The Mathematical Proof for Christianity Is Irrefutable

Christian Post ^ | 05/29/2013 | Dan Delzell

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

“RE: I would guess their aversion to Christ comes from the deep-seated Jewish belief that the messiah would be a warrior king who would destroy Israel’s enemies.

So, how do they interpret Isaiah 53 - THE SUFFERING SERVANT?”

---

Depends on the person, I’ve heard various approaches from Jews on Isaiah 53. The last one was that the ‘suffering servant’ is Israel itself, though there are obvious problems once you examine the actual words of the chapter.

[CottShop]

[[The secularists will argue that science and math have evolved since then ;-)]]

I know it, to them there are no absolutes- (not even our inalienable rights and constitution)- If I’m not mistaken though- 2+2 still = 4 even after all these years- Math being one of hte main stay constants we’ve had over they ears, and still the progressives won’t accept hte math because it sheds a very bad light on their faith in evolution

[MrB]

There is a disconnect between those who assume, based on the Creation as revealed in Genesis, that all the information necessary for the adaptation of species to the environment in which they live was present at the time of creation, and in the animals that were on the Ark,

versus those who assume that this information was added to the species through mutation over millions of years.

The latter belief is circular with no basis other than itself.

[Prov1322]

Yes, yes I do...!

Thanks for the PING...

[CottShop]

Adaption is a built in reality- natural selection is a biological reality- Science is finding out, more andm ore, that what they first thought was ‘new information’ arising in species was not new information at all, but a rekindlign of species specific information already present, but lyign dormant

The case of the ‘Nylon Eating Bacteria’ was heralded as a ‘modern exampel of thje rise of new “NON SPECIES SPECIFIC INFORMATION” (Gonna apply for a TM on this term) in a species but later it was discovered that the bacteria always had the ability to digest the materail, even though there was no nylon way back when, but the bacterai LOST the ability (but not the information) to digest the nylon- The bacteria had the special info to digest small circular protiens but had lsot the ability (but not the information) at soem point in it’s existence- A mutation comes along and resparks the info that was already present- the mutation did NOT CREATE the information- it only sparked the info already present- Mutations can ONLY work on info already present, it can NOT CREATE info out of thin air which woudl be absolutely necessary for the evoltuion of hte many species kinds aroudn today-

the ONLY iother possibility woudl be a scenario of lateral gene transference between DISSIMILIAR kinds- and we know from science that each species kind has several built in layers of defense to protect agaisnt this kind of gene transference which makes it an impossibility to even concider- once again

The impossibilites facing mega evolution hypothesis are far too great for nature to overcome- nature owudl have to be a SUPERNATURALLY INTELLIGENT DESIGNER and wouydl have to be capable of breakign it’;s own laws, not just in a few instances, but billions, perhaps trillions of times, in order to brign about mega-evolution- Marcopevolution is biologically impossible, chemically impossible, mathematically impossible, and to top it all off, it violates the second law of thermodynamics (soem argue that macro-evolution ‘coudl happen IF’ life evolved in an open system/universe [Apparently where the second law of thermodynamics is no logner valid accordign ot evoltuionists, but it’s been proven that in such an environment, it would make hte situation of evolution even more impossible]- but the FACT is that an open system woudl be even worse, not better, for evolution)

[CottShop]

I knew I had read soemwhere abotu a chicago science meeting- here’s a little blurb from trueorigins site (the whole article is a fascinating one in which Tim Wallace destroys the concept that an ‘becausel ife is an open system, evoltuion ‘coudl be possible’ argument which evolutionists like to claim (usually while gleefully stating ‘Creationists and ID adherents are ignroant of how the Second law of Thermodynamics works ‘in an open system’’)

[[“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear No.”
[As reported by Roger Lewin (evolutionist), “Evolutionary theory under fire,” Science, vol. 210 (4472), 21 November 1980, p. 883]]]

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo

Evoltuionists liek to extrapolate a hypothesis into an ‘ipso facto’ statement- but wallace does an excellent job here of showing how silly the evoltutionist’s idea that an open system ‘which adds energy’ and which ‘could result in a lower law of entropy’ somehow negates the second law of thermodynamics, thereby making ‘evolution a possibility’ really is- (Let’s not forget, that even after facing all the chemical, biological and mathematical impossibilites, as well as the FACT that mutations only work on info already present and have no way of ADDING new non species specific info except as a possible parasitic host/symbiotic relationship, that evoltuion then still has to face the FACT that even in a system where it is ‘theoretically possible that entropy ‘could’ be reduced slightly’, evoltuion would still be boudn by the law and could not happen because of entropy spoiling hte process before it ocudl even get started (ignoring hte FACT that it couldn’t get started i nthe firstr place, because it’s biologically, chemically, and mathematically impossible)

He explains it better than i could- Her’s another short blurb:

[[However, here on earth, the popular evolutionary line of reasoning goes, we have an “exception,” because we live in an open system: “The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things,” Isaak says. And indeed, solar energy is added to the open sub-system of the earth continuously. But simply adding raw energy to a system doesn’t automatically cause reduced entropy (i.e., increased organized complexity, build-up rather than break-down). If this were true, no scientist would object to the elimination of the ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary process, as it were) in the world as we know it.

No, we know that raw solar energy alone does not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy, speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job, a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then without the addition of solar radiation). ]]

Same site link as above

[MrB]

“evoltuion of hte many species kinds aroudn today”

not to pick on your typing, but that’s a GREAT example of what would happen to a DNA strand that was affected by a mutation - a loss of data, not a gain.

[CottShop]

lol- I aGREE- all the info is still there- it’s just not in the right places,- perhaps a better exampel woudl be if all thel etters shoudl be capital, meanign htey are ‘active’ info, and the messed up letters get switched to small case ‘inactive’ letters in the wrong places

[aces]

Some folks want to believe that, i respect their right, there is no such thing as absolute nothing..not in physics or science..

[Revolting cat!]

The bigger question is why American Christian fundamentalists are in such love with Israel, whose religious citizens deny the divinity of Christ. (Yes, I know, Capt. Obvious, the prophecies.)