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

RE: [CreationTalk] Distant Galaxy

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    ... As usual you did not provide a reference. Will you please start doing so because I m getting tiered of having to find them for you? This has a full
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 21, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      > An article in Nature claims the earliest galaxy yet detected.
      > Wei Zhang calculated that the galaxy, MACS 1149-JD, is
      > 13.2 billion light years away. How do astronomers know
      > that the light from this ancient galaxy came from 500
      > million years after the big bang?



      As usual you did not provide a reference. Will you please start doing so
      because I'm getting tiered of having to find them for you? This has a full
      resolution copy of the image.



      http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/multimedia/pia15806.html



      In answer to your question evolutionary cosmologists currently date the "Big
      Bang" at 13.7 billion years ago. Based on the galaxy's red shift they
      estimate its distance at 13.2 billion light years, which means that it
      should have taken13.2 billion years for its light to reach us. The rest of
      it is just math: 13.7 billion -13.2 billion = 0.5 billion = 500 million
      years after the "Big Bang."



      That said this is only the conclusion drawn from the Big Bang model, there
      are three other possible scientific conclusions that I can see.



      1. This is a much nearer galaxy that is still emerging from its central
      white hole that would later become a central black hole and is hence vary
      small and gravitationally red shifted.



      2. The images of this "galaxy" is just above the background noise and in
      fact I can not find it when I enlarge that part of the main image. Now this
      from a jpeg image and so that could be the problem however given how close
      it is to the background noise, that may be all it is.



      3. The is one other possibility though I would surmised thar the astronomers
      working with the Spitzer Space Telescope would have considered and
      eliminated it but maybe not. Since they do not show a spectrum it is most
      likely that the 9.6 redshift is base only on the color. If that is the case
      then it is possible that this object is not a galaxy at all but a rogue red
      dwarf star just out side the Milkyway.



      The rest of you post is not worth responding to since we have been over that
      material before and it is just the same anti-science babel, and twisted
      interpretations of the Bible and superficial observations that I refuted it
      several times already.







      ------ 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/>





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • VictorM
      ... Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language, then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence. (1) Other biblical texts
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 21, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
        >
        > >> More baseless claims made without giving any references.
        > >> You also continue your erroneous claims about what the
        > >> Bible says based on you own flawed and unauthoritative
        > >> translation of the Hebrew.
        > >
        > >Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history.
        > >
        > However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total
        > mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do seen in it what you
        > claim to be there. Furthermore what you call visible galactic history is a
        > superficial comparison of different galaxies, the conclusions of which are
        > refuted by other facts.

        Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language, then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence. (1) Other biblical texts support a literal interpretation, rather than the traditional Catholic exegesis. (2) The epistemic context of how ancient people thought also supports a literal interpretation. No ancient person could think scientifically. Indeed, western science is young and was founded on the idea the Bible predicts for the false teachers of the last days.

        The evidence from different galaxies at different ranges is the only history that we observe as it happened. Consider that God Himself commands us to observe the plural heavens, the spreading place raqiya. (You cannot observe spreading vacuums - but you can observe billions of spreading out galaxies). He says He calls the stars to come out, to emerge, in unbroken continuity. He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent.

        Consider the damage done by tailoring the text to fit science. Paul said that if he presented the gospel with cleverness of speech, it might (subjunctive mood) neutralize the message of the cross. Why? God plans to destroy the wisdom of the wise and to set aside the cleverness of the clever (1 Corinthians 1:17 - 21). All over the world the modern church is embracing culture, emotions, technology, science as tools for bring people to trust Christ. The way I read my Bible, doing so makes the message less effective because the power of the gospel is not achieved through human wisdom - but in the foolishness of the cross of Christ. God's power is perfected in our weakness. We are saved by grace through faith alone in the atoning work of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing the Word of God, not scientific arguments and not even by the will of man but of God.

        It is the glory of God to conceal a matter (Prov 25:2). Ecc 1:13 "And I set my mind to seek and explore by wisdom concerning all that has been done under heaven. It is a grievous task which God has given to the sons of men to be afflicted with." There is one place where knowledge is available day and night without words - the spreading place - the plural heavens (Psa 19). The very place God commands us to look - is where we observe the evidence that supports the biblical version of Earth's vast ages - yet few orbits have passed because he continues to place the Sun, Moon and stars in the spreading place. The visible evidence from galactic history refutes western notions of linear time and substantiates biblical accelerating days and years (Gen 47:9).

