The Great Lie and Fallacy of Evolution

[MidniteWelder]

Something from nothing...hmmm....sounds like creation. Unless of course the primordial atom already existed outside the confines of time and relativity. After all time was in the primordial atom.
Evidence points to an expanding universe? Perhaps but how accurate is the evidence? Is it subject to wishful thinking? How can you prove that light traveled here for thousands of light years? If the accuracy of the measurements are off but a small fraction it creates huge errors. Even the best evidence we have is so subjective in its interpretation that it could be made to point to virtually anything that suits us.
For me I will trust God Who is infallible rather than man who is demonstrated to be very fallible. Choose you this day who ye will serve but for me and my house we will serve the Lord.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Not exactly from..Nothing
The amount of energy released by an atom is the same as the amount of energy it took to form it.
If E=M*c^2
Work the formula in reverse
M=E/c^2

Here we can easily see that where the speed of light is a constant:
the amount of mass derived is dependent upon of an amount of energy originally applied which is now stored within the atom
There are many different forms and types of energy we know to perceive and measure
perhaps more we have not yet discovered
the spiritual form for instance

Now...considering the amount of energy released from the mass of just one SuperNova
this is the same amount of energy it required for all the mass within said Supernova to be formed in the first place.

Lastly, how much and how many different forms of energy would it have taken to form all matter within our universe in
...an instant
...as well compressed into one infinitesimal point
(if thats how it really happened, which is highly likely and would only further prove the awesome power of God)

I only know of one being capable of such energy
all at once
God

 

[ddallen]

In legal terms you are assuming facts not in evidence. The speed of light is assumed to be constant. It is a theory which is not proven.
According to science the bumble bee cannot fly. Nonsense

For the cause of Christ
Roger

This is used quite often and is completely wrong. Science never said that a bumble flee can't fly - no one is even sure where that piece of nonsense started. Aerodynamics using the principle of dynamic stall shows that a bee is quite capable of flight

 

[notuptome]

This is used quite often and is completely wrong. Science never said that a bumble flee can't fly - no one is even sure where that piece of nonsense started. Aerodynamics using the principle of dynamic stall shows that a bee is quite capable of flight

Science is continuously revising itself. No problem but God is still the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Aerodynamics is an evolving science. That is a good thing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

Not exactly from..Nothing
The amount of energy released by an atom is the same as the amount of energy it took to form it.
If E=M*c^2
Work the formula in reverse
M=E/c^2

Here we can easily see that where the speed of light is a constant:
the amount of mass derived is dependent upon of an amount of energy originally applied which is now stored within the atom
There are many different forms and types of energy we know to perceive and measure
perhaps more we have not yet discovered
the spiritual form for instance

Now...considering the amount of energy released from the mass of just one SuperNova
this is the same amount of energy it required for all the mass within said Supernova to be formed in the first place.

Lastly, how much and how many different forms of energy would it have taken to form all matter within our universe in
...an instant
...as well compressed into one infinitesimal point
(if thats how it really happened, which is highly likely and would only further prove the awesome power of God)

I only know of one being capable of such energy
all at once
God

We are still assuming that light is a constant. We cannot measure light with sufficient precision and under varying conditions to affirm it as an immutable fact. Does light slow down when it is bent? We assume that light passes through our atmosphere with no loss of speed because photons have no measurable mass but what if our instrumentation lacks sufficient precision to make the measurement?
Due to sin anything we do has a certain element of error contained within it. God created the earth and the universe surrounding it without sin. We can observe the earth and the universe only in a corrupted condition. We have no perfect version to compare it with.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[ddallen]

Science is continuously revising itself. No problem but God is still the same today as He was yesterday and will be tomorrow. Aerodynamics is an evolving science. That is a good thing.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

There is no revision here - science never said the bee couldn't fly - it is a popular myth

 

[MidniteWelder]

We are still assuming that light is a constant. We cannot measure light with sufficient precision and under varying conditions to affirm it as an immutable fact. Does light slow down when it is bent? We assume that light passes through our atmosphere with no loss of speed because photons have no measurable mass but what if our instrumentation lacks sufficient precision to make the measurement?

Due to sin anything we do has a certain element of error contained within it. God created the earth and the universe surrounding it without sin. We can observe the earth and the universe only in a corrupted condition. We have no perfect version to compare it with.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hello Roger,
I understand that lights speed is not always constant depending upon the medium it passes through.
It may even bend due to gravitational pull,
My point though wasn't so much on the focus of the speed of light(even though we can measure it in vacuum of space)
but more that it took an immeasurable amount of energy to create the matter we currently do know of that exists today.

 

[ddallen]

We are still assuming that light is a constant. We cannot measure light with sufficient precision and under varying conditions to affirm it as an immutable fact. Does light slow down when it is bent? We assume that light passes through our atmosphere with no loss of speed because photons have no measurable mass but what if our instrumentation lacks sufficient precision to make the measurement?
Due to sin anything we do has a certain element of error contained within it. God created the earth and the universe surrounding it without sin. We can observe the earth and the universe only in a corrupted condition. We have no perfect version to compare it with.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

When light passes through a medium it does lose speed. When we say the speed of light is a constant, it is implied that it is a constant in a vacuum.
Quantum theory tells us that the frequency and wavelength of atoms depend upon a number of factors - one of them being the speed of light. Should this speed have changed then the chemical structure of all atoms and materials would also change, so we then need to understand if the physical properties of matter have changed over time. We do this by studying the spectral lines of ancient quasars. These show that all our fundamental constants have not changed.

