Creation vs. Evolution

[Mark SeaSigh]

Yes! Finally!!!!!!!!

See, you know what I'm Asking For.

This really shouldn't have taken so Long.

Anyway, Archaeopteryx is one of Several Feathered Dinosaurs. However, they do now admit, that it is Not the ancestor of any of the Modern Birds today.

Is This The Fossil that proves the Theory of Evolution is true to you, AL?

From Wiki;

"Creationists will claim that many are not transitional forms because they come after archaeopteryx, iconically the "first bird". This is a misunderstanding of what a transitional form is: not necessarily a direct ancestor or descendant of two distinct species, but a creature that has traits of two different species, illustrating an evolutionary link. Even archaeopteryx is now considered not ancestral to modern birds (a "dethroning" of which creationists made much hay), with other theropod groups considered closer to the transition. "

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

Even though Wiki Knows that this is not a Transitional Fossil, they still Keep it Listed as the Most Popular, or Most Well Known Transitional Fossil.

Why do you think that is AL? Lack of Evidence of Transitional Fossils?

=M=

But thank you for actually Trying to Post a Real Transitional Fossil.
At least you gave it a Shot. Even though you Picked the First one on the List, Meaning you have Not Studied the Transitional Fossils.

Well, this fossil is no Longer Considered a Transitional Fossil, But What other Fossil, or Modern Living animal, Proves to you that Evolution has any Basis In Reality?

=========================================

Here are some other Examples of What Evolutionists think are Feathered Dinosaurs;

Also, from that Great Wiki Article above;

"if archeopteryx hadn't been discovered until the present, it would likely be considered a new type of "feathered dinosaur". Of course, per a cladistic understanding of things, archeopteryx is definitely a feathered dinosaur, and other feathered dinosaurs (the birds) are alive and widespread today."

Here are some Examples;

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

And MicroRaptor;

Chickenosaurus Rex

Now tell me? Are these Dinos with Feathers?

Cause they Kinda Look Just Like Birds to Me. ; D

===================================


Check out What Archaeopteryx is Supposed to Look like With Flesh and Feathers;

It looks less like a Dino, and more Like We have Found an Extinct Bird, which coexisted with The Dinosaurs!!!!

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear noguru,

Great job you did on that cite for Stuu. I would have never caught that. Where do you all come up with these things. Noguru, I'm gonna PM you 2nite. A big later. You take good care and God Bless Your Thoughts And Heart!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Mark,

Wonderful post indeed (#4502). I didn't want to use Quote on that. Too long. That colorful bird looks fantastic. You've done an excellent job and you keep it coming!! Will chat more with you soon. I've got my heart set on cheese and crackers!! I'm hungry!!

May the Lord Continue To Help You In Your Personal Quest, Which We See!!

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

I don't have so many answers to so many questions Michael but that really doesn't bother me.
Not having all the answers and accepting that fact seems a rather better way to go about life than trying to convince yourself that you do.

Oh Definitely! It's just I'm really having a trouble with an issue, and don't want to risk being wrong about something, because it's close to my heart.

I've never tried to convince you how old the Earth is but if you want to know then why not read what reputable science has to say and make your own conclusions from real evidence?
Don't listen to YECs because a rigid adherence to a literal interpretation of Genesis is much more important to them than reality or science.

Well, Al, I have looked into it and it seems like the earth is billions of years old. From what I've read. My qualm is about the age of man. I've also checked that out and came up with about 200,000 years old. Now I have 6days telling me that our Adam from 6,000 years ago was the first Adam. I already have a reply to him on my MS Word Processor. I just want to pray and make sure it's right to post it. I can't be wrong, because I can't 'bear false witness' in God's name. It has to be positively true, and about this, I had thought it was from the Lord, but I have to be positive in order to answer. Otherwise it's my butt on the line deceiving other brethren Can't have that. I will keep praying.

If anyone is lying here it's YECs, but it isn't you, since you can admit when you simply don't know, which imo is being completely honest.

Thanks so very much Al. I can't bear false witness in God's name and I'm just being extremely careful. I try to be honest, too. Have to have good communication. It is a MUST!

Good Day Today!! It's 2am here in AZ.

Michael

 

[alwight]

Yes! Finally!!!!!!!!

See, you know what I'm Asking For.

This really shouldn't have taken so Long.

Anyway, Archaeopteryx is one of Several Feathered Dinosaurs. However, they do now admit, that it is Not the ancestor of any of the Modern Birds today.

