jerryR34

As I think about it, it seems selfish and not selfish...selfish in the sense that we want Jesus to come now which would preclude many from having a chance to be saved, and not selfish in that it would prevent those who would otherwise suffer eternity in hell from being born.

I see many people who want Jesus to come back as soon as possible. Does that wish shorten the time some people have to "get right with God"? Is part of it that almost all people do not want to experience death? Shouldn't we want to wait until ONE more person finds Christ?

Yes. Ok, but what did He sacrifice? What did God sacrifice if Jesus is with God in heaven? There are many humans who have suffered more and for longer than Christ did...is His sacrifice that He had to become one of His lowly creation?

we just got back from a visit to the grand kids 1 and 4 and your comment about grabbing fingers just makes me smile all over and inside One of the best experiences ever

thanks all for your responses...I think I will always have a hard time with this. kwikphilly, the thought of a baby grabbing my finger always makes me smile.

Yes, One Light. That's what lessons the sacrifice. How can an eternal being give up its life?

Do you believe in God, that He is eternal, no beginning and no end?

So, is one dead and the other two go on?

I'm not sure I've seen a good answer to that. Seems like maybe Jesus should have taken our place in hell forever separated from God for their to be a true sacrifice for us. What the Bible says seems to be a blip in eternity for God...

If Jesus died, how can he be alive now, and if he is not dead, how can he be a sacrifice for our sins?

If He lives, how can He have died for us? If He died, how can He have been resurrected. Sometimes it is difficult to see the sacrifice when a Being is eternal...Sorry to ask hard questions, but I'm trying to make sense of this especially at Easter time.

If He is still with the Father, did he sacrifice anything? How is Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit any different now than before His sacrifice?

If He is, He did not rise again for us, if not, He did not die for us. How do we explain this to non-Christians?

No, sorry, that is not how it works. Evolutionary science has already shown how a cat has evolved from a single cell with much help from the fact that cats exist. In evolution, predictive often means we will be able to predict what a cat ancestor we don't know of now will look like based on an older example and a current example. If you don't understand this, you probably have an issue with the meaning of scientific theory - i.e. delve more into science definitions... The big bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Are we to give up because we have only had the scientific method unconstrained by religion for a few hundred years when some of these processes take hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of years?

Jerry, it wasn't like GOD said........ tomorrow there's gonna be a Flood; Noah get Ready!! Do you think Noah made some plans for food? When you plan a camping trip.....where does Food appear on your list of Priorities? So, there was food for 300+ days and for the time it took to grow anything afterward? Remember everything not on the ark died. It just does not add up on so many levels.

Support? And your Hydraulics crack me up. The LORD said the Highest Mountains were covered.....How much Pressure on the "sea floor" would that be? Tidal flows....you can duplicate that lol? Please explain with support how the particulates supported in the water of a global flood would act any differently than they would in any other body of water. Don't have to.....Fossils are the evidence. The fossil evidence shows exactly the opposite. An orderly layering of fossils based on speciation over time rather than the jumbled mess of a world-wide cataclysm (example humans and dinosaurs in the same strata). With all due respect, you have not shown this to me once. Have you? Has anyone? Are you saying that the areas of the globe 500 - 1000 are hiding something that science has missed in relation to Noah's flood? Yes - hundreds of millions of years actually. Food How was there food if the world was covered in water for 300 days killing everything?

What did the animals eat if the flood was 300 days and everything on earth was killed (think herbivore)? The sedimentation and hydraulics would work the same in your backyard as they would in a global flood. You are simply trying to muddy the waters (pun intended). Show evidence of a world wide sediment layer consistent with a world-wide flood. It would require the layer to be in all areas of the globe, with mixed mineral, organic, and fossil content.

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water By Paul Farrar In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis". Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed. The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went. First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point. Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today. How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? No one has addressed this. As the OP referenced the water canopy, thought the physics of that would be relevant...

It really is. One can do lab experiments accreting sediment. Put soil in a container of water and let it settle, then later put a different type of soil in the container and let it settle, then later still, put a different type of soil in and let it settle. The different soils act almost as a clock as the variable between the layers is the time they were added to the container. Now, if all three types of soils were added at the same time, the soils would be mixed. So simple yet so powerful

There are so many environmental and individual variables to take into account, that I would think it would make a blanket statement like this nearly meaningless. Maybe it is anecdotal...if you think about the changes you go through when you are 7, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 etc...There could be some correlation without causation.

To Quote LFA: Here's a link so that you may better understand your logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

============================================================ Which? The Fossils on The Moon? The Cheese? Or the Tang? The Cheese or Tang comment.

