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.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • 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,
      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.

          • Saunders61

            Apparently, after the great global flood, mating pairs of kangaroo, koala, platypus, et al. swam all the way to Australia to homestead the new continent.

      • 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 ………..

        • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

          You don’t understand evolution then. “Lucy” wasn’t the first women. There was no single member of our species that came first. Study up my friend, you’ll only make yourself look like you don’t know what you are talking about.

          Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

          • Amos Moses

            sure ………… whatever ………. i used to believe in evolution …… but then i evolved ….. and now i think it is stupid ……………..

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            You used to believe in evolution, without a proper understanding of it. Without researching it, you found something easier to believe in. You were just being lazy.

          • Amos Moses

            i do not have enough faith to be an atheist or an evolutionist …… and it is a stupid idea ………….. in any event …………

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            Don’t need faith in evolution, just a proper understanding of it, and its evidence.

            Theres nothing atheism has faith in. Its a lack of belief, not a belief.

          • Amos Moses

            evidence points to a Creator ……… not evolution …………

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            Funny sh!t. Have a good day with your delusions.

          • Amos Moses

            bye …. see ya …. would not want to be ya ……….

      • 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

            Not at all true. Science follows the evidence, wherever it may lead them. It doesn’t make assertions, to support their own preconceived notions. If there isn’t any supporting evidence, there is no study.

          • cadcoke5

            When you deal with the past, you are primarily dealing with the imagination. The job of a forensic investigator is to try to imagine a story that ends with the observed facts as they are now. So, preconceived notions can have a very large effect on that kind of science.

            Even for things that are happening right now, if they are too far away to really handle and test, the imagination also can play a big part.
            Copernicus and Galileo imagined that the paths of the planets around the sun were perfect circles. Ptolemy imagined the planets embedded in, I think 40, crystal spheres. Ptolemy’s system was more accurate at predicting the future locations of the planets, so his won out for centuries. It took the imagination of Newton, who imagined that the same force that caused things to fall to the earth, also was at work in the heavens, and justified Kepler’s elliptical orbits, to really get the solar-centric system adopted.

            An atheistic view of the source of life is paramount for the evolutionary faithful. For whale evolution, they will ignore that the incomplete fossil of their Rodhocetus didn’t have any blow-hole, or flippers. Museums will spend many thousands of dollars for reproductions of that whale skeleton because it is supposedly undeniable proof of evolution. The scientists useed their preconceived notions to re-create the missing parts.

            Even after a mostly complete fossil of Rodhocetus was found to clearly have been a land animal, the discoverer of the original Rodhocetus, Philip Gingerich, says that the ear-bone clearly indicates it is in the ancestry of whale evolution. And it is not like you can really see any difference that makes this bone more like a whale than an typical land creature. His pre-conceived notions are the thing that is driving his science.

    • 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.

        • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

          Pseudoscience isn’t to be taking seriously.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And “pseudoscience” is usually defined as that which is anything that one doesn’t agree with. Most especially when it may give any credence to God.

            Just like the comments made to Larry Vardiman like, “Fascinating study & results but it can’t be true because you guys are Christians.”

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            No, it is “a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.

            Can your hypotheses be tested? What evidence is their supporting your hypotheses? How could you test, a creators hand in it?

            I’m agnostic atheist, I don’t believe in a god, not that I “believe” there isn’t a god.

            If you can show empirical evidence, I have no issue accepting it.

            I have had this talk with believers before. It mostly consist of fallacious beliefs, assertions of facts, and misunderstanding of what science is actually telling us.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, it’s exactly what I said. You didn’t need to tell me what you are. That was blatantly obvious from your question. Other comments above that I just saw reinforced that.

            If you would bother to make any effort whatsoever you can do a simple Google search and find a bazillion results in a nanosecond that can lead you to the Truth. There’s really NO excuse these days for not being informed.

            I gave you Larry Vardiman’s name above. Google that and “RATE” and you’ll find the evidence. After his seminar many went back and tried to prove him wrong and couldn’t. As Pegasus said above, there are plenty of Christians who are scientists and in various vocations that involve the various sciences.

            That said, your “If you can show empirical evidence, I have no issue accepting it” is a non sequitur. You know doggone good and well that I can no more provide you with “empirical evidence” than you can.

            In fact, much, if not most, of what we get from Science in not empirical evidence but rather suppositions that stem from the empirical evidence. For example, look at all the museums and displays in national parks and in textbooks etc. that show pictures of Neanderthal Man or Lucy or Java Man or what-have-you. This pics show them with certain facial features, skin color, hair-styles and on the body, etc. There is NO “empirical evidence” of that. NONE. In fact most of those “artistic impressions” were extrapolated from a few bones!