Is This The Fossil that proves the Theory of Evolution is true to you, AL?

From Wiki;

"Creationists will claim that many are not transitional forms because they come after archaeopteryx, iconically the "first bird". This is a misunderstanding of what a transitional form is: not necessarily a direct ancestor or descendant of two distinct species, but a creature that has traits of two different species, illustrating an evolutionary link. Even archaeopteryx is now considered not ancestral to modern birds (a "dethroning" of which creationists made much hay), with other theropod groups considered closer to the transition. "

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs

Even though Wiki Knows that this is not a Transitional Fossil, they still Keep it Listed as the Most Popular, or Most Well Known Transitional Fossil.

Why do you think that is AL? Lack of Evidence of Transitional Fossils?

As Wiki points out Mark you seem to show a (creationists?) typical "misunderstanding of what a transitional form actually is".

The chances that any particular ancient fossil actually happens to be a direct ancestral link to modern creatures is remote. Fossils simply represent what was typical of the types of life around at the time and the kind of changes and adaptions that could be seen. It really doesn't matter if any particular ones actually did form a direct physical link to modern day species.

As a creationist you have, no doubt, already heard such an explanation before which is perhaps why creationists will typically misunderstand it and instead choose to bleat that there are "no transitional fossils", but creationists don't really want to understand, do you Mark? :nono:

 

[Stuu]

Ohhhh Stuu... You sometimes seem so angry.

Lets review...

6 days

"From ICR...
evolutionists practically always lose such debates! The fact is that all genuine scientific evidence fits the creation model of origins much better than the evolution model. The fact that creationists generally win these debates is not at all because creationists are better debaters, but simply because there is no real scientific evidence for evolution. In fact, the National Center for Science Education, whose specific function is to monitor and oppose activities of creationists, recommends that evolutionists should always decline invitations to debate creationists, acknowledging that they will probably lose the debate."

Stuu

"Please cite a reference for the National Centre for Science Education saying that they acknowledge they will "probably lose the debate", or have the decency to withdraw, maybe with an apology if you have any integrity."


So I quoted Eugenie Scott. Perhaps you didn't recognize the name but she is the founding executive director of the National Centre for Science Education .

"there are examples of "good" debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. "

If you want her spin on why creationists win debates check out the atheism site Talk Origins. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debating/globetrotters.html


Now what are you upset about? That you perhaps owe the apology?


What does cite mean? Perhaps in a scientific publication it has a different meaning but the common definition of the word means "To quote"

From dictionary.com
cite

1 /saɪt/ Show Spelled [sahyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), cit·ed, cit·ing.
1.
to quote



Review of the review...

Evolutionists such as Eugenie Scott admit creationists win most debates.

Where exactly did you quote Eugenie Scott? You have given us a lying creationist website's claim, not a direct quote of her saying she thought a debate would be lost, with the book or website where I can go to read it for myself. IRC is not a source that represents the view of Eugenie Scott, books or websites written by her are sources to be cited.

Another fail. If I claimed that Ken Ham had admitted that he was wrong about natural selection, you wouldn't want me to be quoting Richard Dawkins's telling us about it, you would want to be reading a direct quote of Ken Ham. So where is your direct, full, original work quote of Eugenie Scott?

And can you afford all this tuition in real science we should be charging you for?

Stuart

 

[alwight]

Oh Definitely! It's just I'm really having a trouble with an issue, and don't want to risk being wrong about something, because it's close to my heart.

I can't claim to share your fears that being wrong in this life will ultimately affect anything now or after I'm gone Michael.
In fact I'd suggest that you live this life without assuming any dire eternal consequences will ensue for any human failings that we all surely have, just be an honest person and generally respect others, unless they knowingly lie and cheat.

Well, Al, I have looked into it and it seems like the earth is billions of years old. From what I've read. My qualm is about the age of man. I've also checked that out and came up with about 200,000 years old. Now I have 6days telling me that our Adam from 6,000 years ago was the first Adam. I already have a reply to him on my MS Word Processor. I just want to pray and make sure it's right to post it. I can't be wrong, because I can't 'bear false witness' in God's name. It has to be positively true, and about this, I had thought it was from the Lord, but I have to be positive in order to answer. Otherwise it's my butt on the line deceiving other brethren Can't have that. I will keep praying.