 

[amdg]

In legal terms you are assuming facts not in evidence. The speed of light is assumed to be constant. It is a theory which is not proven.
According to science the bumble bee cannot fly.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum

It's been tested several times. Got any evidence that the speed of light is not constant? In order for it to match with a 6,000 year old earth, you think we would have noticed something by now.

 

[notuptome]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum

It's been tested several times. Got any evidence that the speed of light is not constant? In order for it to match with a 6,000 year old earth, you think we would have noticed something by now.

The instrumentation by which you measure it depends on light operating at a constant speed. If it does not the instrumentation could not distinguish the variation. All of creation has been subjected to the corruption of sin. God in His perfection inhabits a realm that is light, pure uncorrupted light. The age of the earth is another subject in itself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[notuptome]

When light passes through a medium it does lose speed. When we say the speed of light is a constant, it is implied that it is a constant in a vacuum.
Quantum theory tells us that the frequency and wavelength of atoms depend upon a number of factors - one of them being the speed of light. Should this speed have changed then the chemical structure of all atoms and materials would also change, so we then need to understand if the physical properties of matter have changed over time. We do this by studying the spectral lines of ancient quasars. These show that all our fundamental constants have not changed.

Really? God said they changed long before you could attempt to measure them. Sin passed on all creation when Adam fell in the garden. It is great that we have all this technical knowledge it is useful but it is not complete and not perfect.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[amdg]

The instrumentation by which you measure it depends on light operating at a constant speed. If it does not the instrumentation could not distinguish the variation. All of creation has been subjected to the corruption of sin. God in His perfection inhabits a realm that is light, pure uncorrupted light. The age of the earth is another subject in itself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Facepalm. You can show the evidence but I guess that's all you can do.

 

[MidniteWelder]

Because if you step outside of your belief and look at it it's not logical... Hence requiring faith to believe it.

Water drying in the sun: logical

Hurt myself when I fall: logical

Don't eat.. I'll die: logical

Holy ghost in the sky decides one day to make a ball of rock and water and put little people on it: not logical.

I'm not trying to say its not true, just saying it doesnt fit In with cause and effect and the general laws of physics and nature.

Look further past ourselves(ie: forget about trying to figure out things concerning the self and consider Gods master plan )
and the reason God made people on earth may suddenly become more logical

 

[4enlightment]

You believe that too?

Matthew 17:20He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

How was the Great Pyramid of Giza Built? (Bible History Online)

29 “Come,” he said.
Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. 30 But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!”31 Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” Matthew 14

John 18:38“What is truth?” retorted Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and said, “I find no basis for a charge against him.

<em><strong>[video=youtube_share;IBNy-43naOM]http://youtu.be/IBNy-43naOM[/video]

The Men Who Stare at Goats (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Dynamo Jack/John Chang - Psychic Abilities - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums


I guess Jesus was trying to inform us the capabilities that we possesses.

 

[notuptome]

Facepalm. You can show the evidence but I guess that's all you can do.

You accept as empirical that which is very subjective. I am only endeavoring to show you that scientific evidence is only as good as the men producing it. If we find ourselves in a situation where the bible and commonly accepted scientific fact conflict we are wise to wait before we reach a conclusion. God is often proven correct as science revises itself. True science makes ample provision to find the truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Sci]

You accept as empirical that which is very subjective. I am only endeavoring to show you that scientific evidence is only as good as the men producing it. If we find ourselves in a situation where the bible and commonly accepted scientific fact conflict we are wise to wait before we reach a conclusion. God is often proven correct as science revises itself. True science makes ample provision to find the truth.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

And you think any concept of any god is "empirical" in any way? I'm honestly not sure you understand what it means to be empirical in the first place...
What bothers me most about your logic here is how you're able to cast doubt onto modern sciences (which is honestly great and a necessary aspect to science), yet have no desire to cast that same doubt onto your own religion.
Bear in mind, I have no qualms with a person's religious choices, but always find it appalling when one sets different standards for rationalizing their beliefs in science and their god.

 

[notuptome]

And you think any concept of any god is "empirical" in any way? I'm honestly not sure you understand what it means to be empirical in the first place...
What bothers me most about your logic here is how you're able to cast doubt onto modern sciences (which is honestly great and a necessary aspect to science), yet have no desire to cast that same doubt onto your own religion.
Bear in mind, I have no qualms with a person's religious choices, but always find it appalling when one sets different standards for rationalizing their beliefs in science and their god.

Now we're getting somewhere. You believe science even though you cannot travel to the nearest star outside our solar system at light speed and accurately measure time and distance. Perhaps someday but not today.
I believe the bible because I know beyond any doubt that Jesus forgave me my sins. I know by personal witness the presence of His Spirit in my heart. I hope you can affirm my statements with your own experiences.
I have no qualms with a persons scientific assertions as long as they do not reach beyond reason. I find it appalling when their scientific standards are attributed infallibility.
The sure and certain salvation of a soul is of far greater consequence than light as a constant in scientific formulas. Your mileage may vary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger