is also to remove any clarity about interpretation. Perhaps even worse, denying the historicity of Genesis contradicts the rest of the Bible.
There are many evidences that the Bible regards Genesis as historical. The various genealogies extending back to Adam attest to its historicity. Even the words of Jesus:
• Matthew 19:4-6 (ESV) He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has [historically] joined together, let not man separate.”
Augustine warned about the possible effect of the pronunciations of the pundits of science of his day upon the faithful:
• Some of the weaker brothers and sisters, however, are in danger of going astray more seriously when they hear these godless people holding forth expertly and fluently on the “music of the spheres,” or on any questions you care to mention about the elements of this cosmos. They wilt and lose heart . . . and can scarcely bring themselves to touch the volumes [Scripture] they should be devouring with delight . . . [because] they have no time to be still (Psalm 46:11), and to see how sweet the Lord is (Psalm 34:8). And that is why they are too lazy to use the authority they have received from the Lord . . . . (Augustine 2002b, I.20.24).
Daniel Mann
Is the Bible historical or is it spiritual allegory? Of course, parts of the Bible are history, while other parts are not. So then, how can we determine the historical from the non-historical? Well, if we take the Bible seriously, we try to determine how the Bible regards it various writings. We compare Scripture with Scripture.
Let’s start with the Book of Jonah. Is it historical? Did a fish actually swallow Jonah and vomit him up on a beach after three days? One way to answer this question is to see how Jesus answered it. Evidently, Jesus regarded Jonah as history:
• He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:39-41; Mat 16:4; Luke 11:29-30)
Perhaps Jesus was referring to Jonah as an allegory? This doesn’t seem possible. If Jesus believed that Jonah had not actually been three days in a fish, then, to maintain the parallel, He didn’t believe that He too would actually be three days “in the heart of the earth.”
Besides, Jesus doesn’t say, “According to the tale, Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish.” Instead, He speaks as if this actually happened.
Jesus also warned Israel that “Nineveh will stand up at the judgment” of them. However, if all knew that Jonah was simply parabolic or allegorical, they would have scorned Jesus: “As it is fiction that Nineveh repented, so too is it fiction that Nineveh ‘will stand in judgment.’”
However, there was no such retort, as appropriate as this retort would have been had Jonah been regarded as a mere allegory or parable. Therefore, it seems that even the scholars at Jesus’ time had also regarded Jonah as history.
Jesus regarded the Book of Jonah as history. If we are followers of Jesus, then we are constrained to also be followers of His thinking and reasoning. He regarded Scripture as the undefiled Word of God (Matthew 5:16-18) and submitted to it in all regards. Quoting Deuteronomy 8, He responded to Satan:
• “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4)
This means that we too must live by “every word” and to understand them as Jesus did. If He regarded the first several chapters of Genesis as history – and we find that the Apostles also regarded these chapters as history – then we too are constrained to regard them as history.
How did Jesus regard the Creation Account? As historical? Evidently! He based His teaching on marriage and divorce on the historicity of Genesis 1 and 2:
• "Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' [Gen. 1:26-27] and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' [Gen. 2:24]? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Jesus’ entire argument is based upon the history of God’s work:
• He created them,
• He made them one flesh,
• And “joined [them] together.”
If God had only figuratively (not historically) created and joined them, then we would have every right to actually divorce as long as we don’t figuratively divorce. Therefore, one who is contemplating divorce could reason that, “I’ll divorce my wife, but I’ll remain married to her figuratively, in my heart.” Of course, this is absurd, but this is because a non-historical understanding of Jesus’ words is also absurd. Instead, Jesus’ clear intent was to demonstrate that divorce is wrong and that the Pharisees were wrong for justifying divorce.
Jesus built His case on the common understanding that Genesis is history. If Genesis hadn’t been widely regarded as history, the Pharisees could easily have retorted, “Well, God didn’t actually join them together, so we are not prohibited from actually divorcing our wives!” in which case, Jesus’ argument would have completely collapsed.
This is not to deny that Genesis 1 and 2 are difficult to interpret. However, if we start with the conclusion that these chapters are not history – and also that the New Testament’s interpretation of them shouldn’t guide our interpretation (Scripture interpreting Scripture) - then we consequently reject our most important interpretive guidelines and constraints. Operating with this interpretive “freedom,” the door is opened to just about any interpretation we’d like to paste on Genesis.
Did Paul regard these chapters as teaching history (even if they use poetry and theology)? Certainly, he understood that Adam was actually and historically created first (1 Cor. 11:8-9), that it was the woman who had been deceived (1 Timothy 2:13-14, referring to Genesis 3 as history), and that Jesus was the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:22). Had Adam been a myth, then this would suggest that Jesus also had been a myth.
Is it important to know that Genesis teaches history? Of course, not only is this question critical to interpretation, it is also critical to theology. Why? History and theology are inseparable. If we take away history, we also take away the theology based upon it. If Jesus hadn’t historically died on the Cross, we could have no theology of the Cross and of redemption. If Adam and Eve hadn’t actually rebelled against God causing the Fall, then God’s evolutionary program of creation would have been the problem and not our rebellion, undermining the theology of the entire Bible.
Theistic evolutionists argue that it is only because they have been able to “reconcile” evolution with the Bible that many educated “Christians” have remained in the Church. However, this suggests that God prefers a watered-down faith to no faith at all. However, this faulty answer reminds us of His Letter to the Church at Laodicea:
• “‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.” (Revelation 3:15-17)
Is the Book of Job purely allegorical/figurative or is it also historical? Again, to answer this question, we need to see how the Bible itself answers this question. Once again, the Bible regards the Book of Job as history:
• “Even if these three men--Noah, Daniel and Job--were in it, they could save only themselves by their righteousness,” declares the Sovereign LORD…”as surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, even if these three men were in it, they could not save their own sons or daughters. They alone would be saved, but the land would be desolate.” (Ezekiel 14:14-16)
God regarded Job as an actual, historical person, just as much as Daniel and Noah. James also regarded him as historical:
• As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy. (James 5:11)
James understood that God’s mercy to Job was a clear demonstration of the fact that “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” If the Book of Job had not been a matter of history, then this allegory would not have provided evidence of the mercy of God. Allegories do not provide evidence but illustration.
Many deny the historicity of a worldwide flood that had destroyed all mankind apart from Noah and his family. However, this account and the subsequent commentary bear all the signs of actual history:
• The waters prevailed above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep. And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was on the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens. They were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those who were with him in the ark. (Genesis 7:20-23)
How does the rest of the Bible regard the historicity of this account? We have already seen that Ezekiel regarded Noah as a real person. Jesus also regarded the account of the worldwide flood as history:
• “For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and they were unaware until the flood came and swept them all away, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.” (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:27)
If Noah was a mere allegory, then Jesus’ return was also nothing more than allegory. The Book of Hebrews also regards Noah and the flood as history:
• By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. (Hebrews 11:7)
Hebrews upholds Noah as an exemplar of the faith. Had this account been just a myth, “Noah” could not be upheld along with Abraham, Isaac, and Moses.
Peter invokes Noah and the flood as history and theology to prove that we must take seriously God’s promise of a future judgment:
• For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment. (2 Peter 2:4-9)
Had these not been actual and historical events but rather myths, Peter’s reasoning would have fallen apart. If these events were merely empty myths about a judging God, then the future judgment should also be regarded as a myth. However, Peter clearly believed that these events really took place. He therefore concluded: “then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” Peter couldn’t have possibly drawn such a conclusion from myths.
An historical worldwide flood teaches important theological truths:
1. God judges.
2. God rescues those who are His.
3. We must become reconciled to Him and not to the philosophies of this day that offer their own variety of hope.
However, such theology is distasteful. Instead, many of today’s “Christians” assuage their conscience with the belief that these are just myths and that a loving God would never do such things to His creation. However, we need only open our eyes to human history to observe that our omnipotent God allows all manner of horrors to occur.
Let us therefore humble ourselves before the God of the Bible and walk in His light.  radio carbon young earth