I can't prove how old the Earth is Michael, I simply note that cleverer people than I who specialise in a wide variety of sciences typically seem to conclude pretty much the same thing. The evidence as presented and explained seems to make much more sense to me than a YEC type adherence to a literal Genesis.

I doubt that a God worthy of your faith would choose to punish anyone simply for being genuine and honest even if wrong.

Again I can't prove that modern humans have been around for 200,000 years but that seems like a good enough working approximation to me that fits the evidence, as I understand it. However you must understand that I don't have to try to force-fit a literal Genesis into my thinking.
In fact trying to make the Adam & Eve story be anything other than allegory and myth is simply turning it into silly nonsense without any message to tell. I suspect that the original author would be dismayed that some people today couldn't understand that.

Thanks so very much Al. I can't bear false witness in God's name and I'm just being extremely careful. I try to be honest, too. Have to have good communication. It is a MUST!

Good Day Today!! It's 2am here in AZ.

Michael

You seem like a very honest person to me Michael, just accept that we don't have to know everything and even less need to pretend that we do.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

As Wiki points out Mark you seem to show a (creationists?) typical "misunderstanding of what a transitional form actually is".

The chances that any particular ancient fossil actually happens to be a direct ancestral link to modern creatures is remote. Fossils simply represent what was typical of the types of life around at the time and the kind of changes and adaptions that could be seen. It really doesn't matter if any particular ones actually did form a direct physical link to modern day species.



As a creationist you have, no doubt, already heard such an explanation before which is perhaps why creationists will typically misunderstand it and instead choose to bleat that there are "no transitional fossils", but creationists don't really want to understand, do you Mark? :nono:

"but creationists don't really want to understand, do you Mark?"

No, I want to Understand, that is Why I'm asking these Questions;

Do you realize that all the other transitional Fossils on the Wiki Link you posted, Look just like Modern animals?

For instance;

Now, How is this Supposed 13 Million Year Old Sea Horse, different anatomically from today's modern Sea Horses?

========================================

So, why do we Find All Modern day Creatures in Fossil Layers that are Supposed to be Tens of Millions of Years old?

Quite The Contrary, My My Dear Watson; If all Species Came out of Other Species, over Hundreds of Millions of Years, There should Be Many Transitional Fossils;

And the Organisms that are Recorded in the Fossil Record, should have Differing Anatomical Features than Modern Ones do Today.

That is, if the Theory of Evolution is True.


=M=

"It really doesn't matter if any particular ones actually did form a direct physical link to modern day species."

I totally agree with you there, However.

 

[alwight]

"but creationists don't really want to understand, do you Mark?"

No, I want to Understand, that is Why I'm asking these Questions;

And there was me thinking you were simply being a creationist, oh dear, I have so wronged you, (sob).

Do you realize that all the other transitional Fossils on the Wiki Link you posted, Look just like Modern animals?

For instance;

Now, How is this Supposed 13 Million Year Old Sea Horse, different anatomically from today's modern Sea Horses?

Well, that particular seahorse at least seems to now be extinct but since seahorses aren't exactly my field of excellence I think I'll just presume that those more knowledgeable than me could point out the major differences. lain:
I don't know what exactly you expect from natural selection other than if something works well enough it will endure, if it doesn't then it won't. There doesn't always have to be any dramatic changes if maybe more subtle adaptions are good enough.

So, why do we Find All Modern day Creatures in Fossil Layers that are Supposed to be Tens of Millions of Years old?

Quite The Contrary, My My Dear Watson; If all Species Came out of Other Species, over Hundreds of Millions of Years, There should Be Many Transitional Fossils;

I don't agree, fossils are generally relatively rare and usually require very specific conditions that don't always exist, but in one way all fossils are transitional but in another perhaps none in fact actually are since they only represent a fairly random moment in time.

And the Organisms that are Recorded in the Fossil Record, should have Differing Anatomical Features than Modern Ones do Today.

That is, if the Theory of Evolution is True.

As far as I'm aware there's no evolutionary rule whereby great changes must always occur, in fact natural selection may just keep on selecting for the same basic attributes if they are doing the job well enough.

"It really doesn't matter if any particular ones actually did form a direct physical link to modern day species."

I totally agree with you there, However.

Oh no, I'm not supposed to have creationists agreeing with me, I may have to rethink my position. :think:

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

AL,

Are there any other Fossils? That Prove Evolution to you, One that could be an Intermediate Fossil, Possibly from that List you Cited?

One that Doesn't contain all of the Anatomical Features, that Today's Version of it Contains, Perhaps?

