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

RE: [CreationTalk] Gravity Aberration

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:30 PM To:
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
      Behalf Of Victor McAllister
      Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:30 PM
      To: creationtalk
      Subject: [CreationTalk] Gravity Aberration



      > Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly mark
      > off the duration of a minute. In most cases their minute will
      > be longer than a young person�s minute or a clock-minute.



      Please give a reference to this claim.



      > As we age, our days and years seem to speed up as we
      > compare events to how we remember them in our youth.



      There are a lot of factors that influence our perception of the passages of
      time. When we are actively doing thing, particularly when they are
      interesting time seem to go by quickly, on the other hand when we are board
      out of our minds with something time seems to slowdown. Any one who has been
      to collage has had a one hour class that seemed to last for geological

      Ages. Personal perceptions of time vary for any number of reasons. In the
      case of years seeming to speed up as we age this is simply a result of the
      length of year compared to our life time. When you are 5 years old a year is
      a fifth of you life time while 10 years seem unimaginatively long. However
      when you are 50 a year is just 1/50th of you life and 10 years is 1/5th of
      it. This would naturally have an effect on you perception of time.





      > In Genesis 47:9, Jacob compared his age markers to those of his
      > fathers. In Hebrew he stated that his days and years were shorter
      > and worse than the days and years of his fathers.

      Genesis 47:8-9

      8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?

      9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the

      years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty

      years: few and evil have the days of the years of

      my life been, and have not attained unto the days

      of the years of the life of my fathers in the days

      of their pilgrimage.



      The cone text of this is in terms of the length of his life not the actual
      length of a day and year. Yes the Hebrew word ����� can mean little or
      small but this also includes numerically small or few. Also even if you do
      translate ����� as short, the context would still show that Jacob is talking
      about the number of his day not the length of them.

      > Job described geological events (such as the dried sea
      > - Job 14) during the dinosaur age.



      You seem to be refereeing to Job 14:11



      Job 14:11 As the waters fail from the sea, and
      the flood decayeth and drieth up:



      This verse is not referring to a frying up of the Mediterranean Sea but of
      seasonal flooding and could even have been referring to the Sea of Galilee.
      Your reference to �the dinosaur age� shows an acceptance of the evolutionist
      interpretation of fossil record. So like all compromise interpretations of
      the Bible you supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
      scoffers.



      > The Mediterranean sea floor has thick layers of salt march
      > products alternating with layers of deep sea plankton.
      > To western ways of reckoning, these drying events took
      > millions of years



      Correction to the scoffers (evolutionists) ways of reckoning these events
      took millions of years. However Young Earth Creationists see these layers as
      being laid down during the Genesis Flood and not over millions of years. So
      once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
      scoffers.



      > Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
      > they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
      > grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
      > have the thick brows, as the fossils show.



      Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
      Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages

      http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb


      > In contrast to the Old Testament eons, Paul wrote our
      > "time is short" (1 Corinthians 7:29).



      This as nothing to do with your notion of day and years getting shorter but
      he is referring to the fact the amount of time to carry out the work of the
      short as is shown by the context.



      > According to the Hebrew text of Genesis One,
      > God continues (imperfect verb) to form the Sun,
      > Moon and stars and continues to place them in
      > the spreading place (raqiya). In Genesis Two,
      > He continues to finish (again imperfect verbs)
      > the plural heavens and earth.



      You are misinterpreting the imperfect verb by artificially inserting the
      word continues. Since Hebrew lack time tenses the imperfect would indicate
      that God was doing something.

      Such as

      God making the Sun, Moon and stars and placing them in the Firmament

      God finishing the heavens

      It is speaking of passed action in progress at the time describe and not an
      action continuing from the past.



      > In Hebrews 4:3, the writer uses an aorist passive deponent
      > participle to show that God�s works are passively continuing,
      > although He rested on the seventh day.



      Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest,

      as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter

      into my rest: although the works were finished from the

      foundation of the world.



      It says nothing of the kind not even in Greek.





      > The optical parallax to the Sun has continued to
      > decrease since the Greeks measured it more than
      > 2,000 years ago. *The Sun�s parallax keeps getting
      > smaller even after scientists used clocks and radar
      > to define solar system distances.



      No it doesn�t. You have based this claim on selective measurements and
      experimental error. They can be shown to result form experimental error by
      virtue of fact that some more modern measurements produce the same results.
      Further more if you project the rate of chance shown by your claimed
      decrease We would have been with in the sun with in historic times.



      > *What causes days and years to accelerate, as Jacob
      > claimed?* Tides sweep around the earth, varying
      > their intensity and timing with the directions and
      > distances to the Sun and Moon. Do they also affect
      > our orbit and rotation? An experiment using the
      > displacement of radio waves from a distant quasar
      > passing near Jupiter suggest that gravity (whatever it is)
      > propagates at the speed of light. The Earth moves
      > ~15,000 kilometers along its orbit as the Sun�s light
      > travels towards us (~150,000,000 kilometers in
      > ~500 seconds). A light ray pointing ~20" in front of
      > Earth�s instant position strikes us because the earth
      > continues to move and the speed of light is finite.
      > This is known as the aberration of sunlight. While
      > the light was in transit, the Earth also spun on its
      > axis about 2 degrees (diurnal aberration). If gravity
      > propagates at the speed of light, the Sun must pull
      > slightly more on the near side experiencing sunset
      > than on the one experiencing sunrise. When I was
      > a boy, I rolled a hoop along the street. By lightly
      > tapping the trailing side with a stick, I accelerated
      > and steered it with minimum effort. *If the Sun
      > pulls slightly more on the near, trailing hemisphere,
      > Earth�s orbit would gradually expand as days and
      > years both shortened.*



      There is a fundamental flaw here and that is that if this were occurring as
      the Earth spiraled outward gravity would actually slow the Earth�s orbital
      motion making the years longer NOT shorter. Yes gravity aberration would
      tend to accelerate in its orbit but that increase in speed would be reduced
      by the main pull of gravity as the Earth spiraled out spiraled outward. This
      slowing of speed on an object accelerating in an orbit is actually observed
      as the moon spirals outward at 3cm per year.



      > *1. Why don�t scientists talk about the gravitational
      > acceleration of the Earth? *



      The real answer is that it does not exist. Under General Relativity as the
      Earth orbits the sun it radiates a small amount of gravitational radiation
      that basically cancels out any affect of gravity aberration. So the reason
      why it is not talked about is that there is no net gravity aberration
      affect.

      http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087





      > *Answer. *Several scientists (Le Sage, Poincare, Gerber)
      > calculated the effects of gravity traveling at light speed.
      > Arthur Eddington wrote that if Jupiter and the Sun are
      > attracting each other towards their previous positions
      > (gravity aberration), this would increase the angular
      > momentum of both. *Tom Van Flandern claims that
      > if gravity travels at light speed, it would double our
      > distance to the sun in 1200 years. Scientists reject
      > this as a violation of conservation laws.*



      And that would put us at the core of the sun just 2200 years ago.





      > *2. We measure precise clock-like orbits with clocks.
      >* Answer. Scientists scale their units of distance, velocities,
      > accelerations and gravity from their concept of linear time.
      > Because of the finite speed of light, we observe the past in
      > the distant heavens. Light clocks in distant galaxies clocked
      > 1/9th the light frequencies we observe in modern matter.

      This would extend the 6,000 years of the Bible only to 54,000 not even close
      to being enough. To extend the 6,000 years of the Bible back to be
      consistent with evolutionary time scales the factor would have to be about
      1/millionth.


      > Even when we sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system
      > on the Pioneers, their clock signals (transmitted from the past)
      > changed with distance at the Hubble ratio. Light light clocks in
      > billions of galaxies accelerate at the Hubble ratio.



      1. This affect is readily explained by two young Earth cosmologies and so it
      proves nothing.

      2. The affect is too small to stretch the 6,000 years of the Bible to 4.5
      billion.



      > *3. Accelerating orbits is a violation of the laws of conservation.

      > Answer. *The laws of conservation were contrived with the first law
      > (arche ktiseous) that the Bible predicted for the last days, the notion
      > that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6).



      This is not what 2 Peter 3:3 � 6 actually says but it is based on your
      personal translation that requires every other translator of the last 2000
      years to be wrong. Further more you use this false translation as an excuse
      to dismiss ALL evidence that goes against your idea,



      > Scientists built their definitions, their circular clock-based measuring
      > system, mathematical methods and laws on their assumption that
      > atoms are perpetual motion engines.



      WRONG!!!!!! Atoms are not seen as perpetual motion engines. By definition a
      perpetual motion engine continually put out energy without putting energy
      into it and atoms do not do this.



      > At many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew from tiny,
      > naked globs into huge growth spirals as the properties of
      > all matter changed relationally.



      While we do see galaxies grow from tiny naked globs (quasars) which are
      probably white holes into huge spirals, they are not growth spirals. The
      stars in these galaxies obit the core in the opposite direction of the
      spirals showing this claim about to be totally bogus, not does it require
      the properties of matter to change in any way.

      > Scientists have filled the universe up with 99% invisible matter and
      > vacuum forces to preserve their creed, that the properties of matter
      > are fixed, not emerging.



      First of all its 96% invisible matter and vacuum forces not 99% .Further
      more only evolutionary cosmologists (scoffer) need dark energy and this
      because it is needed to make the Big Bang fit reality and to preserved any
      notion that the properties of matter are fixed. This reduces the invisible
      matter to 85% made up of what is called dark matter. Dark matter has far
      more support in being detectable by gravity however Cosmological Relativity
      actually eliminated the need for either dark mater or dark energy thus
      destroy what is left of you argument.



      > *4. We have records from Babylonian astronomers listing
      > the synodic periods of the moon and planets, and they
      > correspond to what we measure.*

      > *Answer. The propagation delay of gravity from the Sun
      >would accelerate all objects in the solar system including
      > the duration of days with which ancient observations were
      > referenced.



      So once again you have a built in way of dismissing any observations that go
      against your changing Earth idea.



      > * The most-distant planets would experience that greatest
      > acceleration since the Sun�s angular gravity aberration
      > increases with distance. This is not a one way street. The
      > planets, especially Jupiter, feedback their gravitational
      > aberrations to each other. In other words, the whole solar
      > system would grow even as our orbits and rotations also
      > changed. How can we be sure this occurs? The distances
      > between planets (and the major moons of the gaseous
      > planets) have logarithmic spacing (the Titus Bode effect).
      > Logarithmic patterns are common in things that incrementally
      > change in complex ways. The planets around the star
      > HD10180 have logarithmic spacings.
      > Evidently they also experience gravitational aberration. *



      While logarithmic patterns are common in things that incrementally change in
      complex ways it is not the only cause of it. Gravity changes logarithmic in
      that it reduces by the square of the distance. As a result for a planetary
      system to be stable planets and moons would have to have logarithmic
      spacing.



      > 5. If we were so much closer to the Sun 4,000 years ago, we
      > would have burned up. *

      > *Answer.* Look at the universe with sight instead of the first
      > law of science. We observe that ancient atoms emitted redder
      > light, not harsh blue light. Our sky would have been tan, from
      > a red sun, instead of blue, like the ancient Egyptians painted it.
      > The Earth would have been a warm place where vegetation grew
      > in a day and died in a night. The Mediterranean would dry and
      > fill repeatedly from eon winters and summers.



      This totally ignores the fact that if we were that closer to the sun years
      would have been be shorter not longer.



      > In the next essay, I propose a simple theory of gravity that is
      > based on visible evidence, rather than assumption dependent
      > mathematics.



      That should be an interesting read. By the way expect me put it to test and
      likely tear it to threads.



      You do realize that both Newtonian gravity and General relativity are both
      based on visible evidence. Our current understanding of gravity is further
      supported by visible evidence. It got us to moon and probes to every major
      planet in the solar system.











      ------ 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]
    • VictorM
      ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age.html ... The pagan philosopher Plotinus and has disciple bishop Augustine
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 5, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
        >
        > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf Of Victor McAllister
        > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:30 PM
        > To: creationtalk
        > Subject: [CreationTalk] Gravity Aberration
        >
        >
        >
        > > Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly mark
        > > off the duration of a minute. In most cases their minute will
        > > be longer than a young person's minute or a clock-minute.
        >
        >
        >
        > Please give a reference to this claim.
        >


        http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age.html

        >
        >
        > > As we age, our days and years seem to speed up as we
        > > compare events to how we remember them in our youth.
        >
        >
        >
        > There are a lot of factors that influence our perception of the passages of
        > time. When we are actively doing thing, particularly when they are
        > interesting time seem to go by quickly, on the other hand when we are board
        > out of our minds with something time seems to slowdown. Any one who has been
        > to collage has had a one hour class that seemed to last for geological
        >
        > Ages. Personal perceptions of time vary for any number of reasons. In the
        > case of years seeming to speed up as we age this is simply a result of the
        > length of year compared to our life time. When you are 5 years old a year is
        > a fifth of you life time while 10 years seem unimaginatively long. However
        > when you are 50 a year is just 1/50th of you life and 10 years is 1/5th of
        > it. This would naturally have an effect on you perception of time.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > In Genesis 47:9, Jacob compared his age markers to those of his
        > > fathers. In Hebrew he stated that his days and years were shorter
        > > and worse than the days and years of his fathers.
        >
        > Genesis 47:8-9
        >
        > 8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
        >
        > 9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
        >
        > years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
        >
        > years: few and evil have the days of the years of
        >
        > my life been, and have not attained unto the days
        >
        > of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
        >
        > of their pilgrimage.
        >
        >
        >
        > The cone text of this is in terms of the length of his life not the actual
        > length of a day and year. Yes the Hebrew word îÀòÇè can mean little or
        > small but this also includes numerically small or few. Also even if you do
        > translate îÀòÇè as short, the context would still show that Jacob is talking
        > about the number of his day not the length of them.
        >

        The pagan philosopher Plotinus and has disciple bishop Augustine investigated the psychological aspects of time perception more than 1600 years ago (Confessions book 11). Jacob understood how years can seem like days back in the patriarchal age. Genesis 29:20 So Jacob served seven years for Rachel and they seemed to him but a few days because of his love for her.

