|
Post by PhilipDC78 on Sept 22, 2003 17:39:14 GMT -5
It states that the total of matter and energy is a constanct, and that while they can be converted back and forth, it is through this equation, so that conversion of energy to matter is for all practical purposes impossible by man with 21st century technology. Conversion of matter to energy has already been done on multiple occasions (nuclear reactions, atomic bombs, etc) with great success. Conversion of energy to matter so far has not been accomplished. This is the whole premise behind the transporters and machines that made the food in the "Star Trek" shows. Conversion of matter to energy and back.
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Sept 22, 2003 20:58:46 GMT -5
Conversion of matter to energy has already been done on multiple occasions (nuclear reactions, atomic bombs, etc) with great success. Conversion of energy to matter so far has not been accomplished. This is the whole premise behind the transporters and machines that made the food in the "Star Trek" shows. Conversion of matter to energy and back. they are trying, tho www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-10/djna-1lh103102.php
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 22, 2003 21:08:36 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "God's existence and the fact that He created every living thing in existence is fact!"
While I certainly agree with the claim, the statement is not a verifiable fact, but a belief. As such, it is irrelevant to a scientific discussion.
"Do I know that it's a fact? Yes, because the Bible, which has God's full authority behind it, says so!"
I'll take circular logic for $400 please, Alex.
"If God was to appear to you right now, could you stand in His awesome presence? Probably not. You would quite possibly drop dead at the sight of Him."
Once again, failing to launch a successful attack against scientific theory or the evidence supporting those theories, you resort to baseless attacks against me. Like it or not, I'm just as saved as you are, no more, and certainly no less.
--El Traf
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 23, 2003 9:27:16 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, I'm not making any attacks against you! You're beginning to sound paranoid. I don't accept the theory of 'evolution' and if that's what you are referring to as "baseless attacks" against you, then fine. That's your opinion. If you don't like the fact that I have my doubts about your Faith in Christ, then O.K. But do bear in mind that I have never said you aren't a Christian. I just can't understand how you can say that you accept the whole Bible as having the authority of God behind it and yet not accept the whole book of Genesis as being entirely true. I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense to me! It's almost as though you are saying that God is not to be fully trusted on his Word. Does God ever lie? Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Sept 23, 2003 9:40:03 GMT -5
Traffic Demon, I'm not making any attacks against you! You're beginning to sound paranoid. I don't accept the theory of 'evolution' and if that's what you are referring to as "baseless attacks" against you, then fine. That's your opinion. If you don't like the fact that I have my doubts about your Faith in Christ, then O.K. But do bear in mind that I have never said you aren't a Christian. I just can't understand how you can say that you accept the whole Bible as having the authority of God behind it and yet not accept the whole book of Genesis as being entirely true. I'm afraid it just doesn't make sense to me! It's almost as though you are saying that God is not to be fully trusted on his Word. Does God ever lie? Your Brother in Christ, Andy. Andy, perhaps I can helpd you understand. Traffic takes the entire Bible to be true. But he does not take it to be literally true. Just like we don't believe that Jesus transformed into a fig leaf or a vine, etc. he doesn't believe that the Genesis account as written actually happened. That doesn't mean we don't take it to be true what Jesus said, we just know it's not literally true (means exactly what it says) but rather it's a metaphor, an example, an parable. Does this mean that we do not believe the entire Bible to be true? Of course not! Well, it's the same with Traffic. He believes Genesis is true, just not literally. I hope this helps to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by larrygn on Sept 23, 2003 9:49:49 GMT -5
Pietro: I don't see any disagreement on the sequence of the creation, you point out anything that is actually in difference. In any event, you are using at best a translation of a 300 A.D. text, where is the text that Moses used in 1500 B.C. so that we can see what was really written.
michaeldark. You may cahallenge creationists all you want, but you can not disprove creation, as it is historically correct. You can not change history, just because you do not like it. Translate correctly, as you will see the time periods " days " are listed for apurpose, so that those of the 1500 B.C. period, 3 rd century B.C. period, 1st century A.D. period, etc. will all understand they way they knew. But, for us in the 21 st century A.D.; well, we get to understand just that it is a message within a message that we can correctly read.
PhilipDC78: And your point was? I see no diffence in my post, other than the fact that Star Trek is and always shall be fiction, and we shall never reverse the equation, try as we might. But hey, we have billions to waste, so why feed the world when we can use the money to try to challenge God?
