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

Re: [CreationTalk] Sagittarius A*

Expand Messages
  • Victor McAllister
    ... unauthorized translation of the Old Testament? The copies of the Septuagint that survived contain apocrypha. Yet Jesus and the Apostles did NOT quote from
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 7, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Chuck <chuckpc@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      > The mass is there are a number of stars orbiting the Milky Ways center at
      > such a rate so as to show a mass of about 4.2 million solar masses. So the
      > mass is there and you can see it even with your purely concrete thinking.
      > However purely concrete thinking will not allow you to even consider the
      > possibility that there is a 4.2 million solar mass black hole because it is
      > too small and dark for us to see it directly at this time.
      >
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
      >
      > You also continue to use ideas base on you own unauthoritative translation
      > as though it really was what the Bible says, while not openly informing you
      > readers that it is your own translation and a real Bible. Your claims about
      > what we see out in the universe are baseless as ever with no references to
      > back them up, or they are based on superficial observation. The simple fact
      > is that none of you claims have an bases infact.
      >
      > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
      >
      > Did you ever notice that the Apostle Paul quoted extensively from an
      unauthorized translation of the Old Testament? The copies of the Septuagint
      that survived contain apocrypha. Yet Jesus and the Apostles did NOT quote
      from the apocrypha. All translations contain unintentional errors in
      grammar and interpretation. When Jerome made his translation from the
      Hebrew, You are changing God�s Word, the Christians who were familiar with
      the Septuagint, complained. He was rendering it from the Hebrew, rather
      than the Greek. Jerome claimed to have seen a copy of Matthew in the
      library at Caesarea written in its original form, which the Aramaic
      speaking Jewish believers (Nazarenes and Ebonites) used. He said the
      quotations of the Old Testament in it quoted from the Hebrew Bible, not the
      Septuagint. God uses our uninspired translations and our propensity to make
      errors to bring people to trust Christ. How? It is His word because He
      empowers it, not because our exegesis is perfect and that includes what I
      do.

      How do we know what the Bible means about Creation? We need to examine the
      grammar carefully, not just follow the traditional Catholic exegesis that
      imagines God created time and it is linear. The Hebrew text makes no
      mention of time. On the fourth Day, He continued to form the Sun, Moon and
      stars continues to place them in the spreading place, raqiya. Despite the
      grammar, YE and OE creationists interpret creation with western linear-time
      ideas. To imagine that the center of the Milky Way has mass, is to try and
      interpret what we see with science, rather than simple, visible evidence.
      The galactic center has enormous jets - some of which moved out to form the
      plane of the galaxy - and other perpendicular jets formed huge gamma lobes.
      How did these emerge if the nucleus had so much gravity?

      Yet the creation is not without clear evidence. Faith is the underling
      support for the assurance of hope, the proof of things not seen, according
      to Hebrews 11. What kind of proof does faith see? "By faith we understand
      that the aionas (the plural eons) were prepared (katartizoo) by the word of
      God." The phrase "word of God" is NOT logos, but God's command - rheemati
      Theou. The verb translated prepared is perfect, passive infinitive. He once
      for all fit out, equipped, put in order the plural eons. He did not
      actively create the eons or create time. They passively came about by God�s
      command. Solomon states that long time (olam) is in our minds (Ecc. 3:11).

      Can we see the evidence for the plural eons? Of course we can. In the
      plural heavens (the galaxies) the spreading place (raqiya) knowledge of
      God�s glory is available to all day and night. In galactic history we
      observe the very actions declared to have occurred in Genesis chapter One
      and that Isaiah claims continue in unbroken continuity. We observe how tiny
      globs packed densely with minuscule stars came out of originally naked
      galactic nuclei. Those ancient nuclei shone at tiny fractions of the light
      frequencies of modern atoms. We observe how billions of galaxies grew into
      huge, local growth spirals. The stars continued to come out and continued
      to spread out, exactly as the Bible states.

