Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Nebular Hypothesis


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
15 replies to this topic

#1
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

Although we have discovered innumerable Mysteries of many many fairytales here, I don't ever recall this one popping up (and I'm praying that there's a good reason for that).

 

"How The Universe Works"...... on a couple years ago (Discovery Channel narrated by Mike Row (Dirty Jobs guy), Had this laugher laced through it complete with High Speed Computer Graphics.

 

Still graces College Textbooks!

 

 

The Nebular Hypothesis:

 

"Some 4 Billion Years ago, the sun had ejected a tail, or a filament, of material that cooled and collected and thus formed the planets...."
General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens.  Immanuel Kant, 1755

 

The Originator of this Mess met with Edmund Halley (Halley's Comet) @ Cambridge....

 

Emanuel Swedenborg (Originator) proffered this nonsense 21 years before Kant and Laplace.  Guess where he got the idea?....by talking with spirits from Jupiter, Mars, Venus, and the Moon  :huh:

 

Kant picked up the Idea and Laplace stamped it without doing the math (Appears they were Buddies).  If he had done the Math....we would have never heard of such nonsense.

 

Nebular Hypothesis aficionados, have you ever heard of.... the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum:  Angular momentum = mass x velocity x distance from the center of mass, and always stays constant in an isolated system (Like The Universe we Live In).  Like a skater spinning faster when their arms are pulled in close to the body.  In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would have occurred as the gases allegedly contracted into the center to form the sun. This would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. But our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99.86% of the mass of the solar system, it has less than 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis.

 

The Outer Planets are larger than the Inner Ones; again, directly opposite of the prediction.....

 

“Pssst … astronomers who model the formation of the solar system have kept a dirty little secret: Uranus and Neptune don’t exist. Or at least computer simulations have never explained how planets as big as the two gas giants could form so far from the sun. Bodies orbited so slowly in the outer parts of the solar system that the slow process of gravitational accretion would need more time than the age of the solar system to form bodies with 14.5 and 17.1 times the mass of Earth.”
Naeye, R., Birth of Uranus and Neptune, Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000

 

The nebular hypothesis predicts that as the nebula spiraled inwards, all the resulting planets and comets would rotate and orbit in the same direction (prograde). But Venus and Uranus rotate in the opposite direction, called retrograde. 

Lucy has more splaining to do!

 

Retrograde Orbits Satellites/Moons: Triton (Neptune), Ananke, Carme, Pasiphae and Sinope (Jupiter), Phoebe(Saturn)

 

There is NO plausible Solar Origin of the Planets.

 

 

Moving on (Hopefully); something interesting: There are 3 pairs of Planets with the same Spin-Rates (within 3% of each other)...

 

Earth and Mars
Jupiter and Saturn
Neptune and Uranus

 

Unbridled Speculation here.....Were they "Brought In" from somewhere else?

 

 

More on Mars this week....you're gonna Love this.  LOL

 

 

 

 

 



#2
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755.   Can you please cite sources for this post - Googling "Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000" gets one nothing relevant.  Something more timely and detailed would be helpful.  I'd love to read some science papers on your post.  Wasn't Kant a philosopher?  Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?  I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 


Edited by jerryR34, 10 March 2014 - 11:04 AM.


#3
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755.   Can you please cite sources for this post - Googling "Astronomy 28(4):30, 2000" gets one nothing relevant.  Something more timely and detailed would be helpful.  I'd love to read some science papers on your post.  Wasn't Kant a philosopher?  Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?  I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

Well there sir...it's not a Strawman.  Since Kant is the Perpetrator/Quasi Originator of the Nebular Hypothesis in 1755

 

Would you like me to post an erroneous Originator and make up a date for the Inception of the Hypothesis?  Now his buddy and (sign off'er) was: Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace, who was a mathematician and astronomer.

 

Maybe this will help: http://en.wikipedia....ular_hypothesis

 

 

Do you really trust an 18th century philosopher for your modern astronomy?

 

I surely don't.  But the Discovery Channel and some Astronomy Textbooks seem to like it.

 

 

I'm not trying to be mean to you, but to anyone with a science background that is unfathomable.

 

What in the World are you talking about?



#4
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

====================================================================

 

Well IMHO, you're starting from an untenable assumption to begin with..... the SUN coalescing and Wickering together from Gas in the first place.  You'd really have to establish that first.  No sense really in going much further...it's like trying to describe the details of the Space Shuttle with all the parts spread out over Kansas.

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)



#6
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

 

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

====================================================================

 

Well IMHO, you're starting from an untenable assumption to begin with..... the SUN coalescing and Wickering together from Gas in the first place.  You'd really have to establish that first.  No sense really in going much further...it's like trying to describe the details of the Space Shuttle with all the parts spread out over Kansas.