        Consider that in Jacob's era, all societies looked back with longing on the age of the early people. The pagan poets waxed eloquent about the golden generations who lived for eons during the age of kronos (time - Saturn). After them came the silver generation who played at their mother's knee for a hundred years, but soon after died. Then came the giants, the Nephelim that the Bible also mentions who killed each other in wars. Then came the bronze people who fought never ending wars trying to steal and take territory. Hesiod complained that it would be better to be still born than to live among in the iron generation, those who labored by day and died by night. He believed this deterioration would continue until children are born with grey temples. Clearly he believed that days and years were themselves deteriorating as did all ancient people.

        The pagans celebrated the past. They did not look forward to the future with notions of progress. Every new year was a celebration of the past, a time to look back and long for the great time of their ancestors who lived for eons. The akitu new years celebration in Babylon lasted for 12 days. They tried to explain how everything had deteriorated. (Remember that the Babylonian king lists show that the earliest kings reigned for tens of thousands of years but the later ones only for decades). In the akitu, slaves pretended to be masters and masters acted the part of slaves to show how everything had deteriorated. They recalled the age of Saturn when he was king in the heavens and people lived for eons. Pageants were preformed in which the great battles among the planet gods were re-enacted when Marduk crushed the planet Tiamut and littered the sky with half her watery body. No one in that era could imagine that days and years were of equal duration, since their histories were all about the deterioration of life and planet orbits changing.

        By the way, Jacob drove sucking lambs to the mountains of Gilead in 7 days from the river Euphrates. It would take months to make the same passage on foot today. But he was not alone in this ability to walk father in a day than we can. Alexander and Xenophon, who lived more than a 1500 years later, also could travel farther in a day than we can. Even the Apostle Paul's journey from Jerusalem with the Roman guard and the journey of the Levite with his concubine in Judges 19 is remarkable in that they traveled such great distances in such short periods.

        I recommend you read Hesiod's Works and Days, Ovid's much later Metamorphosis and "Cosmos and History, the Myth of the Eternal Return" by Mircea Eliade. He explains how ancient people had a radically different perception of time and history.

        By the way, the Jews were unlike the pagans in that they expected that someday the deterioration of all things would be set back when God redeems the Earth and people will again live like a tree.


        Don't forget that Job's father lived fewer years than his grandfather. Clearly he meant what he said, otherwise he would have to acknowledge that his father lived shorter than his grandfather. His father lived for a longer age because days and years are shortening, one reason for this is gravity aberration.


        > > Job described geological events (such as the dried sea
        > > - Job 14) during the dinosaur age.
        >
        >
        >
        > You seem to be refereeing to Job 14:11
        >
        >
        >
        > Job 14:11 As the waters fail from the sea, and
        > the flood decayeth and drieth up:
        >
        >
        >
        > This verse is not referring to a frying up of the Mediterranean Sea but of
        > seasonal flooding and could even have been referring to the Sea of Galilee.
        > Your reference to "the dinosaur age" shows an acceptance of the evolutionist
        > interpretation of fossil record. So like all compromise interpretations of
        > the Bible you supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
        > scoffers.
        >
        >
        >
        > > The Mediterranean sea floor has thick layers of salt march
        > > products alternating with layers of deep sea plankton.
        > > To western ways of reckoning, these drying events took
        > > millions of years
        >
        >
        >
        > Correction to the scoffers (evolutionists) ways of reckoning these events
        > took millions of years. However Young Earth Creationists see these layers as
        > being laid down during the Genesis Flood and not over millions of years. So
        > once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
        > scoffers.
        >
        >
        >

        How do we know that Job meant the sea dried, not some lake or pond. I recommend you read the Mediterranean was a Desert by Hsu.

        http://www.amazon.com/The-Mediterranean-Was-Desert-Challenger/dp/0691024065

        The thick layers of light colored plankton sediments and the thick layers of gypsum, stromatolites and the incised rives that ran down through narrow granite gorges to a sea thousands of feet lower than its present is clear evidence that vast eons occurred after the flood and Job uses those as markers for the duration of life.

        The flood could not have caused these things. There is no evidence for the flood in the oceans, only on the land only on the continents. The modern ocean floors did not exist during the flood. Plankton rain is not catastrophic. It gradually builds up thick layers of sea oozes from the dead bodies of microscopic creatures that live near the sunny surface.



        > > Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
        > > they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
        > > grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
        > > have the thick brows, as the fossils show.
        >
        >
        >
        > Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
        > Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages
        >
        > http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb
        >

        I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations. By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is the addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing with age.

        By the way, when you try to interpret the age of the earth, you are using the false idea the Bible predicted for the last days. You are assuming that atoms are perpetual motion engines, something denied by the light from hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies. You are assuming the scientific DEFINITIONS of time, mass and energy - when with sight we can see that they are false and we see the very things the Creator says He does in unbroken continuity, calling the stars to emerge and come out.

        I challenge you to examine this false presumption upon which western rationality was contrived. I beg you to stop tailoring the Bible to fit science, which has caused so many people to refuse to even look at the simple, visible evidence for creation. God really means it when He warns us not to be scientists, because He is taking them with their own skills. On the day when He makes foolish the scientists, He will get great glory. (1) Man cannot come to know him personally through science (2) He is planning to wipe the western system off the face of the Earth and establish truth, justice and righteousness under Christ the King. Read Daniel 2. Consider that the Western system - its measuring ideas, its governments and its science were founded on ideas first invented by the pagan empires listed. Ask yourself - how can He destroy the past along with the last fragmented empire? He destroys the heritage of the west. In the millennium people will rejoice that Jesus came and destroyed the destroyers of the earth.

        Only Changing Earth Creationist can accept the creation account literally because we do not try to tailor the Bible to fit science, and the false idea upon which it was built. How great will be the triumph of the Word of God over the western system, for His great glory


        Victor

        > > In contrast to the Old Testament eons, Paul wrote our
        > > "time is short" (1 Corinthians 7:29).
        >
        >
        >
        > This as nothing to do with your notion of day and years getting shorter but
        > he is referring to the fact the amount of time to carry out the work of the
        > short as is shown by the context.
        >
        >
        >
        > > According to the Hebrew text of Genesis One,
        > > God continues (imperfect verb) to form the Sun,
        > > Moon and stars and continues to place them in
        > > the spreading place (raqiya). In Genesis Two,
        > > He continues to finish (again imperfect verbs)
        > > the plural heavens and earth.
        >
        >
        >
        > You are misinterpreting the imperfect verb by artificially inserting the
        > word continues. Since Hebrew lack time tenses the imperfect would indicate
        > that God was doing something.
        >
        > Such as
        >
        > God making the Sun, Moon and stars and placing them in the Firmament
        >
        > God finishing the heavens
        >
        > It is speaking of passed action in progress at the time describe and not an
        > action continuing from the past.
        >
        >
        >
        > > In Hebrews 4:3, the writer uses an aorist passive deponent
        > > participle to show that God's works are passively continuing,
        > > although He rested on the seventh day.
        >
        >
        >
        > Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest,
        >
        > as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter
        >
        > into my rest: although the works were finished from the
        >
        > foundation of the world.
        >
        >
        >
        > It says nothing of the kind not even in Greek.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > The optical parallax to the Sun has continued to
        > > decrease since the Greeks measured it more than
        > > 2,000 years ago. *The Sun's parallax keeps getting
        > > smaller even after scientists used clocks and radar
        > > to define solar system distances.
        >
        >
        >
        > No it doesn't. You have based this claim on selective measurements and
        > experimental error. They can be shown to result form experimental error by
        > virtue of fact that some more modern measurements produce the same results.
        > Further more if you project the rate of chance shown by your claimed
        > decrease We would have been with in the sun with in historic times.
        >
        >
        >
        > > *What causes days and years to accelerate, as Jacob
        > > claimed?* Tides sweep around the earth, varying
        > > their intensity and timing with the directions and
        > > distances to the Sun and Moon. Do they also affect
        > > our orbit and rotation? An experiment using the
        > > displacement of radio waves from a distant quasar
        > > passing near Jupiter suggest that gravity (whatever it is)
        > > propagates at the speed of light. The Earth moves
        > > ~15,000 kilometers along its orbit as the Sun's light
        > > travels towards us (~150,000,000 kilometers in
        > > ~500 seconds). A light ray pointing ~20" in front of
        > > Earth's instant position strikes us because the earth
        > > continues to move and the speed of light is finite.
        > > This is known as the aberration of sunlight. While
        > > the light was in transit, the Earth also spun on its
        > > axis about 2 degrees (diurnal aberration). If gravity
        > > propagates at the speed of light, the Sun must pull
        > > slightly more on the near side experiencing sunset
        > > than on the one experiencing sunrise. When I was
        > > a boy, I rolled a hoop along the street. By lightly
        > > tapping the trailing side with a stick, I accelerated
        > > and steered it with minimum effort. *If the Sun
        > > pulls slightly more on the near, trailing hemisphere,
        > > Earth's orbit would gradually expand as days and
        > > years both shortened.*
        >
        >
        >
        > There is a fundamental flaw here and that is that if this were occurring as
        > the Earth spiraled outward gravity would actually slow the Earth's orbital
        > motion making the years longer NOT shorter. Yes gravity aberration would
        > tend to accelerate in its orbit but that increase in speed would be reduced
        > by the main pull of gravity as the Earth spiraled out spiraled outward. This
        > slowing of speed on an object accelerating in an orbit is actually observed
        > as the moon spirals outward at 3cm per year.
        >
        >
        >
        > > *1. Why don't scientists talk about the gravitational
        > > acceleration of the Earth? *
        >
        >
        >
        > The real answer is that it does not exist. Under General Relativity as the
        > Earth orbits the sun it radiates a small amount of gravitational radiation
        > that basically cancels out any affect of gravity aberration. So the reason
        > why it is not talked about is that there is no net gravity aberration
        > affect.
        >
        > http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > *Answer. *Several scientists (Le Sage, Poincare, Gerber)
        > > calculated the effects of gravity traveling at light speed.
        > > Arthur Eddington wrote that if Jupiter and the Sun are
        > > attracting each other towards their previous positions
        > > (gravity aberration), this would increase the angular
        > > momentum of both. *Tom Van Flandern claims that
        > > if gravity travels at light speed, it would double our
        > > distance to the sun in 1200 years. Scientists reject
        > > this as a violation of conservation laws.*
        >
        >
        >
        > And that would put us at the core of the sun just 2200 years ago.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > > *2. We measure precise clock-like orbits with clocks.
        > >* Answer. Scientists scale their units of distance, velocities,
        > > accelerations and gravity from their concept of linear time.
        > > Because of the finite speed of light, we observe the past in
        > > the distant heavens. Light clocks in distant galaxies clocked
        > > 1/9th the light frequencies we observe in modern matter.
        >
        > This would extend the 6,000 years of the Bible only to 54,000 not even close
        > to being enough. To extend the 6,000 years of the Bible back to be
        > consistent with evolutionary time scales the factor would have to be about
        > 1/millionth.
        >
        >
        > > Even when we sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system
        > > on the Pioneers, their clock signals (transmitted from the past)
        > > changed with distance at the Hubble ratio. Light light clocks in
        > > billions of galaxies accelerate at the Hubble ratio.
        >
        >
        >
        > 1. This affect is readily explained by two young Earth cosmologies and so it
        > proves nothing.
        >
        > 2. The affect is too small to stretch the 6,000 years of the Bible to 4.5
        > billion.
        >
        >
        >
        > > *3. Accelerating orbits is a violation of the laws of conservation.
        >
        > > Answer. *The laws of conservation were contrived with the first law
        > > (arche ktiseous) that the Bible predicted for the last days, the notion
        > > that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 6).
        >
        >
        >
        > This is not what 2 Peter 3:3 – 6 actually says but it is based on your
        > personal translation that requires every other translator of the last 2000
        > years to be wrong. Further more you use this false translation as an excuse
        > to dismiss ALL evidence that goes against your idea,
        >
        >
        >
        > > Scientists built their definitions, their circular clock-based measuring
        > > system, mathematical methods and laws on their assumption that
        > > atoms are perpetual motion engines.
        >
        >
        >
        > WRONG!!!!!! Atoms are not seen as perpetual motion engines. By definition a
        > perpetual motion engine continually put out energy without putting energy
        > into it and atoms do not do this.
        >
        >
        >
        > > At many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew from tiny,
        > > naked globs into huge growth spirals as the properties of
        > > all matter changed relationally.
        >
        >
        >
        > While we do see galaxies grow from tiny naked globs (quasars) which are
        > probably white holes into huge spirals, they are not growth spirals. The
        > stars in these galaxies obit the core in the opposite direction of the
        > spirals showing this claim about to be totally bogus, not does it require
        > the properties of matter to change in any way.
        >
        > > Scientists have filled the universe up with 99% invisible matter and
        > > vacuum forces to preserve their creed, that the properties of matter
        > > are fixed, not emerging.
        >
        >
        >
        > First of all its 96% invisible matter and vacuum forces not 99% .Further
        > more only evolutionary cosmologists (scoffer) need dark energy and this
        > because it is needed to make the Big Bang fit reality and to preserved any
        > notion that the properties of matter are fixed. This reduces the invisible
        > matter to 85% made up of what is called dark matter. Dark matter has far
        > more support in being detectable by gravity however Cosmological Relativity
        > actually eliminated the need for either dark mater or dark energy thus
        > destroy what is left of you argument.
        >
        >
        >
        > > *4. We have records from Babylonian astronomers listing
        > > the synodic periods of the moon and planets, and they
        > > correspond to what we measure.*
        >
        > > *Answer. The propagation delay of gravity from the Sun
        > >would accelerate all objects in the solar system including
        > > the duration of days with which ancient observations were
        > > referenced.
        >
        >
        >
        > So once again you have a built in way of dismissing any observations that go
        > against your changing Earth idea.
        >
        >
        >
        > > * The most-distant planets would experience that greatest
        > > acceleration since the Sun's angular gravity aberration
        > > increases with distance. This is not a one way street. The
        > > planets, especially Jupiter, feedback their gravitational
        > > aberrations to each other. In other words, the whole solar
        > > system would grow even as our orbits and rotations also
        > > changed. How can we be sure this occurs? The distances
        > > between planets (and the major moons of the gaseous
        > > planets) have logarithmic spacing (the Titus Bode effect).
        > > Logarithmic patterns are common in things that incrementally
        > > change in complex ways. The planets around the star
        > > HD10180 have logarithmic spacings.
        > > Evidently they also experience gravitational aberration. *
        >
        >
        >
        > While logarithmic patterns are common in things that incrementally change in
        > complex ways it is not the only cause of it. Gravity changes logarithmic in
        > that it reduces by the square of the distance. As a result for a planetary
        > system to be stable planets and moons would have to have logarithmic
        > spacing.
        >
        >
        >
        > > 5. If we were so much closer to the Sun 4,000 years ago, we
        > > would have burned up. *
        >
        > > *Answer.* Look at the universe with sight instead of the first
        > > law of science. We observe that ancient atoms emitted redder
        > > light, not harsh blue light. Our sky would have been tan, from
        > > a red sun, instead of blue, like the ancient Egyptians painted it.
        > > The Earth would have been a warm place where vegetation grew
        > > in a day and died in a night. The Mediterranean would dry and
        > > fill repeatedly from eon winters and summers.
        >
        >
        >
        > This totally ignores the fact that if we were that closer to the sun years
        > would have been be shorter not longer.
        >
        >
        >
        > > In the next essay, I propose a simple theory of gravity that is
        > > based on visible evidence, rather than assumption dependent
        > > mathematics.
        >
        >
        >
        > That should be an interesting read. By the way expect me put it to test and
        > likely tear it to threads.
        >
        >
        >
        > You do realize that both Newtonian gravity and General relativity are both
        > based on visible evidence. Our current understanding of gravity is further
        > supported by visible evidence. It got us to moon and probes to every major
        > planet in the solar system.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------ 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
        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:30 PM To:
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
          Behalf Of VictorM
          Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:30 PM
          To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration



