The Debates

[Devolution]

Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates and many have been held since the 1970’s particularly in the United States. Given the lack of evidence for the evolutionary paradigm and the abundant evidence for biblical creation, this is not surprising.

Robert Sloan, Director of Paleontology at the University of Minnesota, reluctantly admitted to a Wall Street Journal reporter that the “creationists tend to win” the public debates which focused on the creation vs. evolution controversy.

In August of 1979, Dr. Henry Morris reported in an Institute for Creation Research letter the following: “By now, practically every leading evolutionary scientist in this country has declined one or more invitations to a scientific debate on creation/evolution.”[2] Morris also said regarding the creation scientist Duane Gish (who had over 300 formal debates): “At least in our judgment and that of most in the audiences, he always wins.”[2] Generally speaking, leading evolutionists no longer debate creation scientists because creation scientists tend to win the debates.

In addition, the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins has shown inconsistent and deceptive behavior concerning his refusal creation scientists. Evolutionists and atheists inconsistency concerning debating creationists was commented on by the Christian apologetic website True Free Thinker which declared: “Interestingly enough, having noted that since some atheists refuse to debate “creationists” but then go on to debate some of those people but not others, it is clear that they are, in reality, being selective and making excuses for absconding from difficulties…”[4] In an article entitled Are Kansas Evolutionists Afraid of a Fair Debate? the Discovery Institute states the following:
“ Defenders of Darwin’s theory of evolution typically proclaim that evidence for their theory is simply overwhelming. If they really believe that, you would think they would jump at a chance to publicly explain some of that overwhelming evidence to the public. Apparently not.

In 1994, the arch-evolutionist Dr. Eugenie Scott made this confession concerning creation vs. evolution debates:
“ During the last six or eight months, I have received more calls about debates between creationists and evolutionists than I have encountered for a couple of years, it seems. I do not know what has inspired this latest outbreak, but I am not sure it is doing much to improve science education.

Why do I say this? Sure, there are examples of “good” debates where a well-prepared evolution supporter got the best of a creationist, but I can tell you after many years in this business that they are few and far between. Most of the time a well-meaning evolutionist accepts a debate challenge (usually “to defend good science” or for some other worthy goal), reads a bunch of creationist literature, makes up a lecture explaining Darwinian gradualism, and can’t figure out why at the end of the debate so many individuals are clustered around his opponent, congratulating him on having done such a good job of routing evolution — and why his friends are too busy to go out for a beer after the debate.

Atheist Richard Dawkins Lost a Debate to a Rabbi and then Claimed Debate Never Took Place

For more information please see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach was named the London Times Preacher of the Year 2000 and is the author of 20 books.[25] Recently Rabbi Schuley Boteach reported that college student audience voted that he won a debate between himself and Dawkins and then Richard Dawkins claimed the debate never took place. (the debate later turned out to be video taped). [26][27]

A video of the debate that Dawkins lost to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is available at Rabbi Schely Boteach’s website.

2009 origin of life debate
In 2009, intelligent design proponents Dr. Stephen Meyer and Dr. Richard Sternberg debated atheist Dr. Michael Shermer and Dr. Donald Prothero concerning on the topic of the origin of life.[47] The Discovery Institute declared concerning the debate:
“ To call the debate a massacre would be a discredit to Sitting Bull. The only thing I can say is that Shermer needs to add a point to his booklet on how to debate “creationists” — namely, leave Donald Prothero at home in his van by the river…

Some of the best points came later in the debate, when Sternberg slammed Prothero with factual put down after factual put down, citing the current literature time and again. His command of the subject matter — from population genetics to junk DNA — was so far and above beyond Shermer and Prothero’s knowledge, so far above their pay grade, that it was almost painful to watch him school them point after point. As I said before, shortly you’ll be able to watch the debate for yourself. But be warned, it isn’t pretty.

The website TrueOrigin states the following regarding the debate between atheist Frank Zindler and Christian philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig:
“ Frank Zindler

A leading light in the American Atheists. Isn’t it amazing how so many atheists love evolution and appear to be threatened by the massive scientific evidence for creation? Zindler took the atheism side in an Atheism v. Christianity debate in front of 7,500 people at Willow Creek Community Church, USA. His opponent, Dr William Lane Craig, tore his ignorant arguments to shreds so effectively that many atheists in the audience realised that Zindler had lost the debate. It was presumably to this debate that John Snowden was alluding when he wrote that a representative of the American Atheists, whom he used to support, lost a public debate to a “fundamentalist”

Comment by Oxford atheist Daniel Came

In a letter to fellow atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins which was subsequently quoted by The Daily Telegraph, Dr. Daniel Came wrote concerning Dawkins’ refusal to debate the Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig:
“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.”

[Devolution]

Huxley Memorial Debate and Dawkins Subsequent Refusal to debate Creation Scientists

Creationists state the following regarding Richard Dawkins current refusal to debate a creation scientist:
“ A. E. Wilder-Smith is also probably responsible for Richard Dawkins refusing to debate creationists any more. In 1986, Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews debated the two leading evolutionists in Britain, Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith, at Oxford – a lions’ den with the two strongest Darwinian lions in Europe. Yet even there, over a third – almost half – of the staunchly pro-evolution audience voted that the creation side had won the debate.

The vote count became a contentious issue. There were claims of a cover-up by the Oxford Student Union. The AAAS was accused of lying about the vote count and didn’ [sic] correct it even when confronted (see article). The evolutionists apparently were embarrassed that the creationists made such a strong showing. For whatever reason, Dawkins no longer will debate creationists.

Reports from those in attendance say that, contrary to the ground rules of the debate, the Dawkins and Maynard Smith repeatedly attacked religion, while the creationists used only scientific arguments. Dawkins himself had to be reprimanded by the moderator for attacking Wilder-Smith about his religious views.

Dawkins implored the audience not to give any votes to the creationists lest it be a “blot on the escutcheon of ancient University of Oxford” (an odd remark, considering Oxford was founded by Christians).

After the debate, details of the event were lost by the University. Normally, Oxford Union debates are big news, given prominent publicity in the press, radio and television. This one, however, which should have rivalled the historic 1860 Huxley-Wilberforce debate in importance, and indeed was even titled the ’Huxley Memorial Debate,” was silently dropped from the radar screen.

In his memoirs, Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote, “No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it.”

