NASA Research Findings Stun Scientists, Seemingly Defy Important Law of Physics

space-shuttleHOUSTON – NASA has published findings that seem to defy Newton’s third law of motion, thus casting doubt on a foundational premise of modern physics and astonishing the scientific community.

Nearly 20 years ago, a British scientist named Roger Shawyer invented a theoretical rocket propulsion system that creates thrust without needing propellant. Known as the “EmDrive,” Shawyer’s invention relies on microwave technology to generate momentum.

“[The] EmDrive generates thrust by bouncing around electromagnetic energy (in this case, microwave photons) in a closed, cone-shaped chamber,” explained “National Geographic” in a recent article. “As those photons collide with the chamber’s walls, they somehow propel the device forward, despite the fact that nothing is released from the chamber.”

Because rockets today are laden with heavy fuel tanks, the EmDrive would be an innovative, lightweight means of space travel that could significantly reduce costs and increase speeds. In theory, an EmDrive engine could send a spacecraft to Mars in just 70 days.

Scientists were initially skeptical of Shawyer’s idea because it seems to contradict Isaac Newton’s third law of motion, which states that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. How could the EmDrive generate thrust in one direction if it does not expel propellant in the opposite direction?

“Without any propellant being pushed out, there should be no momentum, breaking the conservation of momentum rule,” an online report in “WIRED” stated. “Either the laws of physics as we know them are wrong, or the EmDrive theory isn’t quite right.”

Consequently, most of the scientific community dismissed the EmDrive concept as fringe pseudoscience, saying it contradicted both math and physics. One scientist described it as “a really bad idea” that defies “standard physics.”

  • Connect with Christian News

In spite of the scientific community’s incredulity, NASA tested Shawyer’s concept at the Johnson Space Center in Houston. They published their findings earlier this month in an online peer-reviewed journal article, concluding that the EmDrive technology appears to work, producing 1.2 millinewtons per kilowatt of thrust in NASA’s tests.

“[NASA’s paper ] is the first peer-reviewed research ever published on the EM Drive, which firmly takes it out of the realm of pseudoscience into a technology that’s worth taking skeptically, but seriously,” reported “Business Insider.” “The next step for the EM Drive is for it to be tested in space, which is scheduled to happen in the coming months, with plans to launch the first EM Drive having been made back in September.”

NASA’s physics-defying discovery underscores the point that scientific knowledge—even well-established scientific laws such as Newton’s laws of motion—is subject to change. Even the expression “scientifically proven” is a contradiction in terms, writes physicist Carlo Rovelli.

“There’s nothing that is scientifically proven. The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas, we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices,” Rovelli wrote in a 2014 piece published by “New Republic.” “In our conceptual structure for grasping reality, there might be something not appropriate, something we may have to revise to understand better. So at any moment we have a vision of reality that is effective, it’s good, it’s the best we have found so far. It’s the most credible we have found so far; it’s mostly correct.”

In response to Rovelli’s column, Elizabeth Mitchell with Answers in Genesis proposed that the Bible is the only unfailingly true account of our origins—a reliable “yardstick by which to assess ideas relevant to the unobservable past.”

“If only all scientists wishing to explain our origins would allow their vision to include an understanding that the physical universe was brought into being by a Creator God, a God who has left us an eyewitness account of our origins and the early history of the earth in Genesis, a history that is consistent with the observable facts of science,” she wrote in an online article published on the Answers in Genesis website.

Newton, who attended Trinity College, also privately studied the Bible and church history. While he rejected the doctrine of the triune God, the Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences states that Newton did believe in the biblical creation account.

“[Newton] possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation,” the group explains. “In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God’s providential role in nature.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Trilemma

    Science continues to make progress. Religion, not so much.

    • Amos Moses

      Religion continues to explain science ……………. science … not so much ………

      • Trilemma

        Science continues to explain religion. Religion struggles to explain anything.

        • Amos Moses

          religion explains enough to show that science without religion knows nothing ……. ignoring the evidence of God is bereft of any knowledge …………

          • Trilemma

            Science doesn’t need religion to know that E=Mc². However, science does tend to ignore evidence of God.