================================================================================= "Fossils on the Moon" Are they made out of Cheese or Tang? Reductio ad absurdum

Patience Young Skywalker ......wait till "The Kracken" comes a callin That is the beauty of science vs dogma...science will change based on the facts whereas dogma will attempt to change the facts to fit. The point of this whole thread is lost...are you trying to disparage astronomy/physics/astrophysics?

From: http://www.thephysicsforum.com/astrophysics-cosmology/5748-question-red-shift.html « Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK Primordial Lithium-7 Discrepancy for SQK? » Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory By admin | March 14, 2011 - 6:34 pm | Cosmology, galactic astronomy Spiral galaxy NGC 7319 showing position of high-redshift quasar. Credit: NASA In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away. As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away. The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar’s redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause. This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin. There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy. First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it. Second, a jet is seen to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319. One likely cause of the quasar’s nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light. This mechanism rules out the possibility that the quasar is a black hole since to develop a redshift of 2.09 (2.11 – 0.02), the spectral lines would have had to be generated at a point that would lie within any hypothetical black hole event horizon. Black hole theory, however, forbids any such radiation from escaping the black hole. Consequently, we are left to conclude that the quasar is not a black hole but a “mother star” and that the observed redshifted emission consists of emission line photons that have redshifted as they have climbed out of the quasar’s deep gravity well. How we arrive at the above conclusion may be explained as follows. The gravity potential of a star varies as M/R, where M is stellar mass and R is stellar radius and redshift z varies in direct proportion to the change in the ambient gravity potential as the photon escapes the quasar’s gravity well. For the white dwarf Sirius B, z = 3 X 10-4 and its M/R = 4.2 X 1024 g/cm. This quasar has a redshift relative to that of NGC 7319 of z = 2.09, which is ~7000 larger than that of Sirius B. Consequently, if the quasar’s redshift is entirely gravitational, its line emission comes from a region whose gravity potential is 7000 times more negative than Sirius B, hence from a region outside the core where M/R = 2.9 X 1028 g/cm. If the quasar core, then, is assumed to have a mass of one million solar masses, this redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 2 X 1039/2.9 X 1028 = 6.8 X 105 km, or about one solar radius from the gravity well’s center. If, on the other hand, the quasar is assumed to have a mass of ten million solar masses, the redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center. Now according to black hole theory, the Schwartzchild radius for a one million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3.1 million km, equal to 4.5 solar radii. But, due to gravitational lensing, its Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a radius of 16 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius). So, in this case, the quasar’s redshifted light would be coming from a radius almost 24 times smaller than its apparent Schwarzschild radius, an impossibility in black hole theory. We get a similar result if the quasar core is assumed to have a larger mass. For example, if it were to have a mass of ten million solar masses, its redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center. A ten million solar mass black hole, on the other hand, would have a Schwartzchild radius of 31 million km or 45 solar radii, and taking gravitational lensing into account, would appear to have a radius of 234 solar radii. So, again, the redshift of this quasar indicates that the emission has come from a radius almost 24 times smaller than the event horizon radius. In the case where the quasar were instead a supermassive stellar core, a mother star radiating prodigious quantities of genic energy, it would have to have a radius equal to or less than the above estimated emission radius. If we assume for simplicity that the emission line radiation comes from the star’s surface, then in the case of a one million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 106 g/cm3. In the case of a ten million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 104 g/cm3. This is less than the density of a white dwarf such as Sirius B, which has a density of 4 X 106 g/cm3. The mother star would not be electron degenerate since a star having a mass in the range of one to ten million solar masses would only reach electron degeneracy when its radius had decreased to 20 to 40 km, or about 500 to 50,000 times smaller than the estimated radius. Such large radii are permissible since the mother star does not require electron degeneracy to support its mass; its immense outpouring of genic energy keeps it from contracting. For a discussion of electron degeneracy in celestial masses see the Astrophysics Spectator. The broadening of quasar emission lines, usually interpreted as being due to Doppler broadening of gas ejected from a quasar at high velocity, may also in part be due to the emission originating at differing depths in the quasar’s gravity well. For example, emission generated 10% further out from the center of the quasar’s gravity well would produce a redshift about ten percent lower, resembling an outflow velocity of ~5000 km/s. Another mechanism that could cause a nonDoppler redshift in quasar spectra is that suggested by Paul Marmet in which photons become redshifted as a result of scattering from clouds of electrons. He suggested this as a mechanism to explain the solar limb redshift effect as well as the redshift excess observed in quasar emission lines as compared with quasar absorption lines (Marmet, Physics Essays, 1988).