Spaceships in the Bible

[JHM]

No, Just those who don't believe in "Creation" and prefer to believe in "Evolution".

 

[Ronald]

I don't know the details of how GOD, and the Devil too for that matter, go about avoiding collisions with objects in space, but I do know that an antimatter powered ship would immensely increase the energy available

.

Spiritual bodies are not confined to the physical universe, they are extra-dimentional.

Further I also strongly suspect that "Scientists" are wrong when they say that matter and antimatter are mutually attractive. The experiment which they used to arrive at that conclusion, was to create an antimatter particle, then release it while watching for the energy of conversion. That experiment has been conducted many times; and conversion has always been the result. They therefore concluded that matter and antimatter are mutually attracted.

These theories are a lot of guessing and speculation about hidden forces that hold the universe together. You're a Christian, don't you know what this means, "For by Him all things were created both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities --all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." Col. 1:16, 17
Science will be confounded (guys like Stephen Hawkings and the rest of them), because the hidden forces that hold every atom in the universe is outside the physical realm. They may postulate and play with the theories of quatum physics, black holes, worm holes, super strings, anti-matter, etc., but the real source of the power that holds it all together comes from the spiritual realm ordered by God. The Hubbel Telescope was made for the demise of God, to disprove God exists. If they can find water, life, extra-terrestrials, etc. on other planets than we don't need God anymore. Stephen Hawkings said something similar to that .They just will never get it -- BECAUSE THE ANSWERS LIE OUTSIDE OUR PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. God confounds them and they become fools in the end, chasing after the wind, clanging their cymbals, making a loud noise to no avail, leaving them in futility and lost.
In Him all things consist -- every atom. God is "for" matter since He created it and not "against" it or in "opposition" to it, therefore the force He uses is not anti-matter, (a word created by the foolish numb nuts who ponder the unknown without spiritual insight). So the best of them, Stephen Hawkings, is a fool, don't waste your time listening to fools. He who says in his heart there is no God is a fool!" Psalm 14:1
Matter is God's and He holds it together and orders it. In a moment He created it and in a moment the universe will burn up in a fervent heat and melt at once when He creates the New Heaven and New Earth. (2Peter 3:10)
We are the only life forms in the universe. If there were others, than they would have needed a Savior as well. Do you think Christ went over there and made the same sacrifice for them and them and them and on and on for thousands of planets with beings made in His image -- I don't think so!
You have to scrap the Bible and not believe in God and adopt evolution which is what the Devil wants you to do. Just another one of his schemes to lead people away from the truth.
If you follow the order of creation in Genesis, the earth was made first and then the sun, moon and stars later. They were made for us to ponder His awesome power. Astro-physics, and all the mathematical formulas that are contingent did not happen by accident, they were designed. The universe was made after the earth, for us and for the earth. He made the universe with the mind boggling precision of physical, chemical, electical, electromagnet, gravitational, and all the mathmatical properties essential for the earth to revolve around the sun and the galaxy, spin on it's axis and support life. And the life in it's eco-system is provided for in unique ways to say the least. But when God burns it up after the Millenium and creates a New Earth where the sun and moon no longer exist (aren't needed because the light comes from God) then He would have also destoyed all the other imaginary worlds with life like ours. Nope, there's no life out there ... just us ... unless you deny what the Bible says ... "behold I make all things new" ... "all former things have passed away" ... "there will be no more night", hence no more sun, moon and stars. (see Rev 21:4,5, 25; 22:5; 2Pet 3:10)

 

[JHM]

Well I agree with a lot of what you have said Ronald, but I think you are misunderstanding some of the scriptures. As I understand it what is to happen is :

First will come the "Destruction of Babylon" which will be a colossal destruction, wherein the smoke of it will bring on a "Nuclear Winter" scenario, which will leave the panet shrouded in darkness and bitterly cold, that will cause the bulk of the population of the planet to freeze or starve to death.

During this period Christ wll return to Isreal and provide food to the people living there while there is weeping and knashing of teeth in the "Outer Darkness". (Ever been so cold that your teeth chattered ?)

Christ will then rule the world for 1000 years, at the end of which period Satan will escape and rally the nations to his cause. This will lead to another war, which will so damage the planet as to render it almost uninhabitable. ("The seas were no more") ("Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth")

It is for this reason that Christ, when he left this world, created a new planet for those who make the grade.