      No scientist can accept the only history that is visible as it happened,
      galactic history. Why not? Their structured system was founded on the
      �first law - arche ktiseous� the Bible predicted for the last days - that
      all things remain the same. Scientists try to decode the universe with
      their empirical system. ConseqTheir universe is filled with undetectable
      things like the vacuum of space-time that allegedly stretches light or four
      times as much invisible matter as the natural kind. None of the laws of
      physics works in the distant universe. They only �work� locally because
      they measure mathematical things that do not actually exist - things like
      mass, energy and time. To be scientifically minded is to be a disciple of
      the �first law� Peter predicted for the last days.

      I recommend you spend a few hours looking at the 2004 Hubble Ultra Deep.
      http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/
      I have the GRAPES data for the spectra of most of these galaxies on my
      computer. Here is a place where you can download a grism spectroscopy
      version of the HUDF.

      http://www.asu.edu/clas/hst/www/jwst/clickonHUDF/index.html

      Place your mouse over a galaxy and you will see the �red shift�. Click and
      you will see the spectral wave shapes, size in arc seconds and photometric
      data. I recommend you download a copy of this to your hard drive, since it
      is 64 megs long. Don�t be intimidated by the fact that scientists interpret
      the data with words like red-shift - as though the vacuum of space-time
      altered the light in transit.

      If you (1) question the first law of the last days that Peter predicted and
      (2) believe what is visible in galactic history - you will likely become a
      Changing Earth Creationist. CEC accept what the Bible states - that the
      creation is enslaved to change and that God continues to call the stars to
      come out and emerge. CEC are free to accept what is visible as real, rather
      than force everything to fit the mind numbing first law of science.

      You say, galactic history cannot fit 6,000 years. Look at how the star
      streams and atomic clocks both accelerate throughout cosmic history. Our
      ancestors really did live for geological ages, just like Job so plainly
      described during the dinosaur age. We even find the skulls of our
      ancestors from 4000 years ago with great thick brows as though they lived
      for geological ages. The Bible mentions the very things that ancients also
      mention, the crushing of a nearby planet and close planet encounters. The
      whole solar system was much smaller 4,000 years ago. Why didn�t we get
      burned up by the Sun? The Sun shone red in those days and was also much
      smaller. To accept what is visible, that all matter keeps on changing
      relationally, is to have the basis for taking the Bible literally with
      respect to creation and earth history - using the system of reasoning of
      the authors rather than western science.

      Victor

      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck
      On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:24 PM To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Sagittarius A* ... First
      Message 2 of 5 , Sep 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
        Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 2:24 PM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com

        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Sagittarius A*



        >> The mass is there are a number of stars orbiting
        >> the Milky Ways center at such a rate so as to
        >> show a mass of about 4.2 million solar masses.
        >> So the mass is there and you can see it even with
        >> your purely concrete thinking. However purely
        >> concrete thinking will not allow you to even
        >> consider the possibility that there is a 4.2
        >> million solar mass black hole because it is too
        >> small and dark for us to see it directly at this
        >> time.

        >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

        >>

        >> You also continue to use ideas base on you own
        >> unauthoritative translation as though it really
        >> was what the Bible says, while not openly

        >> informing you readers that it is your own>
        > translation and not a real Bible. Your claims
        >> about what we see out in the universe are
        >> baseless as ever with no references to back
        >> them up, or they are based on superficial
        >> observation. The simple fact is that none of
        >> you claims have an bases in fact.

        >

        > Did you ever notice that the Apostle Paul quoted
        > extensively from an unauthorized translation of
        > the Old Testament? The copies of the Septuagint
        > that survived contain apocrypha. Yet Jesus and
        > the Apostles did NOT quote from the apocrypha.



        First of all other than some fragments we have no copies of the Septuagint
        that predate Paul. The earliest copies we do have date from 4th and 5th
        centuries and so it is possible and even likely that, Paul's writing were
        use at some point in revising the Septuagint. Lets say you have a damaged
        portion of the Septuagint that was part of the Old Testament translated by
        Paul into Greek for quoting the Old Testament in the New Testament, would it
        not make sense to use Paul's translation to fix your damaged copy of the
        Septuagint? Furthermore since there are at least two versions of the
        Septuagint it is possible that they are descended from an original that
        could have qualified as an authoritative Greek Translation that is now lost.