          • Amos Moses

            E=Mc² because God decreed it ….. not because science “discovered” it ….. all science can do is ACKNOWLEDGE truth ……… it is not truth itself ……….

          • Trilemma

            Even if God decreed that E=Mc², a person does not need religion to figure it out. Einstein was not was not religious.

          • Amos Moses

            a person cannot “figure it out” correctly without religion …… and even now ….. E=Mc² is being shown to not be correct …… it is being shown that the speed of light IS NOT CONSTANT ……..

            Speed of light not so constant after all | Science News
            sciencenews org
            The speed of light in a vacuum, usually denoted c, is a fundamental constant … Had structure not mattered, the two photons would have arrived at the same time.

            they once asked Einstein how it felt to be the smartest person in the world …… his answer ….. “go ask Tesla” …….. even Einstein realized much of his work was not completely correct ….. remove God and you invite error ……….

          • Trilemma

            How did religion make demonstrating c decay happen?

          • Amos Moses

            God made it that way …………. your question is a red herring unless you can rephrase it …………… and as we see with your question ….. when you eliminate God ….. you invite error ………….

          • Trilemma

            Why would a person need religion; need to believe in God, need to worship God in order to measure c decay? An atheist can measure c decay just well as a Christian.

          • Amos Moses

            One needs to include God to get the correct answer ……… and OBVIOUSLY …. as you say …. Einstein did not ………

          • Trilemma

            E=Mc² does not actually require that the speed of light be constant over time. If c is slightly lower then the amount of energy in a bit of mass is slightly less.

            Isaac Newton was a Christian and developed a theory of gravitation. Albert Einstein was agnostic (not religious) and also developed a theory of gravitation. Einstein’s theory is much closer to how God decreed it than the Christian’s theory. Including God didn’t help Newton get the correct answer.

    • J J

      Sciences advances and changes,
      therefore,
      religion must change.

      That’s what’s called a “non sequitur.”

      Looks like you’ll just have to continue sharing the planet with people who don’t think just like you. Apparently you don’t like that. You want to force others to be like you.

      • Trilemma

        That’s what’s called a juxtaposition. Science changes readily when presented new evidence. Religion changes very reluctantly when presented new evidence. Christianity must change or die out.

        • Amos Moses

          science changes readily ….. because science is a man made construct and is just discovering what the rest of us already acknowledge ………. the truth ….

          • Trilemma

            Yes, science is about discovering the truth. Christians should acknowledge that discovered truth even when it appears to contradict what they believe the Bible says.

          • Amos Moses

            we do acknowledge it as truth … when it is and is confirmed by scripture ………. if it is not in line with scripture ….. then it is pseudo-science and a lie ……..

          • Jerry C

            I have been proven wrong many, many times; the Bible, never. In time, the Bible has proven to be a reliable source on every single level. Every. Single. Level.

          • Biscuit

            Was Jesus crucified after eating the Passover meal as in the synoptic gospels or before eating the Passover meal as in the Gospel of John?

          • Jerry C

            Seriously? Do you know anything concerning the Bible? Yeshua (Jesus Christ) would become the Passover Lamb on the exact day of Feast of Passover, so Yeshua ate the Passover meal the night before to be with His disciples before being Crucified on Passover (the exact same time the Sanhedrin were slaughtering the Passover lambs). As for “synoptic” gospels, what are you talking about?

          • Biscuit

            I will do my best to try to help you understand what is written in the Gospels. First, the synoptic Gospels refer to Matthew, Mark and Luke. If we look at Matthew, 14:12 “On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (the day the Passover lambs were sacrificed), Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go to prepare the Passover supper?” The Passover lambs were killed around noon of the day before the Passover. Sunset would become the beginning of the next day when they would eat the Passover meal (lambs). This is exactly what is written in Matthew. If we look at John 18:28 “…His accusers didn’t go in themselves because it would defile them, and they wouldn’t be allowed to celebrate the Passover feast”. Also in John 19:14 “It was now about noon of the day of preparation for the Passover…”. Finally in John19:31 “The Jewish leaders didn’t want the victims hanging there the next day, which was the Sabbath (and a very special Sabbath at that, because it was the Passover). So I hope you can see that in one case (Matthew), Jesus was killed after eating the Passover meal and in John he was killed before eating the Passover meal.