Creation Research Society Commentary on the debate

The Creation Research Society stated regarding the debate the following:
“ Despite Dr. Dawkins’ plea, there were apparently 115 votes for the creation position (more than 37%). This was done near Darwin’s turf. Imagine flat-earthers going to NASA and convincing over 37% of the scientists there that the earth is flat. Maybe creation science is not as closely akin to flat-earthism as Dr. Dawkins supposes (see his Free Inquiry article).”

Richard Dawkins' violation of the terms of the Huxley Memorial Debate proceedings

As noted earlier, it was agreed before the debate that discussion of religion was not to occur during the debate and that only the evidence related to the physical sciences were going to be discussed. At the end of the debate, Richard Dawkins started to give an impassioned plea to the audience to not give a single vote to the creationists which would show support for creationism. Mr. Dawkins was told to sit down by the President of the Oxford Union for violating the terms of the debate as far as not mentioning religion (as noted earlier John Maynard Smith also violated the terms of the debate).

Lost records and the deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins

The actual outcome of the vote is not clear. A report on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), quoting a publication by John Durant lists 198 votes for the noes and 15 for the ayes. A Christian site reports that Paul Humber from the Creation Research Society in Australia contacted the Oxford Union and got a reply from a Jeremy Worth that 'The results [of the votes] are noted in a large minute book which spans several years. I'm sorry to say that the minute book in question was either lost or stolen many years ago, which is a great pity.'

It seems that the only reliable records for the debate outcome are copies in mp3 format of the debate tapes that can be downloaded from the Richard Dawkins website. The teller of the vote can be heard to announce the outcome as 198 for the noes and 115 or 150 (the voice of the teller is not clear) for the ayes.

Deception related to email correspondence with Richard Dawkins

Paul Humber notes there was a deception that occurred during email correspondence with Mr. Dawkins concerning the tally of vote counts that occurred for the Huxley Memorial Debate between creation scientists Professor A.E. Wilder-Smith and Professor Edgar Andrews and evolutionists Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith. [1] Mr. Humber did not indicate whether Mr. Dawkins committed the deception or was merely duped by someone who provided an altered account.

[Proclaimer]

Thanks for posting this Devolution.

I will have a read.

[Devolution]

Quote (t8 @ June 27 2012,09:49)

Thanks for posting this Devolution. I will have a read.

Hi T8,

My pleasure…hope you enjoyed it.

Cheers.

[princess]

The Rabbi is not always held in such high regards………

[princess]

Here is a subject I would like to debate: Lightening. Can you explain it to me?

[terraricca]

Quote (princess @ June 30 2012,19:46)

Here is a subject I would like to debate: Lightening. Can you explain it to me?

Princess

Lightning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lightning striking Atlanta, United States
This article is about the atmospheric electrical phenomenon. For other uses, see Lightning (disambiguation).
See also: Lightning strike
Part of the Nature series on
Weather

Calendar seasons
Spring · Summer
Autumn · Winter
Tropical seasons
Dry season · Wet season
Storms
Thunderstorm · Supercell
Downburst · Lightning
Tornado · Waterspout
Tropical cyclone (Hurricane)
Extratropical cyclone
Winter storm · Blizzard · Ice storm
Dust storm · Firestorm · Cloud
Precipitation
Drizzle · Rain · Snow · Graupel
Freezing rain · Ice pellets · Hail
Topics
Meteorology · Climate
Weather forecasting
Heat wave · Air pollution
Cold wave
Weather portal
v t e

4-second video of a lightning strike, Island in the Sky, Canyonlands National Park, Utah, United States.
Lightning is an atmospheric electrical discharge (spark) accompanied by thunder, usually associated with and produced by cumulonimbus clouds, but also occurring during volcanic eruptions or in dust storms.[1] From this discharge of atmospheric electricity, a leader of a bolt of lightning can travel at speeds of 220,000 km/h (140,000 mph), and can reach temperatures of about 30,000 °C (54,000 °F), hot enough to fuse silica sand into glass channels known as fulgurites, which are normally hollow and can extend as much as several meters into the ground.[2][3]
There are some 16 million lightning storms in the world every year.[4] Lightning causes ionisation in the air through which it travels, leading to the formation of nitric oxide and ultimately, nitric acid, of benefit to plant life below.
Lightning can also occur within the ash clouds from volcanic eruptions,[5] or can be caused by violent forest fires which generate sufficient dust to create a static charge.[1][6]
How lightning initially forms is still a matter of debate.[7] Scientists have studied root causes ranging from atmospheric perturbations (wind, humidity, friction, and atmospheric pressure) to the impact of solar wind and accumulation of charged solar particles.[4] Ice inside a cloud is thought to be a key element in lightning development, and may cause a forcible separation of positive and negative charges within the cloud, thus assisting in the formation of lightning.[4]
The irrational fear of lightning (and thunder) is astraphobia. The study or science of lightning is called fulminology, and someone who studies lightning is referred to as a fulminologist.[8]

History of lightning research

Lightning strikes the Eiffel Tower, France in 1902.

Lightning photographed by William N. Jennings, c. 1882
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) endeavored to test the theory that sparks shared some similarity with lightning by using a spire which was being erected in Philadelphia, United States. While waiting for completion of the spire, he got the idea to use a flying object such as a kite. During the next thunderstorm, which was in June 1752, it was reported that he raised a kite. He was accompanied by his son as an assistant.[9]
On his end of the string he attached a key, and he tied it to a post with a silk thread. As time passed, Franklin noticed the loose fibers on the string stretching out; he then brought his hand close to the key and a spark jumped the gap. The rain which had fallen during the storm had soaked the line and made it conductive.[9]
Franklin was not the first to perform the kite experiment. Thomas-François Dalibard and De Lors conducted it at Marly-la-Ville in France, a few weeks before Franklin's experiment.[10][11] In his autobiography (written 1771–1788, first published 1790), Franklin clearly states that he performed this experiment after those in France, which occurred weeks before his own experiment, without his prior knowledge as of 1752.[12]
As news of the experiment and its particulars spread, others attempted to replicate it. However, experiments involving lightning are always risky and frequently fatal. One of the most well-known deaths during the spate of Franklin imitators was that of Professor Georg Richmann of Saint Petersburg, Russia. He created a set-up similar to Franklin's, and was attending a meeting of the Academy of Sciences when he heard thunder. He ran home with his engraver to capture the event for posterity. According to reports, while the experiment was under way, ball lightning appeared and collided with Richmann's head, killing him.[13][14]
Although experiments from the time of Benjamin Franklin showed that lightning was a discharge of static electricity, there was little improvement in theoretical understanding of lightning (in particular how it was generated) for more than 150 years. The impetus for new research came from the field of power engineering: as power transmission lines came into service, engineers needed to know much more about lightning in order to adequately protect lines and equipment. In 1900, Nikola Tesla generated artificial lightning by using a large Tesla coil, enabling the generation of enormously high voltages sufficient to create lightning.
[edit]Properties