Yours in the Ever Living Christ, Larry
|
|
|
Post by MorningStar on Sept 23, 2003 10:10:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by I2AM4GOD on Sept 23, 2003 10:57:03 GMT -5
Andy, perhaps I can helpd you understand. Traffic takes the entire Bible to be true. But he does not take it to be literally true. Just like we don't believe that Jesus transformed into a fig leaf or a vine, etc. he doesn't believe that the Genesis account as written actually happened. That doesn't mean we don't take it to be true what Jesus said, we just know it's not literally true (means exactly what it says) but rather it's a metaphor, an example, an parable. Does this mean that we do not believe the entire Bible to be true? Of course not! Well, it's the same with Traffic. He believes Genesis is true, just not literally. I hope this helps to explain it. Babysis, Why don't we throw away the Genesis account of Creation and the Original Sin if we don't believe it, and then why don't we start looking at other parts of the Bible and start rejecting them too! I mean, does anyone seriously believe that Moses went up some mountain to receive the 10 commandments from God? I mean, how unscientific. Where were the witnesses? God was present. Not good enough! And perhaps Christ never actually died on the Cross and rose from the dead, and perhaps we take sin just a little too seriously? Babysis, once you start rejecting something in the Bible as being untrue, where do you stop? If the Bible account of Creation and the Original Sin is untrue, isn't it time that it was trashed? Should we be filling children's minds with rubbish? No! I don't believe in fairy tales, but I do believe in the entire book of Genesis! Perhaps, I'm a little deluded, and a little mistaken, and a little unscientific for Traffic's liking. Or perhaps, he has been more than a little bit lied to and a little bit fooled and Satan could just be trying to lure him down the wrong path by offering him the tasty little 'morsel' called the 'theory of evolution'. Satan's intelligence is far, far higher than ours and he knows us well enough to know which tactic is the best to use against each of us. He knows how we think. The war that the Church is engaged in is not only spiritual, but is also against the false knowledge that Satan is peddling, in the scientific community as well as everywhere else. There is not a single area of our lives that he isn't interested in. And his finger prints can be found in every area of our lives as a species. Satan can't get back to Heaven, but he will do everything in his power to prevent us getting there! And one of his weapons is 'evolution', the denial that we have been created in the image of God, not of ape. We never ever shared a common ancestral parentage with the apes. The original parents of our kind were Adam and Eve and they were fully human. And their father was God. Traffic can't seem to accept this. According to this fallen World, evolution is 'truth'. And who is the God of this World? You guessed it - Satan! There, I feel a whole lot better now after saying all that. And this is where I decide to withdraw from the debate about evolution - at least for now. Your Brother in Christ, Andy.
|
|
|
Post by mook2357 on Sept 23, 2003 12:41:51 GMT -5
Andy, I respectfully ask you to reread what Traffic has said, and how Babysis summarized it. Neither one said that Genesis was "untrue." Your entire last post was countering something NOT BEING ARGUED here...and that is precisely what the problem is with the debate here. I personally have found that there is truth in creation AND evolution, and neither "theory" is 100% true, because neither side will accept that they may be faulted...so they continue to argue, instead of recognizing the common ground. Take a few breaths, and consider what has been said, not what you THINK has been said, please? thanks...
|
|
|
Post by heathen76 on Sept 23, 2003 12:50:08 GMT -5
And your point was? I see no diffence in my post, other than the fact that Star Trek is and always shall be fiction, and we shall never reverse the equation, try as we might. But hey, we have billions to waste, so why feed the world when we can use the money to try to challenge God? Don't be naive.
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Sept 23, 2003 13:55:26 GMT -5
Babysis, Why don't we throw away the Genesis account of Creation and the Original Sin if we don't believe it, and then why don't we start looking at other parts of the Bible and start rejecting them too! I'm just on my lunch break now (only 45 minutes, got about 25 minutes left) so I can't address your whole post at the moment, but plan to come back after work. I do want to adress the above quoted part right now. No one wants to throw away Genesis and I have yet to see anyone who says they do not believe Genesis. They just do not subscribe to your interpretation of it. There is nothing wrong with that. They could be wrong, you could be wrong, or you both could be wrong with a 3rd interpretation being the correct one. Only God knows for sure. No part of the Bible is being rejected so there is no "looking for others to reject too." I have yet to see any professing Christian reject any part of the Bible on this messageboard. If you know of some examples otherwise please share them so I can be corrected in my statement. Just keep in mind, just because someone does not agree with your interpretation that doesn't mean the are wrong or less of a Christian. I'll try to get back later tonight after work. God bless.
