Tree Devotionals (Contain Bible Verses, so enter at your own risk)

It’s not the Creators fault the world is broken, it’s ours. But you’re shifting off topic. We were discussing a YE and my point was it’s harder to believe in a world accidentally created than a world that was created by design.

- Would you be able to provide evidence for something coming from nothing?

- Can you provide evidence of an organism evolving into a completely different organism?

- How can you explain the complexities of our world happening on accident? Can you replicate it?
So now you and your designer/creator get to pick and choose what he is, and is not responsible for? Your sure seem to make a lot of concessions for this god of yours.

And to be clear, a fella who believes in virgins giving birth or dead men rising from the grave is in no position to be asking for evidence of anything from anybody.
 
A. mexicanus.
The Mexican tetra.
There’s one form that has functioning eyes and some pigmentation to its skin, and another form found in caves that does not have eyes and lacks skin pigmentation, and other forms in between with degenerate eyes, skin covering their eyes, and a little pigmentation. The blind ones have a better olfactory sense, are able to store 4x more body fat in order to deal with longer periods of time without food, and have sensitive taste buds all over it’s head.
These two fish in the pic are the exact same species.
Neat, huh?
DECE2851-1AB1-488E-BB1A-CB8FB24676C2.jpeg
 
A. mexicanus.
The Mexican tetra.
There’s one form that has functioning eyes and some pigmentation to its skin, and another form found in caves that does not have eyes and lacks skin pigmentation, and other forms in between with degenerate eyes, skin covering their eyes, and a little pigmentation. The blind ones have a better olfactory sense, are able to store 4x more body fat in order to deal with longer periods of time without food, and have sensitive taste buds all over it’s head.
These two fish in the pic are the exact same species.
Neat, huh?
View attachment 81450
A fish is a fish. Micro-evolution is clearly noticeable in the world. We’re looking for proof of macro- evolution where one organism becomes something completely different.
 
Second off, whew. It looks like a lot has happened in the last few days.

As @Willber said a few weeks ago: I feel like I have been effectively been banned from this site (for the second time now). Hence the new account. I tried logging in from different devices. Other pages would load no problem. I could even look at treebuzz as long as I didn't log in. If I even could log in, things would not load, or were painfully slow, and I was unable to post.

If this was intentional on Treebuzz's part, I'm quite disappointed and don't think I said anything to warrant such treatment. Oh well, hopefully it doesn't happen again.

I think some people owe Willber an apology for how he was treated over that...
 
A. mexicanus.
The Mexican tetra.
There’s one form that has functioning eyes and some pigmentation to its skin, and another form found in caves that does not have eyes and lacks skin pigmentation, and other forms in between with degenerate eyes, skin covering their eyes, and a little pigmentation. The blind ones have a better olfactory sense, are able to store 4x more body fat in order to deal with longer periods of time without food, and have sensitive taste buds all over it’s head.
These two fish in the pic are the exact same species.
Neat, huh?
View attachment 81450
That's pretty interesting stuff. Thanks for sharing, Jonny!

This reminded me of the July 17 page I read in Bruce Malone's "Have You Considered?" book:

"Did you know that the blind cave fish were designed to go blind?! Scientists once thought it was by accident. Cave fish are a generic term for freshwater fish found in- you guessed it, caves. Geneticists have found that blind cave fish living in caves are almost identical to those in the river outside the cave. The only difference seems to be that the cave fish have smaller eyes, or no eyes, or eyes lighter in color. Actually, for fish living in a dark cave, this is an advantage. A highly developed visual system uses up to 15% more energy and soft eye tissue is easily damaged if bumped into the walls of a cave. Instead, cave fish depend on their sense of smell and sensitivity to water pressure changes. Also, being in a dark cave, eye coloring has no purpose and it takes extra energy to maintain eye color. So, if cave fish have eyes, they are lighter in color. Are these changes a mutational degeneration? Actually, cave fish are not regressing, but well designed to live in caves.

Conrad Waddington, a biologist, proposed the idea that many animals have a mechanism allowing environmental changes to switch on genes, when the change would benefit the animal. Such a mechanism is found in the blind cave fish- involving a protein called HSP90. When a cave fish embryo experiences subtle factors, such as lower electrical conductivity in the water (it is believed that the cave water has low conductivity because the water has less salt), the growing embryo senses these outside conditions and turns off the HSP90 protein. This causes a reduction in fish’s eye size. These eyes have shallow sockets and can even be scaled over. When these same blind cave fish were introduced into water outside the cave, their offspring were born with fully functioning eyes within two generations!

Scientists are discovering that we have “flexible genetics.” This is no surprise to Bible-believing Christians; God has simply pre-programmed creatures with the ability to adapt to different environments."
 
Tom, your soft tissue dinosaur bone is obviously fake.

A book written by people, changed countless times (unless someone had an accurate count) for political power purposes, adjusted to fit undeniable discovered knowledge says so.

It is 6000 y.o., or the work of the devil, and possibly both.
@southsoundtree You know your trees, and I appreciate all of the tree wisdom you have poured onto this site. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about here though. The book that you repute contains the answers to all of the questions you ask. Have you ever read the Bible? Have you given it a fair chance?

What you say about being the Bible being changed countless times is simply untrue. It has got to be the most reliable of all ancient texts. Comparatively, the number of ancient copies of Biblical texts and ancient manuscripts far exceeds any other ancient work and these can be compared for transcription errors.