World map showing frequency of lightning strikes, in flashes per square kilometer (km²) per year (equal-area projection). Lightning strikes most frequently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Combined 1995–2003 data from the Optical Transient Detector and 1998–2003 data from the Lightning Imaging Sensor.
Lightning can occur with both positive and negative polarity. An average bolt of negative lightning carries an electric current of 30,000 amperes (30 kA), and transfers 15 coulombs of electric charge and 500 megajoules of energy. Large bolts of lightning can carry up to 120 kA and 350 coulombs.[15] An average bolt of positive lightning carries an electric current of about 300 kA — about 10 times that of negative lightning.[16]
The voltage involved for both is proportional to the length of the bolt. However, lightning leader development is not just a matter of the electrical breakdown of air, which occurs at a voltage gradient of about 1 megavolts per metre (MV/m). The ambient electric fields required for lightning leader propagation can be one or two orders of magnitude (10−2) less than the electrical breakdown strength.[17]
The potential (“voltage”) gradient inside a well-developed return-stroke channel is on the order of hundreds of volts per metre (V/m) due to intense channel ionization, resulting in a true power output on the order of one megawatt per meter (MW/m) for a vigorous return stroke current of 100 kA.[17] The average peak power output of a single lightning stroke is about one trillion watts — one terawatt (1012 W), and the stroke lasts for about 30 millionths of a second — 30 microseconds.[18]
Lightning rapidly heats the air in its immediate vicinity to about 20,000 °C (36,000 °F) — about three times the temperature of the surface of the Sun. The sudden heating effect and the expansion of heated air gives rise to a supersonic shock wave in the surrounding clear air. It is this shock wave, once it decays to an acoustic wave, that is heard as thunder.[18]
The return stroke of a lightning bolt follows a charge channel about one centimetre (0.39 in) wide.[citation needed]
Different locations have different potentials and currents for an average lightning strike. In the United States, for example, Florida experiences the largest number of recorded strikes in a given period during the summer season,[citation needed] has
very sandy soils in some areas, and electrically conductive water-saturated soils in others.[citation needed] As much of Florida lies on a peninsula, it is bordered by the ocean on three sides. The result is the daily development of sea and lake breeze boundaries that collide and produce thunderstorms.[citation needed]
NASA scientists have found that electromagnetic radiation created by lightning in clouds only a few miles high can create a safe zone in the Van Allen radiation belts that surround the earth. This zone, known as the “Van Allen Belt slot”, may be a safe haven for satellites in middle Earth orbits (MEOs), protecting them from the Sun's intense radiation.[19][20][21]
[edit]Formation

Positive lightning (a rarer form of lightning that originates from positively charged regions of the thundercloud) does not generally fit the preceding pattern.
[edit]Cloud particle collision hypothesis

View of lightning from an airplane flying above a system.
According to this cloud particle charging hypothesis, charges are separated when ice crystals rebound off graupel. Charge separation appears to require strong updrafts which carry water droplets upward, supercooling them to between -10 and -40 °C (14 and -40 °F). These water droplets collide with ice crystals to form a soft ice-water mixture called graupel. Collisions between ice crystals and graupel pellets usually results in positive charge being transferred to the ice crystals, and negative charge to the graupel.[18]
Updrafts drive the less heavy ice crystals upwards, causing the cloud top to accumulate increasing positive charge. Gravity causes the heavier negatively charged graupel to fall toward the middle and lower portions of the cloud, building up an increasing negative charge. Charge separation and accumulation continue until the electrical potential becomes sufficient to initiate a lightning discharge, which occurs when the distribution of positive and negative charges forms a sufficiently strong electric field.[18]
[edit]Polarization mechanism hypothesis
The mechanism by which charge separation happens is still the subject of research. Another hypothesis is the polarization mechanism, which has two components:[22]
Falling droplets of ice and rain become electrically polarized as they fall through the Earth's natural electric field;
Colliding/rebounding cloud particles become oppositely charged.
There are several hypotheses for the origin of charge separation.[23][24][25]
[edit]Lightning initiation
Even assuming an electric field has been established, the mechanism by which the lightning discharge begins is not well known. Electric field measurements in thunderclouds are typically not large enough to directly initiate a discharge.[26] Many hypotheses have been proposed, ranging from including runaway breakdown to locally enhanced electric fields near elongated water droplets or ice crystals.[27] Percolation theory, especially for the case of biased percolation,[28] describe random connectivity phenomena, which produce an evolution of connected structures similar to that of lightning strikes.
[edit]Leader formation and the return stroke

Illustration of a negative streamer (blue) meeting a positive counterpart (red) and the return stroke. Click to watch the animation.
As a thundercloud moves over the surface of the Earth, an electric charge equal to but opposite the charge of the base of the thundercloud is induced in the Earth below the cloud. The induced ground charge follows the movement of the cloud, remaining underneath it.
An initial bipolar discharge, or path of ionized air, starts from a negatively charged region of mixed water and ice in the thundercloud. Ionized channels of the discharge are known as leaders. The positive and negative charged leaders, generally a “stepped leader”, proceed in opposite directions. The negatively-charged one proceeds downward in a number of quick jumps (steps). About 90% of the leaders exceed 45 m (148 ft) in length, with most in the order of 50 to 100 m (164 to 328 ft).[29]
As it continues to descend, the stepped leader may branch into a number of paths.[30] The progression of stepped leaders takes a comparatively long time (hundreds of milliseconds) to approach the ground. This initial phase involves a relatively small electric current (tens or hundreds of amperes), and the leader is almost invisible when compared with the subsequent lightning channel.
When a stepped leader approaches the ground, the presence of opposite charges on the ground enhances the strength of the electric field. The electric field is strongest on ground-connected objects whose tops are closest to the base of the thundercloud, such as trees and tall buildings. If the electric field is strong enough, a conductive discharge (called a positive streamer) can develop from these points. This was first theorized by Heinz Kasemir.[31][32]
As the field increases, the positive streamer may evolve into a hotter, higher current leader which eventually connects to the descending stepped leader from the cloud. It is also possible for many streamers to develop from many different objects simultaneously, with only one connecting with the leader and forming the main discharge path. Photographs have been taken on which non-connected streamers are clearly visible.[33]
Once a channel of ionized air is established between the cloud and ground this becomes a path of least resistance and allows for a much greater current to propagate from the Earth back up the leader into the cloud. This is the return stroke and it is the most luminous and noticeable part of the lightning discharge.
[edit]Discharge