“Magicdirtism” is a much superior and more descriptive term for what most people call “evolution.” It is the idea that dirt did magic all by itself and turned itself into people without the Creator God of the Bible. Evolutionists use the term “evolution” to confuse the issue of what they really think, and not allow people to comprehend how stupid the idea really appears, if you think about it critically.
“Magicdirtism” is a better term for the idea that dirt somehow did magic and turned itself into people without a magician to do the magic. This avoids the confusion that magicdirters create by using the term “evolution,” which can be only change in species, and does not include abiogenesis."  Ed garret  armitage

"Global warming is very much a creation-related issue. Mineral evidence shows CO2 in the atmosphere before the Flood was about 15X greater than today. Fossil plants show the avg global temp was about 10 warmer than today, all of that warmth being at high latitudes and in the ocean. I.e., the tropics weren’t hotter than today. The fossils also show that the whole Earth was wetter and greener than today. In other words, global warming happened in the pre-flood world, and it was a *good* thing. So why should we fear it today? For details, see the ravings of a creationist who thinks global warming is probably happening today … again." - Russ Humphreys




**  dino skin

**  ** flash cosmology

**The Hitler - Darwin - Evolution Parallel**
You'll have to click on the picture to see the whole thing. But it's well worth the read
Side note: Out of the nearly 25 years I have been doing this, I have never see anyone make this comparison. And I am surprised I did not see this before. I was debating the other day using this evidence and it just clicked and I was like Dang. And you wonder why a lot of this stuff was blamed on Christians? This was to throw us off of seeing the actual truth. ~ Issac Bourne jobe martin

hartnetts blog