        >
        > >Zecharia Sitchin goes to extremes, such as his theory of Nibiru's
        > > elliptical, backward orbit etc. He is right that early societies
        > > mentioned when the planets passed at catastrophic ranges, as
        > > Velikovsky documented. The Bible makes similar statements
        > > as the pagans, but without honoring the planets as gods. That
        > > does not mean the pagan stories are accurate, only that they
        > > form the context of how ancient people thought.
        >
        > I am well aware of Velikovsky's work and many of his conclusions do not
        > stand up to close scrutiny.
        >
        > > For example, the Bible mentions when the stars (kokabiym)
        > > fought from their courses and heavy rain fell - bogging down
        > > Sisera's chariots - Judges 5:20.
        >
        > There is no mention here of a heavy rain bogging down Sisera's chariots.
        >
        > >The Sumerians claimed Venus sometimes was bright like the
        > > Sun and mentioned which direction its horns pointed.
        > > Ancients all over the world recorded that Venus had long
        > > hair, a beard - what we would call a vapor tail. . The
        > > Sumerians said the mountains flooded when Venus
        > > (Ninsianna) approached. The Amizaduga Tablets mention
        > > heavy rains at a Venus' conjunction. If the Earth passed
        > > through Venus' coma, it could have rained in the mountains.
        >
        > One possible explanation would be confusion between the Venus and a comet.
        > If a comet came from near Venus as it became obscured by sun the comet may
        > have become confused for Venus itself.
        >
        > > In Judges 5:20 kokabiym (round, rolling, blazing, stars, planets)
        > > is plural. Kokab was Mercury and Kokab Nogah was Venus. An
        > > ancient person would have understood this in their context, as
        > >a catastrophic passage of planets.
        >
        > The same word could refer to meteorites and so Judges 5:20 could refer to
        > meteorites falling on Sisera. Just a suggestion.
        >
        > > A coma remnant still exists on Venus and Mercury today.
        >
        > Please give a reference for this claim.
        >
        > > We have photographed snowballs (about the size of houses)
        > > hitting the earth and estimate that twenty hit every minute
        > > on our leading hemisphere.
        >
        > Once again give us a reference to this claim
        >
        > > Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally?
        > > Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction
        > > as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering
        > > of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies.
        >
        > First of all this is not an exact resonance, but even if it were it could
        > just be a coincidence. The rotation rate of Venus has been measured as
        > slowing and as at some point in the process it would be in resonance with
        > its conjunction with Earth, so it is not a problem. In addition God could
        > have set it up that way just to tweak atheists.
        >

        Victor:
        God never deceives in word or action. Yet He decrees that those who reject Him will be deceived. However, He even warns them about the "fist law" of the last days so they cannot complain in His court that He deceived them.

        It could only be an exact resonance if both the Earth and Venus had circular orbits. Venus' synodic period is only an average. It varies by a few days mostly from the elliptical nature of both orbits. If you compare the longitude of Venus at inferior conjunction (radar observation) and arrange the observations into five groups each eight years apart, you will see that in each group the longitude varies only a few degrees plus or minus. None of the groups shows incrementing longitude. This is a real resonance that may have originated when Venus's axis flipped over by precession and tidal interactions during Joshua's long day.

        You are comparing orbits to clocks as though clocks are the standard. We can observe in hundreds of billions of galaxies how both the clocks and the orbits accelerate together.

        By the way, my claim is (1) the gravitational effect is not perpetual motion (as in Newton and Einstein's theories). We observe how atoms keep changing their clock rates throughout cosmic history and that orbits concurrently accelerate as galaxies intrinsically grew. Probably gravity is an emergent phenomenon. As matter changes, it emits something (that no one has yet detected) that we call gravity. (2) The propagation delay of "gravity" traveling from the Sun to Earth pulls more on our trailing hemisphere than the leading side. This slight imbalance (which is observed with the motion of paraconical pendula) must accelerate Earths days and years together (Genesis 47:9). (3) The same effect accelerated Venus's orbit outward but SLOWS down its rotation rate, since it is rotating backward from any other planet. All the planets interact gravitationally, but because they were closer together a few thousand years ago, they affected each other more then. (4) Outer planets move away from the Sun faster because they have a greater angular offset from the Sun's gravity. The continuous incrementing acceleration on all the planets causes them to spread out with logarithmic spacing (Titius Bode relationship). This explains why both the Bible and the ancients mention close passages and the shattering of a nearby planet yet today the planets are distant. (5) Other star systems and the moons of the major planets also have logarithmic spacing and resonances. The synodic ratios stay about the same as the whole solar system continues to spread out. The Bible plainly states that God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continues to place them in the spreading place. Does he continue to still form the Earth? He uses imperfect verbs for the finishing of the heavens and earth in Genesis 2:1 -2. The continents fit together on a much smaller planet, exactly as one should expect from the literal text of the Bible. If you remove the Moons Mare (which are mostly on the earth-facing side) the highlands join together on a much smaller moon. Ptolemy measured a larger angular size of the Moon and planets 1850 years ago but evidently the Mare were already formed by then.