Lightning sequence (Duration: 0.32 seconds)
When the electric field becomes strong enough, an electrical discharge (the bolt of lightning) occurs within clouds or between clouds and the ground. During the strike, successive portions of air become a conductive discharge channel as the electrons and positive ions of air molecules are pulled away from each other and forced to flow in opposite directions.
The electrical discharge rapidly superheats the discharge channel, causing the air to expand rapidly and produce a shock wave heard as thunder. The rolling and gradually dissipating rumble of thunder is caused by the time delay of sound coming from different portions of a long stroke.[34]
[edit]Re-strike

Lightning is a highly visible form of energy transfer.
High speed videos (examined frame-by-frame) show that most lightning strikes are made up of multiple individual strokes. A typical strike is made of 3 or 4 strokes, though there may be more.[35]
Each re-strike is separated by a relatively large amount of time, typically 40 to 50 milliseconds. Re-strikes can cause a noticeable “strobe light” effect.[34]
Each successive stroke is preceded by intermediate dart leader strokes akin to, but weaker than, the initial stepped leader. The stroke usually re-uses the discharge channel taken by the previous stroke.[36]
The variations in successive discharges are the result of smaller regions of charge within the cloud being depleted by successive strokes.[citation needed]
The sound of thunder from a lightning strike is prolonged by successive strokes.
[edit]Types

Cloud-to-ground lightning
Some lightning strikes exhibit particular characteristics; scientists and the general public have given names to these various types of lightning. The lightning that is most-commonly observed is streak lightning. This is nothing more than the return stroke, the visible part of the lightning stroke. The majority of strokes occur inside a cloud so we do not see most of the individual return strokes during a thunderstorm.[citation needed]
[edit]Cloud-to-ground lightning
This is the best known and second most common type of lightning. Of all the different types of lightning, it poses the greatest threat to life and property since it strikes the ground. Cloud-to-ground (CG) lightning is a lightning discharge between a cumulonimbus cloud and the ground. It i
s initiated by a leader stroke moving down from the cloud.[citation needed]
[edit]Bead lightning

The Bead lightning in Brisbane, Australia
Bead lightning is a type of cloud-to-ground lightning which appears to break up into a string of short, bright sections, which last longer than the usual discharge channel. It is relatively rare. Several theories have been proposed to explain it; one is that the observer sees portions of the lightning channel end on, and that these portions appear especially bright. Another is that, in bead lightning, the width of the lightning channel varies; as the lightning channel cools and fades, the wider sections cool more slowly and remain visible longer, appearing as a string of beads.[37][38]
[edit]Ribbon lightning
Ribbon lightning occurs in thunderstorms with high cross winds and multiple return strokes. The wind will blow each successive return stroke slightly to one side of the previous return stroke, causing a ribbon effect.[citation needed]
[edit]Staccato lightning
Staccato lightning is a cloud-to-ground lightning (CG) strike which is a short-duration stroke that (often but not always) appears as a single very bright flash and often has considerable branching.[39] These are often found in the visual vault area near the mesocyclone of rotating thunderstorms and coincides with intensification of thunderstorm updrafts. A similar cloud-to-cloud strike consisting of a brief flash over a small area, appearing like a blip, also occurs in a similar area of rotating updrafts.[citation needed]
[edit]Forked lightning

Forked lightning is a name, not in formal usage, for cloud-to-ground lightning that exhibits branching of its path.[citation needed]
[edit]Ground-to-cloud lightning
Ground-to-cloud lightning is a lightning discharge between the ground and a cumulonimbus cloud initiated by an upward-moving leader stroke. This type of lightning forms when negatively charged ions called the stepped leader rise up from the ground and meet the positively charged ions in a cumulonimbus cloud. Then, the strike goes back to the ground as the return stroke. This is also called positive lightning.[citation needed]
[edit]Cloud-to-cloud lightning

Multiple paths of cloud-to-cloud lightning, Swifts Creek, Australia.

Cloud-to-cloud lightning, Victoria, Australia.
Lightning discharges may occur between areas of cloud without contacting the ground. When it occurs between two separate clouds it is known as inter-cloud lightning, and when it occurs between areas of differing electric potential within a single cloud it is known as intra-cloud lightning. Intra-cloud lightning is the most frequently occurring type.[18]
These are most common between the upper anvil portion and lower reaches of a given thunderstorm. This lightning can sometimes be observed at great distances at night as so-called “heat lightning”. In such instances, the observer may see only a flash of light without hearing any thunder. The “heat” portion of the term is a folk association between locally experienced warmth and the distant lightning flashes.
Another terminology used for cloud–cloud or cloud–cloud–ground lightning is “Anvil Crawler”, due to the habit of the charge typically originating from beneath or within the anvil and scrambling through the upper cloud layers of a thunderstorm, normally generating multiple branch strokes which are dramatic to witness. These are usually seen as a thunderstorm passes over the observer or begins to decay. The most vivid crawler behavior occurs in well developed thunderstorms that feature extensive rear anvil shearing.
[edit]Sheet lightning
Sheet lightning is an informal name for cloud-to-cloud lightning that exhibits a diffuse brightening of the surface of a cloud, caused by the actual discharge path being hidden. The lightning itself cannot be seen by the spectator, so it appears as only a flash, or a sheet of light.[citation needed]
[edit]Heat lightning
Main article: Heat lightning
Heat lightning is a common name for a lightning flash that appears to produce no thunder because it occurs too far away for the thunder to be heard. The sound waves dissipate before they reach the observer.[40]
[edit]Dry lightning
Main article: Dry lightning

Volcanic material thrust high into the atmosphere can trigger lightning.

