1ºPeter Chanel No, it doesn't. "Naw-shaw" (Strong's number 5377) means "to deceive". A closer pronunciation would be "Naw-saw" (Strong's number 5375), which means "to lift up", "to bear, carry, support, sustain", "to carry off", or "to burn" in some obscure cases.
So, if you want to claim they were using Hebrew to describe their purpose, you should use Strong's 5375 instead. Otherwise, you are clearly wrong. "to deceive" is pronounced lehat-ot (להטעות)
nesa (נשא) is a word for something you carry (including emotionally) that slows you.
there are other meanings pronounced differently. for example "nasa" which means "held/lifted" in male.
2ºErik Saucedo it started when the nazi’s were moved from Germany and Austria and relocated here by the government. Aren’t they the founders of NASA?
“The most difficult part was the creation of a flat map of the Earth’s surface with the four-month satellite data. Reto Stockli, now at the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology, did much of this work. Then we wrapped the map flat around a sphere. My part was to integrate the surface, clouds and oceans to match people’s expectations of how Earth looks from space. That ball became the famous Blue Marble. “ – Robert Simmon, artist at NASA.
3ºEver since I was a boy, I always accepted the belief that there was extraterrestrial life... How arrogant is it to think that in a galaxy as vast as ours, that no other solar systems exist like ours that support life? That we are the only ones? How much more arrogant is it to believe that there could be civilizations that are far older than ours and may have the technology to build space craft that can travel light years using technology we haven't even considered or even know of? If that civilization was 1,000 years older than ours, what technology could they have discovered in that 1,000 years? What will our technology look like in 1,000 years? To not give credence to the possibility that other life exists elsewhere in our vast galaxy and that life might be far more advanced than we are is ridiculous.
4º(B.A. Bible/Biology)*
THE CELL could not have evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living! In fact, it couldn't have even reached the partially evolved state.
CATCH-22 FOR EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE
Just having the right materials, elements, and conditions do not mean that life can arise by chance.
Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953 showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.
What many don't realize is that although oxygen is necessary for life's processes, the presence of oxygen would prevent life from coming into being. This is because oxygen is destructive unless there are mechanisms already in place to control, direct, and regulate it, such as what we find in already existing forms of life.
RNA and DNA are made up of molecules (nucleic acids) that must also exist in the right sequence. Furthermore, none of these sequential molecules, proteins, DNA, RNA, can function outside of a complete and living cell and all are mutually dependent on one another. One cannot come into existence without the other.
Mathematicians have said any event in the universe with odds of 10 to 50th power or greater is impossible! The probability of just a single average size protein molecule arising by chance is 10 to the 65th power. The late great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle calculated that the odds of even the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power! How large is this? Consider that the total number of atoms in our universe is 10 to the 82nd power.
The cell could not have evolved. A partially evolved cell would quickly disintegrate under the effects of random forces of the environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years for chance to make it complete and living! In fact, it couldn't have even reached the partially evolved state.
Alien beings, even if they do exist, could not have evolved. How could they have survived millions of years while the very biological structures, organs, and systems necessary for their survival were supposedly still evolving? Life, in any form (even a single-celled organism), must be complete, fully integrated, and fully-functioning from the very start to be fit for survival.
Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the code and mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The problem for evolutionists is how did the cell originate when there were no directing code and mechanisms in nature. Natural laws may explain how a cell or airplane works but mere undirected natural laws could not have brought about the existence of either.
What about synthetic life? Scientists didn’t create life itself. What they've done is, by using intelligent design and sophisticated technology, scientists built DNA code from scratch and then they implanted that man-made DNA into an already existing living cell and alter that cell. That's what synthetic life is.
Through genetic engineering scientists have been able to produce new forms of life by altering already existing forms of life, but they have never created life from non-living matter. Even if they do, it won’t be by chance but by intelligent design. That doesn’t help the theory of evolution.
What about natural selection? Natural selection doesn't create or produce anything. It can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. If a variation occurs that helps a species survive, that survival is called " natural selection." It's a passive process. There's no conscious selection by nature, and natural selection only operates in nature once there is life and reproduction and not before, so it would not be of assistance to the origin of life.
Science can't prove we're here by chance or design. Neither was observed. Both are positions of faith. The issue is which faith is best supported by science. Let the scientific arguments of both sides be presented.
Read my popular Internet articles:
THE NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION
ANY LIFE ON MARS CAME FROM EARTH
Visit my Internet site: THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING CREATION
Author of the popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS
*I have given successful lectures (with question and answer period afterwards) defending creation before evolutionist science faculty and students at various colleges and universities. I've been privileged to be recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who in The East" for my writings on religion and science.