        We all notice that life speeds up age we age, but we have all been trained with the first law of the last days - to think of time as linear. How long were the earliest years? There are no fixed references. There is no way to measure the vast ages that passed during one Earth rotation back in Adam's days. The only reference we have is from Job's description of living for geological ages in few days but that was only 4,000 years ago. We do find the skulls of the ancient with huge protruding brows as though they lived for geological ages, which surely supports Jobs statements. By the way, in Job's opinion life was very short. He must have been comparing it to the lives of his ancestors. The Sumerian king lists show that the earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years, but latter ones only for decades. Perhaps the scribe was estimating how long their ancestors lived back during the great time.

        Notice that because Changing Earth Creationists try to avoid the first law of the last days (2 Peter 3:3 - 6), we have no problems with the vast age of the earth in only six thousands years. We also have visible evidence in the way the galaxies formed to support the visible evidence for a changing earth.

        Victor



        > >> Also Victor I am still waiting for a complete Changing Earth
        > >> model. As usual you are just spewing out the same vague and
        > >> baseless claims. Give us a real model that we can actually
        > >> evaluate. My guess is that you can not produce a detailed model
        > >> because such a model would never stand up to scrutiny. By not
        > >> producing a detailed model you can continue to spew out the same
        > >> vague and baseless claims without the possibility of being proven
        > >> wrong, since your so called first law allows you to just dismiss any
        > >> evidence that does not fit your idea by explaining it away being
        > >> based on your "first law".
        > >
        > > There is no Changing Earth Model. Changing Earth is not
        >
        > > mathematically structured like science.
        >
        >
        >
        > Translation you have put forth a notion that you can claim is supported by
        > any superficial observation you declare as such and that further can not
        > even be tested for internal consistency. Your Changing Earth notion is thus
        > a blinder that you can put on that allows you to ignore any thing does not
        > fit while allowing any that superficially can be made to fit to be claimed
        > as supporting evidence with no ability to see check for any type of
        > objective fit. You have created a notion of that allows you exalt yourself
        > above others while being allowed you to ignore any thing that does not fit
        > the idea.
        >
        >
        >
        > > Solomon plainly states that science is impossible, even in the
        > > solar system (Ecclesiastes 8:16-17).
        >
        > Ecclesiastes 8:16-17 says nothing of the kind.
        >
        >
        >
        > Ecclesiastes 8:16-17
        >
        > 16 When I applied mine heart to know
        >
        > wisdom, and to see the business that is done
        >
        > upon the earth: (for also there is that neither
        >
        > day nor night seeth sleep with his eyes:)
        >
        > 17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a
        >
        > man cannot find out the work that is done
        >
        > under the sun: because though a man labour to
        >
        > seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further;
        >
        > though a wise man think to know it, yet shall
        >
        > he not be able to find it.
        >
        >
        >
        > These verses do limit them selves to the Earth, by such terms as "the
        > business that is done upon the earth", and "the work that is done under the
        > sun." They are talking about our inability to know all that is happening on
        > the Earth, because we can not see it all. Clearly can know some of it since
        > I know what I am doing at this moment. This in no way says that science is
        > impossible though it could indicate that it can never be completed.
        >
        >
        > > Did you ever notice that Peter said gold is
        > > corrupting itself (1 Peter 1:7)?
        >
        >
        >
        > One again 1 Peter 1:7 says nothing of the kind.
        >
        >
        >
        > 1 Peter 1:7 That the trial of your faith, being much more
        >
        > precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried
        >
        > with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and
        >
        > glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
        >
        >
        >
        > It simply says that gold become corrupt NOT that it is intrinsically
        > corrupting itself. This verse is fully consistent with thermodynamic decay.
        >
        >
        >
        > The simple fact is that none of what you are claiming the Bible says is what
        > it actually says not even in Hebrew and Greek. Your changing earth idea is
        > based entirely on misinterpretation of the Bible and observations. It is a
        > theory that can not even be shown to be internally consistent since you
        > eliminate any means of check that consistency as a starting assumption.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------ 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/>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Chuck
        ... conclusions ... That was a typo, I meant to say that I have checked the Hebrew myself and do NOT see in it what you claim to be there. Sorry for the
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 22, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          >>>> More baseless claims made without giving any references.

