Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [CreationTalk] Solomon's time

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Subject: [CreationTalk] Solomon s time ... Even if you are correct at most it says that
    Message 1 of 6 , Sep 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com

      On Behalf Of Victor McAllister

      Subject: [CreationTalk] Solomon's time



      > Solomon spoke Hebrew that was a tenseless language. Our
      > tenses show timing, but Hebrew verbs showed actions that
      > continue or complete, without reference to past, present or
      > future. Like other early people, the Jews also had a tenseless
      > view of time. We do not detect time with smell, taste, touch,
      > hearing or sight. We experience time as a succession of events
      > that change even as they persist.



      Even if you are correct at most it says that ancient people did not have as
      well developed an idea of time as we do. This in no way means that time
      itself does not exist.



      > Linear time is incompatible with continually spreading orbits.



      No it's not and besides the there is no evidence continually spreading
      orbits.



      > Hebrews 11:3 tells us He equipped (perfect, passive infinitive) the
      > plural eons out of things that shine by His command. He did not
      > create time. He commanded matter to intrinsically change

      > (Romans 8:20) and this passively resulted in the plural eons.



      These verses say nothing of the kind, not even in Greek. You are using your
      own unauthoritative translation again and not what the Bible actually says;
      including my Greek New Testament.



      > What causes orbits to accelerate continually?

      Nothing because contrary to you repeated baseless claims orbits are not
      continually accelerating.

      >Gravity is not a perpetual motion force or vacuum bending
      > as with Newton or Einstein.



      Actually based on Einstein's General Relativity gravity is a curvature of
      space around an object resulting from its mass. Furthermore space is not a
      pure vacuum; General Relativity shows it to be a rater ridged but still
      bendable and stretchable as indicated by raqiya in Hebrew and firmament in
      Genesis 1:6. This concept of gravity has made a number of successful
      prediction all of have been shown accurate.



      > Look at the universe and observe that as the light clocks accelerate,



      Correction what we see are galaxies whose light is red shifted, we do NOT
      see any actually light clocks accelerating, in fact we do not actually see
      the red shift (Victors light clock rates) changing within any given galaxy.



      > the orbits also accelerate outwards.



      We do not see any such thing. Based on you other statements you seem to
      think that the spiral arms of spiral galaxies are the orbits within the
      galaxy spiraling outward. However the orbital motion of stars in both our
      own and near by galaxies has been measured and they do not follow the spiral
      arms.







      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

      Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>

      Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>

      Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>

      Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Victor McAllister
      ... Well developed? They had no problem with the age of the universe and you struggle with it because of your well developed notion of time that is unlike
      Message 2 of 6 , Sep 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 7:45 AM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:

        > **
        >
        >
        > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
        >
        > Subject: [CreationTalk] Solomon's time
        >
        >
        > > Solomon spoke Hebrew that was a tenseless language. Our
        > > tenses show timing, but Hebrew verbs showed actions that
        > > continue or complete, without reference to past, present or
        > > future. Like other early people, the Jews also had a tenseless
        > > view of time. We do not detect time with smell, taste, touch,
        > > hearing or sight. We experience time as a succession of events
        > > that change even as they persist.
        >
        > Even if you are correct at most it says that ancient people did not have as
        > well developed an idea of time as we do. This in no way means that time
        > itself does not exist.
        >

        Well developed? They had no problem with the age of the universe and you
        struggle with it because of your "well developed" notion of time that is
        unlike that of any biblical author. I wonder where you got your western
        ideas about time. Me thinks you got it from the first law - the idea Peter
        predicted for the last days.


        > > Linear time is incompatible with continually spreading orbits.
        >
        > No it's not and besides the there is no evidence continually spreading
        >
        > orbits.
        >

        Yet we can see the past with sight back to the creation era. Not a single
        galaxy shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms. When we observe
        how the morphology of galaxies changes throughout cosmic history, we
        observe the very things the Bible states - but you can't believe the light
        because you were trained to think that the properties of matter are fixed,
        not intrinsically changing. The structure of western science was built on
        that premise.


        >
        > > Hebrews 11:3 tells us He equipped (perfect, passive infinitive) the
        > > plural eons out of things that shine by His command. He did not
        > > create time. He commanded matter to intrinsically change
        >
        > > (Romans 8:20) and this passively resulted in the plural eons.
        >
        > These verses say nothing of the kind, not even in Greek. You are using your
        > own unauthoritative translation again and not what the Bible actually says;
        > including my Greek New Testament.
        >
        >
        > > What causes orbits to accelerate continually?
        >
        > Nothing because contrary to you repeated baseless claims orbits are not
        > continually accelerating.
        >
        >
        Yet we see how countless early galaxies were naked, evidently made of tohu
        bohu formless substance. We observe exactly what the Creator says He does
        in unbroken continuity - calling the stars to come out and spread out.