          >>> Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly
          >>>mark off the duration of a minute. In most cases their
          >>> minute will be longer than a young person's minute or
          >>>a clock-minute.
          >>
          >> Please give a reference to this claim.
          >
          >
          http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age
          .html

          First of all this was not a test of their subjective perception of time but
          of there ability to estimate three minutes by counting seconds by way of the
          1, 1000, 2, 1000, ... method.

          Second the figures were averages not individual scores.

          They used 25, 19-24 year olds, and 15, 60-80 year olds. The 19-24 year olds
          took on average 3:3 while the 60-80 year olds took on average 3:40. This is
          a 37 second difference and it is likely that the fastest old folks took less
          time than the slowest young ones. Frankly this is easy to figure out and put
          simply it just shows that on average 60-80 year olds are slower counters
          than 19-24 year olds. As a result it is not an indication of time speeding
          up in any way but of a person�s mind slowing with age. By the way for the
          record I took 2:54. Which means that on average I underestimated a minute by
          2 seconds. So at age 48 my time was also 9 seconds faster than 19-24 year
          olds� average. So Myth Busted.

          >>> In Genesis 47:9, Jacob compared his age markers to
          >>> those of his fathers. In Hebrew he stated that his
          >>> days and years were shorter and worse than the
          >>> days and years of his fathers.
          >
          >> Genesis 47:8-9
          >> 8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
          >> 9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
          >> years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
          >> years: few and evil have the days of the years of
          >> my life been, and have not attained unto the days
          >> of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
          >> of their pilgrimage.
          >>
          >> The cone text of this is in terms of the length of his life not the
          >> actual length of a day and year. Yes the Hebrew word ����� can
          >> mean little or small but this also includes numerically small or
          >> few. Also even if you do translate ����� as short, the context
          >> would still show that Jacob is talking about the number of his
          >> day not the length of them.
          >
          > Don't forget that Job's father lived fewer years than his grandfather.
          > Clearly he meant what he said, otherwise he would have to acknowledge
          > that his father lived shorter than his grandfather. His father lived for a
          > longer age because days and years are shortening,

          Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was no for a family history, all Jacob did
          was acknowledge his ancestors lived longer than he had and not that the
          length of day and years where shorter.

          > one reason for this is gravity aberration.

          1. There is no net gravity aberration affect.

          2 Even if there were is would cause the length of a year to get longer not
          shorter and it would have no significant affect on the length of a day.

          >>> The Mediterranean sea floor has thick layers of salt march products
          >>> alternating with layers of deep sea plankton. To western ways of
          >>> reckoning, these drying events took millions of years
          >>
          >> Correction to the scoffers (evolutionists) ways of reckoning these events
          >> took millions of years. However Young Earth Creationists see these layers
          >> as being laid down during the Genesis Flood and not over millions of
          years.
          >> So once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation
          >> of the scoffers.
          >
          > How do we know that Job meant the sea dried, not some lake or pond.
          > I recommend you read the Mediterranean was a Desert by Hsu.
          >
          >
          http://www.amazon.com/The-Mediterranean-Was-Desert-Challenger/dp/0691024065

          Once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
          scoffers.

          > The thick layers of light colored plankton sediments and the thick layers
          of gypsum,
          > stromatolites and the incised rives that ran down through narrow granite
          gorges to a
          > sea thousands of feet lower than its present is clear evidence that vast
          eons occurred
          > after the flood and Job uses those as markers for the duration of life.
          > The flood could not have caused these things.

          This show that you are taking the claims of the scoffer as fact rather than
          the interpretations they are. While I don not have enough information for a
          full Flood Geology description of these features I can provide the basics.

          Since you mention them below I will leave the plankton sediments for the
          segment.

          The gypsum layer could have formed during the Genesis Flood by way of thick
          brine solutions being covered by other sediment and then squeezed and heated
          to form this evaporate like material. The fact that the layers are so thick
          is actually predicted by this process. The uniformitarian scoffers you rely
          on to defend your compromise are forced to assume it occurred by evaporation
          of millions of years because such a process is not possible in their Godless
          and Flood less model of geology.

          The interpretation of some features as stromatolites is questionable since
          carbonate precipitation can result in some very stromatolite like structures
          and are consistent with a global Flood.

          The interpretation of narrow granite gorges as resulting from incised rives
          is also an interpretation of uniformitarian scoffers. While I can�t be
          certain of my interpretation because I don not have even so much as a
          picture. There is evidence that Genesis Flood produce significant amounts of
          granite and there are several process that could have produced these gorges
          but I don�t have enough information on them I can�t say which one it is.

          Like all Old Earth compromisers you continually try to justify your
          compromise with the interpretation of the very scoffers you claim to be
          against. You may use a different label that of Changing Earth but you
          continual use of the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers exposes your
          so called Changing Earth view as just another Old Earth compromise view
          though admittedly a rather unique one.

          > There is no evidence for the flood in the oceans, only on the land only on
          the continents.
          > The modern ocean floors did not exist during the flood.

          Wrong on both accounts, not only did the modern ocean floors form during the
          Flood but they hold plenty of evidence for it. You problem is that you
          taking the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers as truth when all they
          are are interpretations that come about when you ignore God, Creation and
          the Flood just as II Peter 3 predicted.

          > Plankton rain is not catastrophic. It gradually builds up thick layers of
          sea oozes from the
          > dead bodies of microscopic creatures that live near the sunny surface.

          Correct plankton rain is not catastrophic however I never claimed that these
          plankton sediments were formed by plankton rain. The plankton was
          transported from other locations during the Flood possibly from where it had
          been deposited by plankton rain prior to the Flood.

          >>> Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
          >>> they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
          >>> grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
          >>> have the thick brows, as the fossils show.
          >>
          >> Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
          >> Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages
          >> http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb
          >
          > I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what
          > Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations.
          > By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is the
          > addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing
          > with age.

          I never disputed that our faces keep growing with age just your claim that
          producing Neanderthal features takes geological ages, when Dr Cuozzo shows
          it takes just 4-5 hundred year.






          ------ 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]
        • VictorM
          ... All ideas about time are subjective, since time does not exist. Read Solomon. You are modeling all of reality with the first law of the last days, even
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 7, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
            >
            > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
            > Behalf Of VictorM
            > Sent: Monday, November 05, 2012 2:30 PM
            > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
            > Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration
            >
            >
            >
            > >>> Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly
            > >>>mark off the duration of a minute. In most cases their
            > >>> minute will be longer than a young person's minute or
            > >>>a clock-minute.
            > >>
            > >> Please give a reference to this claim.
            > >
            > >
            > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age
            > .html
            >
            > First of all this was not a test of their subjective perception of time but
            > of there ability to estimate three minutes by counting seconds by way of the
            > 1, 1000, 2, 1000, ... method.
            >
            > Second the figures were averages not individual scores.
            >
            > They used 25, 19-24 year olds, and 15, 60-80 year olds. The 19-24 year olds
            > took on average 3:3 while the 60-80 year olds took on average 3:40. This is
            > a 37 second difference and it is likely that the fastest old folks took less
            > time than the slowest young ones. Frankly this is easy to figure out and put
            > simply it just shows that on average 60-80 year olds are slower counters
            > than 19-24 year olds. As a result it is not an indication of time speeding
            > up in any way but of a person's mind slowing with age. By the way for the
            > record I took 2:54. Which means that on average I underestimated a minute by
            > 2 seconds. So at age 48 my time was also 9 seconds faster than 19-24 year
            > olds' average. So Myth Busted.

            All ideas about time are subjective, since time does not exist. Read Solomon. You are modeling all of reality with the first law of the last days, even your notion of seconds and time is based on the prediction that the Bible gives for the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.

            Time is merely a framework for counting the cycles of the heavens. The cycles of the heavens are spreading out continually, Read Genesis 1. The notion of linear time is contradicted by the history of how billions of galaxies formed, exactly as the Creator says He does - calling the stars to emerge and come out in unbroken continuity.

            >
            > >>> In Genesis 47:9, Jacob compared his age markers to
            > >>> those of his fathers. In Hebrew he stated that his
            > >>> days and years were shorter and worse than the
            > >>> days and years of his fathers.
            > >
            > >> Genesis 47:8-9
            > >> 8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
            > >> 9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
            > >> years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
            > >> years: few and evil have the days of the years of
            > >> my life been, and have not attained unto the days
            > >> of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
            > >> of their pilgrimage.
            > >>
            > >> The cone text of this is in terms of the length of his life not the
            > >> actual length of a day and year. Yes the Hebrew word îÀòÇè can
            > >> mean little or small but this also includes numerically small or
            > >> few. Also even if you do translate îÀòÇè as short, the context
            > >> would still show that Jacob is talking about the number of his
            > >> day not the length of them.
            > >
            > > Don't forget that Job's father lived fewer years than his grandfather.
            > > Clearly he meant what he said, otherwise he would have to acknowledge
            > > that his father lived shorter than his grandfather. His father lived for a
            > > longer age because days and years are shortening,
            >
            > Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was no for a family history, all Jacob did
            > was acknowledge his ancestors lived longer than he had and not that the
            > length of day and years where shorter.
            >

            Jacobs father lived fewer years than his grandfather. You have Jacob telling a lie in order to promote your concept of linear time which is contradicted by every atomic clock in hundreds of billions of galaxies. Please notice that to protect the metaphysics of the Catholics, upon which your concept of creation was historically founded, you adjust the Bible, even allowing for Jacob to lie in the Bible. It is easier for you to believe in mythical things like white holes, than to question the first law of the last days, the notion that matter (and orbits and rotations) are not changing.