          >>>> You also continue your erroneous claims about what the

          >>>> Bible says based on you own flawed and unauthoritative

          >>>> translation of the Hebrew.

          >>>

          >>>Yet a literal translation is supported by visible galactic history.

          >>>

          >> However what you are pushing is NOT a literal translation but a total

          >> mistranslation. I have checked the Hebrew myself and do [not] seen in it
          >> what you claim to be there. Furthermore what you call visible galactic
          >> history is a superficial comparison of different galaxies, the
          conclusions
          >> of which are refuted by other facts.

          >

          > Victor: Since you say you see what I say is in the original language,
          > then you might want to consider other hermeneutic evidence.



          That was a typo, I meant to say that "I have checked the Hebrew myself and
          do NOT see in it what you claim to be there." Sorry for the slip up.



          > (1) Other biblical texts support a literal interpretation, rather than
          > the traditional Catholic exegesis.



          If you will give me the references I will check it out. If your track record
          is any indication these are probably just your own erroneous translations of
          the text and not what it actually says.



          > (2) The epistemic context of how ancient people thought also
          > supports a literal interpretation.



          Except that you are not using a literal interpretation but you own erroneous
          one.



          > No ancient person could think scientifically.



          Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for expressing
          scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
          people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could think
          scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem communicating
          their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
          making an over generalization.



          Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human limits
          such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode of
          thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
          accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
          compromise view,



          > Indeed, western science is young and was founded on the idea
          > the Bible predicts for the false teachers of the last days.



          Yes western science is young but it is not founded what is predicted in II
          Peter 3. You only get your so called first law in your erroneous
          interpretation and no place else. Second western science is not even found
          on the principle of you so called first law. Actually the first law of
          western science is that the Universe is understandable. The idea that the
          laws of nature as we know them are consistent through out space and time is
          a general principle and both creationists and evolutionists recognize that
          that it is not an absolute rule. Creationists see that God has tweaked those
          laws from time to time for his purposes and even evolutionary cosmologists
          recognize that the laws of physics beak down at the moment of their so
          called big bang.



          > The evidence from different galaxies at different ranges is the only
          > history that we observe as it happened.



          However you ignore much of what can be observed in that history limiting
          yourself to superficial observations. When you include more detailed
          observable data such as the doppler affects in Galactic rotation much of
          what you claim is shown to be wrong.



          > Consider that God Himself commands us to observe the plural heavens,
          > the spreading place raqiya.



          I can not find any such thing. This is most likely just one of you own
          personal erroneous interpretations. However if you provide a book, chapter
          and verse reference I will look at it. I give it about a 99.99% chance that
          I will find that it says nothing of the kind but there is still the 0.01%
          chance that I'll agree with you.



          > (You cannot observe spreading vacuums - but you can observe
          > billions of spreading out galaxies).



          You clearly think that the Hebrew word "raqiya" is refereeing to individual
          galaxies. You are justifying this interpretation by the use of the plural
          form heaven, however all 17 times "raqiya" is used it is singular not plural
          clearly the use is heavens has another meaning.



          > He says He calls the stars to come out, to emerge, in
          > unbroken continuity. He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent.



          Will you stop giving your own person interpretations of the Bible without
          giving a reference so that I can find what the Bible really says?



          >>> Does evidence exist that the Earth and Venus interacted tidally?

          >>> Venus has a rotational resonance with Earth at every conjunction

          >>> as though we affected it tidally. The Bible mentions the shattering

          >>> of a planet four times, something recorded by all ancient societies.

          >>

          >> First of all this is not an exact resonance, but even if it were it could

          >> just be a coincidence. The rotation rate of Venus has been measured as

          >>slowing and as at some point in the process it would be in resonance with

          >> its conjunction with Earth, so it is not a problem. In addition God could

          >> have set it up that way just to tweak atheists.

