Jump to content

Our Created Sun


Recommended Posts

Our Created Sun Week of July 12, 2008 About the program:

Our life sustaining sun in all of its strength was created on day four of the creation week. But, evolutionists believe the sun took billions of years to develop. We’ll challenge that claim and discuss scientific facts about our created sun this week on Science, Scripture, and Salvation!

mp3_dl.gif Download MP3 ra_dl.gif Download Real Audio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ace123

The sun is dieing, we are all in imediate danger of having our world torn about in a super nova thats going to reverse into a black hole.

I suggest we start building an interstellar space craft large enough to sustain a substanial amount of human populous in stasis and a library of DNA of all the creatures on this planet so we can recreate our world on the first eligible planet we find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan

Wait, their biggest argument is, "Oh, how unlikely there were greenhouses gases that were just right?"

And as far as there had to be supernovas to make stars that turn into supernovas...... The theory is that the big bang threw out all that matter, then it collected through gravity to form things. The pressure that they talk about is what caused the heat to begin the fusion process. So it didn't require stars, it had the big bang!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've not personally seen any scientific evidence that there was a "Big Bang." scientifically, if you can't physically prove it with evidence, then, its just a hypothesis. I think its just what made sense for now. unless my sources are off, the big bang wasn't a coined term until 1964 although the idea came around in the 1920's. creation theory has been in play for thousands of years. kinda like a credit report. gotta go with what's the usual sustaining probability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ace123

your "usual sustaining probability" relies on a system of thinking which completely relies on having faith in something you have no way of proving exists, the icing on the cake being, you have NO desire to ever prove exists, because that would negate the entire function of the system.

Also your argument for your system based on the fact that the idea was in play for a longer period of time can be completely defeated. For 99.9% of the the existence of man, we believed the earth was flat. We also believe the earth was the center of the universe. For most of the time man has walked this earth, we believed the stars were gods, and storms and natural disasters were punishments from the gods. Less than 25% of the time man walked the earth have we had any kind of organized religion.

So based on your argument, God doesn't exist, and you should be praying to a set of gods, because that system of thinking has been in place longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow !!!! such blanket statements hold little veracity. To say that "we" believed the earth was flat,stars were gods,etc. belies the fact that there have been throughout history myriads of people who believed otherwise.

It would be just as ludicrous to state that "we" believed in spontaneous generation of life (which was dissproved by Fransesco Redi with his fly/maggott

experiments) or to say "we", as Aristotle believed that under the proper conditions putatively “simple” animals such as worms, fleas, mice, and dogs could spring to life spontaneously from moist ”Mother Earth." (no explanation needed)

There is no missing "link" in evolution, there are billions of missing "links". For every single cell that "miraculously " replicated itself to form another yet miraculous structure to eventually form dna ,which only replicates itself with occassional minor mutations,then to all the species we now know?????

there should be a trash heap of discarded evolutionary mistakes represented in the fossil /and or archaelogical evidence.

What is found are perfect imprints of past creatures that have been given some imaginary date ,by a device invented by man whose sole purpose is to disprove Creation. Talk about preconcieved results. Computer generated timespans that can't possibly chart the variables in 10,000 yrs ,let alone the millions the bones supposedley show. What enviable Faith one must have.

First is was a primordeal soup, then hydrothermal vent in the ocean floor, and of late, some postulate, extraterrestial amino acids brought in by space rocks.

The building blocks of life are easily extacted by scientists ,but they will spend as much time assembling them to create life ,as the imagined time it took for me to come from a single celled amoeba to a tinter.

the icing on the cake is we have historians , christian and gentile and scholars alike who agree there was a man named Jesus , who is called the Christ.

now: this man named Jesus ,say's he is God , creator of the universe. it is a wise thing to follow a thought to it's logical conclusion.

I have everything to gain by believing what I believe, you for your belief ,have everything to lose. Test the waters :thumb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan

I do not believe historians agree there was a man named Jesus who was the Christ. Outside of the Bible and things submitted to the Bible there is a handful of ancient texts mentioning anything close to a Jesus of Bethlehem of Nazareth. You think if there was someone walking around performing miracles someone would have written something down.

Also, the fly and maggot experiment isn't exactly proof. It's proof that if you keep your meat in the fridge you don't get maggots! However, it's not proof that life can't come from non-life.

In the 50s it was discovered if you run high electricity (like a lightning bolt) through a mix of gases (like ammonia, methane, hydrogen.....you know simple things formed from hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon that should have been abundant back then) you get amino acids!

"Imaginary date". Do you even understand how radiometric dating works? Ever heard of math? Do the simple laws of math suddenly break down when we try to measure the amount of a substance in a rock?

Scientific theory is supposed to evolve as we learn more. That's the great thing about it. Instead of stubborn Doctrine that cannot be changed and has to hold true throughout the ages (for instance, the world being flat or having corners, bugs with 4 legs, bats as birds, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is hilarious!!! A man named Jesus, who is THE CHRIST??? In all writings, and I repeat WRITINGS, his friggin NAME was JESUS CHRIST. He was not Jesus "The Chist". He was a man who 'claimed' to be the son of god. So did Jim Jones. Your belief in this is fine. It, however. also has no basis in fact the he was god or the son of. Stories written by his followers, cannot be taken as fact. The followers of Charles Manson wrote their stories of the miracles he performed. Is this considered to be factual evidence of such??? I think not. The bible, only as christians believe, tells the 'stories' written by followers. The majority of the rest of the worlds religious do not believe or follow these ideals. The 'Christ', as you have put it, was Jesus Christ, mere man, son of Mary, who claimed to be a virgin, a claim that cannot be proven, other than in writings by the same followers. None of what was written can be proven, either in the Real Bible, or in the addendum you christians call the New testimate. Whether you believe in creationism or not, to be so bold as to say that it is the only truth, when you have no hard evidence to prove it, as you claim any other idea to the contrary has, is foolish. When hard evidence, not writings of the followers or stories written by those of blind faith, can be produced, then you can poopoo the idea of a big bang theory or other ideas.

Get your head out of the sand. What you preach is the same as what you blast, THE THOUGHT THAT ANYONE ELSES BELIEF IS WRONG. Coud'nt be further from the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest darkdan

Actually, "Christ" is a title. It means the anointed one.

His name would have been recorded by historians as Jesus of Nazareth or possibly Jesus of Bethlehem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  •   Sponsored by
    tintwiz

    auto-precut.com

    signwarehouse

    martinmetalwork.com

    rewiredtech.io

    tinttek

    filmvinyldesigns

    The Tint Tutor

    ride wrap

    Lexen

    Tint My Ride

  • Activity Stream

    1. 2

      The direction of shrink

    2. 0

      NOW HIRING: Experienced Automotive Tint/Vinyl Wrap Installer

    3. 2

      The direction of shrink

    4. 2

      The direction of shrink

    5. 1

      Graphtec Plotter

    6. 2

      Llumar air 80 vs 3m Crystalline - dealer advised to go regular 3m ceramic over Crystalline

    7. 1

      Graphtec Plotter

    8. 0

      FOR SALE Jaguar V LX 40" plotter

    9. 2

      Llumar air 80 vs 3m Crystalline - dealer advised to go regular 3m ceramic over Crystalline

    10. 2

      Llumar air 80 vs 3m Crystalline - dealer advised to go regular 3m ceramic over Crystalline

×
×
  • Create New...