            > > one reason for this is gravity aberration.
            >
            > 1. There is no net gravity aberration affect.
            >
            > 2 Even if there were is would cause the length of a year to get longer not
            > shorter and it would have no significant affect on the length of a day.
            >

            I know about levitated gyros, almost frictionless near perfect spheres spinning without bearings in a vacuum. Everything you do to the little sphere affects everything else. If you change its speed, it affects its spin direction. You can get rid of its wobble (Polhode motion) by putting a light electrical drag on one area of its rotating surface. Why? There are no bearings! Gravity aberration must affect both the duration of days, the duration of years and the distance to the Sun - all simultaneously because the Earth spins on nothing. There are no bearings. You say, but we have clocks and they correlate with days and years. Look at the clocks. Every clock in the universe is visible accelerating as the stars continue to come out and spread out, taking up more volume as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew into huge, growth spirals. What we see is the very things the Creator says He does in unbroken continuity.

            Despite the fact that the Creator says knowledge of His great glory is available to all in the plural heavens, the spreading place, you insist in linear orbits because you are a disciple of the first law of the last days - the notion that all things remain the same.

            When I propose getting rid of the metaphysics of the Catholics, and taking the Bible literally at the foundational level, it is a very small adjustment. However, accepting that matter changes as it ages is foundational and so it affects (demolishes) the entire scientific structure. We can use the simple text of the Bible and the clear visible, history of the universe to destroy the metaphysical foundation upon which western science was historically contrived.


            > >>> The Mediterranean sea floor has thick layers of salt march products
            > >>> alternating with layers of deep sea plankton. To western ways of
            > >>> reckoning, these drying events took millions of years
            > >>
            > >> Correction to the scoffers (evolutionists) ways of reckoning these events
            > >> took millions of years. However Young Earth Creationists see these layers
            > >> as being laid down during the Genesis Flood and not over millions of
            > years.
            > >> So once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation
            > >> of the scoffers.
            > >
            > > How do we know that Job meant the sea dried, not some lake or pond.
            > > I recommend you read the Mediterranean was a Desert by Hsu.
            > >
            > >
            > http://www.amazon.com/The-Mediterranean-Was-Desert-Challenger/dp/0691024065
            >
            > Once again you are supporting your compromise with the interpretation of the
            > scoffers.
            >
            > > The thick layers of light colored plankton sediments and the thick layers
            > of gypsum,
            > > stromatolites and the incised rives that ran down through narrow granite
            > gorges to a
            > > sea thousands of feet lower than its present is clear evidence that vast
            > eons occurred
            > > after the flood and Job uses those as markers for the duration of life.
            > > The flood could not have caused these things.
            >
            > This show that you are taking the claims of the scoffer as fact rather than
            > the interpretations they are. While I don not have enough information for a
            > full Flood Geology description of these features I can provide the basics.
            >

            Please examine what the scoffers do with their presumption that all things remain the same. They obfuscate the age of the plural heavens and reject the geology of a twice flooded earth. You are rejecting the visible evidence for the age of the plural heavens (the galaxies) because you model all reality on the notion that atoms are intrinsically unchanging.

            At first the earth was entirely submerged until the (probably acidic) waters all percolated underground to form underground seas (tehom). In Genesis 1:10 the word for seas is yamin, plural seas. Yet they were all gathered into one place. Huge veins of quartz crystals deep under the mountains are remnants of how the early earth emerged from the first flood as mineral laden waters gradually seeped underground during part of the third evening and morning. Ever notice that the Bible uses the singular for the land in Genesis 1? There was only one continent back then - but many seas all underground, in one place. The tehom collapsed during Noah's flood. It did not rain during the garden phase? Why? No surface seas! Rivers did not flow into the ocean. They flowed around the land and water came up to water the face of the earth.

            The second flood only occurred over the continents. Crushed rock sediment only exist over the continents, not in the deep seas. The modern oceans did not form until after Noah's flood. Indeed, they mostly formed during the days of Peleg. According to scientists, the oceans are much younger than the continents. They use their concept of atomic perpetual motion to estimate that the continents divided about 70 million years ago. Yet this happened during one man's lifetime. You might ask, where did the water come from to fill the modern surface seas. Twenty dirty snowballs about the size of houses hit the earth every minute. Evidently the waters that were separated about the atmosphere on day two are still returning. Water is emerging from deep underground in underseas hot springs. Ever notice that He founded the earth upon the waters. The Earth is a dynamic place. The universe is a dynamic place. Matter itself is visibly dynamic and visibly changes as it ages.


            > Since you mention them below I will leave the plankton sediments for the
            > segment.
            >
            > The gypsum layer could have formed during the Genesis Flood by way of thick
            > brine solutions being covered by other sediment and then squeezed and heated
            > to form this evaporate like material. The fact that the layers are so thick
            > is actually predicted by this process. The uniformitarian scoffers you rely
            > on to defend your compromise are forced to assume it occurred by evaporation
            > of millions of years because such a process is not possible in their Godless
            > and Flood less model of geology.
            >

            It is easier for you to invent magical processes than to question your first law, the metaphysical assumption upon which western science was contrived. You are interpreting the biblical text with science that was founded on the very idea the Bible predicted for the last days. No wonder you are loosing the war of ideas. The Bible predicts that when our obedience is complete, we will bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning. We will punish their disobedience when our obedience is complete (2 Cor 10:3 - 6). Have you managed to punish their disobedience yet or have you destroyed their great castle of speculative reasoning rained up against the knowledge of God? Me thinks that tailoring the Bible to fit science has resulted in defeat, not victory.

            The destruction of western science is not far off. The visible history of the universe and its visible creation do two things. (1) they authenticate a literal, hermeneutic interpretation of Creation, rather than the modern Catholic exegesis. (2) It will make foolish the scientists, bring shame and disrepute on those who built a great empirical system on a single assumption, that atoms are perpetual motion engine. We can see with sight that no perpetual motion atoms gleam from hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies. Scientists have filled the universe with magical vacuums and invisible matter to protect their blind creed in intrinsically unchanging matter. Even the Earth has doubled in size, since the continents only fit together on a tiny globe; a global expansion seam runs through every ocean; the youngest sea floor with the thinnest layers of plankton-rain are next to the seam; the oldest ocean on the planet is right next to where Job lived and it repeatedly dried leaving thick layers of plankton. Job is describing literally how people lived for vast geological ages AFTER the flood. Notice that what we observe exactly fits the biblical text, but it certainly is not scientific to hold that the Earth continues to stretch out and even what emerges from the earth also stretches out.

            > The interpretation of some features as stromatolites is questionable since
            > carbonate precipitation can result in some very stromatolite like structures
            > and are consistent with a global Flood.
            >

            Noah's flood was catastrophic. The waters continued to rise after the rain ended. The mountains rose, the wide valley opened up for the water to run down into at the end of the flood. Yet the Earth at that stage was still a tiny planet which supports the three times the Bible says the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity.


            > The interpretation of narrow granite gorges as resulting from incised rives
            > is also an interpretation of uniformitarian scoffers. While I can't be
            > certain of my interpretation because I don not have even so much as a
            > picture. There is evidence that Genesis Flood produce significant amounts of
            > granite and there are several process that could have produced these gorges
            > but I don't have enough information on them I can't say which one it is.
            >

            The granite gorges of the Nile were discovered by the Russians when they took drill cores in order to build the great dam at Aswan. At Cairo, the drill cores show that the Nile was 1 and 1/2 miles below its present placid flow cutting a steep gorge down through granite. The Russians discovered that the ocean fossils came all the way up to Aswan. Since their is a great underwater waterfall at Gibraltar, the Med apparently rapidly refilled from the brand New Atlantic, which is the youngest of all the oceans. After the Med refilled, the Nile river silted up. These support the geological ages that Job mentions during a single persons life after the flood. Gravity aberration is one of the reasons that days and years continue to accelerate.


            > Like all Old Earth compromisers you continually try to justify your
            > compromise with the interpretation of the very scoffers you claim to be
            > against. You may use a different label that of Changing Earth but you
            > continual use of the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers exposes your
            > so called Changing Earth view as just another Old Earth compromise view
            > though admittedly a rather unique one.
            >
            > > There is no evidence for the flood in the oceans, only on the land only on
            > the continents.
            > > The modern ocean floors did not exist during the flood.
            >
            > Wrong on both accounts, not only did the modern ocean floors form during the
            > Flood but they hold plenty of evidence for it. You problem is that you
            > taking the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers as truth when all they
            > are are interpretations that come about when you ignore God, Creation and
            > the Flood just as II Peter 3 predicted.
            >
            > > Plankton rain is not catastrophic. It gradually builds up thick layers of
            > sea oozes from the
            > > dead bodies of microscopic creatures that live near the sunny surface.
            >
            > Correct plankton rain is not catastrophic however I never claimed that these
            > plankton sediments were formed by plankton rain. The plankton was
            > transported from other locations during the Flood possibly from where it had
            > been deposited by plankton rain prior to the Flood.
            >
            > >>> Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
            > >>> they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
            > >>> grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
            > >>> have the thick brows, as the fossils show.
            > >>
            > >> Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
            > >> Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages
            > >> http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb
            > >
            > > I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what
            > > Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations.
            > > By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is the
            > > addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing
            > > with age.
            >
            > I never disputed that our faces keep growing with age just your claim that
            > producing Neanderthal features takes geological ages, when Dr Cuozzo shows
            > it takes just 4-5 hundred year.
            >

            You clearly are a uniformitarian, just like the mockers of the last days. You are twisting every bit of evidence to fit your western concept of time and your empirical science that is uniformitarian at its foundations.

            Changing Earth Creationists do not admit to uniformitarian atoms, uniformitarian days and years, uniformitarian geology, a uniformitarian solar system or uniformitarian cosmic histories. We accept what the Bible says - that the creation is enslaved to change. We accept that vast ages passed during the Old Testament era because days and years shorten for each succeeding generation, just like the Scriptures state. We even accept that the Earth continues to grow in size, exactly as the scripture states - utterly unscientific - yet the evidence supports the unsientific words of the Bible. There is not a single verse in the Bible that support science or its false metaphysics, that all things remain the same.

            How great will be the triumph of the literal words of the Bible over science. What glory our Creator will get when He does what He promises, makes foolish the wise of this age. No wonder He warns us against being wise in this age. No wonder He warns us against the elementary ideas of philosophy that can take us captive. To accept the Bible literally, instead of scientifically, can free your mind, Chuck. Think about it.

            Victor
          • Chuck
            ... Genesis Science Mission Online Store Genesis Mission Creation Science
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 9, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              ------ 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

              _____

              From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
              Behalf Of VictorM
              Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:40 PM
              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration





              >>>> Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly
              >>>>mark off the duration of a minute. In most cases their
              >>>> minute will be longer than a young person's minute or
              >>>>a clock-minute.
              >>>
              >>> Please give a reference to this claim.
              >>>
              >>>
              http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age
              .html
              >>
              >> First of all this was not a test of their subjective perception of
              >> time but of there ability to estimate three minutes by counting
              >> seconds by way of the 1, 1000, 2, 1000, ... method.
              >>
              >> Second the figures were averages not individual scores.
              >>
              >> They used 25, 19-24 year olds, and 15, 60-80 year olds.
              >> The 19-24 year olds took on average 3:3 while the 60-80 year
              >> olds took on average 3:40. This is a 37 second difference and
              >> it is likely that the fastest old folks took less time than the
              >> slowest young ones. Frankly this is easy to figure out and put
              >> simply it just shows that on average 60-80 year olds are slower
              >> counters than 19-24 year olds. As a result it is not an indication
              >> of time speeding up in any way but of a person's mind slowing
              >> with age. By the way for the record I took 2:54. Which means
              >> that on average I underestimated a minute by 2 seconds. So at
              >> age 48 my time was also 9 seconds faster than 19-24 year olds'
              >> average. So Myth Busted.
              >
              > All ideas about time are subjective, since time does not exist. Read
              Solomon.

              Even if true it is irrelevant to my above response since I was evaluating
              the study not the nature of time. Further more you have just refuted your
              own argument.

              By the way I have read Solomon and he says NOTHING of the kind. You only get
              that notion from your own personal translation and not a real Bible.