          • Jerry C

            Wrong again…again. Let me try to educate you. Jews consider the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover, the whole week, as Feast of Passover. Got it? The lambs were sacrificed in the middle of the week; actually it’s four days into it or Wednesday before evening. There was a special Sabboth as well before the Sabboth, seventh day of the week, so they were preparing a day in advance. Do you understand what preparing means? It means they were preparing for the special Sabboth BEFORE the day it arrives; hence, why they call it preparation day. Concerning your last comment, you are correct. Yeshua (Jesus Christ) was Crucified on Passover Day exactly on the Feast of Passover, was buried before sundown Wednesday, the middle of the week, before the special Sabboth & before the seventh day of the week, Sabboth, was buried for three days & evenings, which is the Feast of Unleavened Bread (unleavened means without sin) and was Resurrected on Feast of First Fruits (i.e. Yeshua being the first of the those to be Resurrected from the dead). You believe the Pharisees to have the correct Feast of Passover but not our Lord God & Savior?! You. Are. Grossly. Biblically. Ignorant. Hope this helps you.

          • Biscuit

            I have read several attempts to explain this inconsistency which were significantly better than your attempt. The other attempts were unsatisfactory as well.

          • Jerry C

            I recall this study on my own lasting several months and came to the conclusions below:

            1. Yeshua was arrested and interrogated by the Sanhedrin for three days trying to find fault with Him. During this same time, lambs are being inspected for any blemishes for their sacrifice on Passover on the 14th day (Nisan, I believe). So, day 1 would have been Nisan 10 which would have been on Sunday.
            2. Sanhedrin found no fault with Him, so accused Him of blasphemy (for saying, “I AM”, equating Himself equal with God).
            3. During those three days from Sunday to Tuesday, Yeshua was flogged & whipped to an inch of His life, but no bones were broken. This ties into the Feast of Passover, again, where the sacrificial lamb is not only to be without blemish, but also no bones are to be broken (this goes all the way back to Moses and the angel of death on Passover before they left Egypt).
            4. On Wednesday afternoon at 3pm (after Tuesday evening, before Wednesday evening and before the special Sabboth on Thursday, it’s also the 3rd hour), Yeshua was Crucified, gave up the Holy Ghost and was buried before sundown. Even in death, Yeshua fulfilled observing the weekly Sabboth, as well as Feast of Passover & Unleavened Bread.
            5. Yeshua stayed buried for three days & three nights (from Wednesday to Friday, i,e, evening to evening on God’s time). This fulfills Feast of Unleavened Bread.
            6. While it was still dark, on Sunday morning, the first day of the week and after the weekly Sabboth, Yeshua haMessiah rose from the dead exactly on Feast of First Fruits.

            I could go into much more detail covering the months I’ve spent studying this one aspect, but you get the idea.

            As for me, I am satisfied with this interpretation to explain the “inconsistency” as you put it. You can believe whatever you want. Regardless, for there to be three days & three nights for Yeshua to be buried (Unleavened Bread) and observing the weekly Sabboth on Friday evening to Saturday evening and a special Sabboth before Friday evening, Yeshua would have at least been Crucified no later than by Wednesday evening. There is no way He was Crucified on a Friday.

          • Jerry C

            2 Timothy 1:7 – For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

            Romans 12:2
            – And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the
            renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and
            acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

            1 Peter 1:13
            – Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the
            end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of
            Jesus Christ;

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            The thing is, the Catholic Church made Galileo renounce his belief that the Earth rotated around the Sun, because they believed scripture stated that the Earth is fixed and can’t be moved, because the Bible says that. The thing is there is context within scripture as well as meaning. The verse referenced above does not mean that the Earth stays in one place because Job makes it clear “the earth hangs from nothing.” In like manner, many Christians today don’t take the time to search out the meaning or possible meaning of all the words of the Bible, and thus misinterpret what it is saying. Things such as ancient Earth, evolution, laws of physics, and such can be found in the Bible, though not in scientific complexity. Seek God and you will find him.

          • The Skeptical Chymist

            Many people, including myself, consider religion to be a man-made construct, just a more fallible one than science because it lacks a self-correcting mechanism.