          >

          > Victor:

          > God never deceives in word or action.



          I never said any thing about God deceiving any one. The reference to God
          tweaking atheists was simply referring to annoying them, by giving them some
          evidence that suggests design. Also suggesting that it is a coincidence
          implies not deception just that the phenomenon has no relation to either
          Earth's or Venus' history.



          > It could only be an exact resonance if both the Earth and Venus had
          > circular orbits. Venus' synodic period is only an average. It varies by
          > a few days mostly from the elliptical nature of both orbits. If you
          > compare the longitude of Venus at inferior conjunction (radar
          > observation) and arrange the observations into five groups each
          > eight years apart, you will see that in each group the longitude
          > varies only a few degrees plus or minus. None of the groups shows
          > incrementing longitude. This is a real resonance that may have
          > originated when Venus's axis flipped over by precession and tidal
          > interactions during Joshua's long day.



          I never claimed the resonance was not real, just that it does not prove a
          past interaction between the Earth and Venus. You clearly got this idea from
          Velikovsky, since this is basically what he described. However there
          evidence from legends around the world that support the idea that God
          supernaturally affected the Earth's rotation, you find long day, long nights
          and long sun sets legions in places you would expect to find each if they
          are all based on local observations of Joshua's long day. No references to
          Venus however.



          The rest of your post was just material we have already gone over and that I
          have refuted several times already.







          ------ 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/>





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • VictorM
          ... The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the Bible in some respects. 1. They never tried to understand the universe with
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 26, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            >
            >
            > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
            >
            >
            >
            > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for expressing
            > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
            > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could think
            > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem communicating
            > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
            > making an over generalization.
            >
            >
            >
            > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human limits
            > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode of
            > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
            > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
            > compromise view,
            >

            The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the Bible in some respects.

            1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking. They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan, planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often fought wars with each other.

            2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years - compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham - after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

            3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions close passages and planet shatterings.

            4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

            5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed, not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law, the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true. Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging.

            So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

            Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation. God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB

            I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the Bible to fit western science.

            Victor
          • Chuck
            You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some of
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 27, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an
              over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some
              of then that we have no record of may have made that break through in
              thought and were simply stifled by the society in which they lived I was not
              making any statements about the general mode of thinking. Your description
              of the general mode of thinking of post-flood ancient people is basically
              correct but it may not have been absolute, and it may not have even been
              pre-flood.



              You seem to have totally missed my main point being that God is not limited
              by the mode of thinking of the humans that wrote and originally received the
              Bible. In communicating to us, God is however limited by our language, but
              if you limit the Bible to the mode of thinking of the humans of the time it
              was written not only do you miss out on amazing evidence for divine
              inspiration but you are be risking great error.



              I under stand your claims about intrinsic change as being corruption as well
              as the fact that your entire first law bit is base on a grouse
              mistranslation and misinterpretation of II Peter 3:3-6.



              II Peter 3:3-6

              3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days

              scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

              4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for

              since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they

              were from the beginning of the creation.

              5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word

              of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing

              out of the water and in the water:

              6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed

              with water, perished:



              The reason the idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed is not
              what is being referred to here is that it does not fit the entire
              description.



              Not only do you have discount over four hundred years of English
              translations and replace it with your own personal translation. By the way
              the Latin Vulgate which was translated in the 4th century (only about 300
              years after II Peter was written) backs up "beginning of the creation"
              translation of verse 4. The point is that I cam point to translation after
              translation spanning 1700 years and all you can do is point to your own
              unauthoritative translation.



              That said while idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed does
              fit "all things continue as they were" to a degree, it does not mach the
              rest of the context because that is not what the scoffers are using or even
              have used to attack creation and the Genesis Flood. The principle that has
              been and is being used by scoffers to attack creation and the Genesis Flood
              is geological uniformitarianism. It fits the phase "all things continue as
              they were" perfectly while actually being used by scoffers against creation
              and the Genesis Flood.



              So the entire bases for your Changing Earth notion does not fit the text and
              your translation is clearly at odds with every other translator of last 1700
              years.







              ------ 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 VictorM
              Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:12 PM
              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time





              >
              >
              > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
              >
              >
              >
              > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for
              expressing
              > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
              > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could
              think
              > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem
              communicating
              > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
              > making an over generalization.
              >
              >
              >
              > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human
              limits
              > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode
              of
              > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
              > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
              > compromise view,
              >

              The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the
              Bible in some respects.