              > Read Genesis 1. The notion of linear time is contradicted by the
              > history of how billions of galaxies formed, exactly as the Creator
              > says He does - calling the stars to emerge and come out in unbroken
              > continuity.

              Neither Genesis 1 nor any part of the Bible says any such thing. Once again
              you are substituting your own personal translation for the word of God.

              >> Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was no for a family history,
              >> all Jacob did was acknowledge his ancestors lived longer than
              >> he had and not that the length of day and years where shorter.
              >
              > Jacobs father lived fewer years than his grandfather. You have
              > Jacob telling a lie in order to promote your concept of linear time.

              I never said Jacob lied Here the verse again.

              Genesis 47:8-9
              8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
              9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
              years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
              years: few and evil have the days of the years of
              my life been, and have not attained unto the days
              of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
              of their pilgrimage.

              Jacob say ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about how long his father lived compared to his
              Grandfather, only that he had not lived as long as any of them had.

              I find it curious that you expect me to believe that you know Greek and
              Hebrew better than the translators of the King James Bible when you can't
              even seem to interpret my word correctly.

              >>> one reason for this is gravity aberration.
              >>
              >> 1. There is no net gravity aberration affect.
              >>
              >> 2 Even if there were is would cause the length of a year
              >> to get longer not shorter and it would have no significant
              >> affect on the length of a day.
              >>
              > I know about levitated gyros, almost frictionless near perfect
              > spheres spinning without bearings in a vacuum. Everything you
              > do to the little sphere affects everything else. If you change its
              > speed, it affects its spin direction. You can get rid of its wobble
              > (Polhode motion) by putting a light electrical drag on one area
              > of its rotating surface. Why? There are no bearings!

              While it would help to have a link to an illustration or image of the exact
              set up you are talking about I think I get the idea what you are refereeing
              to.

              What you seem to be describing is a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic
              field. In that case what is happening is that when you move the apparatus
              the sphere's inertia causes a small delay its motion relative to the field,
              thus changing the position of it poll relative to the poll of the magnet
              supporting it. The reaction between these two polls is what causes the
              changes in rotation. Adding a electrical drag can help deal with this affect
              because it to interacts with the magnetic field and helps to center the
              sphere in the field.

              > Gravity aberration must affect both the duration of days, the duration
              > of years and the distance to the Sun - all simultaneously because the
              > Earth spins on nothing. There are no bearings.

              Gravity aberration would not have the affect seem in magnetically suspended
              sphere because the Earth the sun's gravitational has totally different
              dynamics than a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic field. Besides you
              are totally ignoring the fact that that was a minor point.


              > Since you mention them below I will leave the plankton sediments for the
              > segment.
              >
              > The gypsum layer could have formed during the Genesis Flood by way of
              thick
              > brine solutions being covered by other sediment and then squeezed and
              heated
              > to form this evaporate like material. The fact that the layers are so
              thick
              > is actually predicted by this process. The uniformitarian scoffers you
              rely
              > on to defend your compromise are forced to assume it occurred by
              evaporation
              > of millions of years because such a process is not possible in their
              Godless
              > and Flood less model of geology.
              >

              It is easier for you to invent magical processes than to question your first
              law, the metaphysical assumption upon which western science was contrived.
              You are interpreting the biblical text with science that was founded on the
              very idea the Bible predicted for the last days


              > The interpretation of some features as stromatolites is questionable since
              > carbonate precipitation can result in some very stromatolite like
              structures
              > and are consistent with a global Flood.
              >

              Noah's flood was catastrophic. The waters continued to rise after the rain
              ended. The mountains rose, the wide valley opened up for the water to run
              down into at the end of the flood. Yet the Earth at that stage was still a
              tiny planet which supports the three times the Bible says the Earth spreads
              out in unbroken continuity.

              > The interpretation of narrow granite gorges as resulting from incised
              rives
              > is also an interpretation of uniformitarian scoffers. While I can't be
              > certain of my interpretation because I don not have even so much as a
              > picture. There is evidence that Genesis Flood produce significant amounts
              of
              > granite and there are several process that could have produced these
              gorges
              > but I don't have enough information on them I can't say which one it is.
              >

              The granite gorges of the Nile were discovered by the Russians when they
              took drill cores in order to build the great dam at Aswan. At Cairo, the
              drill cores show that the Nile was 1 and 1/2 miles below its present placid
              flow cutting a steep gorge down through granite. The Russians discovered
              that the ocean fossils came all the way up to Aswan. Since their is a great
              underwater waterfall at Gibraltar, the Med apparently rapidly refilled from
              the brand New Atlantic, which is the youngest of all the oceans. After the
              Med refilled, the Nile river silted up. These support the geological ages
              that Job mentions during a single persons life after the flood. Gravity
              aberration is one of the reasons that days and years continue to accelerate.


              > Like all Old Earth compromisers you continually try to justify your
              > compromise with the interpretation of the very scoffers you claim to be
              > against. You may use a different label that of Changing Earth but you
              > continual use of the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers exposes
              your
              > so called Changing Earth view as just another Old Earth compromise view
              > though admittedly a rather unique one.
              >
              > > There is no evidence for the flood in the oceans, only on the land only
              on
              > the continents.
              > > The modern ocean floors did not exist during the flood.
              >
              > Wrong on both accounts, not only did the modern ocean floors form during
              the
              > Flood but they hold plenty of evidence for it. You problem is that you
              > taking the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers as truth when all
              they
              > are are interpretations that come about when you ignore God, Creation and
              > the Flood just as II Peter 3 predicted.
              >
              > > Plankton rain is not catastrophic. It gradually builds up thick layers
              of
              > sea oozes from the
              > > dead bodies of microscopic creatures that live near the sunny surface.
              >
              > Correct plankton rain is not catastrophic however I never claimed that
              these
              > plankton sediments were formed by plankton rain. The plankton was
              > transported from other locations during the Flood possibly from where it
              had
              > been deposited by plankton rain prior to the Flood.
              >
              > >>> Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
              > >>> they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
              > >>> grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
              > >>> have the thick brows, as the fossils show.
              > >>
              > >> Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
              > >> Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages
              > >> http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb
              > >
              > > I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what
              > > Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations.
              > > By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is
              the
              > > addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing
              > > with age.
              >
              > I never disputed that our faces keep growing with age just your claim that
              > producing Neanderthal features takes geological ages, when Dr Cuozzo shows
              > it takes just 4-5 hundred year.
              >

              You clearly are a uniformitarian, just like the mockers of the last days.
              You are twisting every bit of evidence to fit your western concept of time
              and your empirical science that is uniformitarian at its foundations.

              Changing Earth Creationists do not admit to uniformitarian atoms,
              uniformitarian days and years, uniformitarian geology, a uniformitarian
              solar system or uniformitarian cosmic histories. We accept what the Bible
              says - that the creation is enslaved to change. We accept that vast ages
              passed during the Old Testament era because days and years shorten for each
              succeeding generation, just like the Scriptures state. We even accept that
              the Earth continues to grow in size, exactly as the scripture states -
              utterly unscientific - yet the evidence supports the unsientific words of
              the Bible. There is not a single verse in the Bible that support science or
              its false metaphysics, that all things remain the same.

              How great will be the triumph of the literal words of the Bible over
              science. What glory our Creator will get when He does what He promises,
              makes foolish the wise of this age. No wonder He warns us against being wise
              in this age. No wonder He warns us against the elementary ideas of
              philosophy that can take us captive. To accept the Bible literally, instead
              of scientifically, can free your mind, Chuck. Think about it.






              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chuck
              From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:40 PM To:
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 9, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of VictorM
                Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:40 PM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration

                >>>> Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly
                >>>>mark off the duration of a minute. In most cases their
                >>>> minute will be longer than a young person's minute or
                >>>>a clock-minute.
                >>>
                >>> Please give a reference to this claim.
                >>>
                >>>
                http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age
                .html
                >>
                >> First of all this was not a test of their subjective perception of
                >> time but of there ability to estimate three minutes by counting
                >> seconds by way of the 1, 1000, 2, 1000, ... method.
                >>
                >> Second the figures were averages not individual scores.
                >>
                >> They used 25, 19-24 year olds, and 15, 60-80 year olds.
                >> The 19-24 year olds took on average 3:3 while the 60-80 year
                >> olds took on average 3:40. This is a 37 second difference and
                >> it is likely that the fastest old folks took less time than the
                >> slowest young ones. Frankly this is easy to figure out and put
                >> simply it just shows that on average 60-80 year olds are slower
                >> counters than 19-24 year olds. As a result it is not an indication
                >> of time speeding up in any way but of a person's mind slowing
                >> with age. By the way for the record I took 2:54. Which means
                >> that on average I underestimated a minute by 2 seconds. So at
                >> age 48 my time was also 9 seconds faster than 19-24 year olds'
                >> average. So Myth Busted.
                >
                > All ideas about time are subjective, since time does not exist. Read
                Solomon.

                Even if true it is irrelevant to my above response since I was evaluating
                the study not the nature of time. Further more you have just refuted your
                own argument.

                By the way I have read Solomon and he says NOTHING of the kind not even in
                Hebrew. You only get that notion from your own personal translation and not
                a real Bible.

                > Read Genesis 1. The notion of linear time is contradicted by the
                > history of how billions of galaxies formed, exactly as the Creator
                > says He does - calling the stars to emerge and come out in unbroken
                > continuity.

                Neither Genesis 1 nor any part of the Bible says any such thing. Once again
                you are substituting your own personal translation for the word of God.

                >> Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was no for a family history,
                >> all Jacob did was acknowledge his ancestors lived longer than
                >> he had and not that the length of day and years where shorter.
                >
                > Jacobs father lived fewer years than his grandfather. You have
                > Jacob telling a lie in order to promote your concept of linear time.

                I never said Jacob lied Here the verse again.

                Genesis 47:8-9
                8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
                9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
                years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
                years: few and evil have the days of the years of
                my life been, and have not attained unto the days
                of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
                of their pilgrimage.

                Jacob said ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about how long his father lived compared to his
                Grandfather, only that he had not lived as long as any of them had.

                I find it curious that you expect me to believe that you know Greek and
                Hebrew better than the translators of the King James Bible when you can't
                even correctly interpret my English words.

                >>> one reason for this is gravity aberration.
                >>
                >> 1. There is no net gravity aberration affect.
                >>
                >> 2 Even if there were is would cause the length of a year
                >> to get longer not shorter and it would have no significant
                >> affect on the length of a day.
                >>
                > I know about levitated gyros, almost frictionless near perfect
                > spheres spinning without bearings in a vacuum. Everything you
                > do to the little sphere affects everything else. If you change its
                > speed, it affects its spin direction. You can get rid of its wobble
                > (Polhode motion) by putting a light electrical drag on one area
                > of its rotating surface. Why? There are no bearings!

                While it would help to have a link to an illustration or image of the exact
                set up you are talking about I think I get the idea what you are refereeing
                to.

                What you seem to be describing is a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic
                field. In that case what is happening is that when you move the apparatus
                the sphere's inertia causes a small delay its motion relative to the field,
                thus changing the position of it poll relative to the poll of the magnet
                supporting it. The reaction between these two polls is what causes the
                changes in rotation. Adding a electrical drag can help deal with this affect
                because it to interacts with the magnetic field and helps to center the
                sphere in the field.

                > Gravity aberration must affect both the duration of days, the duration
                > of years and the distance to the Sun - all simultaneously because the
                > Earth spins on nothing. There are no bearings.

                Gravity aberration would not have the affect seem in magnetically suspended
                sphere because the Earth the sun's gravitational has totally different
                dynamics than a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic field. Besides you
                are totally ignoring the fact that that was a minor point.

                >> Since you mention them below I will leave the plankton
                >> sediments for the segment.
                >>
                >> The gypsum layer could have formed during the Genesis
                >> Flood by way of thick brine solutions being covered by
                >> other sediment and then squeezed and heated to form
                >> this evaporate like material. The fact that the layers are so
                >> thick is actually predicted by this process. The uniformitarian
                >> scoffers you rely on to defend your compromise are forced
                >> to assume it occurred by evaporation of millions of years
                >> because such a process is not possible in their Godless and
                >> Flood less model of geology.
                >
                > It is easier for you to invent magical processes than to question
                > your first law, the metaphysical assumption upon which western
                > science was contrived.

                This shows more than anything else where you are coming from and that it is
                a clear denial of God miraculously working in the world. Your use of the
                term "magical processes" in response to a reference that I gave in
                relationship to Genesis Flood is typical a response of the scoffers and old
                Earth compromisers like your self.

                That said the process I described above is not necessarily a miraculous act
                of God but a totally natural result of the conditions that occurred during
                the Genesis Flood as seen from a Young Earth and frankly a truly Biblical
                perspective.