          • Amos Moses

            “Many people, including myself, consider religion to be a man-made construct,”

            Many do …… and religion is a very imprecise word …… there are two religions in the world ….. one where men are told “do this and do that” and the basic component is “do” …. the other is …. “it is done” ….. and there is nothing we have to do …. and one, the first one, is fallible men ….. and the other is God ….. and the truth ……… and the self correcting mechanism is God …….. and when you leave God out of your observations of the evidence ……… then your science has no “self-correcting mechanism” ….. as you have left out the person that corrects it ……. and your observations of the evidence is always in error …. as you ignore the evidence of God ………….

          • Jerry C

            Genesis 1:1 in Hebrew and John 1:1 in Greek using Gematria. Book of Esther in Hebrew & acrostics. Just a small sample of the Creative Mind behind them all.

      • Amos Moses

        Nope …… the universe and God does not change and there is nothing science can do to change it …………… nor can man ……………

        “Looks like you’ll just have to continue sharing the planet with people who don’t think just like you. Apparently you don’t like that. You want to force others to be like you.”

        nothing new in that ……. and right back at cha sport …………

    • Ira Pistos

      Your comment:
      “Science continues to make progress. Religion, not so much.”

      Translation: The fruit of blank will kill you if ingested. Therefor all fruit is bad.

      The concept of religion is not useful in precise conversation and tends only to be used by the ignorant to paint disparagingly with a broad brush in order to hide their lack of any real comprehension regarding Christianity.

      “The core of science is the deep awareness that we have wrong ideas”
      “we have prejudices. We have ingrained prejudices”

      The Word of God is constant. He is unchanging and requires no correction.

      Is the promise of salvation so alarming.
      Is the promise of unconditional love so repulsive?

      Believe in Jesus and be saved. All things are to the good of those who love Him.

      Those who reject Him, hate His word and speak against it at any opportunity.

      • Trilemma

        The Bible is not constant, but has changed many times. Christian beliefs about what the Bible says have also changed and continue to change. Christians must also recognize that they too have wrong ideas and ingrained prejudices.

        • Ira Pistos

          Your assertion:
          “The Bible is not constant, but has changed many times”

          This is a false assertion. Scripture has not altered in the slightest.

          Your assertion:
          “Christian beliefs about what the Bible says have also changed and continue to change”

          This is a false assertion. Christians do not believe that scripture says anything different today than it said yesterday.
          Rather an irrelevant point in any case. Were I to believe that it said other than it does then I would be wrong and scripture would remain constant.

          I give you in all sincerity that a mathematics text states that X+2=7 in one place but in another it says that X=2=12. Do you accept that mathematics has changed and is thoroughly debunked?

          • Trilemma

            The New Testament in the KJV is based on the Textus Receptus version of the Greek. The NIV NT is based on the Nestle-Aland version of the Greek. The Nestle-Aland version either deletes or modifies many verses from the Textus Receptus version. Which version of the Greek should be considered Scripture?

          • Ira Pistos

            This causes you to reinforce rejection when rejection already rules your heart.
            Do you find that the gospel changes between translations? Do you believe that the Spirit only lends discernment to Christians who select the correct publishing house?
            There are a plethora of translations that are all acceptable and I urge you to pursue the Word rather than quibble over methods of translation as every single Christian bible is from the same source.

            You’re looking for flaw where none of relevance exists, searchers usually find that which they’ve determined to find.

          • Trilemma

            I do find the gospel changes between translations. Some translations have the word, “Hell,” in them. Other translations don’t have the word, “Hell.” If Hell is an integral part of the gospel, then the Bibles that have “Hell” in them must be presenting a different gospel than the ones that don’t.

          • Jerry C

            Talk to twenty different witnesses and you’ll get twenty different versions of the truth; all admissible in the court of law as evidence. And it’s quite possible that all twenty versions are 100% truthful and 100% factual in their accounts. Seriously, I don’t understand your position against the Bible at all. You may have a problem with man, but the Word of God has been proven correct, time and time again.

          • Trilemma

            However, neither the witnesses themselves nor anyone else claim the testimonies in a court of law are inspired by God. If the Bible is the inspired word of God then it can’t be clouded with errors in human perception.