Lightning strikes during the eruption of the Galunggung volcano, Indonesia in 1982.
Dry lightning is a term in Canada and the United States for lightning that occurs with no precipitation at the surface. This type of lightning is the most common natural cause of wildfires.[41] Pyrocumulus clouds produce lightning for the same reason that it is produced by cumulonimbus clouds.
When the higher levels of the atmosphere are cooler, and the surface is warmed to extreme temperatures due to a wildfire, volcano, etc., convection will occur, and the convection produces lightning. Therefore, fire can beget dry lightning through the development of more dry thunderstorms which cause more fires (see positive feedback).
[edit]Rocket lightning
It is a form of cloud discharge, generally horizontal and at cloud base, with a luminous channel appearing to advance through the air with visually resolvable speed, often intermittently.[42]
[edit]Positive lightning
See also: High voltage#Lightning

Anvil-to-ground (Bolt from the blue) lightning strike.
Unlike the far more common “negative” lightning, positive lightning occurs when a positive charge is carried by the top of the clouds (generally anvil clouds) rather than the ground. Generally, this causes the leader arc to form in the anvil of the cumulonimbus and travel horizontally for several miles before veering down to meet the negatively charged streamer rising from the ground. The bolt can strike anywhere within several miles of the anvil of the thunderstorm, often in areas experiencing clear or only slightly cloudy skies; they are also known as “bolts from the blue” for this reason. Positive lightning makes up less than 5% of all lightning strikes.[43]
Because of the much greater distance they must travel before discharging, positive lightning strikes typically carry six to ten times the charge and voltage difference of a negative bolt and last around ten times longer.[44] During a positive lightning strike, huge quantities of ELF and VLF radio waves are generated.[45]
As a result of their greater power, as well as lack of warning, positive lightning strikes are considerably more dangerous. At the present time, aircraft are not designed to withstand such strikes, since their existence was unknown at the time standards were set, and the dangers unappreciated until the destruction of a glider in 1999.[46] The standard in force at the time of the crash, Advisory Circular AC 20-53A, was replaced by Advisory Circular AC 20-53B in 2006,[47] however it is unclear whether adequate protection against positive lighting was incorporated.[48][49]
Positive lightning is also now believed to have been responsible for the 1963 in-flight explosion and subsequent crash of Pan Am Flight 214, a Boeing 707.[50] Due to the dangers of lightning, aircraft operating in U.S. airspace have been required to have lightning discharge wicks to reduce the damage by a lightning strike, but these measures may be insufficient for positive lightning.[51]
Positive lightning has also been shown to trigger the occurrence of upper atmosphere lightning. It tends to occur more frequently in winter storms, as with thundersnow, and at the end of a thunderstorm.[18]
[edit]Ball lightning
Main article: Ball lightning
Ball lightning may be an atmospheric electrical phenomenon, the physical nature of which is still controversial. The term refers to reports of luminous, usually spherical objects which vary from pea-sized to several metres in diameter.[52] It is sometimes associated with thunderstorms, but unlike lightning flashes, which last only a fraction of a second, ball lightning reportedly lasts many seconds. Ball lightning has been described by ey
ewitnesses but rarely recorded by meteorologists.[53] Scientific data on natural ball lightning is scarce owing to its infrequency and unpredictability. The presumption of its existence is based on reported public sightings, and has therefore produced somewhat inconsistent findings.
Laboratory experiments have produced effects that are visually similar to reports of ball lightning, but at present, it is unknown whether these are actually related to any naturally occurring phenomenon. One theory is that ball lightning may be created when lightning strikes silicon in soil, a phenomenon which has been duplicated in laboratory testing.[54] Given inconsistencies and the lack of reliable data and completely contradicting and unpredictable behavior, the true nature of ball lightning is still unknown[55] and was often regarded as a fantasy or a hoax.[56]
Reports of the phenomenon were dismissed for lack of physical evidence, and were often regarded the same way as UFO sightings.[55] Severely contradicting descriptions of ball lightning makes it impossible even to create a plausible hypothesis that will take into account described behavior.
One theory that may account for this wider spectrum of observational evidence is the idea of combustion inside the low-velocity region of spherical vortex breakdown of a natural vortex (e.g., the 'Hill's spherical vortex').[57] Natural ball lightning appears infrequently and unpredictably, and is therefore rarely (if ever truly) photographed. However, several purported photos and videos exist. Perhaps the most famous story of ball lightning unfolded when 18th-century physicist Georg Wilhelm Richmann installed a lightning rod in his home and was struck in the head – and killed – by a “pale blue ball of fire.”[58]
[edit]Upper-atmospheric lightning
Main article: Upper-atmospheric lightning

Representation of upper-atmospheric lightning and electrical-discharge phenomena
Reports by scientists of strange lightning phenomena related to storms date back to at least 1886. However, it is only in recent years that fuller investigations have been made. This has sometimes been called megalightning.[59]
[edit]Sprites
Main article: Sprite (lightning)
Sprites are large-scale electrical discharges that occur high above a thunderstorm cloud, or cumulonimbus, giving rise to a quite varied range of visual shapes. They are triggered by the discharges of positive lightning between the thundercloud and the ground.[45] The phenomena were named after the mischievous sprite (air spirit) Puck in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. They normally are coloured reddish-orange or greenish-blue, with hanging tendrils below and arcing branches above their location, and can be preceded by a reddish halo.[60]
They often occur in clusters, lying 50 to 90 kilometres (31 to 56 mi) above the Earth's surface. Sprites were first photographed on July 6, 1989 by scientists from the University of Minnesota and have since been witnessed tens of thousands of times.[60] Sprites have been mentioned as a possible cause in otherwise unexplained accidents involving high altitude vehicular operations above thunderstorms.[61]
[edit]Blue jets
Main article: Upper-atmospheric lightning#Blue jets
Blue jets differ from sprites in that they project from the top of the cumulonimbus above a thunderstorm, typically in a narrow cone, to the lowest levels of the ionosphere 25 miles (40 km) to 50 miles (80 km) above the earth.[62] They are also brighter than sprites and, as implied by their name, are blue in colour. They were first recorded on October 21, 1989, on a video taken from the space shuttle as it passed over Australia, and subsequently extensively documented in 1994 during aircraft research flights by the University of Alaska.[59][63]
On September 14, 2001, scientists at the Arecibo Observatory photographed a huge jet, double the height of those previously observed, reaching around 50 miles (80 km) into the atmosphere. The jet was located above a thunderstorm over the ocean, and lasted under a second. Lightning was initially observed traveling up at around 50,000 m/s in a similar way to a typical blue jet, but then divided in two and sped at 250,000 m/s to the ionosphere, where they spread out in a bright burst of light.[64] On July 22, 2002, five gigantic jets between 60 and 70 km (35 to 45 miles) in length were observed over the South China Sea from Taiwan, reported in Nature.[63] The jets lasted under a second, with shapes likened by the researchers to giant trees and carrots.[citation needed]
[edit]Elves
Main article: Upper-atmospheric lightning#Elves