                >> The interpretation of narrow granite gorges as resulting from
                >> incised rives is also an interpretation of uniformitarian scoffers.
                >> While I can't be certain of my interpretation because I don no
                >>t have even so much as a picture. There is evidence that Genesis
                >> Flood produce significant amounts of granite and there are
                >> several process that could have produced these gorges but
                >> I don't have enough information on them I can't say which one it is.
                >
                > The granite gorges of the Nile were discovered by the Russians when
                > they took drill cores in order to build the great dam at Aswan. At Cairo,
                > the drill cores show that the Nile was 1 and 1/2 miles below its present
                > placid flow cutting a steep gorge down through granite. The Russians
                > discovered that the ocean fossils came all the way up to Aswan. Since
                > their is a great underwater waterfall at Gibraltar, the Med apparently
                > rapidly refilled from the brand New Atlantic, which is the youngest
                > of all the oceans. After the Med refilled, the Nile river silted up.

                Once again like all old Earth compromisers you are you the interpretations
                of uniformitarian scoffers to justify you compromise of what the word of God
                actually says.

                The obvious presupposition here is that the Nile carved the granite gorges
                rather than the granite gorges forming a depression that produced the Nile.
                The Nile would have only been 1.5 miles lower than it is to day if the Nile
                carved the granite gorges.

                As far as underwater waterfall at Gibraltar is concerned calling it an
                underwater waterfall is also uniformitarian scoffer interpretation.
                Fortunately thanks to Google Earth I have access to actual satellite images
                of the Strait of Gibraltar (the visible evidence) and what I see in them
                looks nothing like a waterfall but rather a tectonic structure. Like all old
                Earth compromisers you take the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers
                as fact and confuse it for evidence. However, as is so often the case when
                the real evidence is examined without uniformitarian scoffer glasses on then
                a different picture emerges.

                >>> I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what
                >>> Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations.
                >>> By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is
                the
                >>> addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing
                >>> with age.
                >>
                >> I never disputed that our faces keep growing with age just your claim
                >> that producing Neanderthal features takes geological ages, when
                >> Dr Cuozzo shows it takes just 4-5 hundred year.
                >
                > You clearly are a uniformitarian, just like the mockers of the last days.
                > You are twisting every bit of evidence to fit your western concept of
                > time and your empirical science that is uniformitarian at its foundations.


                This has nothing to do with my totally correct statement of the tine given
                by Dr Cuozzo to form Neanderthal features. Furthermore it is totally untrue.
                An uniformitarian would hold that ALL thing remain the same as predicted II
                Peter 3:4 which would include a denial of divine intervention and miracles.
                While I do not hold to your notion of intrinsic change I do accept that God
                has adjusted the properties of matter during both Creation and the Flood
                which it totally non uniformitarian. You are confusing not accepting your
                notion that all thing intrinsically change for nothing ever changing.

                > Changing Earth Creationists do not admit to uniformitarian atoms,
                > uniformitarian days and years, uniformitarian geology, a uniformitarian
                > solar system or uniformitarian cosmic histories.

                Thanks for the laugh thou hypocrite. You claim not to accept uniformitarian
                geology, but yet you repeatedly use interpretations of uniformitarian
                geology to support your Changing Earth Creationists view while I am the one
                challenging those interpretations. Above you called my Biblical Flood
                interpretation of gypsum layers a magical process like uniformitarian
                scoffers and old Earth compromisers. So despite your claims to the contrary
                your Changing Earth Creationists view is another old Earth compromise view
                and not even a particularly good one. I clearly see in you all of the air
                marks of an old Earth compromiser' Like all old Earth compromisers you
                accept interpretations of uniformitarian geology as though it were fact, you
                invent an entirely new interpretation of the Bible to justify your
                compromise and you twist the Bible to make seem to fit you compromise view.
                You may claim that you view is base on a strait reading of the text but you
                have to retranslate and reinterpret scripture to get your Changing Earth
                nonsense so despite your claims to the contrary you ARE twisting the Bible.





                ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

                Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
                Creation Science Talk <http://creationsciencetalk.blogspot.com/>





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • VictorM
                ... Peter wrote - know something first. In the last days mockers will come with a first law - that all things remain the same. They will disregard (obfuscate)
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 10, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Chuck" <chuckpc@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
                  > >>>> Ask a really old person to close their eyes and audibly
                  > >>>>mark off the duration of a minute. In most cases their
                  > >>>> minute will be longer than a young person's minute or
                  > >>>>a clock-minute.
                  > >>>
                  > >>> Please give a reference to this claim.
                  > >>>
                  > >>>
                  > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15220571.700-why-time-flies-in-old-age
                  > .html
                  > >>
                  > >> First of all this was not a test of their subjective perception of
                  > >> time but of there ability to estimate three minutes by counting
                  > >> seconds by way of the 1, 1000, 2, 1000, ... method.
                  > >>
                  > >> Second the figures were averages not individual scores.
                  > >>
                  > >> They used 25, 19-24 year olds, and 15, 60-80 year olds.
                  > >> The 19-24 year olds took on average 3:3 while the 60-80 year
                  > >> olds took on average 3:40. This is a 37 second difference and
                  > >> it is likely that the fastest old folks took less time than the
                  > >> slowest young ones. Frankly this is easy to figure out and put
                  > >> simply it just shows that on average 60-80 year olds are slower
                  > >> counters than 19-24 year olds. As a result it is not an indication
                  > >> of time speeding up in any way but of a person's mind slowing
                  > >> with age. By the way for the record I took 2:54. Which means
                  > >> that on average I underestimated a minute by 2 seconds. So at
                  > >> age 48 my time was also 9 seconds faster than 19-24 year olds'
                  > >> average. So Myth Busted.
                  > >
                  > > All ideas about time are subjective, since time does not exist. Read
                  > Solomon.
                  >
                  > Even if true it is irrelevant to my above response since I was evaluating
                  > the study not the nature of time. Further more you have just refuted your
                  > own argument.
                  >
                  > By the way I have read Solomon and he says NOTHING of the kind. You only get
                  > that notion from your own personal translation and not a real Bible.
                  >
                  > > Read Genesis 1. The notion of linear time is contradicted by the
                  > > history of how billions of galaxies formed, exactly as the Creator
                  > > says He does - calling the stars to emerge and come out in unbroken
                  > > continuity.
                  >
                  > Neither Genesis 1 nor any part of the Bible says any such thing. Once again
                  > you are substituting your own personal translation for the word of God.
                  >
                  > >> Pharaoh asked Jacob how old he was no for a family history,
                  > >> all Jacob did was acknowledge his ancestors lived longer than
                  > >> he had and not that the length of day and years where shorter.
                  > >
                  > > Jacobs father lived fewer years than his grandfather. You have
                  > > Jacob telling a lie in order to promote your concept of linear time.
                  >
                  > I never said Jacob lied Here the verse again.
                  >
                  > Genesis 47:8-9
                  > 8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
                  > 9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
                  > years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
                  > years: few and evil have the days of the years of
                  > my life been, and have not attained unto the days
                  > of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
                  > of their pilgrimage.
                  >
                  > Jacob say ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about how long his father lived compared to his
                  > Grandfather, only that he had not lived as long as any of them had.
                  >
                  > I find it curious that you expect me to believe that you know Greek and
                  > Hebrew better than the translators of the King James Bible when you can't
                  > even seem to interpret my word correctly.
                  >

                  Peter wrote - know something first. In the last days mockers will come with a first law - that all things remain the same. They will disregard (obfuscate) the evidence for the age of the plural heavens and earth's twice inundated geology with their idea that all things remain the same.

                  Modern theologians and translators use this first law in their exegesis of the Bible. They have added thousands of verb tenses to their translations to make it fit the western concept of time. Why. It is the tradition, that began with Catholic theologian / philosophers. Every modern text begins the Bible with the words in the beginning - and claim God created time. What a text means is what the words meant back when the author wrote them, in his language, culture and epistemic system. The notion that time actually exists had not even been invented until the western Catholics invented it. The notion that time is linear took centuries to put in place but it is exactly opposite to how all ancient people thought. The world is eons old according to the Bible. The first people lived for geological ages, according to the Bible. The Earth was not divided until the days of Peleg. Scientists use their notion of linear orbits, rotations and atomic perpetual motion to estimate the continents were divided 70 million years ago. It happened during one man's lifetime, according to the biblical text.

                  Why do translators have such difficulty with accepting Jacobs words as spoken and as they meant in that era? The literature from that era is about change, how the first generations lived for eons and how the planet orbits kept changing. Why? The translators are followers of the first law of the last days. Every Christians school trains little Christians children to think with the first law of the last days. We measure, we mathematicate, we build our chronologies and earth histories with this first law - that all things remain the same. It is the foundational assumption for the western system. Tens of thousands of children trained in Christian schools are seriously shaken when they go to secular college because they were trained to ONLY think with the first law of the last days. I also had my mind imprisoned by the teachings of men and the elementary ideas of philosophy, just like Paul predicted (Col 2:8).

                  Changing Earth Creationists reject the first law of the last days. We accept the simple visible evidence for the age of the universe that EXACTLY FITS THE HEBREW TEXT, as Moses would have intended it to be understood before westerners invented their first law.

                  Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high And see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing.

                  We can see with sight how the galaxies formed exactly as the Bible so plainly states. He CREATED (completed action) the plural heavens (the galaxies) first, but at that stage the earth was formless. We observe great bursts of light from the ancient universe as God continues to give form to matter by continuing to command light to continue to be. We observe that the stars were not created from nothing. They were continuously formed from the tohu bohu stuff created on the first day. We observe that the stars came out, following each other out in lanes as billions of galaxies visible grew into huge growth spirals. The great victory of the creation account over science is visible. We can see His great glory - that He created exactly as the text states. What is visible violates the first law of the last days, that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually changing.

                  Changing Earth Creationists have the audacity to believe the Bible - that we will be able to bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up against the knowledge of God - when our obedience is complete. This is why we try to obey the scriptures and not try to tailor them to fit science, the system that was founded on the first law of the last days. This is why we expect God to get great glory when He does what He promises, makes foolish the wise of this age. Why? Man cannot come to know Him personally through humanistic wisdom or science. We can only come to him by the faith of a sinner who turns to Him alone and believes His word. Efforts to tailor the Bible to fit science are counterproductive. They result in hundreds of millions mocking the creation account instead of fearing the God who makes their science into foolishness.



                  > >>> one reason for this is gravity aberration.
                  > >>
                  > >> 1. There is no net gravity aberration affect.
                  > >>
                  > >> 2 Even if there were is would cause the length of a year
                  > >> to get longer not shorter and it would have no significant
                  > >> affect on the length of a day.
                  > >>
                  > > I know about levitated gyros, almost frictionless near perfect
                  > > spheres spinning without bearings in a vacuum. Everything you
                  > > do to the little sphere affects everything else. If you change its
                  > > speed, it affects its spin direction. You can get rid of its wobble
                  > > (Polhode motion) by putting a light electrical drag on one area
                  > > of its rotating surface. Why? There are no bearings!
                  >
                  > While it would help to have a link to an illustration or image of the exact
                  > set up you are talking about I think I get the idea what you are refereeing
                  > to.
                  >
                  > What you seem to be describing is a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic
                  > field. In that case what is happening is that when you move the apparatus
                  > the sphere's inertia causes a small delay its motion relative to the field,
                  > thus changing the position of it poll relative to the poll of the magnet
                  > supporting it. The reaction between these two polls is what causes the
                  > changes in rotation. Adding a electrical drag can help deal with this affect
                  > because it to interacts with the magnetic field and helps to center the
                  > sphere in the field.
                  >

                  Some inertial navigation gyros are spheres suspended in a hollow cavity in an ELECTRIC field. By shifting the phase of the field, the sphere (that typically rotates at thousands of rev per second) can be accelerated and the spin axis reoriented in much the same way as gravity aberration does to the bearingless rotating earth.

                  The technology is like the cryogenic quartz gyros used on the Gravity Probe B experiment.

                  http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/aps_posters/GyroSuspensionSystem.pdf

                  http://einstein.stanford.edu/Media/Polhode_motion-animation.html

                  http://www.resonancepub.com/gravity.htm

                  By the way, the Navy's electro-statically suspended gyros used on submarines use a different kind of electrode system for suspension, the gyros are not made of quartz and they are much smaller than the ES gyros on the Gravity Probe B.