        > All translations contain unintentional errors in
        > grammar and interpretation.



        That is you option. What you call errors are nothing more than what you
        personally think a translation should say. Yes there are differences in
        grammar in the Hebrew and English translations including the KJV, but that
        is no surprise since Hebrew and English are such different languages. When
        you translate between two languages you can not just translate the words but
        you also have to translate the grammar as well. What you are doing is seeing
        the normal and non-error differences between a translation and the original
        and concluding that an error was made, when more likely than not YOU are the
        one that is making the error.



        > How do we know what the Bible means about Creation?
        > We need to examine the grammar carefully, not just
        > follow the traditional Catholic exegesis that
        > imagines God created time and it is linear. The
        > Hebrew text makes no mention of time.

        > On the fourth Day, He continued to form the Sun,
        > Moon and stars continues to place them in the
        > spreading place, raqiya.



        I have looked carefully at the Hebrew grammar and still do not see what you
        see. By the way it does mention time. If nothing else it says six times
        "evening morning nth day" those are definitely time references. Your
        repeated use of the word "continued" in your unauthoritative translation is
        an addition to text that is not justified by the Hebrew grammar. A more
        accurate way to sate it would be to say, "On the fourth Day, God forming the
        Sun, Moon and stars placing them in the spreading place. Now this does not
        sound right in English which is why the KJV translators and other use the
        past tense which Hebrew does not have, however it is better rendering of the
        imperfect tense than they way you keep saying it and it lacks you notion of
        action prior to or after the 4th day. Now it may indicate that God took all
        of the fourth day to create the sun moon and stars, or it could simply be
        the best way the express the past tense here giving Hebrews lack of a past
        verb tense in either case it does not fit with your unauthoritative
        translation, but it does fit with the authoritative translation of the KJV
        and other unauthoritative English translations.



        > To imagine that the center of the Milky Way
        > has mass, is to try and interpret what we
        > see with science, rather than simple,
        > visible evidence.



        The visible evidence is several stars rapidly going around the center of the
        Milky Way showing that there is indeed 4.2 million solar masses located
        there.



        > The galactic center has enormous jets - some
        > of which moved out to form the plane of the
        > galaxy - and other perpendicular jets formed
        > huge gamma lobes. How did these emerge if
        > the nucleus had so much gravity?



        We have been down this road before and there are two possibilities.

        1) The jets would shot out by the forces going on just above the Black holes
        Event horizon. In this case if the jets were going at nearly the speed of
        light they could have easily escaped the area near but not in the black
        hole.

        2) If the center were originally a white hole these jets would have emerged
        at nearly the speed of light easily escaping the shrinking gravity of the
        shirking Wight hole.

        I know that you will dismiss these possibilities as being based on your so
        called first law but even if that were true it does not change that fact
        that these two explanations do explain those enormous jets. The fact that
        you refuse to accept those explanations dose not change the fact that they
        exist and that there is indeed 4.2 million solar masses at the center of the
        Milky Way is not any kind of issue. You keep stating things as though they
        are some kind of big problem when they are not.



        > I recommend you spend a few hours looking at
        > the 2004 Hubble Ultra Deep.

        > http://zebu.uoregon.edu/hudf/

        > I have the GRAPES data for the spectra of most
        > of these galaxies on my computer. Here is a place
        > where you can download a grism spectroscopy
        > version of the HUDF.

        > http://www.asu.edu/clas/hst/www/jwst/clickonHUDF/index.html

        > Place your mouse over a galaxy and you will see
        > the "red shift". Click and you will see the spectral
        > wave shapes, size in arc seconds and photometric

        > data. I recommend you download a copy of this to your
        > hard drive, since it is 64 megs long.



        Thanks for the resource but it's not as though galaxy red shifts are any
        kind of mystery. It a potentially useful resource but if you think it will
        convince of your interpretation you are mistaken. I never claimed that red
        shifts did not exist so what's your point.