Or, just include a Picture of Whatever Fossil, that Makes you believe that the Process of Speciation, has Any Basis in Reality Whatsoever?

=M=


Also, I would Like to now Challenge any Evolutionist, To Tell me the Difference in their Personal Definitions of the Words Mutate and Evolve.

Any Takers?

==================================

Question

Truth

Understanding

 

[darrellcomte]

What so you think would happen if the scripture of Genesis "1" could be translated as a direct comparison to the scientific account like the big bang. What will be the reaction of people from the different points of view? or at least yours?

 

[alwight]

AL,

Are there any other Fossils? That Prove Evolution to you, One that could be an Intermediate Fossil, Possibly from that List you Cited?

One that Doesn't contain all of the Anatomical Features, that Today's Version of it Contains, Perhaps?

Or, just include a Picture of Whatever Fossil, that Makes you believe that the Process of Speciation, has Any Basis in Reality Whatsoever?

Scientific theories are not expected to be proven, they exist to explain the evidence or be falsified.
Individual fossils don't particularly convince me, what I find convincing is that Darwinian evolution can explain all the evidence and that the theory makes rational sense.

Also, I would Like to now Challenge any Evolutionist, To Tell me the Difference in their Personal Definitions of the Words Mutate and Evolve.

To mutate is a random or chance happening while to evolve involves a series of adaptions typically controlled by there being a need or benefit in adapting existing.

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

What so you think would happen if the scripture of Genesis "1" could be translated as a direct comparison to the scientific account like the big bang. What will be the reaction of people from the different points of view? or at least yours?

I believe it can Be.

Genesis 1:1

In the Beginning God Created the Heavens and The Earth.

BANG!

Anyway, what I find interesting, is that In Either the Big Bang Theory, or in the Literature of the Biblical Work, all of the Heavens are Being Spread out from the Center.

=M=

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Scientific theories are not expected to be proven, they exist to explain the evidence or be falsified.
Individual fossils don't particularly convince me, what I find convincing is that Darwinian evolution can explain all the evidence and that the theory makes rational sense.


To mutate is a random or chance happening while to evolve involves a series of adaptions typically controlled by there being a need or benefit in adapting existing.

That's Right, So after 150+ Years of Well Documented Fossil Finds, and not one Intermediate Looking Fossil.

It's Time to Lay this Theory to Rest.

Instead of Finding fossils of Less Complex organisms, We are finding All Modern Animals Going Back Tens of Millions of years, unchanged. If that is true, How can Evolution be considered True?

Evolution says that animals Will, "Change And Adapt over time"; So, What do you Evols make of all the Modern Animals in Supposed 100 Million Year old Rock Layers?

=M=


Thank you for trying to attempt to Show me the Difference Between Mutate and Evolve.

If you ever want to Clarify Further, Feel Free. LOL!

 

[alwight]

That's Right, So after 150+ Years of Well Documented Fossil Finds, and not one Intermediate Looking Fossil.

It's Time to Lay this Theory to Rest.

Then find something from evidence that doesn't fit with the ToE.
Then what, "God did it"?

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Then find something from evidence that doesn't fit with the ToE.
Then what, "God did it"?

Yes, of course! God did do it, Very Good! : D

1. Speciation, Has Proved to have Never Been Observed; within the Fossil Record, or in Nature.


2. It has been said that Finding a Fossil of a Modern Living Organism in the Pre-Cambrian Layer, would throw a Metaphorical Wrench in the Theory of Evolution. Here it Is;

Stromatolites-
The oldest fossils at Grand Canyon are 1,200 million to 740 million years old. Stromatolites are the limestone structures formed by photosynthesizing bacteria called cyanobacteria. They created layers of alternating slimy bacteria and sediment in very shallow water, dominating shallow seas until predators, such as trilobites, came into the picture. Today stromatolites only live in a few shallow ocean areas with high salinity. The salinity deters predation and allows the stromatolites to survive.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/fossils.htm


3. Plants Were Made With Medicines In them, they were Made to Effect the Body in a Positive Way; Which also proves a Caring Creator, who would take the Time to Leave Medicines in Herbs for the Man to Use them.

https://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/comindxa.html


4. The word Evolution, Means the Same as Mutation. Mutate is a Defined word, The Word "Evolve" has never Been Defined. Mutation is Observable, Evolution (Speciation) Has Never Ever Been Observed.


Evolution = Things Get Better, All on their own, through "forces" in the Universe, Through Lots of Time.