          • Jerry C

            “clouded with errors in human perception”. There are none; just your drivel. If you want to quote specific Bible verses, then do so from the original ancient Hebrew; otherwise English King James Version of 1611. Go and I’ll shew your ignorance.

          • Trilemma

            The genealogies of Joseph in Luke and Matthew don’t match. One of them must be wrong.

          • Jerry C

            Wrong…again. Both genealogies are correct. Matthew traces Yeshua’s (Jesus Christ) ancestry via His step-dad Joseph; while Luke traces His ancestry via His mother Mary. Here’s a summary of why: God cursed the Davidianic line even though earlier He prophesied the Messiah would come from king David, so even though Joseph was from the royal bloodline, any offspring is cursed. However, being that Joseph was Yeshua’s step-dad, Yeshua inherited all the rights of a son. That still leaves the blood curse; enter the virgin Mary. By impregnating the virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit, God side-steps this curse. Voila! Old Testament laws on a kinsman redeemer & woman inheritance laws, Yeshua (Jesus Christ) inherits all of Mary’s rights as well but without the blood curse. That’s it in a nut shell. satan thought he could outsmart God, but that’s a fool’s errand. Next.

          • Trilemma

            Luke 3:23 – NIV says, “Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli.” Luke clearly says Joseph was the son of Heli and not Mary being the daughter of Heli. Besides, Mary was most likely a Levite as was her cousin, Elizabeth.

          • Jerry C

            Luke 3:23-“…He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph, the son of Heil.” King James Versions translates it as, (as was supposed). So, the inspired Word of God is saying people “supposed” Joseph to be the son of Heli; which he was not. In no way is this verse saying Joseph is the son of Heli. The Word of God is infallible. If you perceive a contradiction, then it’s up to you to research it to find out why you were wrong.

            FYI-Did you know that the Word of God never refers to Joseph as Jesus’ father? Why? Because he wasn’t; only Jesus’ step-father. Amazing the power of a word.

          • Trilemma

            Nope. Luke 3:23 says that people “supposed” Jesus to be the son of Joseph. It definitely says Joseph was the son of Heli.

          • Jerry C

            Matthew wrote for the perspective of Jews, so therefor from Joseph’s lineage; while Luke wrote for Gentiles, so therefor from Mary’s lineage. Concerning Luke, he was a physician, so his writings are not only truthful & accurate (as all of the Word of God), but very, very detailed. Much of their accounts are of what people thought which may have nothing to do with the actual truth (like assuming/supposing Jesus was the son of Joseph even if allowed for legal purposes).

            I’ll take Luke’s honest, accurate & detailed account into Mary’s lineage in addition to Matthew’s honest & accurate account into Joseph’s lineage even though each had liberty including or omitting names to emphasize the aspect of Messiah each wanted to highlight.

            Here’s a quote that may help you understand:

            2. That these words the son is in the Greek only Luke 3:23, where Christ is said to be “the son of Joseph,” but ever after it is supplied by the translators. So as the Greek runs thus: The Son of Joseph, which was of Heli, which was of Matthat, which was of Levi, which was of Melchi, &c.
            Which consideration cuts off the first cavil, how Joseph could be the
            son of Jacob, as Matthew saith, and the son of Heli, as Luke saith; for
            indeed Luke saith no more than, And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, Luke 3:23;
            that is, Christ was of Heli, the supposed son of Joseph, but truly of
            Heli, the father of Mary his mother. I know that some think Jacob was
            also called Heli (as it was ordinary with the Jews to have two names);
            others think that Joseph is called the son, because he was the
            son-in-law of Heli, by the marriage of the virgin Mary his daughter.
            (Naomi calleth those her daughters who were but her legal daughters, Ruth 1:11)
            In this the most agree. But I must confess I think it is Christ, who is
            here said to be of Heli (though he was reputed, and generally taken, to
            be the son of Joseph).

          • Ira Pistos

            Actually, Hell isn’t so much an integral part of the good news as it is the ramification of the rejection of that good news.

            Here you are quibbling over variations of translation again and doing so without citing publication and verse. You’re grasping here.