 

Except we have actually witnessed stars through various stages of being "born".

 

 

 

Can you explain the interplay of gravity and Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?  Wouldn't most of the mass be drawn to the center of the solar system (the sun is many times more massive that all the other bodies of the solar system combined).  Seems to me that gravity would rip angular momentum apart leaving ample mass to form the outer planets in exactly their massive gaseous forms.  Since this is how the solar system ended up, it seems a much more plausible theory.

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 



#7
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

 

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 

 

 

 

====================================================================

 

 

You don't have the Sun "Yet" in our scenario.... there's some work to be done.  First things First.

 

 

Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.

 

Are you saying EM is not in the Universe? Gravity is still a weak force in comparison.

 

The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems.

 

OK.  Show PICS...... and preferably Video.



#8
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

 

 

 

And Gravity is not going to rip Angular Momentum apart.  Gravity is a Very Weak Force relatively speaking.  For example:

 

Gravity vs ElecroMagnetic (Strength):

 

If Gravity:  = 1

 

ElectroMagnetic Force = 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000  Times STRONGER!!  36 Orders of Magnitude..... IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.  (Attract/Repel)

 

The gravity of the sun extends about 1 light year out, and keeps the planets, and many other smaller bodies in orbit.  Also, think about how the eath's grafity keeps a relatively large body, the moon, in orbit around it, or how we use planets to slingshot our deep space probes further out.  Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.  The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems. 

 

 

 

====================================================================

 

 

You don't have the Sun "Yet" in our scenario.... there's some work to be done.  First things First.

 

 

Yes, gravity may be weak relative to EM, but it is a strong force in the universe.

 

Are you saying EM is not in the Universe? Gravity is still a weak force in comparison.

 

The gravity of coalescing planets overpowered angular momentum and the sun's gravity to form the planets - and again, we have witnessed this happened with other stars/solar systems.

 

OK.  Show PICS...... and preferably Video.

 

Please google "pitures of stars being formed" or "picures of solar systems being formed".  There is a wealth of information, more than can be copied a pasted here. 



#9
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

 

 

Please google "pitures of stars being formed" or "picures of solar systems being formed".  There is a wealth of information, more than can be copied a pasted here. 

 

 

 

===========================================================================

 

There is nothing.....I checked.

 

Moreover just conceptually.....Please explain, in a 2LOT context, the formation of a Star in a framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

This is what your up against.....

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111

 

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998



#10
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

 

 

There is nothing.....I checked.

 

Wow, you must have a different interweb than me...

 

 

 

 

Moreover just conceptually.....Please explain, in a 2LOT context, the formation of a Star in a framework of Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass?

 

Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law.  If it did, we would not have stars or planets.  You can explain to us how if violates Bolye and Jeans.  You assert this often, but I have not seen you adequately explain it - how 'bout you dumb it down for me with some cited work - thanks.

 

 

 

This is what your up against.....

 

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them.", Sun And Stars, p.111

 

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Geoffrey Burbidge, Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory, Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

 

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics, says, “The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998

 

Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites.  That screams of quote-mining.  I'll try to dig deeper and see if I can find them in context.



#11
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law.  If it did, we would not have stars or planets.

 

This is circular logic Jerry and I think a convoluted version of Denying the Antecedent.

 

It does violate 2LOT:

 

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.”
[Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]

 

From a Gas to a Solid....in our example of the Sun....is a Case of Decreasing Entropy.  See above for a compare and contrast

 

 

You can explain to us how if violates Bolye and Jeans.

 

Jerry.....I don't have the time and this is real easy to look up.  Just type in Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass into Wiki....it'll take you less than 5 minutes to get it.

 

 

Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. 

 

Are you saying that these are Creationist Sources :huh: :

 

Sun And Stars, p.111

Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998       ?????

 

And it sounds like an Ad Hominem also.

 

 

almost all of the hits were from creationist sites.  That screams of quote-mining.That screams of quote-mining.

 

 

Jerry I don't think you understand what "Quote Mining" is:

 

"Quote Mining"- The repeated use of quotes out of context in order to skew or contort the meaning of a passage or speech by an author on a controversial subject.

http://www.urbandict...rm=quote mining

 

Just because there are "Quotes" in replies or papers that come from a single source or a number of sources for that matter doesn't mean they're "Quote Mined".

 

This "Quote Mining" issue is actually quite humorous.  Were you ever assigned a Research Paper?  Are you familiar with the concept of CITING REFERENCES in SUPPORT of your postulates or ideas?  Have you heard of Parenthetical Citations and either a "bibliography" or "references" or "works cited" page @ the end of the document?