        > >Gravity is not a perpetual motion force or vacuum bending
        > > as with Newton or Einstein.
        >
        > Actually based on Einstein's General Relativity gravity is a curvature of
        > space around an object resulting from its mass. Furthermore space is not a
        > pure vacuum; General Relativity shows it to be a rater ridged but still
        > bendable and stretchable as indicated by raqiya in Hebrew and firmament in
        > Genesis 1:6. This concept of gravity has made a number of successful
        > prediction all of have been shown accurate.
        >
        >
        The "successful" predictions depend on an empirical system that uses the
        first law circularly to define time as what clocks measure and uses time as
        the primary measuring unit to define meters, velocities, accelerations and
        orbits. Yet every atomic clock in billions of galaxies - clocks a different
        frequency than modern atoms. Once you are allowed to question the first
        law, the idea Peter predicted for the last days, you may just find that the
        notion that the vacuum of space-time gets bent in such a way that the earth
        rides the rails impressed into the vacuum is unsupported except
        mathematically with the basic premise. The Bible, like every ancient
        society a few thousand years ago, mentions close passages and the
        shattering of a nearby planet. Even today, the optical parallax to the SUn
        has continued to gradually decrease even after the canonical radar values
        established the AU 50 years ago.


        > Look at the universe and observe that as the light clocks accelerate,

        Correction what we see are galaxies whose light is red shifted, we do NOT
        > see any actually light clocks accelerating, in fact we do not actually see
        > the red shift (Victors light clock rates) changing within any given
        > galaxy.
        >
        >
        No one has ever detected any intrinsic redshift in any experiment,
        anywhere. Light never changes itself as it travels through a void. The
        theory of cosmological redshift is necessary to protect the fundamental
        creed, the notion that atoms are perpetual motion engines, not
        intrinsically changing themselves. Paul says that God passively commanded
        the creation to submit to inutility (Romans 8) and it submits in an orderly
        manner (verb hupotasso - aorist active participle). Evidently every atom is
        obeying the command of the Creator in an orderly manner, as we observe with
        the light from billions of galaxies. We even observe a biblical version of
        geology, since the continents on fit together on a minuscule globe without
        major seas. The Bible states three times that the earth spreads out in
        unbroken continuity, this happens above the waters and even what issues (is
        born) from the earth spreads out. Indeed, a global expansion seam runs
        through every ocean and two thirds of the earths crust is relatively young
        basalt, compared to the older continents. The continents fit together on a
        much smaller globe, even across the vast Pacific.


        >the orbits also accelerate outwards.

        We do not see any such thing. Based on you other statements you seem to
        think that the spiral arms of spiral galaxies are the orbits within the
        galaxy spiraling outward. However the orbital motion of stars in both our
        own and near by galaxies has been measured and they do not follow the spiral
        arms.

        Victor: Scientist "measure" the direction and the speed of the stars in the
        arms of spiral galaxies using spectral clocks. In the scientific system,
        the stars are rotating backwards from the sweep of the arms. Yet we
        observe in galactic history how the star globs followed each other out in
        single file, one behind the other, spreading out in unbroken continuity
        following the sweep of the arms in spirals. The Bible plainly states that
        Elohim continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars continues to be place them
        in the spreading place (Hebrew raqiya).

        BECAUSE scientists use clocks, instead of visible history, to determine the
        motions in spiral galaxies, they are forced to invent four times as much
        invisible matter as the natural kind and place it in invisible donuts
        around every spiral galaxy. It is because of their blind dogma that atoms
        are not intrinsically changing that they have had to invent "density waves"
        that magically push the stars into the lanes we observe in spiral arms.
        Scientific cosmologies are the greatest system of mythology ever concocted
        by man. Their universe is 99% invisible, by their own admission, crammed
        full of vacuum forces that stretch light and push galaxies to close to the
        speed of light. In galaxy clusters, they tell ad hoc stories about 20 times
        as much invisible matter as the natural kind. Why? Because they obfuscate
        the age of the plural heavens - exactly as Peter predicted. Why? Because
        they have a first law, that all things remain the same.

        Changing Earth Creationists are not interpreting the Bible with science. We
        accept what it says in the simplicity of grammar and the way of thinking of
        the ancients. We find that when we do, the creation is visible exactly as
        the Bible states. We are not baffled by the age of the universe. In fact,
        cosmic history is the most powerful evidence for a literal, biblical
        creation. We also expect that the Creator will make foolish science itself,
        as Paul explained in 1st Corinthians. The triumph of the Word of God over
        science is not far off. New telescopes are even now imaging the distant
        universe and scientists are even now obfuscating the visible evidence to
        protect their first law. In modern lingo their law is that atoms are
        perpetual motion engines. On that day, when God makes foolish the wisdom of
        this age, the pride of man will be abased and the Lord alone will be
        exalted. How powerful is His Word. Paul said that when our obedience is
        complete, we will bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning
        raised up against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:3 - 6). Consider
        become a Changing Earther and use the Bible to expose science's first law,
        rather than trying to support the Bible with science.