Lightning strikes the Space Shuttle Challenger before the launch of STS-8.
Elves often appear as dim, flattened, circular in the horizontal plane, expanding glows around 250 miles (400 km) in diameter that last for, typically, just one millisecond.[65] They occur in the ionosphere 60 miles (97 km) above the ground over thunderstorms. Their color was a puzzle for some time, but is now believed to be a red hue. Elves were first recorded on another shuttle mission, this time recorded off French Guiana on October 7, 1990. Elves is an acronym for Emissions of Light and Very Low Frequency Perturbations from Electromagnetic Pulse Sources.[66] This refers to the process by which the light is generated; the excitation of nitrogen molecules due to electron collisions (the electrons possibly having been energized by the electromagnetic pulse caused by a discharge from the Ionosphere).[59]
[edit]Triggered lightning

[edit]Rocket-triggered
Lightning has been triggered by launching lightning rockets carrying spools of wire into thunderstorms. The wire unwinds as the rocket ascends, providing a path for lightning. These bolts are typically very straight due to the path created by the wire.[67]
Lightning has also been triggered directly by other human activities: Flying aircraft can trigger lightning.[68] Furthermore, lightning struck Apollo 12 soon after takeoff, and has struck soon after thermonuclear explosions.[69]
[edit]Volcanically triggered
See also: Dirty thunderstorm
There are three types of volcanic lightning:
Extremely large volcanic eruptions, which eject gases and material high into the atmosphere, can trigger lightning. This phenomenon was documented by Pliny The Elder during the 79 AD eruption of Vesuvius, in which he perished.[70]
An intermediate type which comes from a volcano's vents, sometimes 2.9 km long.
Small spark-type lightning about .91 meters long lasting a few milliseconds.[71]
[edit]Laser-triggered
Since the 1970s,[72][73][74][75][76][77] researchers have attempted to trigger lightning strikes by means of infrared or ultraviolet lasers, which create a channel of ionized gas through which the lightning would be conducted to ground. Such triggering of lightning is intended to protect rocket launching pads, electric power facilities, and other sensitive targets.[78][79][80][81][82]
In New Mexico, U.S., scientists tested a new terawatt laser which provoked lightning. Scientists fired ultra-fast pulses from an extremely powerful laser thus sending several terawatts into the clouds to call down electrical discharges in storm clouds over the region. The laser beams sent from the laser make channels of ionized molecules known as “filaments”. Before the lightning strikes earth, the filaments lead electricity through the clouds, playing the role of lightning rods. Researchers generated filaments that lived too short a period to trigger a real lightning strike. Nevertheless, a boost in electrical activity within the clouds was registered. According to the French and German scientists, who ran the experiment, the fast pulses sent from the laser will be able to provoke lightning strikes on demand.[83] Statistical analysis showed that their laser pulses indeed enhanced the electrical activity in the thundercloud where it was aimed—in effect they generated small local discharges located at the position of the plasma channels.[84]
[edit]Extraterrestrial lightnin
g

Lightning requires the electrical breakdown of a gas, so it cannot exist in a visual form in the vacuum of space. However, lightning has been observed within the atmospheres of other planets, such as Venus, Jupiter and Saturn. Lightning on Venus is still a controversial subject after decades of study. During the Soviet Venera and U.S. Pioneer missions of the 1970s and '80s, signals suggesting lightning may be present in the upper atmosphere were detected.[85] However, recently the Cassini–Huygens mission fly-by of Venus detected no signs of lightning at all. Despite this, it has been suggested that radio pulses recorded by the spacecraft Venus Express may originate from lightning on Venus.[86]
[edit]High energy radiation emissions due to lightning

The production of X-rays by a bolt of lightning was theoretically predicted as early as 1925[87] but no evidence was found until 2001/2002,[88] when researchers at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology detected X-ray emissions from an induced lightning strike along a wire trailed behind a rocket shot into a storm cloud. In the same year University of Florida and Florida Tech researchers used an array of electric field and X-ray detectors at a lightning research facility in North Florida to confirm that natural lightning makes X-rays in large quantities. The cause of the X-ray emissions is still a matter for research, as the temperature of lightning is too low to account for the X-rays observed.[89]
[edit]Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes
Main article: Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes
A number of observations by space-based telescopes have revealed even higher energy gamma ray emissions, the so-called terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs). These observations pose a challenge to current theories of lightning, especially with the discovery of the clear signatures of antimatter produced in lightning.[90]

Double lightning.
It has been discovered in the past 15 years that among the processes of lightning is some mechanism capable of generating gamma rays, which escape the atmosphere and are observed by orbiting spacecraft. Brought to light by NASA's Gerald Fishman in 1994 in an article in Science,[91] these so-called terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) were observed by accident, while he was documenting instances of extraterrestrial gamma ray bursts observed by the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO). TGFs are much shorter in duration, however, lasting only about 1 ms.
Professor Umran Inan of Stanford University linked a TGF to an individual lightning stroke occurring within 1.5 ms of the TGF event,[92] proving for the first time that the TGF was of atmospheric origin and associated with lightning strikes.
CGRO recorded only about 77 events in 10 years; however, more recently the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RHESSI) spacecraft, as reported by David Smith of UC Santa Cruz, has been observing TGFs at a much higher rate, indicating that these occur about 50 times per day globally (still a very small fraction of the total lightning on the planet). The energy levels recorded exceed 20 MeV.
Scientists from Duke University have also been studying the link between certain lightning events and the mysterious gamma ray emissions that emanate from the Earth's own atmosphere, in light of newer observations of TGFs made by RHESSI. Their study suggests that this gamma radiation fountains upward from starting points at surprisingly low altitudes in thunderclouds.
Steven Cummer, from Duke University's Pratt School of Engineering, said, “These are higher energy gamma rays than come from the sun. And yet here they are coming from the kind of terrestrial thunderstorm that we see here all the time.”
Early hypotheses of this pointed to lightning generating high electric fields and driving relativistic runaway electron avalanche at altitudes well above the cloud where the thin atmosphere allows gamma rays to easily escape into space, similar to the way sprites are generated. Subsequent evidence however, has suggested instead that TGFs may be produced by driving relativistic electron avalanches within or just above high thunderclouds. Though hindered by atmospheric absorption of the escaping gamma rays, these theories do not require the exceptionally intense lightning that high altitude theories of TGF generation rely on.
The role of TGFs and their relationship to lightning remains a subject of ongoing scientific study.
In 2009, Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope in Earth orbit observed intense burst of gamma rays corresponding to positron annihilations coming out of a storm formation. Scientists wouldn't have been surprised to see a few positrons accompanying any intense gamma ray burst, but the lightning flash detected by Fermi appeared to have produced about 100 trillion positrons. This has been reported by media in January 2011, it is an effect, never considered to happen before.[93]
[edit]Sound