            If a translation uses a specific word in one place while another translation uses different words to express the same meaning then it is the same message that is delivered.
            Your problem is that you suffer the fruits of rejection, grasping desperately at any straw to fight the word at every turn rather than ever submitting to honest inquiry at any point.

            Now, that being said, if you dig up in your grasping, a book that represents itself as a Christian bible but rejects any part of God’s word then what you are clutching is not in fact a Christian bible but a dicey straw that will either break under your grasp or hang you.

          • Jerry C

            The Textus Receptus is the Authorized Version for a good reason and why King James didn’t use those tests found in Alexandria, Egypt. Next.

          • Trilemma

            The KJV translators did not use those texts because they either didn’t have access to them or didn’t understand their significance. There are modern translations that use the Textus Receptus; the Literal Translation of the Bible, 1995, is one. Many Bibles today have no copyright such as the RSV, YLT, Darby, WEB and NET.

        • Amos Moses

          “The Bible is not constant, but has changed many times.”

          a lie and provable wrong …………..

          “Christian beliefs about what the Bible says have also changed and continue to change. ”

          Nope …. the bible and its message has not changed …. but just as there are bad scientists who ignore the evidence …. there are people who try to misuse scripture ………

          • Trilemma

            ”a lie and provable wrong …………..”

            Okay, prove the Bible has not changed since the original manuscripts were penned.

          • Amos Moses

            we do not have manuscripts ….. we have autographs ….. and compared to other ancient writings …. it is not even a close contest …..

            Dramatically, when the Bible manuscripts are compared to other ancient writings, they stand alone as the best-preserved literary works of all antiquity. Remarkably, there are thousands of existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree phenomenally with each other. In addition, these texts substantially agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in Israel in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide astounding evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of the Jewish Scriptures (Old Testament) in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries BC.

            The manuscript evidence for the “New Testament” is also dramatic, with nearly 25,000 ancient manuscripts discovered and archived so far, at least 5,600 of which are copies and fragments in the original Greek. 4 Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.

            Interestingly, this manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day. Look at these comparisons: Julius Caesar’s The Gallic Wars (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s Natural History (7 manuscripts; 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ History (8 manuscripts; 1,350 years elapsed); Plato (7 manuscripts; 1,300 years); and Tacitus’ Annals (20 manuscripts; 1,000 years).

            The academic discipline of “textual criticism” assures us that the Bible translations we have today are essentially the same as the ancient Bible manuscripts, with the exception of a few inconsequential discrepancies that have been introduced over time through copyist error. We must remember that the Bible was hand-copied for hundreds of years before the invention of the first printing press. Nevertheless, the text is exceedingly well preserved. Again, I pondered this — of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament.

          • Trilemma

            Tsk, tsk. You didn’t cite the source for all this text you copied.

            This article makes it clear that errors or changes crept into the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus. Thanks to the academic discipline of “textual criticism,” the Textus Receptus has been changed to correct those errors in order to get closer to the originals. So the Bible is not constant but has undergone changes.

          • Amos Moses

            “This article makes it clear that errors or changes crept into the Greek text known as the Textus Receptus.”

            Cites get flagged if it is a website …….. so what … as was posted …….. “of the approximately 20,000 lines that make up the entire New Testament, only 40 lines are in question. These 40 lines represent one quarter of one percent of the entire text and do not in any way affect the teaching and doctrine of the New Testament.”

            Done ……

          • Trilemma

            The result of “textural criticism” is the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament which is undoubtedly the version this article is talking about that only has 40 questionable lines. To get from the Textus Receptus to the Nestle-Aland thousands of changes had to be made. The Nestle-Aland has 2886 fewer Greek words than the Textus Receptus. That’s equivalent to deleting 400 questionable lines or deleting both 1Peter and 2Peter. Significant deletions are Acts 8:37, part of Matthew 6:13 and parts of 1John 5:7 and 1John 5:8. So the Bible has changed with thousands of additions to get to the Textus Receptus and thousands of deletions from there to get to the Nestle-Aland.

        • Jerry C

          The Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947 prove the accuracy of translation of the Bible for almost 2,000 years. In addition, there are over 50,000 manuscripts one can use to translate the Bible to the original ancient documents. Of course human beliefs change and will continue to change and potentially be wrong, but the Word of God stands. Study the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, English, Acrostics and Gematria, then get back to me. And that’s just for starters since I’ve been studying it over 20 years.