            Now, you wanna tell me more about “fallacious beliefs”, “assertion of facts” and “misunderstanding of what science is actually telling us”?

            The fact is you have a greater faith that I do. There is NO way I could ever believe that something came from nothing and order comes from disorder. For more on that, watch the video of “The Atheist Delusion”. Watch the reaction of numerous people when they actually have to think about what the believe instead of just swallowing the regurgitated gruel they’ve been spoonfed.

            God has said that He has made Himself PLAINLY KNOWN to you. That’s good enough for me.

            18 For the wrath of God IS REVEALED from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which IS KNOWN about God IS EVIDENT within them; for God MADE IT EVIDENT o them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood through what has been made, so that they are WITHOUT EXCUSE 21 For even though they KNEW God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools (Rom. 1:18-22)

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            Fossils aren’t the hard evidence. We could have “0” fossils. and still have enough evidence to support evolution.

            Genetics, ERV’s, ecology, embryology, comparative Anatomy, are all much more robust forms of supporting evidence. Fossils are only the icing on the cake.

            Make your case. Keep it short tho. Don’t feel like going through a long list of arguments.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            You just proved my point. Thank you. None of that you mentioned in “supporting evidence”. In fact, it’s just the opposite and points toward an Intelligent Designer. Which is exactly why the atheists fight so hard to keep that concept from even being able to be discussed or brought up in a classroom. Proving again that it’s Indoctrination that is more the concern and not Education.

            I’ve already given you plenty to keep you busy. Just go research the RATE Study by Vardiman and his team and watch Atheist Delusion.

            Then it’s up to you. You can choose to see and believe what’s really there or you can choose to see only thru your filter of Unbelief and continue to believe the lie. It’s entirely up to you.

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            I could argue with you all day, that it is a known fact, that genetics, traits and features are passed down from parent to offspring. No god needed. And that every creature on earth share a percentage of DNA with each other. Some share more DNA with each other, then they do with other species, (e.g Chimps and Humans). But you’ll bring up the common creator argument as you just did.

            I’m going to take this a step further. ERV’s or Endogenous retroviruses, also know as junk DNA. Is a wrench thrown in the gears of the common creator argument.

            ERV’s replicate themselves, and insert a copy into the host it occupies. If they were to say, do this to a egg, or sperm cell of the host. The ERV will be passed down every generation there on. It will become apart of its hosts genome.

            We share 16 ERV’s with other apes. In the same DNA strands, in the same exact location in them DNA strands. For this to happen, independently in each species, and under the free will of the organism, and its host. Is immensely unlikely to happen.

            Not only do Humans and other apes share high percentages of DNA, they share 16 ERV’s that could have only been passed down from a common ancestor. Humans and other apes aren’t the only species that share high percentages of DNA, and ERV’s. Its all very improbable.

            Applying occam’s razor. “Scientific principle that of any given set of explanations for an event occurring, it is most likely that the simplest one is the correct one.”

            And the explanation, has always been a natural one.

            So either a god created every animal, made it look like they share a common ancestor, he also made it a point, to place ERV’s in the right places to make it look that much more convincing. And he’s fooling us.

            Or the simplest answer, is that we all share a common ancestor.

            Why is there a yolk sac in the womb of mammals, why do air breathing species have gills as fetuses. Why do dolphin embryos have vestigial limbs nubs?

            Why don’t we find bunny rabbits, with T-Rex fossils?

            The common creator is biological evolution.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            And I’m sure I could argue with you all day long too. But what good would it do other than be an exercise in futility. As I said before, I know that you KNOW the Truth and have simply chosen to reject it. So why continue this?

            I’ve given you specific things that you COULD go look at and consider IF you were even open-minded enough to do so. And, as usual, you don’t because you guys are more interested in holding on to your Unbelief and regurgitating the same ol’ gruel time after time after time.

            “Before I formed you in your mother’s womb…” (Jer. 1:5)

            “You clothed me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews.” (Job 10:11)

            “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
            Wonderful are Your works (Psa 139:14)

            And there are more I could post. The point is “The common creator is” The Creator!” You wanna believe in your fairy tale go right ahead. The DNA is the Book of Life for Creation and it is a mathematical impossibility for life to have been created according to your falsehoods. The DNA book MUST have an Author.

            All your post has done is show how prideful a limited mind can be which results in such a degree of ignorance that it is incapable of even understanding the concept of an Almighty Omnipotent Omniscient Omnipresent Immutable God.

            Better to humble yourself and understand you WILL exist somewhere. Either in absolute indescribable joy and bliss with Eternal Life or in absolute indescribable misery and torment with Eternal Death because you chose to hang on to your Pride and reject that which has been PLAINLY known to you.

            You’ve sinned against an Almighty God who loves you and desires to save you and has provided the way for you to come back into Perfection. It’s your choice whether you choose to surrender or not.