        Victor


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Chuck
        ... First of all my statement was not about ancient people but the limits of what your comment actually implies about time. Second; I have no struggle with the
        Message 3 of 6 , Sep 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          >>> Solomon spoke Hebrew that was a tenseless language. Our

          >>> tenses show timing, but Hebrew verbs showed actions that

          >>> continue or complete, without reference to past, present or

          >>> future. Like other early people, the Jews also had a tenseless

          >>> view of time. We do not detect time with smell, taste, touch,

          >>> hearing or sight. We experience time as a succession of events

          >>> that change even as they persist.

          >>

          >>> Even if you are correct at most it says that ancient people did
          >> not have as well developed an idea of time as we do. This in no
          >> way means that time itself does not exist.

          >

          >Well developed? They had no problem with the age of the universe
          > and you struggle with it because of your "well developed" notion
          > of time that is unlike that of any biblical author.



          First of all my statement was not about ancient people but the limits of
          what your comment actually implies about time.

          Second; I have no struggle with the age of the universe precisely because of
          my understanding of time.



          > I wonder where you got your western ideas about time. Me thinks
          > you got it from the first law - the idea Peter predicted for the last
          days.



          We both know that this first law notion comes only from your own
          unauthoritative translation and not what the Bible actually says in both
          Greek and English.

          Furthermore you keep pushing the real first law of the scoffers from Genesis
          2 that of "Yea, hath God said?"



          >>> Linear time is incompatible with continually spreading orbits.

          >>

          >> No it's not and besides the there is no evidence continually
          >> spreading orbits.



          > Yet we can see the past with sight back to the creation era. Not
          > a single galaxy shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms.
          > When we observe how the morphology of galaxies changes
          > throughout cosmic history.



          You don't seem to realize that making a connection is between a galaxies red
          shift and its morphology, and then connecting that to the age of the galaxy
          is an empirical concept. That said none of this is evidence continually
          spreading orbits.



          >>> What causes orbits to accelerate continually?

          >>

          > Nothing because contrary to you repeated baseless claims orbits are not
          continually accelerating.

          >

          > Yet we see how countless early galaxies were naked, evidently
          > made of tohu bohu formless substance. We observe exactly what
          > the Creator says He does in unbroken continuity - calling the
          > stars to come out and spread out.



          Once again you are pushing your own unauthoritative translation and not what
          the Bible actually says in any language including Greek and Hebrew. That
          said none of this is evidence continually spreading orbits.



          >>>Gravity is not a perpetual motion force or vacuum bending

          >>> as with Newton or Einstein.

          >

          >> Actually based on Einstein's General Relativity gravity is a
          >> curvature of space around an object resulting from its mass.
          >> Furthermore space is not a pure vacuum; General Relativity
          >> shows it to be a rater ridged but still bendable and stretchable
          >> as indicated by raqiya in Hebrew and firmament in Genesis 1:6.
          >> This concept of gravity has made a number of successful
          >> prediction all of have been shown accurate.

          >

          > The "successful" predictions depend on an empirical system that
          > uses the first law circularly to define time as what clocks measure
          > and uses time as the primary measuring unit to define meters,
          > velocities, accelerations and orbits.



          Actually the successful predictions I mentioned include such things as the
          bending of star light as it passes near the sun which is measured by angles
          and not time or distance.



          > The Bible, like every ancient society a few thousand years ago,
          > mentions close passages and the shattering of a nearby planet.
          > Even today, the optical parallax to the Sun has continued to
          > gradually decrease even after the canonical radar values
          > established the AU 50 years ago.



          Once again you keep touting as fact things I have totally refuted.



          >>> Look at the universe and observe that as the light clocks
          >>> accelerate,

          >>

          >> Correction what we see are galaxies whose light is red shifted,
          >> we do NOT see any actually light clocks accelerating, in fact
          >> we do not actually see the red shift (Victors light clock rates)
          >> changing within any given galaxy.

          >

          >

          >No one has ever detected any intrinsic redshift in any experiment,
          > anywhere.



          You are 100% correct no one has ever detected the intrinsic red-shifts you
          claim exist.

          > Light never changes itself as it travels through a void.

          You are right that light never changes ITSELF as it travels through a void.

          1. Space is not a void but a stretchable, spreadable structure that is
          a perfect match to Hebrew word raqiya.
          2. The light does not change ITSELF but it is stretched out as the
          space it is going through is stretched out.