                  > > Gravity aberration must affect both the duration of days, the duration
                  > > of years and the distance to the Sun - all simultaneously because the
                  > > Earth spins on nothing. There are no bearings.
                  >
                  > Gravity aberration would not have the affect seem in magnetically suspended
                  > sphere because the Earth the sun's gravitational has totally different
                  > dynamics than a magnetic sphere suspended by a magnetic field. Besides you
                  > are totally ignoring the fact that that was a minor point.
                  >
                  >
                  > > Since you mention them below I will leave the plankton sediments for the
                  > > segment.
                  > >
                  > > The gypsum layer could have formed during the Genesis Flood by way of
                  > thick
                  > > brine solutions being covered by other sediment and then squeezed and
                  > heated
                  > > to form this evaporate like material. The fact that the layers are so
                  > thick
                  > > is actually predicted by this process. The uniformitarian scoffers you
                  > rely
                  > > on to defend your compromise are forced to assume it occurred by
                  > evaporation
                  > > of millions of years because such a process is not possible in their
                  > Godless
                  > > and Flood less model of geology.
                  > >
                  >
                  > It is easier for you to invent magical processes than to question your first
                  > law, the metaphysical assumption upon which western science was contrived.
                  > You are interpreting the biblical text with science that was founded on the
                  > very idea the Bible predicted for the last days
                  >
                  >
                  > > The interpretation of some features as stromatolites is questionable since
                  > > carbonate precipitation can result in some very stromatolite like
                  > structures
                  > > and are consistent with a global Flood.
                  > >
                  >
                  > Noah's flood was catastrophic. The waters continued to rise after the rain
                  > ended. The mountains rose, the wide valley opened up for the water to run
                  > down into at the end of the flood. Yet the Earth at that stage was still a
                  > tiny planet which supports the three times the Bible says the Earth spreads
                  > out in unbroken continuity.
                  >
                  > > The interpretation of narrow granite gorges as resulting from incised
                  > rives
                  > > is also an interpretation of uniformitarian scoffers. While I can't be
                  > > certain of my interpretation because I don not have even so much as a
                  > > picture. There is evidence that Genesis Flood produce significant amounts
                  > of
                  > > granite and there are several process that could have produced these
                  > gorges
                  > > but I don't have enough information on them I can't say which one it is.
                  > >
                  >
                  > The granite gorges of the Nile were discovered by the Russians when they
                  > took drill cores in order to build the great dam at Aswan. At Cairo, the
                  > drill cores show that the Nile was 1 and 1/2 miles below its present placid
                  > flow cutting a steep gorge down through granite. The Russians discovered
                  > that the ocean fossils came all the way up to Aswan. Since their is a great
                  > underwater waterfall at Gibraltar, the Med apparently rapidly refilled from
                  > the brand New Atlantic, which is the youngest of all the oceans. After the
                  > Med refilled, the Nile river silted up. These support the geological ages
                  > that Job mentions during a single persons life after the flood. Gravity
                  > aberration is one of the reasons that days and years continue to accelerate.
                  >
                  >
                  > > Like all Old Earth compromisers you continually try to justify your
                  > > compromise with the interpretation of the very scoffers you claim to be
                  > > against. You may use a different label that of Changing Earth but you
                  > > continual use of the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers exposes
                  > your
                  > > so called Changing Earth view as just another Old Earth compromise view
                  > > though admittedly a rather unique one.
                  > >

                  Please notice that Changing Earth Creation

                  1. Accept that the Creation week comprised six literal evening and mornings. The Bible does not support a creation followed by chaos and then a recreation, as in some Old Earth models.

                  2. The galaxies and the earth were created first out of formless matter. God energizes matter continually by commanding light to continue to be, thus giving it extension.

                  3. The stars were continually FORMED (not independently created). The Sun, Moon and stars are continually being placed in the spreading place. There is NO WAY to arrive at any ideas about linear time from the literal, visibly confirmed, statements in the Bible about the non linearity of orbits.

                  4. Animals and planets were formed by water and ground, as God continued to command the water and the ground to continue to produce life. The ground is later cursed so that it passively alters what God originated, thorns and thistles form and all the animals are passivly cursed. Please notice that change for the worse is implicit in the biblical curse narrative. God, however, actively continues to change His creation, the animals and the weather, as we read Job 38 - 41.

                  > > > There is no evidence for the flood in the oceans, only on the land only
                  > on
                  > > the continents.
                  > > > The modern ocean floors did not exist during the flood.
                  > >
                  > > Wrong on both accounts, not only did the modern ocean floors form during
                  > the
                  > > Flood but they hold plenty of evidence for it. You problem is that you
                  > > taking the interpretations of uniformitarian scoffers as truth when all
                  > they
                  > > are are interpretations that come about when you ignore God, Creation and
                  > > the Flood just as II Peter 3 predicted.
                  > >

                  Look. I am not blaming you for interpreting all evidence with your uniformitarian assumptions. I also was once a young Earth creationists and I also twisted all evidence to fit my creed, the one the Bible predicted for the last days. I did not know any better. I acted in ignorance, having been trained to think in the western tradition. I simply could not imagine the creation or earth history literally because all my references were to unchanging matter. I actually measured and mathematicated with the assumption the Bible predicted. I was not even aware that Catholic metaphysicians had adapted the Bible to fit the ideas of pagan Greek centuries ago. I was not aware that protestants have continued the Catholic metaphysic even to this day. All of my teachers taught creation according to the Catholic model of fixed duration orbits and immutable matter. I was ignorant of the ancient way of thinking. I thank God for freeing my mind from the western system. Any believer can be set free. His word sets us free but we must take it literally, in the epistemic system of the author, not tailoring it to fit science.

                  > > > Plankton rain is not catastrophic. It gradually builds up thick layers
                  > of
                  > > sea oozes from the
                  > > > dead bodies of microscopic creatures that live near the sunny surface.
                  > >
                  > > Correct plankton rain is not catastrophic however I never claimed that
                  > these
                  > > plankton sediments were formed by plankton rain. The plankton was
                  > > transported from other locations during the Flood possibly from where it
                  > had
                  > > been deposited by plankton rain prior to the Flood.
                  > >
                  > > >>> Job ended his poem in by claiming their faces changed before
                  > > >>> they died. If we lived for geological ages, our faces would
                  > > >>> grow Neanderthal brows but our grandchildren would not
                  > > >>> have the thick brows, as the fossils show.
                  > > >>
                  > > >> Actually living just 4-5 hundred year (our time reckoning) will produce
                  > > >> Neanderthal brows NOT geological ages
                  > > >> http://tinyurl.com/cdhnkdb
                  > > >
                  > > > I have communicated with Dr Cuozzo and showed him what
                  > > > Job 14 states and he told me he will use Job 14 in his presentations.
                  > > > By the way, the first part of the book is of little importance. It is
                  > the
                  > > > addendum that shows the evidence for how our faces keep growing
                  > > > with age.
                  > >
                  > > I never disputed that our faces keep growing with age just your claim that
                  > > producing Neanderthal features takes geological ages, when Dr Cuozzo shows
                  > > it takes just 4-5 hundred year.
                  > >
                  >
                  > You clearly are a uniformitarian, just like the mockers of the last days.
                  > You are twisting every bit of evidence to fit your western concept of time
                  > and your empirical science that is uniformitarian at its foundations.
                  >
                  > Changing Earth Creationists do not admit to uniformitarian atoms,
                  > uniformitarian days and years, uniformitarian geology, a uniformitarian
                  > solar system or uniformitarian cosmic histories. We accept what the Bible
                  > says - that the creation is enslaved to change. We accept that vast ages
                  > passed during the Old Testament era because days and years shorten for each
                  > succeeding generation, just like the Scriptures state. We even accept that
                  > the Earth continues to grow in size, exactly as the scripture states -
                  > utterly unscientific - yet the evidence supports the unsientific words of
                  > the Bible. There is not a single verse in the Bible that support science or
                  > its false metaphysics, that all things remain the same.
                  >
                  > How great will be the triumph of the literal words of the Bible over
                  > science. What glory our Creator will get when He does what He promises,
                  > makes foolish the wise of this age. No wonder He warns us against being wise
                  > in this age. No wonder He warns us against the elementary ideas of
                  > philosophy that can take us captive. To accept the Bible literally, instead
                  > of scientifically, can free your mind, Chuck. Think about it.
                  >
                  >
                  >

                  Victor
                • Chuck
                  ... his ... with ... (obfuscate) ... One again we are back to this. Now we both know this claim come only from you own personal translation and no other. The
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 10, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    >>> Jacobs father lived fewer years than his grandfather. You have
                    >>> Jacob telling a lie in order to promote your concept of linear time.
                    >>
                    >> I never said Jacob lied Here the verse again.
                    >>
                    >> Genesis 47:8-9
                    >> 8 And Pharaoh said unto Jacob, How old art thou?
                    >> 9 And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of the
                    >> years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty
                    >> years: few and evil have the days of the years of
                    >> my life been, and have not attained unto the days
                    >> of the years of the life of my fathers in the days
                    >> of their pilgrimage.
                    >>
                    >> Jacob say ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about how long his father lived compared to
                    his
                    >> Grandfather, only that he had not lived as long as any of them had.
                    >
                    > I find it curious that you expect me to believe that you know Greek and
                    > Hebrew better than the translators of the King James Bible when you can't
                    > even seem to interpret my word correctly.
                    >
                    > Peter wrote - know something first. In the last days mockers will come
                    with
                    > a first law - that all things remain the same. They will disregard
                    (obfuscate)
                    > the evidence for the age of the plural heavens and earth's twice inundated
                    > geology with their idea that all things remain the same.



                    One again we are back to this. Now we both know this claim come only from
                    you own personal translation and no other. The fact is you have no
                    credibility as a translator of Greek and Hebrew. Above you showed an
                    inability to properly interpret what I wrote in English so your personal
                    translation of II Peter 3 and every other part of the Bible has no
                    credibility at all.



                    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:



                    Note: I am quoting from a REAL Bible (KJV) rather than inventing my own
                    wording so I don't have the luxury of bend scripture to say what I want it
                    to say.



                    That said lets do a comparison of the two. I will designate each with the
                    King James Version as KJV and your personal unauthoritative translation as
                    the Victor McAlester Version or VMV. I will also use the KJV's order since
                    it matches Greek order better.



                    Verse 3

                    KJV: Knowing this first, that there shall come

                    VMV: Know something first will come



                    OK this close enough so no comment needed



                    KJV: in the last days scoffers,

                    VMV: in the last days mockers



                    Once again close enough however please that Peter is taking about People who
                    scoff at or mock the Bible. So these people are not middle ages Catholic
                    friars, they are not the translators of the KJV and they are not modern
                    Young Earth Creationists like myself but men like Charles Lyle, Charles
                    Darwin, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking



                    KJV: walking after their own lusts,

                    VMV: ..



                    You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part because it gives their
                    motives for scoffing at the Bible and that being that they don't want the
                    Bible telling them how to live.



                    Verse 4

                    KJV: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?

                    VMV: ..



                    Once again You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part. It further
                    shows that they are mocking the promise of Christ's return which once again
                    does not fit middle ages Catholic friars, the translators of the KJV or
                    modern Young Earth Creationists like myself but they do fit men like Charles
                    Lyle, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.



                    KJV: for since the fathers fell asleep,

                    VMV: ..



                    Once again You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part. No surprise
                    here since is sets the context of what follows.



                    KJV: all things continue as they were

                    VMV: all things remain the same



                    While these two are similar they are not identical.



                    The King James says "all things continue as they were" the continue means
                    "to maintain without interruption a condition, course, or action" and thus
                    indicate that the scoffers are says that all processes go on without
                    interruption.



                    Victor says "all things remain the same" which implies that nothing is
                    changing apparently in contrast to the notion of intrinsic change.



                    So which one of these best fits what the actually scoffers say.



                    The VMV does not fit what any one is saying. If your translation is correct
                    then Peter totally missed it since no one is saying that all things remain
                    the same because Uniformitarian Geology, Uniformitarian Cosmology and
                    Evolution rely heavily on change.



                    However KJV's wording hits the claim of the scoffers right on by indicating
                    that they will be talking about all things going on without interruption
                    which is Uniformitarianism in a nut shell. Since Uniformitarianism holds
                    that all things going on without interruption by miraculous acts of God,
                    such as creation and the Genesis Flood.



                    KJV: from the beginning of the creation.

                    VMV: from the first law



                    Not only are you the only one that uses first law but it does not make sense
                    with in the context. Which start with "since the fathers fell asleep"
                    showing this the context it temporal thus showing that "from the beginning
                    of the creation" is the correct translation. As a result you entire
                    interpretation falls apart and is shown to erroneous,



                    There is no need to discuss the rest of you comments since they are
                    ultimately based on your personal clearly erroneous translation and
                    interpretation of II Peter 3:3-6 and thus are shown to be equally erroneous
                    as well.



                    > Some inertial navigation gyros are spheres suspended in a hollow
                    > cavity in an ELECTRIC field. By shifting the phase of the field, the
                    > sphere (that typically rotates at thousands of rev per second) can
                    > be accelerated and the spin axis reoriented in much the same way
                    > as gravity aberration does to the bearingless rotating earth.



                    Thanks for the link and the improved description. Your earlier description
                    was so poor that I had to guess what you were talking about. I don't know
                    why did not include such a clear description earlier. That said this still
                    has no barring on the affect that gravity aberration would have on the
                    Earth. In these gyros the electric fields are specifically orientated so as
                    to be used to adjust the speed of the gyro's rotation they are not oriented
                    to accelerate the gyros in strait line motion.



                    Gravity aberration on the other hand would pull the Earth accelerating it
                    along its orbit and not its axis. Now I suppose that since the day is about
                    8000 miles closer to the sun than the night side that the would be a slight
                    torque on the Earth rotation but since it would pull both sides the same
                    direction the net acceleration of the Earth's rotation of 1/19200000 the
                    acceleration of the Earth orbit, meaning that in stead of doubling the Earth
                    rotation rate in 1200 years (from your original post) it would double it in
                    a whopping 23,040.000,000 years as measured by modern clocks. To put this in
                    perspective it is almost twice the time Evolutionists give for age of the
                    universe.