            “or all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23)

            “And you who are dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them who live in the lusts of the flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 BUT GOD, BEING RICH IN MERCY, BECAUSE OF HIS GREAT LOVE with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, can make you alive together with Christ (by grace you can be saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward you in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you can be saved through faith; and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” (Eph. 2:1-9)

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            www (dot) rationalskepticism (dot) org/creationism/calilasseia-aig-carbon-dating-drivel-debunked-t1101 (dot) html

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            I only asked that you present your own case. I just looked up his name, and I wasn’t at all surprised by what I found. Just more common “refuted” creationist nonsense. I’ve been through this with creationist like you way to many times.

            You try to scold me for not looking his name up. How about you do some real research on dating methods.

            You are a creationist hand book. Every argument you’ve made so far, has been time in, and time out refuted and debunked.

            The Truth About PhD Creationists
            YouTube> IPyKaH09lpc?l

            Radiometric Dating is Flawed!! Really?? How Old IS the Earth?
            YouTube> iGDrq8rikJc?l

            There is only two kinds of creationist. The willfully ignorant, or the blatantly dishonest. Which are you?

            I’m even sure you don’t even truly know how evolution even works.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            Thank you for proving my case. You looked up his name, wasn’t surprised to see he’s a Creationist, and dismissed him outright. Never mind looking at his SCIENCE!!

            NOTHING he, his colleagues, and his study have put forth have been refuted. NOTHING!!

            “Every argument you’ve made so far, has been time in, and time out refuted and debunked.”

            That IS a LIE!! You’re a Liar and of the father of all lies – Satan. You won’t be intellectually honest enough to just admit that you don’t wanna know the truth.

            You KNOW the Truth and you reject the Truth so you willfully choose to do your father’s, Satan, bidding. Perhaps you’ve already been turned over to a reprobate mind and that is why you come to a CHRISTIAN site to spew your nonsense. Perhaps you haven’t and there is yet still time to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ. Either way you are worth no more of my time.

            And I am absolutely positive that you have NO clue how evolution works. This I know that you do know though. Just as God formed dirt of the earth, breathed on it and it became a living man – Adam, one day you are going to breathe out your last breath and then your body will become dirt. But your spirit will meet the Almighty God you have denied and rejected for so long. And then one day your new body and spirit will be joined together again to stand before Christ and the judgment after which you will be cast into the Lake of Fire where you will spend eternity in torment FOREVER.

            And is just one good reason why God says the FOOL has said there is no God.

            Buh bye…

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            Pseudoscience isn’t to be taken seriously, said that from the start. Your one scientist vs the (peer reviewed) scientific community who say otherwise. Its no contest. You are willfully ignorant. You haven’t even taking the time to research what other scientist say. I’m sure you didn’t even watch the videos, or read the link I gave you. Have fun with your delusions.

            I explain ERV’s to you, all you have is that DNA is a book of life. lol Doesn’t even begin to argue against ERV’s, or evolution. Already told you, evolution doesn’t disprove a god, and god doesn’t disprove evolution.

            Your book of goat herding fairy tales on the other hand. Science is disproving it every step of the way.

            I’m sure you believe Adam and Eve were real people, that Noah and his family restarted the human population 4,000 years ago.

            First, there are trees older then 4,000 years old.

            Another cool thing about science, is they can trace genetics all the way back to our oldest ancestors, 200,000 years ago. They see no such bottleneck in our genetics.

            You need more then two members of a species to produce a healthy successful population. All tho not impossible, you’ll need more then 6,000 years to produce genetic diversity from two people. Thats if they are able to over come the problems of excessive inbreeding.

            High infant mortality rates, inability to procreate successfully, diseases and illnesses.

            Without genetic diversity, diseases and illnesses will run rampant throughout the population. Every member being similar genetically, means they have the same exact immunities as any other member of their population. If one of them can get sick, they’ll all get sick. One disease and illness could kill off large portions of the population,or wipe them out completely.

            You can research the (bottleneck effect), (founder effect), (genetic drift).

            Furthermore, how do you explain different races of humans? You need evolution for that. And don’t give me the micro, vs macro evolution nonsense.There is no difference in the two. One is like walking across the city, the other is like walking across the county. Both were achieved by (WALKING). Like micro, and macro, both were achieved by (mutations being selected for and against). Producing every race in 4,000 years would be rapid evolution by the way.

            Unlike you. I actually know a thing or two about this subject. And can’t be fooled by phony pseudoscientist. You’re a puppet, repeating everything every other ignorant creationist has ever said.

            If you actually knew a thing or two on the subject, I might have had at least some respect for you. I don’t, because you are stuck in this delusion called creationism.