See also: Thunder
Because the electrostatic discharge of terrestrial lightning superheats the air to plasma temperatures along the length of the discharge channel in a short duration, kinetic theory dictates gaseous molecules undergo a rapid increase in pressure and thus expand outward from the lightning creating a shock wave audible as thunder. Since the sound waves propagate, not from a single point source, but along the length of the lightning's path, the sound origin's varying distances from the observer can generate a rolling or rumbling effect. Perception of the sonic characteristics is further complicated by factors such as the irregular and possibly branching geometry of the lightning channel, by acoustic echoing from terrain, and by the typically multiple-stroke characteristic of the lightning strike.
Since light travels at a significantly greater speed than sound through air, an observer can approximate the distance to the strike by timing the interval between the visible lightning and the audible thunder it generates. At standard atmospheric temperature and pressures near ground level, sound will travel at roughly 343 m/s (1,130 ft/s); a lightning flash preceding its thunder by five seconds would be about one mile (1.6 km) distant. A flash preceding thunder by three seconds is about one kilometer (0.62 mi) distant. Consequently, a lightning strike observed at a very close distance (within 100 meters or 328 feet) will be accompanied by the sound of a loud snap, thunder almost instantaneously and the smell of ozone (O3).
[edit]Lightning-induced magnetism

Lightning induced remanent magnetization (LIRM) mapped during a magnetic field gradient survey of an archaeological site located in Wyoming, United States
The movement of electrical charges produces a magnetic field (see electromagnetism). The intense currents of a lightning discharge create a fleeting but very strong magnetic field. Where the lightning current path passes through rock, soil, or metal these materials can become permanently magnetized. This effect is known as lightning-induced remanent magnetism, or LIRM. These currents follow the least resistive path, often horizontally near the surface[94][95] but sometimes vertically, where faults, ore bodies, or ground water offers a less resistive path.[96] One theory suggests that lodestones, natural magnets encountered in ancient times, were created in this manner.[97]
Lightning-induced magnetic anomalies can be mapped in the ground,[98][99] and analysis of magnetized materials can confirm lightning was the source of the magnetization[100] and provide an estimate of the peak current of the lightning discharge.[101]
[edit]Records and locations

Global map of lightning frequency

Lightning flash density – 12 hourly means over the year (NASA OTD/LIS)
An old estimate of the frequency of lightning on Earth was 100 times a second. Now that there are satellites that can detect lightning, including in places where there is nobody to observe it, it is known to occur on average 44 ± 5 times a second, for a total of nearly 1.4 billion fl
ashes per year;[102][103] 75% of these flashes are either cloud-to-cloud or intra-cloud and 25% are cloud-to-ground.[104]
The maps on the right show that lightning is not distributed evenly around the planet.[105] Approximately 70% of lightning occurs in the tropics where the majority of thunderstorms occur. The place where lightning occurs most often (according to the data from 2004–2005) is near the small village of Kifuka in the mountains of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo,[106] where the elevation is around 975 metres (3,200 ft). On average this region receives 158 lightning strikes per 1 square kilometer (0.39 sq mi) a year.[103]
Above the Catatumbo river, which feeds Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela, Catatumbo lightning flashes several times per minute, 140 to 160 nights per year, accounting for 25% of the world's production of upper-atmospheric ozone. Singapore has one of the highest rates of lightning activity in the world.[107] The city of Teresina in northern Brazil has the third-highest rate of occurrences of lightning strikes in the world. The surrounding region is referred to as the Chapada do Corisco (“Flash Lightning Flatlands”).[108]
In the US, Central Florida sees more lightning than any other area. For example, in what is called “Lightning Alley”, an area from Tampa, to Orlando, there are as many as 50 strikes per 1 square mile (2.6 km2) (about 20 per 1 km2 or 0.39 sq mi) per year.[109][110] The Empire State Building is struck by lightning on average 23 times each year, and was once struck 8 times in 24 minutes.[111]
Roy Sullivan held a Guinness World Record after surviving 7 different lightning strikes over 35 years.[112]
In July 2007, lightning killed up to 30 people when it struck a remote mountain village Ushari Dara in northwestern Pakistan.[113]
On 31 October 2005, sixty-eight dairy cows, all in full milk, died on a farm at Fernbrook on the Waterfall Way near Dorrigo, New South Wales after being struck by lightning. Three others were paralysed for several hours but they later made a full recovery. The cows were sheltering under a tree when it was struck by lightning and the electricity spread onto the surrounding soil killing the animals.[114]
Lightning rarely strikes the open ocean, although some sea regions are lightning “hot spots”. Winter storms passing off the east coast of the United States often erupt with electrical activity when they cross the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream endures about the same number of lightning strikes as the southern plains of the USA.
[edit]Lightning detection

Main article: Lightning detection
The earliest detector invented to warn of the approach of a thunder storm was the lightning bell. Benjamin Franklin installed one such device in his house.[115] The detector was based on an electrostatic device called the 'electric chimes' invented by Andrew Gordon in 1742.
Lightning discharges generate a wide range of electromagnetic radiations, including radio-frequency pulses. The times at which a pulse from a given lightning discharge arrive at several receivers can be used to locate the source of the discharge. The United States federal government has constructed a nation-wide grid of such lightning detectors, allowing lightning discharges to be tracked in real time throughout the continental U.S.[116][117]
In addition to ground-based lightning detection, several instruments aboard satellites have been constructed to observe lightning distribution. These include the Optical Transient Detector (OTD), aboard the OrbView-1 satellite launched on April 3, 1995, and the subsequent Lightning Imaging Sensor (LIS) aboard TRMM launched on November 28, 1997.[118][119][120]
[edit]Notable lightning strikes

Some lightning strikes have caused either numerous fatalities or great damage. The following is a partial list:
In 1660, lightning struck the gunpowder magazine at Osaka Castle, Japan; the resultant explosion set the castle on fire. In 1665, lightning struck the main tower of the castle and it burned down to the foundation.
A particularly deadly lightning incident occurred in Brescia, Italy in 1769. Lightning struck the Church of St. Nazaire, igniting the 90 tonnes of gunpowder in its vaults; the resulting explosion killed 3000 people and destroyed a sixth of the city.[121]
1902: A lightning strike damaged the upper section of the Eiffel Tower, requiring the reconstruction of its top[122]
December 8, 1963: Pan Am Flight 214 crashed as result of a lightning strike, killing all 81 people on board.
November 14, 1969: Apollo 12 Thirty-six-and-a-half seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn V's ionized plume. However, the Saturn V continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V's Instrument Unit.
July 12, 1970, the central mast of the Orlunda radio transmitter collapsed after a lightning strike destroyed its basement insulator.
December 24, 1971: LANSA Flight 508 crashed as a result of lightning in Peru, with 91 people killed.[123]
November 2, 1994, lightning struck fuel tanks in Dronka, Egypt and caused 469 fatalities.[124]
[edit]Harvesting lightning energy