          > The theory of cosmological redshift is necessary to protect the
          > fundamental creed, the notion that atoms are perpetual motion
          > engines, not intrinsically changing themselves. Paul says that
          > God passively commanded the creation to submit to inutility
          > (Romans 8) and it submits in an orderly manner (verb hupotasso
          > - aorist active participle). Evidently every atom is obeying the
          > command of the Creator in an orderly manner, as we observe
          > with the light from billions of galaxies. We even observe a
          > biblical version of geology, since the continents on fit together
          > on a minuscule globe without major seas. The Bible states three
          > times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity, this
          > happens above the waters and even what issues (is born) from
          > the earth spreads out. Indeed, a global expansion seam runs
          > through every ocean and two thirds of the earths crust is
          > relatively young basalt, compared to the older continents.
          > The continents fit together on a much smaller globe, even
          > across the vast Pacific.



          Once again you continue to state as fact things that I have totally refuted
          both in terms of observations and what the Bible actually says.



          >>>the orbits also accelerate outwards.

          >>

          >> We do not see any such thing. Based on you other statements
          >> you seem to think that the spiral arms of spiral galaxies are the
          >> orbits within the galaxy spiraling outward. However the orbital
          >> motion of stars in both our own and near by galaxies has been
          >> measured and they do not follow the spiral arms.

          >

          > Victor: Scientist "measure" the direction and the speed of the stars
          > in the arms of spiral galaxies using spectral clocks.



          They don't use spectral clocks, they use Doppler shifts which show destined
          patterns indicating direction and the velocity.



          > In the scientific system, the stars are rotating backwards from the
          > sweep of the arms.



          A fact which is actually predicted by every model of a spiral galaxy but
          yours, and it is yet another nail coffin of your claim.


          > Yet we observe in galactic history how the star globs followed each

          > other out in single file, one behind the other, spreading out in
          > unbroken continuity following the sweep of the arms in spirals.



          Sorry but that is not the case. You seem to have base this claim on a low
          resolution UV image of M51 but when you look at a high resolution image of
          M51 it is clear that this is not the case. What you call "star globs" are
          places where stars are illuminating nearby dust and gas. Furthermore they
          are not in single file but scattered through out the arms. They tend to be
          in the spiral arms because the spiral arms have greater concentrations of
          stars and clouds of dust and gas. By the way the same thing can be seen out
          side the arms but to a lesser degree.

          http://tinyurl.com/5k899q



          You seem to also have referred to dark mater and dark energy. You don't use
          the terms so it's hard to tell if you are or not. You really should at least
          use excepted terminology as a starting point so that the reader doses not
          have to guess at is. In any event it is true dark energy totally ad hoc
          however it is a purely evolutionary ad hoc idea needed to save the Big Bang
          from reality. YEC cosmologies however have no need to invoke any notion of
          dark energy it purely an atheistic evolutionary necessity. Dark matter is
          less ad hoc in that detecting previously unseen bodies first by their
          gravitational affect on other objects has produced positive results in the
          past. Uranus and Neptune were discovered by first being found by the affect
          of their gravity on other planets only to be found by those affects showing
          astronomers where to point their telescopes. Dark matter need not be some
          strange mysterious substance but simply none luminescent matter that is cold
          enough for its emission to be lost in the cosmic back ground radiation. From
          a YEC perspective neither dark mater nor dark energy is an absolute
          necessity.



          Your changing Earth idea is seriously flawed it not only depends on you
          being the only person in the world who has accurately interpreted Bible in
          the last 1,500 years or so making it sound cult like. You show a clear
          tendency to twist scripture to makes seem to say what you want you it to.
          When you look at evidence you only look at superficially for patterns that
          seem to fit you preconceptions. In both cases your interpretations of both
          scripture and evidence do not stand up to close scrutiny. Your entire
          changing Earth notion is still 100% totally busted.









          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

          Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>

          Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>

          Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>

          Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Victor McAllister
          ... God did not authorize translations. Men made them and they are good, yet none of them are without some errors. Colossians 2:8 uses the imperative form of
          Message 4 of 6 , Sep 3, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 6:48 AM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:

            > **
            >
            >
            > >>> Solomon spoke Hebrew that was a tenseless language. Our
            >
            > >>> tenses show timing, but Hebrew verbs showed actions that
            >
            > >>> continue or complete, without reference to past, present or
            >
            > >>> future. Like other early people, the Jews also had a tenseless
            >
            > >>> view of time. We do not detect time with smell, taste, touch,
            >
            > >>> hearing or sight. We experience time as a succession of events
            >
            > >>> that change even as they persist.
            >
            > >>
            >
            > >>> Even if you are correct at most it says that ancient people did
            > >> not have as well developed an idea of time as we do. This in no
            > >> way means that time itself does not exist.
            >
            > >
            >
            > >Well developed? They had no problem with the age of the universe
            > > and you struggle with it because of your "well developed" notion
            > > of time that is unlike that of any biblical author.
            >
            > First of all my statement was not about ancient people but the limits of
            > what your comment actually implies about time.
            >
            > Second; I have no struggle with the age of the universe precisely because
            > of
            > my understanding of time.
            >
            > > I wonder where you got your western ideas about time. Me thinks
            > > you got it from the first law - the idea Peter predicted for the last
            > days.
            >
            > We both know that this first law notion comes only from your own
            > unauthoritative translation and not what the Bible actually says in both
            > Greek and English.
            >
            > Furthermore you keep pushing the real first law of the scoffers from
            > Genesis
            > 2 that of "Yea, hath God said?"
            >

            God did not authorize translations. Men made them and they are good, yet
            none of them are without some errors.