Reality = Things Get Better, only if being acted upon by an outside force. (God, or Man) someone Capable of using the Forces of the Universe created by God to Keep things from getting worse.



=M=


Evolutionists have no Evidence to Support Their Claims; that Organisms Speciate Over Time, I mean.
However, I have Plenty of Evidence that Supports My Claims, That Modern animals Have always Looked the way they Do, and there are no "New Forms" until someone Creates One,


===================================


How about Number Two, Above?

Why have Stromatolites not "Adapted", or "Changed" over a Supposed 1.2 Billion Year Time Frame?

 

[Stuu]

Anyway, what I find interesting, is that In ... the Big Bang Theory, ...all of the Heavens are Being Spread out from the Center.

What gave you that idea?

Stuart

 

[Stuu]

Yes, of course! God did do it, Very Good! : D

1. Speciation, Has Proved to have Never Been Observed; within the Fossil Record, or in Nature.


2. It has been said that Finding a Fossil of a Modern Living Organism in the Pre-Cambrian Layer, would throw a Metaphorical Wrench in the Theory of Evolution. Here it Is;

Stromatolites-
The oldest fossils at Grand Canyon are 1,200 million to 740 million years old. Stromatolites are the limestone structures formed by photosynthesizing bacteria called cyanobacteria. They created layers of alternating slimy bacteria and sediment in very shallow water, dominating shallow seas until predators, such as trilobites, came into the picture. Today stromatolites only live in a few shallow ocean areas with high salinity. The salinity deters predation and allows the stromatolites to survive.

http://www.nps.gov/grca/naturescience/fossils.htm


3. Plants Were Made With Medicines In them, they were Made to Effect the Body in a Positive Way; Which also proves a Caring Creator, who would take the Time to Leave Medicines in Herbs for the Man to Use them.

https://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/comindxa.html


4. The word Evolution, Means the Same as Mutation. Mutate is a Defined word, The Word "Evolve" has never Been Defined. Mutation is Observable, Evolution (Speciation) Has Never Ever Been Observed.


Evolution = Things Get Better, All on their own, through "forces" in the Universe, Through Lots of Time.

Reality = Things Get Better, only if being acted upon by an outside force. (God, or Man) someone Capable of using the Forces of the Universe created by God to Keep things from getting worse.



=M=


Evolutionists have no Evidence to Support Their Claims; that Organisms Speciate Over Time, I mean.
However, I have Plenty of Evidence that Supports My Claims, That Modern animals Have always Looked the way they Do, and there are no "New Forms" until someone Creates One,


===================================


How about Number Two, Above?

Why have Stromatolites not "Adapted", or "Changed" over a Supposed 1.2 Billion Year Time Frame?

Read a proper book on the subject and get back to us.

We won't even demand an apology for wasting our time.

Stuart

 

[Mark SeaSigh]

Read a proper book on the subject and get back to us.

We won't even demand an apology for wasting our time.

Stuart

You know, Stuu;

Not answering a Direct Question, and just Objecting To it, without Giving a Further Explanation, Just makes you look like you don't know the Answer.

=M=

So if Living Organisms Really do Adapt over time, Why are the Above ones Supposed to have remained Unchanged for over 1.2 Billion Years?

Not Million, But Billion.

Any takers? Stuu?

Expansion of the Universe is Science, Unlike the Theory of Evolution

[Job 9:8 KJV] 8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

[Psalms 104:2 KJV] 2 Who coverest [thyself] with light as [with] a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain:

[Isaiah 40:22 KJV] 22 [It is] he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof [are] as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

[Isaiah 45:12 KJV] 12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

[Jeremiah 10:12 KJV] 12 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.


Praise God For His Works, For God is Worthy of Praise!!!!!

[Job 9:10 KJV] 10 Which doeth great things past finding out; yea, and wonders without number.

 

[DavisBJ]

3. Plants Were Made With Medicines In them, they were Made to Effect the Body in a Positive Way; Which also proves a Caring Creator, who would take the Time to Leave Medicines in Herbs for the Man to Use them.

https://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/comindxa.html

Mark, is it also true that that very same creator made the following:

Among HOUSE PLANTS -
1) the bulbs of Hyacinth, Narcissus, and Daffodil may cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and may be fatal.
2) the leaves and branches of Oleandera are extremely poisonous, affecting the heart, producing severe digestive upset and have caused death.
3) all parts of Dieffenbachia (Dumb Cane) and Elephant Ear can cause intense burning and irritation of the mouth and tongue. Death can occur if base of the tongue swells enough to block the air passage of the throat.
4) Rosary Pea and Castor Bean seeds are fatal. A single Rosary Pea seed has caused death. One or two Castor Bean seeds are near the lethal dose for adults.