              1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking.
              They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and
              managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan,
              planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often
              fought wars with each other.

              2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use
              mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that
              the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians
              of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the
              earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia
              showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years -
              compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a
              marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they
              died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham -
              after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and
              are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

              3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly
              formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close
              passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they
              still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions
              close passages and planet shatterings.

              4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were
              unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of
              intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the
              friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because
              they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in
              an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time
              was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

              5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build
              science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed,
              not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law,
              the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true.
              Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their
              blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually
              emerging.

              So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of
              science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

              Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as
              it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence
              for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation.
              God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this
              age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the
              word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great
              fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

              http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6
              <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB>
              &version=NASB

              I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical
              prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the
              Bible to fit western science.

              Victor







              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Alan Cassidy
              Also, the language didn t exactly limit the science or prophecy we can find in the Bible with the ancient languages, as long as the Bible is translated with
              Message 6 of 10 , Oct 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Also, the language didn't exactly limit the science or prophecy we can find in the Bible with the ancient languages, as long as the Bible is translated with fidelity and in the fear of God.


                I quoted Psalm 139:15-18 once in a forum discussion to show how you find a description of DNA in the Bible, and one atheist responded by asking why I changed the wording around to make it look like DNA. He was reading a different translation no doubt. Here find the King James translation, where "members" makes much more sense in context than the word "days", because it refers grammatically to the word "substance". All your members were written in God's book before they were formed.


                15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
                16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of them.
                17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
                18 [If] I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.


                Another favorite of mine is Nahum's vision of either cars at night on a busy freeway or, taken in context, military vehicles that shoot fire out their nozzles like happened at Waco in 1993 (as shown in this clip<http://tinyurl.com/8actgkm> which is part of the documentary at <http://tinyurl.com/9jv4u4k>, the clip that NBC showed once a year later):

                3 The shield of his mighty men is made
                red, the valiant men [are] in scarlet: the chariots [shall be] with
                flaming torches in the day of his preparation, and the fir trees
                shall be terribly shaken.
                4 The chariots shall rage in the
                streets, they shall justle one against another in the broad ways:
                they shall seem like torches, they shall run like the lightnings.


                But "chariots shall rage in the streets" invokes an image of traffic jams... And it's talking about context for "the day of his preparation".


                We have a FACT-based faith, based on demonstrable overwhelming sets of eyewitness accounts, history, repeatable science, and honest logic. Paul said our beliefs are NOT old wives' tales or old fables --ancient people's pagan views of the world-- but are based on the eyewitness account of more than 500 people, and his own first-person encounter, and the entire history of the Hebrew peoples, documented miracles. Of course the ones who wrote it all down are the ones who believed the evidence before them, and so we have the Creation-deniers of today saying that the Bible doesn't count simply because it was written down by the ones who experienced it, saw it and felt it personally, simply because they made the obvious conclusions.

                Prophecy was one landmark on my way from atheism to belief in Genesis One. If the Bible had no problem describing events thousands of years ahead into the future, would describing history be more difficult?






                ________________________________
                From: Chuck <chuckpc@...>
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 10:19 AM
                Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time


                 
                You totally missed my two points be. The first being that you are making an
                over generalization about ancient people when it is quite possible that some
                of then that we have no record of may have made that break through in
                thought and were simply stifled by the society in which they lived I was not
                making any statements about the general mode of thinking. Your description
                of the general mode of thinking of post-flood ancient people is basically
                correct but it may not have been absolute, and it may not have even been
                pre-flood.

                You seem to have totally missed my main point being that God is not limited
                by the mode of thinking of the humans that wrote and originally received the
                Bible. In communicating to us, God is however limited by our language, but
                if you limit the Bible to the mode of thinking of the humans of the time it
                was written not only do you miss out on amazing evidence for divine
                inspiration but you are be risking great error.

                I under stand your claims about intrinsic change as being corruption as well
                as the fact that your entire first law bit is base on a grouse
                mistranslation and misinterpretation of II Peter 3:3-6.

                II Peter 3:3-6

                3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days

                scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

                4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for

                since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they

                were from the beginning of the creation.

                5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word

                of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing

                out of the water and in the water:

                6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed

                with water, perished:

                The reason the idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed is not
                what is being referred to here is that it does not fit the entire
                description.