            Colossians 2:8 uses the imperative form of the Greek verb blepo, to look
            out, beware, consider. If we do not watch out, we could be lead away as a
            prisoner of war (sulagogon). The captivity is a present participle, a
            current action that continues. Paul commands Christians to watch out for
            mind control, not physical chains.

            (1) Watch out for philosophy that began when the Greeks attempted to invent
            a natural science. Medieval Catholic metaphysicians adapted the Bible to
            fit the ideas of a pagan philosopher. The result was Western science.
            (2) Watch out for vain deceit, deception that is empty, devoid of truth.
            (3) Watch out for the traditions of men. The word tradition is instruction,
            teaching.
            (4) Watch out for the elementary principles of the orderly system
            (stoicheia tou kosmou). Paul used the same phrase in Galatians 4:3. "So
            also we while we were children were held in bondage under the elementary
            ideas of the world (stoicheia tou kosmou)." These principles were so basic
            that even Paul as a child was put in bondage to them.

            What idea TODAY can take little children captive? Peter predicted that in
            the last days mockers will come with a FIRST LAW (arche ktiseous) that all
            things remain the same. I was taught as a child to reasoning with this law,
            the foundational assumption upon which western science was contrived. My
            Christians teachers taught me that the scientific system supported the
            Bible. My mind was held in captivity. I did not know how to think any other
            way than the scientific way. This caused me many years of consternation as
            I tried many double minded ways to fit biblical creation to western
            science. I was not consciously tailoring the Bible to fit science. I simply
            did not know any other way to think. Chains gripped my mind.

            Since I have abandoned the elementary idea that the properties of matter
            are fixed, I am no longer held in bondage. To approach creation without the
            scientific mindset is to be set free.



            >
            > >>> Linear time is incompatible with continually spreading orbits.
            >
            > >>
            >
            > >> No it's not and besides the there is no evidence continually
            > >> spreading orbits.
            >
            > > Yet we can see the past with sight back to the creation era. Not
            > > a single galaxy shines with the light frequencies of modern atoms.
            > > When we observe how the morphology of galaxies changes
            > > throughout cosmic history.
            >
            > You don't seem to realize that making a connection is between a galaxies
            > red
            > shift and its morphology, and then connecting that to the age of the galaxy
            > is an empirical concept. That said none of this is evidence continually
            > spreading orbits.
            >
            >
            Without the first law constraining our thinking, we do not have to accept
            red shifts. No one has ever detected any redshifts in any experiment, other
            than from Doppler. Morphology changes are real. They are observed when we
            compare billions of galaxies at many ranges (eras).

            Without the first law taking our minds prisoner, we can accept what is
            visible as real. We are no longer constrained by mathematical empiricism,
            things no one has ever detected in any experiment - mass, energy and time.
            Those things depend on the notion that atoms are not intrinsically
            changing. Billions of galaxies growing into huge growth spirals is clear
            evidence that the first law is false. All the other laws wer built upon the
            first law, and they all visibly fail in the only history that we see as it
            happened, galactic history.

            >>> What causes orbits to accelerate continually?

            >>

            > Nothing because contrary to you repeated baseless claims orbits are not
            continually accelerating.

            >

            > Yet we see how countless early galaxies were naked, evidently
            > made of tohu bohu formless substance. We observe exactly what
            > the Creator says He does in unbroken continuity - calling the
            > stars to come out and spread out.

            Once again you are pushing your own unauthoritative translation and not what
            > the Bible actually says in any language including Greek and Hebrew. That
            > said none of this is evidence continually spreading orbits.
            >
            >
            > Yet it is visible and scientists have filled the universe up with magical
            things like the spreading vacuum of spacetime, invisible matter, invisible
            holes, undetectable accretion, and the greatest myth of all - a tiny bit of
            vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing. All of these were
            contrived to protect their first law. They are obfuscating the age of the
            plural heavens, the galaxies, because they regard their first law, just as
            Peter predicted in the Bible.