Have you ever heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were found in the 1950's (I think?). The scrolls were a thousand years old, but the biblical texts that were found said the same thing as what has been passed down since. They were a critical blow to those espousing your argument at the time.
 
Tom, I get wanting to understand where folks are coming from with their beliefs. A valiant endeavor for sure, but im curious about your curiosity on this subject.

Many folks hold outlandish foundational beliefs. I'm wondering why you are engaging with this subject compared to some other absurd ideas I've seen posted on this site that have been left alone or shut down.

To quote Asimov
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'"
 
Why should someone who believes in the supernatural be in no position to ask for evidence of origin claims made by those who do not
It’s really simple Gordon. Someone who is providing no evidence to support their narrative is in no position to be asking and demanding that others do so (no, god’s word doesn’t count).

The do as I say, not as I do bullshit is just that. Bullshit.
 
Last edited:
Tom, your soft tissue dinosaur bone is obviously fake.
Just curious, did you watch any of the video or click on Tom's Google search? This is not made up creationist propaganda. It is well documented in scientific publications. I don't think the woman who first discovered the dinosaur soft-tissue in 2005 was a Christian or coming at it from a Young Earth perspective; it was in major publications. This is a common occurrence now that they know it exists and are looking for it.
 
The paleontologist lady (Mary Schweitzer) was mentored by another paleontologist (Jack Horner. sp?), They both have dug fossils in the Hell Creek area and Mary noticed that there was an organic odor which she described as cadaverous when unearthing fossils, so she asked Jack about the odor, and he said it was not unusual.
 
The book that you repute contains the answers to all of the questions you ask

I've asked many questions in this thread which have been answered with something along the lines of 'its written in the bible' without any sort of explanation other than the circular...its written in the bible.

If dinosaurs lived at the same time of Noah, YE era, where is the record of their remains showing up in the same strata? I just don't get it...
 
In an attempt to get back to the titular focus of this thread, here goes nothing:

#12

I’ve written about sowing and reaping on this site before, and some of this might be a repeat of something else floating around on here, but I love the principle of sowing and reaping. I can’t help but think about it this time of the year. I’ve been sowing lots of flower seeds in various beds in my yard and also reaping the blooms from all of the bulbs I planted last Fall (sidenote: feel free to share a pic of some of your favorite flowers currently blooming in your part of the country to brighten up the Buzz).

Sowing and reaping is a universally accepted principle from the natural world. You reap what you sow. If you sow zinnias, you get zinnias; not daisies. If you sow carrots, you don’t get watermelons.

Sometimes, we even apply this principle to our own lives. I see it in play all the time on this site, especially when new guys are trying to start businesses and ask for advice. “Just work hard, make proper cuts, clean up well, and finding work will be no issue.” How many times have you heard that?

But what about sowing and reaping as a spiritual law? What do you think?

Remember Job’s three friends? What miserable comforters they were. They kept telling Job that all the tragedy that had befallen him was a result of some sin he had committed. They got angry with him when he refused to admit to committing any sin of a magnitude that would warrant such retribution. Or, consider when Jesus encountered a man blind from birth in John 9. “His disciples asked Him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?’ Jesus answered, ‘It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him.’” And after saying these things, Jesus healed the man.

There was once a man visiting someone in prison. As he walked down the corridor, he saw an inmate mending some pants. The man asked the inmate, “What are you doing, sewing?” “No,” the man said, “reaping.” We have to be careful in our own lives and when looking at the lives of others not to confuse sowing with reaping. Job’s friends were wrong. Job was in the midst of the trial. He was sowing. He reaped at the end of the book when God restored all that he had lost! The blind man was not reaping from his or his parent’s sin. He sowed faith and was given sight!

“Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary” (Galatians 6:7-9).

No amount of good works can save you. There is only one thing in this life you can sow to reap eternal life: Faith in Jesus Christ.
 
Tom, I think a sensible answer to your question is that even from an evolutionary position, considering the hundreds of thousands of years claimed for the ascent of man from the elusive ancestor, and all the supposed millions of hominoid creatures during that supposed timeframe, there is actually very little evidence of that either. This from an article written by Eric Lyons:

"Humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. In a 1981 New Scientistarticle, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table” (89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). In 2004, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are among the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found."

Now consider how many humans may have existed upon the earth according to the Biblical timeframe, which the Bible says lived for a period of some 1650 years before the flood. The odds of finding a fossil human are exceedingly small.
 
I read research by Jonathan Gray, who promoted Ron Wyatts discoveries, (other interesting discoveries that have been shunned by the main stream, even many christians), where there is evidence in photos of skeletal remains of humans that were measured at around 12 feet or more.
I think they were discovered in Australia.
Which it seems have been intentionally shunned/kept from the public for reasons of the questions that would inevitably arise.
 
questions that would inevitably arise.


Of course there will be questions. Have you been following the thread about the '⅓ face cut'?

Please setup links to what you're talking about. It's easier to make your point instead of going by vague memories.

Here are some questions that inevitably arose a few years ago.


PIctures were printed in Weekly World News...and everyone knows the trusted and stellar reputation that it has. LOL


Why are statements made that are so easy to debunk?
 
Last edited:

New threads New posts

Kask Stihl NORTHEASTERN Arborists Wesspur TreeStuff.com Teufelberger Westminster X-Rigging Teufelberger
Back
Top Bottom