          • Trilemma

            The story of the woman caught in adultery was added hundreds of years after the book of John was originally written. There is no way of knowing exactly what the original ancient documents said. Some of them don’t even exist anymore.

          • Jerry C

            Wrong again. You’re assuming the texts found in Alexandria, Egypt are the correct ones; which they are not since the Textus Receptus is the Authorized Text. Try. To. Keep. Up.

          • Trilemma

            It’s called the Authorized Text because it was authorized by King James, not God.

          • Jerry C

            Or was it? 😉 How many of the modern Biblical translations were authorized by a king?

    • getstryker

      You are in error sir . . . Biblical Christianity already HAS the answers . . . the only ‘progress’ science continues to make is the process of catching up!

      • Trilemma

        Biblical Christianity already has the answers to what questions that science is trying to answer.

  • Amos Moses

    Science can only uncover the magnificent creation of the Creator …………. another recent story that CONFIRMS the biblical account of creation and the flood ………..

    Deepest water found 1000km down, a third of way to Earth’s core – New Scientist

    ….. scripture mentions the “fountains of the deep” opening up to cause the flood ………

    Ge 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

    • Trilemma

      The mean radius of the Earth is 6,371.0 km so 1000km is less than one sixth of the way to the center of the Earth.

      • Amos Moses

        you will have to take up your objection with the author of the article ….. and that does not alter my statement ……….

      • Bob Johnson

        That’s a third of the way to the core, not a third of the way to the center – and the core is large.

        • Trilemma

          I found the New Scientist article and it says, “a third of the way to the edge of Earth’s core.” So you’re correct. It does seem a bit misleading to describe the depth of the water that way.

          • Jerry C

            How is it a bit misleading when it says exactly what it meant. If it had said to the center of Earth’s core, I’d say you’d be right in it being misleading, but this, no.

          • Trilemma

            Most people don’t know the diameter of the Earth’s core. They also didn’t specify which core: outer core, inner core, or inner inner core.

          • Jerry C

            Does anyone really know? Who has dug down to that depth and verified it by observation? Do you even know the lowest level that man has been able to go? Concerning your distinctions between outer, inner & inner inner, I think you should be a layer, if you aren’t already. You’re splitting hairs when the article isn’t being misleading. The real question you need to ask yourself is why are you so critical. My guess is there is your problem.

    • Trilemma

      The flood story in Genesis is Hebrew mythology. There are hundreds of flood stories. Why should I believe the one retold in Genesis is actual historical fact?

      • Amos Moses

        Nope ………… it is what actually happened and it is confirmed by science again and again …….

      • Ira Pistos

        Your assertion:
        “The flood story in Genesis is Hebrew mythology.”

        This is nothing but a statement of blind faith. Unless you can prove it.

        Your assertion:
        “There are hundreds of flood stories.”

        I don’t know the actual count but there certainly are a number lending great weight to the veracity of scripture.
        I would find it disturbing were there not many flood stories as the event should quite rightly have left an indelible imprint upon the human consciousness.

        Your question:
        “Why should I believe the one retold in Genesis is actual historical fact?”

        Why shouldn’t you? The overarching veracity of the entirety of scripture should give a thinking person reason to consider it as actual historical fact.

        • Trilemma

          To say that the Genesis flood is actual historical fact is a statement of blind faith. Unless you can prove it. There is much scientific evidence for catastrophic floods throughout Earth’s history but there is no scientific proof that a global flood happened less than 5000 years ago.

          • Guest254

            Faith isn’t blind. Those that are pure in heart shall see God. Jesus said that in Matthew 5:8

          • Amos Moses

            “but there is no scientific proof that a global flood happened less than 5000 years ago.”

            absence of evidence is not evidence of absence …… but the fact is …. there is abundant evidence ….. unless one does not believe what the evidence proves by ignoring part of the evidence ….. ignoring evidence is not science … it is pseudo-science …..

            Just because a scientist says something does not make it science ….. or true even less so ………….

          • Ira Pistos

            Your assertion:
            “To say that the Genesis flood is actual historical fact is a statement of blind faith. Unless you can prove it.”