|
|
|
Post by Pietro on Sept 23, 2003 16:26:41 GMT -5
Pietro: I don't see any disagreement on the sequence of the creation, you point out anything that is actually in difference. In any event, you are using at best a translation of a 300 A.D. text, where is the text that Moses used in 1500 B.C. so that we can see what was really written. Now we can really get into a can of worms. Do you imply that Moses wrote the text? Regardless, a text from 300 a.d. is probably the best we have. So was man created before vegetation or after?
|
|
|
Post by Traffic Demon on Sept 23, 2003 17:00:15 GMT -5
I2AM4GOD - "I'm not making any attacks against you!"Let's take a look at the evidence, why don't we? Now I don't know whether you are a Christian or not, but I have my doubts Do you accept the authority of the Word of God concerning this? The Christian does. It seems to me you are compromising your Christian faith with the theory of 'evolution'. You have also compromised your faith with the theory of the 'Big Bang'. If your contempt for the book of Genesis is anything to go by, you place more faith in the theories of 'evolution' and the 'Big Bang' than you do in God's Word. Seems evolution is your 'God', your idol. You place your trust in what men say instead of what God says. the book of Genesis speaks of the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It speaks of the Garden of Eden. It speaks of the Fall of Man into Sin and how God punished Adam and Eve for their disobedience. And so on..... Traffic Demon presumably doesn't believe in all this, whilst at the same time claiming to be a Christian. Oh, I get it, you believe God's Word when it only suits you! I wonder whether God is amused by your unbelief? Don't you realize that by agreeing with what the evolutionists say, you are compromising your Christian beliefs? You can sit on the fence for a while, but in the end you'll fall off it. Which side of the fence will you fall into? The one that says 'Evolution' or the one that says 'True faith in God and His Word'? The choice, my friend, is yours! I rest my case. "If you don't like the fact that I have my doubts about your Faith in Christ, then O.K."Would you care to cite even a single statement that I have made that is contrary to a Christian belief system? Without such statements, why do you have such doubts? "I just can't understand how you can say that you accept the whole Bible as having the authority of God behind it and yet not accept the whole book of Genesis as being entirely true."Just as babysis said, I accept the entire book of Genesis as true, just not always literally so. "It's almost as though you are saying that God is not to be fully trusted on his Word. Does God ever lie?"It is precisely because God's word can be trusted, because God does not lie, that we must interpret the Creation parable as figurative, so that the truth that God has revealed through Scripture may remain consistent with the truth that He has revealed through the natural world. "Why don't we throw away the Genesis account of Creation and the Original Sin if we don't believe it, and then why don't we start looking at other parts of the Bible and start rejecting them too!"You are missing the point, that I do believe the Creation parable to be true. "Or perhaps, he has been more than a little bit lied to and a little bit fooled and Satan could just be trying to lure him down the wrong path by offering him the tasty little 'morsel' called the 'theory of evolution'."Where exactly have I been "lied to?" What evidence is leading you to the conclusion that I am being lured "down the wrong path?" "We never ever shared a common ancestral parentage with the apes."Denying the existence of evidence does not cause that evidence to cease to exist. That humans and apes share a common ancestor has been recognized as fact for over a century. Again, for examples of such evidence, please see Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution. "The original parents of our kind were Adam and Eve and they were fully human."Once again, the evidence demonstrates this conclusion cannot be literally true. "And this is where I decide to withdraw from the debate about evolution - at least for now."I hope that if you plan on returning to this debate in the future, that you use your time away to look at the actual evidence demonstrating evolutionary theory to be accurate. Should you need a starting point, please see The Talk.Origins Archive Must-Read Files at the Talk.Origins Archive. --Big Daddy Traf
|
|
|
Post by col311 on Sept 23, 2003 21:16:39 GMT -5
It was thought into existance. It was spoke into exsistence
|
|
|
Post by col311 on Sept 23, 2003 21:28:24 GMT -5
[color=Blue Next Question: The evolutionst insist that we evolved from apes. Why didn't all apes evolve? Why did some spieces choose to remain apes? In His Love ysic pippin [/color][/quote] They took a look at Pee wee Herman and said Uh uh! No thank you I'm staying the way I am ;D ;D ;D
|
|