        > Don't be intimidated by the fact that scientists
        > interpret the data with words like red-shift - as
        > though the vacuum of space-time altered the light
        > in transit.



        I'm not intimidated by how any one interprets data beside I happen to agree
        with that interpretation in that some of the observed red shift is a result
        of the stretching of space-time stretching the light in transit. By the way
        the term "red shift" has noting to do with the cause of the observed
        decrease in frequency of the light just the fact that it is a lower
        frequency of the light. You own intermediation still qualifies as a red
        shift; it would be called an intrinsic red shift.



        > If you (1) question the first law of the last days
        > that Peter predicted and (2) believe what is visible
        > in galactic history - you will likely become a
        > Changing Earth Creationist.



        1. Your so called first law noting by only on your own grouse mistranslation
        of II Peter 3:3-4 and not what the Bible actually says, not in English and
        not even in Greek.

        2. What you call "visible galactic history" is nothing but a superficial
        interpretation of observations of data that are easily shown to be erroneous
        by a closer look at that data.



        Besides it would take more than just these two points from me to accept your
        Changing Earth notion. It would take denying that the Bible says what it
        says not only in English but in Greek and Hebrew as well. It would take
        denying that God has preserved an authoritative copy of his word and denying
        that he has translated an authoritative copy of it in English for us.



        > You say, galactic history cannot fit 6,000 years.



        I say nothing of the kind. If nothing else time dilation makes it possible.







        ------ 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]
      • Chuck
        Mars had to be more than just warmer but it needed a higher atmospheric pressure than today. Some places on Mars get temperatures above the melting point of
        Message 3 of 5 , Sep 9, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Mars had to be more than just warmer but it needed a higher atmospheric
          pressure than today. Some places on Mars get temperatures above the melting
          point of water, but pressure is just a little too low for liquid water. The
          best way to explain both a warmer Mars and higher atmospheric pressure is
          massive volcanic and impacts this would put a sufficient amount of material
          in to the atmosphere to raise the pressure to the point where water could
          stay on the surface and the average temperature above the melting point of
          water.



          By the way Andesites have been seen to form in last hundred years so its not
          too slow for a Young Earth model.



          http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/mt-ngauruhoe





          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

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

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

          _____

          From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of Victor McAllister

          Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 3:21 PM

          To: creationtalk

          Subject: [CreationTalk] Martian Andesite?



          Back in 1997, the Pathfinder craft bounced to a stop on the Martian plains

          of Ares Vallis. The Sojourner rover then drove up to a rock called Barnacle

          Bill that had a grainy surface. Sojourner placed its APXS spectrometer on

          the rock and found a high SiO2 content. Barnacle Bill had the appearance

          and composition of Andesite rocks on Earth. Andesite is named after the

          Andes mountains that are rich in these rocks. Evidently the processes that

          formed the Martian crust were similar to what formed Earth's crust.
          *Andesite

          formed by partial melting and crystal fractionalization when molten basalt

          intruded into crustal rocks. Crystals rich in iron and magnesium are

          believed to have formed as the partially melted rocks gradually cooled.*





          Mars' northern plains were evidently once inundated with water. Opportunity

          found concretions that evidently formed slowly in warm, acidic water on the

          plains of Meridiani. Spirit found pure silica powder that formed in a steam

          / hot water spring in the hills inside Gusev crater. Opportunity found

          conglomerates of rocks that solidified in a watery slurry and even veins of

          gypsum deposited under water in the rim of Endeavour crater. It is

          presently examining an outcrop whose signature from orbit suggests it may

          have once been water deposited clay. Yet we also see evidence for

          catastrophes. Both Spirit and Opportunity found nickle-iron meteorites

          lying on the surface. They evidently came from the core of a shattered

          planet.



          http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/09/martian-andesite.html