            > >>>Gravity is not a perpetual motion force or vacuum bending
            >
            > >>> as with Newton or Einstein.
            >
            > >
            >
            > >> Actually based on Einstein's General Relativity gravity is a
            > >> curvature of space around an object resulting from its mass.
            > >> Furthermore space is not a pure vacuum; General Relativity
            > >> shows it to be a rater ridged but still bendable and stretchable
            > >> as indicated by raqiya in Hebrew and firmament in Genesis 1:6.
            > >> This concept of gravity has made a number of successful
            > >> prediction all of have been shown accurate.
            >
            > >
            >
            > > The "successful" predictions depend on an empirical system that
            > > uses the first law circularly to define time as what clocks measure
            > > and uses time as the primary measuring unit to define meters,
            > > velocities, accelerations and orbits.
            >
            > Actually the successful predictions I mentioned include such things as the
            > bending of star light as it passes near the sun which is measured by angles
            > and not time or distance.
            >
            >
            Light is always bending. Hold your thumb and finger close together and look
            at some light passing through the gap and you will see diffraction lines
            that bend around your fingers. Other explanations for light bending do not
            require that the vacuum of space is bent, that the vacuum has some sort of
            magical, undetectable geometrical qualities.




            > > The Bible, like every ancient society a few thousand years ago,
            > > mentions close passages and the shattering of a nearby planet.
            > > Even today, the optical parallax to the Sun has continued to
            >
            > > gradually decrease even after the canonical radar values
            > > established the AU 50 years ago.
            >
            > Once again you keep touting as fact things I have totally refuted.
            >
            > >>> Look at the universe and observe that as the light clocks
            > >>> accelerate,
            >
            > >>
            >
            > >> Correction what we see are galaxies whose light is red shifted,
            > >> we do NOT see any actually light clocks accelerating, in fact
            > >> we do not actually see the red shift (Victors light clock rates)
            > >> changing within any given galaxy.
            >
            > >
            >
            > >
            >
            > >No one has ever detected any intrinsic redshift in any experiment,
            > > anywhere.
            >
            > You are 100% correct no one has ever detected the intrinsic red-shifts you
            > claim exist.
            >
            > I do not claim any such thing. I claim that light is revealing the truth,
            just like the Bible states in Ephesians 5:13. What we see is that ancient
            atoms were tiny, they had very small inertial properties and they shone at
            tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms. You do not have to
            believe in any redshifts - other than the small amount of Doppler that is
            NOT REAL but due to relative motion.

            >
            > > Light never changes itself as it travels through a void.
            >
            > You are right that light never changes ITSELF as it travels through a
            > void.
            >
            > 1. Space is not a void but a stretchable, spreadable structure that is
            > a perfect match to Hebrew word raqiya.
            >

            Ar you saying you agree with the Bible that the SUN MOON AND STARS
            continued to be formed and continued to be placed in the raqiya, the
            spreading place (fourth day)? Are you admitting that the Sun, Moon and
            stars were much closer together during the Old Testament era? Ever heard of
            Peters who showed a century ago that the stars in our galaxy have
            positional errors compared to Ptolemy's catalog RELATIVE to GALACTIC
            LATITUDE. Evidently our galaxy was smaller 1850 years ago. Are you
            accepting the biblical raquiya, or are you continuing to claim the vacuum
            of space is expanding wile the Sun and Moon remain in perpetually the same
            orbits?

            >

            > 2. The light does not change ITSELF but it is stretched out as the
            > space it is going through is stretched out.
            >
            >
            > > The theory of cosmological redshift is necessary to protect the
            > > fundamental creed, the notion that atoms are perpetual motion
            > > engines, not intrinsically changing themselves. Paul says that
            > > God passively commanded the creation to submit to inutility
            > > (Romans 8) and it submits in an orderly manner (verb hupotasso
            > > - aorist active participle). Evidently every atom is obeying the
            > > command of the Creator in an orderly manner, as we observe
            > > with the light from billions of galaxies. We even observe a
            > > biblical version of geology, since the continents on fit together
            > > on a minuscule globe without major seas. The Bible states three
            > > times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity, this
            > > happens above the waters and even what issues (is born) from
            > > the earth spreads out. Indeed, a global expansion seam runs
            > > through every ocean and two thirds of the earths crust is
            > > relatively young basalt, compared to the older continents.
            > > The continents fit together on a much smaller globe, even
            > > across the vast Pacific.
            >
            > Once again you continue to state as fact things that I have totally refuted
            > both in terms of observations and what the Bible actually says.
            >
            > Again, your proofs circularly depend on the first law I am arguing with.
            You can't get to where I am from where you are withou examining the
            elementary assumption upon which western science was contrived. You can
            test it with the way galaxies have grown throughout cosmic history, in six
            thousand years. HOwever the years are not linear, just like we read on day
            four.


            > >>>the orbits also accelerate outwards.
            >
            > >>
            >
            > >> We do not see any such thing. Based on you other statements
            > >> you seem to think that the spiral arms of spiral galaxies are the
            > >> orbits within the galaxy spiraling outward. However the orbital
            > >> motion of stars in both our own and near by galaxies has been
            > >> measured and they do not follow the spiral arms.
            >
            > >
            >
            > > Victor: Scientist "measure" the direction and the speed of the stars
            > > in the arms of spiral galaxies using spectral clocks.
            >
            > They don't use spectral clocks, they use Doppler shifts which show destined
            > patterns indicating direction and the velocity.
            >

            What do you think spectra are based on. Why do astronomers keep on claiming
            that the vacuum altered the wavelength / frequency of the light? THey have
            to. Why? Their structured way of thinking was built up from the foundations
            of the firs law I am arguing with.