                Not only do you have discount over four hundred years of English
                translations and replace it with your own personal translation. By the way
                the Latin Vulgate which was translated in the 4th century (only about 300
                years after II Peter was written) backs up "beginning of the creation"
                translation of verse 4. The point is that I cam point to translation after
                translation spanning 1700 years and all you can do is point to your own
                unauthoritative translation.

                That said while idea that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed does
                fit "all things continue as they were" to a degree, it does not mach the
                rest of the context because that is not what the scoffers are using or even
                have used to attack creation and the Genesis Flood. The principle that has
                been and is being used by scoffers to attack creation and the Genesis Flood
                is geological uniformitarianism. It fits the phase "all things continue as
                they were" perfectly while actually being used by scoffers against creation
                and the Genesis Flood.

                So the entire bases for your Changing Earth notion does not fit the text and
                your translation is clearly at odds with every other translator of last 1700
                years.

                ------ 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 VictorM
                Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:12 PM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: The Beginning of Time

                >
                >
                > > No ancient person could think scientifically.
                >
                >
                >
                > Prove it! Yes ancient languages up until Greek were very poor for
                expressing
                > scientific thought, but that does not mean that out of the millions of
                > people that lived from Adam to about 300 BC that not one of them could
                think
                > scientifically. Any one who did would have had a huge problem
                communicating
                > their ideas in a language ill-equipped for it. The point is that you are
                > making an over generalization.
                >
                >
                >
                > Even if true that's not really relevant since God can supersede Human
                limits
                > such that we should not expect God to have limited his words to the mode
                of
                > thought of the ancient Israelites. What you are say is akin to the
                > accommodation theory, which I think we can both agree is a liberal
                > compromise view,
                >

                The early peoples left records which are not remarkably different from the
                Bible in some respects.

                1. They never tried to understand the universe with scientific thinking.
                They explained things with god-stories. For the Jews, Elohim created and
                managed the universe but He was good to all that He made. For the pagan,
                planet gods were responsible although they were mean-spirited and often
                fought wars with each other.

                2. With respect to history, they saw change in the very places we use
                mathematical modeling to imagine constants. All the ancients considered that
                the first generations lived in the great time. Josephus lists the historians
                of the major societies of his day and says all of them agreed that the
                earliest people lived for a thousand years. The King Lists from Mesopotamia
                showed that their earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years -
                compared to later kings. Job clearly mentions that the seas dried as a
                marker for the few days of their lives and their faces changed before they
                died during the dinosaur age. Yet Job lived around the time of Abraham -
                after the flood. (Dinosaurs and geological ages in few days are biblical and
                are supported by the evidence from the fossils).

                3. The Earth and the planets continued to change. The oceans were newly
                formed, according to Ovid. The planets had devastated the Earth during close
                passages when they became giants, Titans. Later generations, although they
                still feared Venus, no longer mention its horns. The Bible also mentions
                close passages and planet shatterings.

                4. The pagan Greeks tried to invent science for hundreds of years, but were
                unsuccessful because they could not find a way around the problem of
                intrinsic change, phthora. Science only arose in the Catholic west after the
                friars invented brand new ideas about being and essence. They did so because
                they were following pagan ideas about how God was changeless and existed in
                an eternal state outside of time. The Catholic idea that God created time
                was central to their doctrine of God. Yet the Bible never says these things.

                5. Only in western Europe did those who were philosophically minded build
                science on this notion that the intrinsic properties of matter are fixed,
                not emerging. Scientists think, measure and mathematicate with a first law,
                the law Peter predicted for the last days. This prophesy has come true.
                Scientists have filled the universe up with magical things to preserve their
                blind creed that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually
                emerging.

                So how could the prophets of the Bible even imagine science. The law of
                science had not been invented until westerners imagined it?

                Changing Earthers accept what is visible as real, that every atom changes as
                it ages. The visible history of the universe is the most powerful evidence
                for a literal, biblical creation, rather that a westernized interpretation.
                God is going to get great glory when He makes foolish the wisdom of this
                age, science, as He promised. How could science fail? When we fight with the
                word of God and when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great
                fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God.

                http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6
                <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2cor10:3-6&version=NASB>
                &version=NASB

                I recommend to you the ancient way of thinking used by the biblical
                prophets, which Changing Earthers try to follow, instead of tailoring the
                Bible to fit western science.

                Victor

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




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