Since the late 1980s, there have been several attempts to investigate the possibility of harvesting energy from lightning. While a single bolt of lightning carries a relatively large amount of energy (approximately 5 billion joules[125]), this energy is concentrated in a small location and is passed during an extremely short period of time (milliseconds); therefore, extremely high electrical power is involved.[126] It has been proposed that the energy contained in lightning be used to generate hydrogen from water, or to harness the energy from rapid heating of water due to lightning.[127]
A technology capable of harvesting lightning energy would need to be able to rapidly capture the high power involved in a lightning bolt. Several schemes have been proposed, but the ever-changing energy involved in each lightning bolt render lightning power harvesting from ground based rods impractical – too high, it will damage the storage, too low and it may not work.[128] According to Northeastern University physicists Stephen Reucroft and John Swain, a lightning bolt carries a few million joules of energy, enough to power a 100-watt bulb for 5.5 hours. Additionally, lightning is sporadic, and therefore energy would have to be collected and stored; it is difficult to convert high-voltage electrical power to the lower-voltage power that can be stored.[127]
In the summer of 2007, an alternative energy company called Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (AEHI) tested a method for capturing the energy in lightning bolts. The design for the system had been purchased from an Illinois inventor named Steve LeRoy, who had reportedly been able to power a 60-watt light bulb for 20 minutes using the energy captured from a small flash of artificial lightning. The method involved a tower, a means of shunting off a large portion of the incoming energy, and a capacitor to store the rest. According to Donald Gillispie, CEO of AEHI, they “couldn't make it work,” although “given enough time and money, you could probably scale this thing up… it's not black magic; it's truly math and science, and it could happen.”[129]
According to Martin A. Uman, co-director of the Lightning Research Laboratory at the University of Florida and a leading authority on lightning,[130] a single lightning strike, while fast and bright, contains very little energy, and dozens of lighting towers like those used in the system tested by AEHI would be needed to operate five 100-watt light bulbs for the course of a year. When interviewed by The New York Times, he stated that the energy in a thunderstorm is comparable to that of an atomic bomb, but trying to harvest the energy of lightning from the ground is “hopeless”.[129]
Another major challenge when attempting to harvest energy from lighting is the impossibility of predicting when and where thunderstorms
will occur. Even during a storm, it is very difficult to tell where exactly lightning will strike.[125]
A relatively easy method is the direct harvesting of atmospheric charge before it turns into lightning. At a small scale, it was done a few times with the most known example being Benjamin Franklin's experiment with his kite. However, to collect reasonable amounts of energy very large constructions are required, and it is relatively hard to utilize the resulting extremely high voltage with reasonable efficiency.[citation needed]

just to start

[princess]

­Thank you T, however to save my eyes next time could you just send me to the site. This is more of what I was suggesting:

Beyond its powerful beauty, lightning presents science with one of its greatest local mysteries: How does it work? It is common knowledge that lightning is generated in electrically charged storm systems, but the method of cloud charging still remains elusive. (howstuffworks.com)

Even though lightning can be seen, heard, felt, touched no one really knows how it works. So when debates of such with creation versus evolution come about I place then in the same category. Each side claims to have the 'truth' however neither can fully prove it.

Now why is that T?

[terraricca]

Quote (princess @ July 01 2012,04:39)

­Thank you T, however to save my eyes next time could you just send me to the site. This is more of what I was suggesting: Beyond its powerful beauty, lightning presents science with one of its greatest local mysteries: How does it work? It is common knowledge that lightning is generated in electrically charged storm systems, but the method of cloud charging still remains elusive. (howstuffworks.com) Even though lightning can be seen, heard, felt, touched no one really knows how it works. So when debates of such with creation versus evolution come about I place then in the same category. Each side claims to have the 'truth' however neither can fully prove it. Now why is that T?

Hi princess

next time I will if I do not forget it  

their are many things that we do not understand in the creation ,but as time goes it will unfold it self ,as per Gods will,

all the unknown as been made to prove that men as limited knowledge of where he lives, and so should require help from above ,

but this is what most men opossing to do ,

it soon will show those men of so called wisdom that all what they learn will be to see their own fall down.

the principal would be ;what a men sows his also what he reaps.

it will be like a men who drinks for 20 years and now the doctor recommend to use this new machine they just made to see livers images ; so when he goes what would he find

THAT HIS LIVER HIS SHUT AND HE HAS ONLY SO MANY DAYS TO LIVE .

[princess]

I don't know T, all this god business seems to be more man's creation then anything. Perhaps that is why there is so much discussion and controversy over the bible.

So many denominations and faiths, all having it down to a science. Really even with the bible you are still left with not knowing. All that information and one is still left with 'what does it really take to get into heaven'?

[terraricca]

Quote (princess @ July 05 2012,07:14)

I don't know T, all this god business seems to be more man's creation then anything. Perhaps that is why there is so much discussion and controversy over the bible. So many denominations and faiths, all having it down to a science. Really even with the bible you are still left with not knowing. All that information and one is still left with 'what does it really take to get into heaven'?

Princess

ZEC 10:2 For the Leaders speak iniquity,
And the diviners see lying visions
And tell false dreams;
They comfort in vain.
Therefore the people wander like sheep,
They are afflicted, because there is no shepherd.
MT 15:9 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’ ”
MK 7:7 ‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
1CO 15:2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.
1CO 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

2CO 6:1 And working together with Him, we also urge you not to receive the grace of God in vain—
GAL 2:2 It was because of a revelation that I went up; and I submitted to them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but I did so in private to those who were of reputation, for fear that I might be running, or had run, in vain.
GAL 3:4 Did you suffer so many things in vain— if indeed it was in vain?
GAL 4:11 I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.
Phil 2:16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.
1TH 2:1 For you yourselves know, brethren, that our coming to you was not in vain,
1TH 3:5 For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:2 This is what the ancients were commended for.
Heb 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

now if their would be nothing ,well then I would have lived a better live hopping in vain,and have not taking advantage of live the way unbelievers do ,so live would be “EAT ,DRINK,BECAUSE TOMORROW WE DIE ” now is this an better live

[Author]

Posts