 

[Touma]

Yep, I am leaving this thread now. It has crossed the point of uber crazy.

 

[JHM]

Adios.

 

[Cotjones]

The truth is evolution as it is currantly stated makes no sense at all. Long periods of stasis, with very little change, followed by mass die offs, followed by rapid bursts of evolution to fill the available niches. That is nonsense. Random mutations give that ?

If you would stop thinking that because you believe you are more intelligent than others, your first whim is more correct, you would realize that it makes PERFECT sense.

Mass extinction events just happen. Whether by a comet or asteroid hitting earth, volcanic eruption, flood, or perhaps mass disease, they happen. When they happen, a great shift in ecosystems occurs. Several reasons for this. But lets talk about the rapid bursts of evolution to fill niches.

If you are a bird that is perfectly suited to eat a specific kind of nut, which no other species is adapted to. And there is another species which is better suited for a fly that you can't catch, would a mutation that made it so that you had to compete with the other bird's food supply and unable to eat your own be favorable or un-favorable?

If you are smart, you will say it depends on how full the niches are. If there are plenty of flies available, you might be successful in establishing the mutation in the population. If the other population is large enough so that it is difficult to compete with for the food source, your mutation will die with you, and not be passed on. Thus no evolving into a new species.

Thus, mutations are favored when those mutations are less negative.

You have it exactly backwards. Things don't evolve to be more complicated, they evolve to be more successful at continuing living. That's why bacteria and sponges and cnidarians haven't changed in millions of years of fossil records. When a species evolves, it only does so when it can. If there is no selecting pressure then mutations run rampant. In the environment directly after mass extinction events, you are dealing with a simultaneous drastic decline in pressure in some areas and incline in others. It's almost impossible to believe that after a giant comet would hit the earth, any ecosystem would remain static.

Remember, the frequency of mutations is not whats changing, the available niches favorable to those mutations is what is changing.

On the contrary, some events (such as geomagnetic pole reversals) are hypothesized to have possibly de-stabilized the earth's magnetic field possibly leading to a spike in mutations due to the bombardment of solar radiation.

Few attribute events like this to cause differentiation such as the Cambrian Explosion, however there can be no doubt that events like this would have an effect on the frequency of mutations.

You seem to be overlooking the entire mechanism for evolution as RANDOM mutation. Here's the nutshell version once again.

1. Random Mutations happen ALL THE TIME.

2. MOST mutations are negative, or make the organism less likely to survive.
Since organisms live as populations, usually, a particular mutation will only occur in one or two individuals in a population. THE REST STAY THE SAME.

3. The mutated species may even reproduce a couple of times, but if that mutation makes it harder for the species to survive than the rest of the population, it becomes obvious that eventually, the bad mutation will disappear from the population. It may even occur again, and again die out, this might continue indefinitely if the organism is prone to the mutation (such is the case with glioblastoma multiforme). But as a rule, the majority of the population WON'T carry the mutation. If you want a real life example of this at work, do a little research in hemophilia. In the past century, it was almost non-existent in females because to get a HP woman, the father and mother have to both have the gene. Now, we have medicine for it, so there are females all over with it. And the number of people with it is rising.

4. A favorable mutation isn't necessarily a complicated mutation. For example if an organism has an average lifespan of 200 years and is often over-populated, it is now favorable to evolve a shorter lifespan or less offspring per mate. Because mutations are random, we can't know exactly how it will evolve or if it will at all. Often the needed favorable mutations don't occur. Again, that's why 99.99% of all species that have ever existed are extinct. It's simply because as hard as I focus, I can't force myself to mutate to breath water, and if I have to in order to survive, and the mutations don't occur fast enough, i'll die. Thus, most of the mutations must occur over a less urgent selective factor. (SUCH AS AFTER AN EXTINCTION EVENT.) Where the selective pressure is the available food source.

 

[JHM]

If you wish to believe in this nonsense you may, and I cannot stop you from doing so. But for those who believe in GOD and creation, I already gave a more logical explanation of it all.

 

[Cotjones]

If you wish to believe in this nonsense you may, and I cannot stop you from doing so. But for those who believe in GOD and creation, I already gave a more logical explanation of it all.

A logical explanation by definition doesn't rely on raw belief for validity.