            >
            > > In the scientific system, the stars are rotating backwards from the
            > > sweep of the arms.
            >
            > A fact which is actually predicted by every model of a spiral galaxy but
            > yours, and it is yet another nail coffin of your claim.
            >
            >
            > > Yet we observe in galactic history how the star globs followed each
            >
            > > other out in single file, one behind the other, spreading out in
            > > unbroken continuity following the sweep of the arms in spirals.
            >
            > Sorry but that is not the case. You seem to have base this claim on a low
            > resolution UV image of M51 but when you look at a high resolution image of
            > M51 it is clear that this is not the case. What you call "star globs" are
            > places where stars are illuminating nearby dust and gas. Furthermore they
            > are not in single file but scattered through out the arms. They tend to be
            > in the spiral arms because the spiral arms have greater concentrations of
            > stars and clouds of dust and gas. By the way the same thing can be seen out
            > side the arms but to a lesser degree.
            >
            > http://tinyurl.com/5k899q
            >
            > You seem to also have referred to dark mater and dark energy. You don't use
            > the terms so it's hard to tell if you are or not. You really should at
            > least
            > use excepted terminology as a starting point so that the reader doses not
            > have to guess at is. In any event it is true dark energy totally ad hoc
            > however it is a purely evolutionary ad hoc idea needed to save the Big Bang
            > from reality. YEC cosmologies however have no need to invoke any notion of
            > dark energy it purely an atheistic evolutionary necessity. Dark matter is
            > less ad hoc in that detecting previously unseen bodies first by their
            > gravitational affect on other objects has produced positive results in the
            > past. Uranus and Neptune were discovered by first being found by the affect
            > of their gravity on other planets only to be found by those affects showing
            > astronomers where to point their telescopes. Dark matter need not be some
            > strange mysterious substance but simply none luminescent matter that is
            > cold
            > enough for its emission to be lost in the cosmic back ground radiation.
            > From
            > a YEC perspective neither dark mater nor dark energy is an absolute
            > necessity.
            >
            >
            I do not believe in mass, in energy, in dark energy or undetectable mass.
            No one has ever detected any of these. They were defined using the first
            law Peter predicted. We only observe massive objects and energetic
            processes. What we observe in cosmic history is that the properties of
            matter keeps on changing. I have spend many hours looking at many galaxies
            and comparing them at many ranges at different wavelenghts. Although
            scientists have gotten away with their speculations about how the vacuum is
            affecting the light, they cannot continue to get away with their absurd
            stories about a big bang and the accretion of stars from space dust.
            Galaxies cannot intrinsically grow, as they are observed to grow, unless
            the properties of matter are emerging relationally.



            > Your changing Earth idea is seriously flawed it not only depends on you
            > being the only person in the world who has accurately interpreted Bible in
            > the last 1,500 years or so making it sound cult like. You show a clear
            > tendency to twist scripture to makes seem to say what you want you it to.
            > When you look at evidence you only look at superficially for patterns that
            > seem to fit you preconceptions. In both cases your interpretations of both
            > scripture and evidence do not stand up to close scrutiny. Your entire
            > changing Earth notion is still 100% totally busted.
            >
            > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
            >
            >
            Yet what I claim fits the earth histories of all people during the age when
            the Bible was written. It is confirmed in galactic history. This is why I
            claim that God is about to do what He promised, make foolish the wise of
            this age. I got an email from a Christian this morning who was so thankful
            that he had read some of my writing. This person now rejects black holes,
            stars falling into to them or accreting from space dust because he
            understands that the properties of matter are emerging, changing
            relationally.

            Why don't you consider joining the war with the evolutionists - by using
            the Bible to expose their false first law. What a day of glory that will be
            for our God when He makes foolish the wise of this age, the scientists.
            THis is certainly why He commands us to not be wise in this age, but rather
            to become foolish that we might become wise because He is taking the wise
            with their skills.

            Victor




            > Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>
            >
            > Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>
            >
            > Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
            >
            > Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Chuck
            ... Contrary to what you seem to think I do not believe that the properties of matter are fixed. So I am not held bondage to you so called first law. Where we
            Message 5 of 6 , Sep 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              > Since I have abandoned the elementary idea that the properties
              > of matter are fixed, I am no longer held in bondage. To approach
              > creation without the scientific mindset is to be set free.

              Contrary to what you seem to think I do not believe that the properties of
              matter are fixed. So I am not held bondage to you so called first law. Where
              we differ in is that you think that properties of matter intrinsically and
              continually change, while I do not see properties of matter intrinsically
              continually changing but being changed from time to time by God for specific
              purposes. No I do not believe that "All thing remain the same" but unlike
              you I see what changes that do occur in that properties of matter as direct
              acts of God.