These are used to SUBSTANTIATE CLAIMS, protect against plagiarism, and offer Integrity to the work in an attempt to systematically establish TRUTH.  It also allows the reader to confirm these ideas and postulates by looking up the DOCUMENTED SOURCES independently to confirm the: credibility, validity, and veracity of the sources and material.

To be concise and for brevity on this medium, I post Excerpts or Quotes to directly support or refute claims providing the (Author, Book or Periodical, and Page Number).
So before you see quotes and then give a Baseless "Conditioned Response" of "Quote Mining", please check the reference to confirm: credibility, validity, and veracity.
Then to support your Baseless Claim "quote mining", please provide the "CONTEXT" of the cited work in question with the SPECIFIC TEXT that PROVES how it directly contradicts what the "quote" in contention PLAINLY SAYS.
Anything less is a Baseless Generalized Unsupported Assertion.



#12
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Nonbeliever
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

 

 

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

Formation of the stars and planets do not violate the second law.  If it did, we would not have stars or planets.

 

This is circular logic Jerry and I think a convoluted version of Denying the Antecedent.

 

It does violate 2LOT:

 

“The universe is thus progressing toward an ultimate ‘heat death’ or, as it is technically defined, a condition of ‘maximum entropy’ . . And there is no way of avoiding this destiny.  For the fateful principle known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which stands today as the principal pillar of classical physics left intact by the march of science, proclaims that the fundamental processes of nature are irreversible.  Nature moves only one way.”
[Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein (1957), pp. 102-103.]

 

From a Gas to a Solid....in our example of the Sun....is a Case of Decreasing Entropy.  See above for a compare and contrast

 

 

 

So, you are saying that it is impossible for space dust to coalesce into stars and planets because of 2LOT?  Even though we are seeing it happen?

 

 

Jerry.....I don't have the time and this is real easy to look up.  Just type in Boyle's Gas Law and Jeans Mass into Wiki....it'll take you less than 5 minutes to get it.

 Ok, I'll look it up, just thought since you bring them up often you would have something readily available.

 

 

 

Unfortunately when I searched the quotes, almost all of the hits were from creationist sites. 

 

Are you saying that these are Creationist Sources :huh: :

 

Sun And Stars, p.111

Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

New Scientist 157(2120):26–30, 7 February 1998       ?????

 

And it sounds like an Ad Hominem also.

 

 

No Ad Hom intended.  I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science.  Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition.  So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method.

 

I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not.



#13
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,595 posts

No Ad Hom intended.  I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science.  Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition.  So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method.

 

I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not.

 

 

 

=======================================================================================

 

 

I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science.

 

We all have Presuppositions Sir.  The Key is to recognize them and evaluate each for efficacy and merit.

 

Also.....

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.
Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition.

 

"TREE" = "LIFE"..........= "Specific Complexity".  ALL Praise to the ALMIGHTY GOD!!!!

 

If you're unfortunate enough to never here THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD.......GOD HAS A CATCH ALL:

 

(Romans 1:20) "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

 

 

So, Creationist websites will not help your argument

 

This is an Ad Hominem and I can Assure you that "New Scientist" and "Science" are not Creationist Websites.

 

I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not.

 

I have personally reviewed every Single Quote and Source I use....You won't find one I can assure you.  But you may check.



#14
anthonyjmcgirr

anthonyjmcgirr

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

Interesting discussion.  I've always wondered, if our sun is moving across space amongst a spiraling arm of the Milky Way galaxy, how is it that we still get meteor showers 2-3 times a year?  Does the sun drag everything with it in perfect order?  



#15
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,029 posts

You are erecting a straw man by posting "science" from 1755....  

 

?

 

So Beloved, You Are Contending That Science Is Not Really Knowledge

 

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hosea 6:6

 

But Just Some Date Stamped Thoughts Left To Expire In Due Time?

 

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2 Peter 3:10 

 

So, Who Will You Turn To For Knowledge

 

Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God: Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever: Psalms 146:5-6

 

That Will Not

 

The LORD shall reign for ever and ever. Exodus 15:18

 

Rot

 

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Luke 21:33

 

You Think?

 

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18



#16
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 42,029 posts

No Ad Hom intended.  I think you should know by now that I don't favor the presupposed when it comes to science.  Unless you can tell me how a rock, tree, rock layer etc can give us the story of Jesus without knowing the story previously, you are starting from a presupposition.  So, Creationist websites will not help your argument with me or anyone who adheres to the scientific method.

 

I already told you I will research the quotes you gave in context, until then, I'll withhold my judgement on whether they are quote mines or not.

 

~

 

Quote Mining Isn't All In Vane

 

Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself; That frustrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh diviners mad; that turneth wise men backward, and maketh their knowledge foolish; Isaiah 44:24-25

 

As To Rocks And Stuff

 

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

 

You See?

 

When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:61-63






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network