BY THIS DEFINITION! Christianity is not logical... it's not supposed to be.
It is a belief system which ultimately aims at reconciling the unobtainable truth into human terms. It's not based on logic. It is meant to fill in the holes logic can't fill.

The development of life is not one of these holes.

First let me ask you this.

What about my explanation don't you understand?
What part do you not see working?
If you don't see a reason why it wouldn't work, then you must say that the only reason you have to reject the explanation is a belief. But you can do that with any thing.

If you explain to me that rain falls because the air is cooler at higher altitudes I can reject your logic and believe that God gathers the water and sprinkles it on the ground.

If you explain to me that the earth revolves around the sun because if we map the way the sun looks, it looks exactly how it should if the earth revolved around the sun instead, I can reject your logic and say that the bible Says the Sun is what is moving.

If you explain to me that the tides go in and out because the moon's gravity pulls on the oceans, I can reject your logic and say God is pulling on the water.

If you tell me evolution has been shown time and time again to be an accurate explanation of the development of life on earth, I can reject your explanation and say that the Bible says evolution can't be true.

Now what do all these examples have in common.

1. That the basis of rejection is an interpretation of a source (the Bible). Thus on this basis alone it is possible that the interpretation is incorrect.

2. All of the given first explanations DO have logical support and no absolutely valid logical contradiction.

3. At one time, each of these beliefs have been held by Christians, most of which never abandoned the belief and simply passed away while the up-and-coming generations never held the beliefs in the first place.

What does this mean? When your life is ruled by belief, you are often incapable of accepting that which contradicts the belief.

Schizophrenia patients do this, however, it is normally in an extreme or harmful way without social support to the belief.

Christians have been SHOWN IN HISTORY to do this time and time again. And they are especially good at it. for several reasons. Some are

1. You can honestly interpret the Bible in all sorts of bizarre ways. Failing to make the distinction between your interpretation and "God's Word" can make it impossible for you to abandon beliefs that you attribute to the Bible. (No one could give up the belief that the earth was the center of the solar system because they falsely attributed that information to be contradictory to GOD. FALSELY being the key word.

2. Social support for a belief system makes it harder to abandon or change regardless of the dis-confirming evidence. If you want some scary evidence of this check out the book "When prophesy fails."

Now if you ignore everything else in this post, please answer as best as you can this one simple question:

How do you know that, in the subject of Evolution, you are not in the EXACT same position as the people who persecuted Galileo? What separates you from them?


In all these long years many humans still apex in their logic at the same level as this guy...

 

[JHM]

I understand your explanation, I just don't agree with it because there is a more logical explanation that I have already given that is consistant with the story of Creation in the Bible.

I posted pretty strong evidence of the existance of spaceships in the Bible, and pointed out that if degeneracy is the norm in evolutionary change then it is illogical to expect massive upwards evolution to take place.

I also pointed out that existance of the same basic structures in a wide variety of creatures is meaningless for the purposes of determining Evolution or Creation, because as you should very well know designers of things very seldom design everything from scratch. Instead they save themselves a lot of time and effort by using the same basic structures repeatedly.

In short what we are left with is one theory with an internal conflict : i.e degeneracy is the norm yet those adhering to this theory think despite degeneracy being the norm amoeba somehow magically evolved into men; versus the story of Creation which is consistant with the scientific evidence, provided you allow for GOD traveling near the speed of light, in between the various stages of Creation.

Since I believe in GOD, I prefer to believe in Creation.

 

[Myshkin99]

I believe in creation, too. I believe what creation shows me.

Where did you get this "degeneracy is the norm" stuff? Yes, things die. No, evolution is not "directional". Is that the essence of your opposition to a logical understanding of what is displayed for all to see in God's glorious creation? Why would you have a problem with such a simple concept? I think Cotjones responded to your argument quite well, yet you persist with this "degeneracy" meme.

What are you afraid of?

Y'know....why do I even bother? Go ahead and be a poor witness for Christ. Turn souls away with your...

wait a minute....you're having a laugh at us, aren't you? You cheeky monkey you! You had me thinking you were for real.

Good one, brother! Cheers!

 

[Cotjones]

I understand your explanation, I just don't agree with it because there is a more logical explanation that I have already given that is consistant with the story of Creation in the Bible.