          In the left picture, the cat-sized Sojourner sits next to Barnacle Bill,

          evidently an andesite rock. The picture on the right is of a rock

          photographed by the Mars Science Rover on the floor of Gale. The rock has

          split into pieces, evidently fairly recently since the concave areas are

          not filled with the rusty Martian dust. Rocks can split from cycles of

          heating and cooling.* Notice the large light-colored islands in the darker

          rock. Without a spectroscopic analysis, we cannot conclusively say it is

          Andesite, but it is certainly igneous. Large crystals in rocks are evidence

          for slow cooling during partial melts and crystal fractionalization.
          **Credit

          for the photos are to NASA.*



          * *



          *Mars apparently went through various stages in its formation.* At some

          point lots of volcanism. Gale crater has fan-shaped deposits at the end of

          valleys that seem to be ancient stream beds. Yet the rocks encountered so

          far by Curiosity are not rounded pebbles, as though water ran for long

          periods. Today Mars is mostly cold and dry. If liquid water runs on the

          surface today, it would have to be very salty and would sublime rapidly.





          *Is Mars old or young? Like Earth, there is much evidence to suggest it is

          extremely old. A Christian might think, that can't be because God created

          the universe only 6,000 years ago. It is important to realize the Bible

          never says the Earth is young. It uses eon-age words both for mountains and

          for early peoples. According to the Bible, God continued to form the Sun,

          Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place, Hebrew

          raqiya. Evidently, Mars, like Earth, has continued to form.* Martian rocks

          retain a global pattern of magnetic stripes, showing that it once had a

          magnetic field. The stripes run around the entire planet in the southern

          hemisphere. The offsets in the magnetic stripes shift at fault lines as

          though the whole planet has grown in size. If one removes the dark,

          low-lying areas, the cratered highlands fit together on a much smaller

          planet. Palm 136:6 states that the Earth spreads out in unbroken

          continuity. Indeed, Earth's continents also fit together on a much smaller

          planet, without major surface seas as one should expect from a literal

          reading of three biblical passages.



          *

          *



          *What is the geological age of Mars and Earth? Consider the Hebrew words

          for the fourth day. A body that continues to form is continuing to change.

          Orbits that continue to spread apart are by nature accelerating.

          Accelerating relative to what? Certainly not clocks, since we observe in

          galactic history how atomic clocks have accelerated along with the

          spreading star orbits as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into huge

          growth spirals. How could galactic history fit into only 6,000 years? *Job

          describes, in the dinosaur age, that they lived for geological ages in few

          days as the sea (Hebrew west) dried and their faces deformed before they

          died. Indeed, drill cores of the deep Mediterranean show that it

          repeatedly dried, just like Job stated. We also find the skulls of the

          ancient ones with huge thick brows. If we lived for geological ages, our

          skulls would grow Neanderthal. Our grandchildren would not have the

          Neanderthal skulls, as the fossils show.



          *

          *



          *Why was Mars once a warm, wet planet? It was once much closer to the Sun,

          as also was the Earth. What changed? Everything changes. The Bible plainly

          states that the creation is enslaved to change that is an orderly and a

          together-corruption (Romans 8:19 - 22). *We observe the light signals from

          billions of ancient galaxies that clock minuscule frequencies compared to

          modern atoms. Carefully examine the first law of science, the presumption

          that atoms are perpetual motion engines. Scientists have invented a great

          structure of empirical measuring and mathematicating based on their

          presumption of atomic perpetual motion. Look at the visible universe. We

          see that it is extremely old, exactly as the Bible states. We see that

          orbits always accelerate, exactly as one should expect from the creation

          account.



          *

          *



          *Changing Earth Creationists try not to tailor the Bible to fit western

          science. We simply notice that the whole universe is visibly doing what the

          Bible states. The Earth is extremely ancient, yet it evidently has only

          orbited 6,000 times as all orbits continue to accelerate. *Carefully

          examine the arche ktiseous (first law) of the last days that Peter

          predicted. He predicted that mockers will obfuscate the age of the plural

          heavens and the geological history of the twice inundated earth because

          they have a first law, that all things remain the same. Everything physical

          changes, as the Bible states. Think about it.



          Victor



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