Or if you prefer FLOWER GARDEN PLANTS –
5) the young plant and seeds of Larkspur may cause digestive upset, nervous excitement, depression, and may be fatal.
6) the fleshy roots of Monkshood can cause digestive upset and nervous excitement.
7) the bulbs of Autumn Crocus and Star of Bethlehem cause vomiting and nervous excitement.
8) the leaves and flowers of Lily-of-the-Valley cause irregular heart beat and pulse, usually accompanied by digestive upset and mental confusion.
9) the underground stems of Iris cause severe-but not usually serious-digestive upset.
10) the leaves of Foxglove in large amounts cause dangerously irregular heartbeat and pulse, usually digestive upset and mental confusion, and may be fatal.
11) the foliage and roots of Bleeding Heart may be poisonous in large amounts, and have proved fatal to cattle.

If you prefer VEGETABLE GARDEN PLANTS –
12) the leaf blade of rhubarb can be fatal. Large amounts of raw or cooked leaves can cause convulsions, coma, followed rapidly by death.

If you prefer ORNAMENTAL PLANTS –
13) the berries of Daphne may be fatal. A few berries can kill a child.
14) the seeds and pods of Wisteria can cause mild to severe digestive upset. Many children are poisoned by this plant.
15) the bean-like capsules in which the seeds of Golden Chain are suspended can cause severe poisoning, excitement, staggering, convulsions and coma. May be fatal.
16) all parts of Laurels, Rhododendrons and Azaleas can be fatal. Produces nausea and vomiting, depression, difficult breathing, prostration and coma.
17) the berries of Jasmine can cause digestive disturbance and nervous symptoms, or be fatal.
18) the green berries of Lantana Camara (Red Sage) (grows in the southern U.S. and in moderate climates) affects the lungs, kidneys, heart and nervous system, and may be fatal.
19) the berries and foliage of Yew can be fatal. (The foliage is more toxic than the berries.) Death is usually sudden without warning symptoms.

If you prefer TREES AND SHRUBS -
20 ) the twigs and foliage of wild and cultivated cherries can be fatal. They contain a compound that releases cyanide when eaten. Gasping, excitement and prostration are common symptoms.
21) the foliage and acorns of Oaks, affect the kidneys gradually. Symptoms appear only after several days or weeks. Takes a large amount for poisoning.
22) all parts, especially the roots of Elderberry have poisoned children who were using pieces of the pithy stems for blowguns. Nausea and digestive upset.
23 the bark, sprouts, and foliage of Black Locust have caused nausea, weakness and depression in children.

If you prefer PLANTS IN WOODED AREAS -
24) all parts, but especially the roots of Jack-in-the-Pulpit, like Dumb Cane, contain small needle-like crystals of calcium oxalate that cause intense irritation and burning of the mouth and tongue.
25) the berries of Moonseed have a blue or purple color, resembling wild grapes. They may be fatal.
26) The apple, foliage, and roots of Mayapple contains at least 16 active toxic principles, primarily in the roots. Children often eat the apple with no ill effects, but several apples may cause diarrhea.
27) The berries of Mistletoe can be fatal. Both children and adults have died from eating the berries.

If you prefer PLANTS IN SWAMP OR MOIST AREAS -
28) All parts of Water Hemlock are fatal. Violent and painful convulsions. A number of people have died from hemlock.

If you prefer PLANTS IN FIELDS -
29) all parts of Buttercups contain irritant juices that may severely injure the digestive system.
30) all parts, especially the unripened berry of Nightshade can be fatal. Intense digestive disturbance and nervous symptoms.
31) all parts of Poison Hemlock can be fatal. (Resembles a large wild carrot.)
32) all parts of Jimson Weed (Thorn Apple) can cause abnormal thirst, distorted sight, delirium, incoherence and coma. Common cause of poisoning. Has proved fatal.

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/...rces/common-poisonous-plants-and-plant-parts/

(I agree that the creator must have been so thoughtful to have provided all of these types of poisonous plants in our midst. I also just want to be sure we are not being one-sided in our descriptions of how wonderful the creator is in the selection of plants he has provided us.)