I posted pretty strong evidence of the existance of spaceships in the Bible, and pointed out that if degeneracy is the norm in evolutionary change then it is illogical to expect massive upwards evolution to take place.

I also pointed out that existance of the same basic structures in a wide variety of creatures is meaningless for the purposes of determining Evolution or Creation, because as you should very well know designers of things very seldom design everything from scratch. Instead they save themselves a lot of time and effort by using the same basic structures repeatedly.

In short what we are left with is one theory with an internal conflict : i.e degeneracy is the norm yet those adhering to this theory think despite degeneracy being the norm amoeba somehow magically evolved into men; versus the story of Creation which is consistant with the scientific evidence, provided you allow for GOD traveling near the speed of light, in between the various stages of Creation.

Since I believe in GOD, I prefer to believe in Creation.

2 problems with your post.

First of all you still don't seem to get it... YES DEGENERACY IS THE NORM.
Does that mean degeneracy is exclusive? Quite the opposite.

Populations NULLIFY most degeneracy because only one organism degenerates and then dies in competition with the rest of the population. Again, we plainly see this happen ALL THE TIME!!!

And as I demonstrated, we see how this doesn't happen if we keep the mutated individuals alive to reproduce.

On the other hand, if a mutation happens to be positive, that mutation will likely spread through the population very quickly. Humans are very complicated systems so lets think of simpler things like sponges. If there is nothing in the ocean but sponges and their food, there is an obvious advantage if an organism mutates one day so that it no longer attaches to sea floor and instead floats freely. This might seem like a degeneration, but it's really just a simple mutation that provides organisms that do it with an advantage. If that advantage isn't possible, the organism can't evolve for it.

Complexity is clearly demonstrated by fossil records and phylogenic trees to be a system acquired one step at a time. No organism has too many systems that a great number of ancestors didn't have

Your second mistake is that you seem to use logic and possibility interchangeably. Is it possible that aliens make my food get warm in the microwave? Yes, logic however does not support that conclusion just because my hypothesis fits the phenomenon. You may give a perfectly possible explanation for creation but the fact that you can construe the words of people in the Bible in a way to support you conclusions doesn't make you conclusions logical. As I said, the Bible is not meant as a source of logic. Thus your explanations contain absolutely zero logic, only conjecture.

Take this example.
Matthew 5:45
"that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
If we want to we can make any sort of conjecture about God directly making it rain, In reality we know why it rains, and we can replicate the process ourselves. Thus we take this passage as figurative. Regardless, it's obvious that assuming it to be true sheds no light on the logical explanation of rain.


ALSO!!! you didn't answer the one most important question I asked you.

 

[Cotjones]

I think Cotjones responded to your argument quite well, yet you persist with this "degeneracy" meme.

Why, Thank you!

You gave me an idea!

 

[george baily]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vyVe-6YdUk..............if anyone wanted to watch it

 

[Ronald]

First will come the "Destruction of Babylon" which will be a colossal destruction, wherein the smoke of it will bring on a "Nuclear Winter" scenario, which will leave the panet shrouded in darkness and bitterly cold, that will cause the bulk of the population of the planet to freeze or starve to death.

Nuclear winter? The smoke blocks out 1/3 of the sun, moon and stars during the great Tribulation Period -- not all of it! 1/3 of the planet will burn, most likely in that region of the world (Middle East) and not enough for nuclear winter.

weeping and gnashing of teeth

This refers to those in pain, suffering and anger. Anger over the suffering results in cursing God, this is gnashing of teeth, not chattering from the cold.

Christ will then rule the world for 1000 years, at the end of which period Satan will escape and rally the nations to his cause. This will lead to another war, which will so damage the planet as to render it almost uninhabitable.

Correct, because He will destroy the first in a fervent heat. Behold, I create all things new.

 

[JHM]

You might ask yourselves : If the bulk of mutations are negative, and only a relatively small percentage of them lead to an improvement, how many mutations would it take for an amoeba to become a man ? Then keeping in mind that it would have to "Evolve" into a wide variety of more complex creatures and that each such "Evolutionary stage" would require millions of mutations, and that as creatures become more complex, they live longer, and reproduce less often over longer periods of time, how many billion, quadrillion, kazillion, years would it take to happen ? Bear in mind too that the earth is only approximately 4.6 billion years old.

Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to believe in GOD the creator.

 

[JHM]

And Ronald I don't know where you got the info that you posted, BUT that is an area that I have researched very thoroughly, and what I stated is correct. I have done a 130 page "Scripture Studies" document that I am prepared to share with those who request it.

 

[Cotjones]

You might ask yourselves : If the bulk of mutationws are negative, and only a relatively small percentage of them lead to an improvement, how many mutations would it take for an amoeba to become a man ? Then keeping in mind that it would have to "Evolve" into a wide variety of more complex creatures and that each such "Evolutionary stage" would require millions of mutations, and that as creatures become more complex, they live longer, and reproduce less often over longer periods of time, how many billion, quadrillion, kazillion, years would it take to happen ? Bear in mind too that the earth is only approximately 4.6 billion years old.

Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer to believe in GOD the creator.

Again, you are missing vital points. You act as though each mutation has to re-invent the wheel.

I am a hobbyist computer programmer. When I write code, I don't have to rewrite all my code each time I want to add two numbers together. I simply copy the old code and modify it if needed. Animals have done this too.

Check out this chart comparing the embryonic development of several species...

The differences in most organisms aren't as profound as you might think. Bacteria developed the ability to stick together and form colonies, and before long developed cell specialization and differentiation.

Its though that sponges were the first multicellular animals.
Sponges feed using cells called Choanocytes which filter and trap food particles from the water. they look like this:

Now check this out... This is a single celled organism called a choanoflagellate:

Look familiar? Guess what?.... some form colonies:

Starting to look like a sponge already and the only think we've changed is the number of cells that stick together.
So from here what can this organism do well if it gets more choanocytes it can trap more food, but if you add more, they would just block others. However, if cells form in the middle as support and get small amounts of food from the choanocytes on the outside, the thing could get bigger. Hmmm... take a look at this...

Now the thing really looks like a sponge huh?

Complex changes can often be expressed in single gene mutations. Want an example? It's a well studied mutation in drosophila flies called antennapedia. Here it is:

Notice a strange difference? The fly on the right, instead of antennae, has a fully developed extra pair of legs! Again, not a small transitional set A FULL DEVELOPED SET!

The evidence it there, you just have to open your eyes.

 

[Cotjones]

Furthermore lets look at the major phenotypic differences between Humans and the greater apes.

Less hair, different posture, slight differences in the sizes but not structure of bones, and most importantly, a larger brain. How difficult do you really think it is to develop a greater amount of brain tissue?

Before you answer this, look at the differences in dog breeds.

These two look incredibly different however they are the exact SAME SPECIES!!! their differences at one time did not exist and all dogs were closer to a coyote in size and appearance. Humans have selectively bred for mutations and isolated those mutations in breeding, leading to a plethora of unusual dog breeds. However, they have not speciated because there are always muts and strays mixing the gene pool back up. This is because human will is the selecting force. Natural selecting force however doesn't mess around. It would be like if humans killed all the offspring of the great dane that weren't at least as big as the parents. Humans fortunately are rarely cruel enough to do this, and thus all dogs are still the same species.

Also keep in mind that all this variation in Dogs has happened in a relatively short time (thousand or so years) Despite the fact that unsupervised breeding constantly counteracts the variation.

 

[Ronald]

And Ronald I don't know where you got the info that you posted, BUT that is an area that I have researched very thoroughly ...

"The first sounded, and there came hail and fire, mixed with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up." ... "The fourth angel sounded and a third of the sun and a third of the moon and a third of the stars were struck, so that a third of them would be darkened and the day would not shine for a third of it, and the night in the same way." Rev. 8:7 & 12

Following through the trumpets and the bowls, the earth is still is rough shape but at the end of Armegeddon, Christ starts a new Millennium with His chosen survivors. They bury dead for seven months and live in peace.
I believe He will turn the earth into paradise at that time. Children playing with lions and lambs and cobras in peace and harmony. I want to wrestle with a tiger --Yeah!

 

[JHM]

@ Ronald, I could throw you quite a few quotes that suggest it will be much worse than you seem to think. Don't have time right now though. - Later

@ Cotjones : How long would it take a sponge to turn into a cat ? And how long would it take a cat to turn into a dog ? And how long would it take a dog to turn into a monkey ?