            No. That isn’t what blind faith means. Blind faith is a faith without any backing, no history of previous faithfulness, no constancy of integrity.
            “A belief without true understanding, perception or discrimination.
            Such is your assertion that the account of the flood in genesis is Hebrew mythology.
            Christian faith on the other hand is based solely upon reason. Consistent proof of God’s constancy and the flawless accuracy of His pronouncements. Even if we were to set aside the external evidence for the flood, we have in God’s word sufficient proof of His faithfulness and veracity that we can trust that which we can not test.

            Your statement:
            “but there is no scientific proof that a global flood happened less than 5000 years ago.”

            The idea of scientific proof is vaporous at best. It is a crutch clutched all too desperately by materialists and which is all too often kicked out of grasp by honest pursuit if knowledge.

      • Jerry C

        Those hundreds of Flood stories agree about 80% or so with the same information (i.e. worldwide flood, boat, few people, animals, etc…), so you may not believe the Genesis account as actual historical 100% fact but certainly can take the leap to believe a majority of it. No? For the record, I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God, so I take it as actual historical fact. You do realize that someone who tells a story first doesn’t mean he has the truth. No?

    • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

      Genetics disproves, Adam and Eve, and by extension Noah.

      Geology disproves a (worldwide) flood.

      And there are trees that are much older then 5,000 years.

      • Amos Moses

        what utter baloney ………. “science” wants to call “Lucy” the first woman ….. BY GENETICS …. so fail on that …. the rest of what you say is just faulty observations on your part …. as you exclude part of the evidence ………..

      • cadcoke5

        Is there a specific study you can cite?

  • Pegasus

    I know lots of Christians who work in the sciences, health care, and technology. None of them see any conflict between science and faith. The “war between science and religion” is a hoax that we need to put to rest.

    • Amos Moses

      Christians have absolutely NOTHING to fear from science ….. it can only confirm a Creator and a creation ………..

      • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

        Not sure it can confirm a creator. Science is a study of nature, and can only explain natural phenomenon.

        • cadcoke5

          Yes, nature itself does confirm its creator.

          Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

          But, so many in science don’t actually want to study to find the full truth, rather they only want truth if it excludes God. They study nature, without truly thinking how nature ultimately came to be, or how its rules ultimately became established. They discount any possibility that God could act and not be bound himself to stay within the rules he put into his creation. But, in truth, nature itself is a witness to God’s existence.

    • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

      Science doesn’t disprove a god. But it does bring into question many things taught in the Bible, or any holy book for that matter into question.

      Things like evolution aren’t compatible with a literal interpretation of stories like Adam and Eve, or Noah.

      Genesis as a whole isn’t compatible with what science tells us.

      There are many Christians who accept the scientific explanations, and view holy Scriptures as metaphor.

      I would say science and religion are only compatible if you view it religion as metaphor.

      • Royce E. Van Blaricome

        That’s not true. You’re not seeing the compatibility of Genesis because you’re only looking at the “science” that brings it into question. Not the science that shows it to be true.

        • Biscuit

          I am sure that science would agree with Genesis 6:1-4 “…the sons of God saw the beautiful women of the human race and took any they wanted as their wives. Then the Lord said , “My Spirit will not put up with humans …”. In those days, and even afterward, giants lived on earth, for whenever the Sons of God had intercourse with human women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes mentioned in legends of old”.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            I have no clue what translation that is but I am glad to see that you agree with me. I’m sure too.

  • Nidalap

    Humans are fallible by nature. Any or all of us is subject to being wrong, no matter how famous we may be or how we proclaim something LAW…

    That being said, who said anything has to actually leave the chamber?
    They said things were colliding. That means motion is taking place.
    If I turn on a high-pressure hose inside a bouncy house, won’t it move?

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    I’m sure there are other things waiting to be discovered, like space-bending, as well as particles tinier than quarks.

  • Mendo Merk

    A little is missing here. Microwave photons may interact with neutrino photons or dark matter, Space is filled with such. What is missing is the efficiency. High energy microwave radiation creates massive currents in the walls of the cavity which must generate heat. How much thrust is obtained from the total power supplied to the cavity?