            Go do some real %&#@ research! And stay off the creation websites. You might learn a thing or two.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            It’s only “pseudo-science” to the spiritually-dead and ignorant who bury their head in the sand and pretend it isn’t real.

            “You are willfully ignorant.” There’ the pot calling the kettle black. Thank you for giving a great example of the words of Jesus. He likely might call that a Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket.

            “You haven’t even taking the time to research what other scientist say.” Have you seen a professional about that god-complex. Your faux omniscience is really quite unbecoming. But hey, thanks for discrediting yourself again. Always appreciate it when you folks discredit yourself with the very words that come from your own mouth.

            “Your book of goat herding fairy tales on the other hand. Science is disproving it every step of the way.” LOL Thanks again. Y’all have been trying since the Fall of Man. Here’s your sign… Ain’t happened. Never will. The PROOF of your insanity is coming one day though and I truly hope I’m there to see the look on your face when it does. Only thing you’ve proved is that Delusion, Denial, and stubborn selfish rebellion is a VERY strong force. Oh, and let’s not forget your obvious and very blatant closed-minded bias and bigotry.

            “Another cool thing about science, is they can trace genetics all the way back to our oldest ancestors, 200,000 years ago. They see no such bottleneck in our genetics.” Another lie. Ironically, genetics are proving the likelihood that all humans go back to a common ancestor from the region of the Middle East. Moreover, your zeal to believe your Myth has so clouded your judgment and ability to think clearly that you refute your own argument. Even if Macro-Evolution were true, which it is not, it would go back to a common ancestor. Duh! Here’s your sign…

            And don’t give me the micro, vs macro evolution nonsense.There is no difference in the two.” Thank you. Here’s your sign…

            “Unlike you. I actually know a thing or two about this subject.” ROTFLMBO!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Do see someone professional though, please. “The DSM-IV-TR defines Narcissistic Personality Disorder as “an all-pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration or adulation and lack of empathy” and you’re showing way too many signs.

            Now go back to your AM Radio Station and discussions about how we never landed on the moon. Oh, and btw, I don’t think I’ll be taking any advice from you!

          • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

            You do know, that there are christians who accept evolution, and the big bang? Hell, there are scientist who study it who are christian, and support it.

          • Royce E. Van Blaricome

            No, I don’t know that. I know that there are some Posers who are self-professed Christians that deny God’s Word and I know that God said that MOST who claim to be Christians are in fact not.

            I also know that there may be some Christians who have been Born Again but are still Babes in Christ. While they have surrendered to Christ as a slave, been given a new heart to serve Christ as Lord for His purpose and glory – and are a new creation in Christ – they still carry around a mind that must be renewed (Rom. 12:1-2) and purge themselves from a lifelong gathering of garbage. I know for these that the Holy Spirit will illuminate their minds to the truth and as they continue to grow in their faith they will realize that God’s Word is Truth and the World along with the Enemy is Lies.

            What you’re probably not seeing here but in all actuality are alluding to is the veracity of Scripture and whether it is the inerrant, infallible, timeless, literal Word of God just as 2nd Tim. 3:16 states. I, of course, maintain that it is.

  • 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?

  • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

    Design and complexity doesn’t mean there was a intelligent force behind it. Where we see design and complexity, we also see flaw. Nothing is perfect in biology. If there was a intelligence like a god behind it, I would expect nothing less then perfection.

    Nothing in biology make sense without a understanding of natural selection.

  • Google_Is_The_Higgs_Boson

    “Design always demonstrates a designer.”

    The designer doesn’t necessarily have to be a intelligent being.

    A understanding of Natural selection will clear up your confusion on the appearance of design in creatures. Selective pressures (e.g the environment, the weather, the kind of food that is available to eat, the abundance, or lack of that food, if you are predator or prey). These selective pressures mold the creatures to survive or die off. If what you would call bad design doesn’t work good enough for them to survive, it will be weeded out by selective pressures. If what you would call good design allowed for them to survive, it will be passed down to the next generations and so forth.

    “Don’t be so ignorant in your thinking as to believe anything can come from nothing ”

    I don’t believe anything came from nothing. My honest opinion is that we don’t know. I’m not asserting an answer for where everything came from. You are, don’t be so arrogant in your thinking to believe you know how the universe came to be. It is under no obligation to make sense to you

    To add, we compare things that are designed with things that clearly are not. You believe everything is designed. Its the watch maker argument. You see a watch in a ocean of watches.

    Complexity isn’t the hallmark of design, simplicity is.

    “And only God can create”

    How do you know that? Who created god? If the answer is that he always existed, then you made a logical fallacy called special pleading.

  • Bedbugger

    The use of a cone indicates that the em photons are being channeled to the tip of the cone under a phenomena known as Cavity Structural Effect.