              >> You don't seem to realize that making a connection is between
              >> a galaxies red shift and its morphology, and then connecting
              >> that to the age of the galaxy is an empirical concept. That said
              >> none of this is evidence continually spreading orbits.
              >
              > Without the first law constraining our thinking, we do not have
              > to accept red shifts. No one has ever detected any redshifts in
              > any experiment, other than from Doppler.

              You are clearly hung up on the term redshift which comes from the fact that
              spectral lines are shifted to the red as compared to lab experiments and not
              from how they become shifted. That said Gravitational redshift had been
              measured here on Earth by sending gamma rays up 22.6 m as well as the
              corresponding Gravitational blue shift by sending them down 22.6 m.
              http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html

              That said your answer dose not negate the fact of my statement.

              > Morphology changes are real. They are observed when we
              > compare billions of galaxies at many ranges (eras).

              However drawing that conclusion is still empirical in nature and neither is
              it evidence for continually spreading orbits as you claim.

              >>> Light never changes itself as it travels through a void.
              >>
              >> You are right that light never changes ITSELF as it travels
              >> through a void.
              >>
              >> 1. Space is not a void but a stretchable, spreadable
              >> structure that is a perfect match to Hebrew word raqiya.
              >
              > Ar you saying you agree with the Bible that the SUN MOON
              > AND STARS continued to be formed and continued to be
              > placed in the raqiya, the spreading place (fourth day)?

              I agree with what the Bible actually says and not your admittedly
              unauthoritative translation.

              > Ever heard of Peters who showed a century ago that the stars
              > in our galaxy have positional errors compared to Ptolemy's
              > catalog RELATIVE to GALACTIC LATITUDE. Evidently
              > our galaxy was smaller 1850 years ago.

              Another possibility is that Ptolemy's geocentric model messed up his methods
              and calculations.

              Will you provide a reference for this.

              > Are you accepting the biblical raquiya, or are you continuing
              > to claim the vacuum of space is expanding wile the Sun and
              > Moon remain in perpetually the same orbits?

              I accept that the biblical raquiya is space expanding as described by
              General Relativity. By the way the gravitational attraction between the
              Earth, Sun and Moon is far greater than the observed expansion rate.

              >> Once again you continue to state as fact things that I have
              >> totally refuted both in terms of observations and what the
              >> Bible actually says.
              >
              > Again, your proofs circularly depend on the first law I am
              > arguing with. You can't get to where I am from where you
              > are withou examining the elementary assumption upon
              > which western science was contrived.

              WRONG I have simply looked at your claims and found them totally bogus. This
              has nothing to do with your made up first law, they just don't stand up to
              scrutiny.

              >>> Victor: Scientist "measure" the direction and the speed of
              >>> the stars in the arms of spiral galaxies using spectral clocks.
              >>
              > They don't use spectral clocks, they use Doppler shifts which
              >> show destined patterns indicating direction and the velocity.
              >
              > What do you think spectra are based on. Why do astronomers
              > keep on claiming that the vacuum altered the wavelength /
              > frequency of the light? THey have to. Why? Their structured
              > way of thinking was built up from the foundations of the firs
              > law I am arguing with.

              Translation you can accept a Doppler shift when is helps save your theory
              (Andromeda's blue shift) but you totally dismiss it when it shows your
              superficial observations to be wrong.

              There are three main problems I have with your changing Earth idea that have
              nothing to do with your so called first law.

              1. Your descriptions are of your concepts are vague, lacking sufficient
              specificity to directly test against reality. The fact that you refuse to
              use recognizable terms for excising observations only increases the
              vagueness of your model.

              2. The "evidence" you present for your idea is based on superficial
              observations that simply do not stand up to objective scrutiny.

              3. You changing Earth idea seems to be founded on the view that the Bible is
              only inspired and inerrant in the original autographs.

              This third point it the most fundamental of them all. You could clear up the
              other two and it would still not convince me that you are right. This is a
              view of the Bible that I was taught in collage and once held. However I have
              since seen the flaws in it and the great damage it has done to Church just
              during my life time since it leave us with out an authoritative Bible, not
              only in our own language, but not even in the Greek and Hebrew. This is what
              allows you to push your own unauthoritative translation as though it were
              the Bible, because in YOUR view it is no less authoritative than KJV or any
              of the other multiple versions out there today. Since I can not accept your
              starting point that assumes God has not preserved his precious word in an
              inerrant authoritative form and that he has not further translated that
              inerrant authoritative form into our own language, I can not accept your
              changing Earth notion that extends from that starting point.





              ------ Charles Creager Jr.

              Genesis Science Mission <http://gscim.com/>

              Online Store <http://store.gscim.com/>

              Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>

              Creation Science <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/> Talk





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.