                    Furthermore if there were a net Gravity aberration affect it would cause the
                    length of a year get longer as the Earth spiraled outward and not shorter as
                    you claim. However all this is actually mute since the radiation of
                    gravitational waves counters any Gravity aberration affect resulting in no
                    net affect.







                    ------ 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]
                  • VictorM
                    ... What the Hebrew words and grammar state should be taken in context. The western tradition is very powerful, gripping our minds like a vise. The western
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 13, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > >> Jacob say ABSOLUTLY NOTHING about how long his father lived compared to
                      > his
                      > >> Grandfather, only that he had not lived as long as any of them had.
                      > >
                      > > I find it curious that you expect me to believe that you know Greek and
                      > > Hebrew better than the translators of the King James Bible when you can't
                      > > even seem to interpret my word correctly.
                      > >
                      > > Peter wrote - know something first. In the last days mockers will come
                      > with
                      > > a first law - that all things remain the same. They will disregard
                      > (obfuscate)
                      > > the evidence for the age of the plural heavens and earth's twice inundated
                      > > geology with their idea that all things remain the same.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > One again we are back to this. Now we both know this claim come only from
                      > you own personal translation and no other. The fact is you have no
                      > credibility as a translator of Greek and Hebrew. Above you showed an
                      > inability to properly interpret what I wrote in English so your personal
                      > translation of II Peter 3 and every other part of the Bible has no
                      > credibility at all.
                      >


                      What the Hebrew words and grammar state should be taken in context. The western tradition is very powerful, gripping our minds like a vise. The western system was built upon an assumption, that the essence of substance is changeless, which was the Catholic solution to the problem the Greek philosophers were unable to solve. The Greek were not able to invent an empirical science because in their era everyone believed that change is fundamental. When translators approach the text with the western tradition, they inadvertently distort its meaning.

                      All ancient people believed that everything changes. Paul plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change. We confirm his words with sight in hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies. Not a single one of them clocks the frequencies of modern matter and the differences generally increase with distance (the age of the light). The Bible repeatedly calls the Old testament era the eons but the age between Jesus and his second coming is short. There is a simple mechanism for why days and years continue to accelerate. One reason why days and years accelerate is gravity aberration, which I tried to explain in my last essay.

                      Consider that the first 8 kings listed in the Sumerian king list, who lived before the flood, reigned for a sum of 241,200 years. The kings after the flood, reigned between 1500 years and 40 days as the durations deteriorate through the generations. Some of the later kings in the list are confirmed by histories and inscriptions. Did the scribe really mean that the earliest people lived of tens of thousands of rotations around the Sun? Since the common notion of that era was that days and years were deteriorating, perhaps the scribe was trying to show how years had continued to shorten. (You may recall that the Babylonians did not have a concept of linear time. They measured varying time along the ecliptic with angles and confirmed it with varying amounts of water to time a watch that varied between day and night and summer and winter). Hesiod claims that the earliest people lived in the age of Kronos (when Saturn was the king of the planet gods) - their arms and legs remaining youthful until they died in their sleep. (Notice He does not says their skulls remained youthful). Children from the silver generations played at their mother's knee for lived a hundred years, but after maturity rapidly died. Hesiod wailed that his own iron generation never stopped laboring by day and dying by night. He claimed this degeneration would continue until children are born with gray temples. His explanations refer to the durations of life are changing.

                      Job lists several geological age markers for a lifetime, including the dried sea. Since ocean sediments generally layer with minimum disturbance, we confirm with drill cores that Job was correct. The Mediterranean did dry repeatedly, which took millions of years (according to western time ideas, but may have happened in a decade in Jobs cyclical reference system). Job only lived for perhaps 250 revolutions around the Sun (140 years after he recovered). He ends his poem by stating that their faces changed before they died. Indeed we find the skulls of the ancient ones with thick brows, a marker for living for geological eons. Job's dried sea and deeply incised rivers around the Med. are clear indication that the Bible means what it says, not how modern translators adjust it to fit western notions of time. We even find skulls of Neanderthal children with worn enamel on primary teeth as though they were already eons old, yet were still infants. Genesis records the age of each patriarch when the primary son was born. We notice that succeeding generations matured and had children at a younger age. God told Noah that the length of life would be 120 years. Indeed, after the flood, the length of life continued to deteriorate, although Noah outlived his great grandchildren. Then Moses, who lived 120 years, said life will be only 70 years, yet if by reason of strength one lives longer, it will not be without suffering. We are still in the Moses era of seventy year lifetimes. There is no way to arrive at a linear chronology from the literal text of the Bible or of the ancients. Everyone believed that days and years were deteriorating, just like Jacob stated with words. Indeed, we confirm that ancient days were longer than modern days with the several places in the Bible where people moved great distances in few days, such as Jacobs driving suckling lambs 300 miles in seven days. Elijah ran from Mount Carmel to Jezreel around sunset. The Levite with the concubine on the donkey walked for miles as the Sun was setting in Judges. Xenephon and Alexander could march farther in a day than armies can today. The foot soldiers (spearmen) who accompanied the Apostle Paul traveled too far in just part of a night. The translators apply their western time notions to the text and reject its literal meaning. Yet a contemporary would have no problem understanding the literal meaning because in the Old Testament era people believed that everything deteriorates.

                      >
                      >
                      > 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:
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Note: I am quoting from a REAL Bible (KJV) rather than inventing my own
                      > wording so I don't have the luxury of bend scripture to say what I want it
                      > to say.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > That said lets do a comparison of the two. I will designate each with the
                      > King James Version as KJV and your personal unauthoritative translation as
                      > the Victor McAlester Version or VMV. I will also use the KJV's order since
                      > it matches Greek order better.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Verse 3
                      >
                      > KJV: Knowing this first, that there shall come
                      >
                      > VMV: Know something first will come
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > OK this close enough so no comment needed
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > KJV: in the last days scoffers,
                      >
                      > VMV: in the last days mockers
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Once again close enough however please that Peter is taking about People who
                      > scoff at or mock the Bible. So these people are not middle ages Catholic
                      > friars, they are not the translators of the KJV and they are not modern
                      > Young Earth Creationists like myself but men like Charles Lyle, Charles
                      > Darwin, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > KJV: walking after their own lusts,
                      >
                      > VMV: ..
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part because it gives their
                      > motives for scoffing at the Bible and that being that they don't want the
                      > Bible telling them how to live.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Verse 4
                      >
                      > KJV: And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?
                      >
                      > VMV: ..
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Once again You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part. It further
                      > shows that they are mocking the promise of Christ's return which once again
                      > does not fit middle ages Catholic friars, the translators of the KJV or
                      > modern Young Earth Creationists like myself but they do fit men like Charles
                      > Lyle, Charles Darwin, Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > KJV: for since the fathers fell asleep,
                      >
                      > VMV: ..
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Once again You totally and rather conveniently ignore this part. No surprise
                      > here since is sets the context of what follows.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > KJV: all things continue as they were
                      >
                      > VMV: all things remain the same
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > While these two are similar they are not identical.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The King James says "all things continue as they were" the continue means
                      > "to maintain without interruption a condition, course, or action" and thus
                      > indicate that the scoffers are says that all processes go on without
                      > interruption.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Victor says "all things remain the same" which implies that nothing is
                      > changing apparently in contrast to the notion of intrinsic change.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > So which one of these best fits what the actually scoffers say.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > The VMV does not fit what any one is saying. If your translation is correct
                      > then Peter totally missed it since no one is saying that all things remain
                      > the same because Uniformitarian Geology, Uniformitarian Cosmology and
                      > Evolution rely heavily on change.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > However KJV's wording hits the claim of the scoffers right on by indicating
                      > that they will be talking about all things going on without interruption
                      > which is Uniformitarianism in a nut shell. Since Uniformitarianism holds
                      > that all things going on without interruption by miraculous acts of God,
                      > such as creation and the Genesis Flood.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > KJV: from the beginning of the creation.
                      >
                      > VMV: from the first law
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Not only are you the only one that uses first law but it does not make sense
                      > with in the context. Which start with "since the fathers fell asleep"
                      > showing this the context it temporal thus showing that "from the beginning
                      > of the creation" is the correct translation. As a result you entire
                      > interpretation falls apart and is shown to erroneous,
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > There is no need to discuss the rest of you comments since they are
                      > ultimately based on your personal clearly erroneous translation and
                      > interpretation of II Peter 3:3-6 and thus are shown to be equally erroneous
                      > as well.

                      Peter is warning about false teachers. In chapter 2, false teachers in the church. In chapter three the false way of thinking that distorts the earth and cosmic histories of the last days. Please notice I am not saying Christians are mockers. I am saying when we adjust the Bible to fit the uniformitarian ideas of the mockers, we are disregarding Peter's warning.

                      Peter predicted that mockers would say, "panta houtos diamenei ap arches ktiseos." Panta means oneness, the sum of all things that exist. Since there is no definite article, evidently Peter means all things that exist. The adverb houtos means in this manner . Diamenei is a present, active, indicative verb - to continue to remain in the same state or condition. The mockers believe that all things that exist continue to stay the same.

                      Here is a rendition. "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers slept (died), all things that exist continue to remain the same - from the first ordinance."

                      We confirm that Peter really is talking about all things that exist remaining the same, because that is the very idea that mockers use to reject the visible evidence for the age of the plural heavens and the evidence that the Earth emerged out of the water twice. They actually claim that since atoms formed from a soup of particles, they have remained the same. Indeed they measure, mathematicate and scientificate with this idea, since it the historical idea upon which western science was contrived. What Peter is warning us about is the science of the last days.

                      Every time Christians have tried to adapt the Bible to fit philosophy, it has always resulted in nonsense. When we adjust the Bible to fit western science, it has driven millions away from a simple understanding of the creation text. Yet the creation account is supported by the strongest possible kind of evidence. We SEE IT - exactly as it happened long ago, not with mathematical ad hoc stories, but with the light from the creation of the stars. We SEE exactly what the literal text states. Yet we are so enslaved to the western metaphysic, especially western notions of time, that it is easier to believe in magical things like black holes, white holes, invisible matter, space time etc than to accept the only history that is visible as it happened, galactic history.

                      The Changing Earth Creationist goal is to get Christians to STOP TWISTING the Bible to fit science. There is not a single verse in the Bible that could have been understood with a scientific mindset when the Bible was written. When we begin to fight with the literal words, rather than with science, we will bring about a great victory for our Savior. We will destroy western science itself. How? The visible history of the universe exactly fits the repeated claims of God for how He made the stars and continues to call the stars to come out. The problem of the universe's age( that Young Earthers and Old Earthers struggle with) vanishes when we accept a biblical reference frame instead of a scientific one. We can see with our eyes that every atomic clock and every star stream orbit in billions of galaxies has been accelerating together as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals as the stars continued to form and spread out. We confirm this locally because the continents only fit togetehr on a tiny globe, without major surface seas. We even find the skulls of our ancestors with huge thick brows as though they lived for geological ages during the dinosaur age, exactly as Job so plainly describes.

                      This is why I claim the Bible will completely and totally make science into foolishness - by exposing its blind creed, that the properties of matter are fixed, that all things remain the same.

                      By the way, no one can come to know God personally through science. The bar is too low. We cannot jump over it. We must bend low to go under it, coming as worthless sinners who trust in Jesus' death for us ALONE. It is the beggars in spirit who will inherit the Earth. The last will be first in His kingdom.

                      Victor
                    • Chuck
                      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:00 PM To:
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 14, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM
                        Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:00 PM
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration



                        >> One again we are back to this. Now we both know this claim
                        >> come only from you own personal translation and no other
                        >>. The fact is you have no credibility as a translator of Greek
                        >> and Hebrew. Above you showed an inability to properly
                        >> interpret what I wrote in English so your personal translation
                        >> of II Peter 3 and every other part of the Bible has no credibility
                        >> at all.
                        >
                        > What the Hebrew words and grammar state should be taken in context.

                        True but we obviously disagree as to what that context is.

                        > The western tradition is very powerful, gripping our minds like a vise.
                        > The western system was built upon an assumption, that the essence of
                        > substance is changeless, which was the Catholic solution to the problem
                        > the Greek philosophers were unable to solve. The Greek were not able
                        > to invent an empirical science because in their era everyone believed that
                        > change is fundamental. When translators approach the text with the
                        > western tradition, they inadvertently distort its meaning.

                        There is a fundamental assumption in you claim that you seem to ignore and that assumption is that the ancient notion of intrinsic change is the correct view. If it is not then translators are not distort the meaning of the text but accurately translating that meaning into English and other languages. I do not believe that the King James translators distorted the meaning of God’s word in any way because God was leading them. You seem to think the God inspired the autographs and then left His word totally at unprotected at the hand not only of men but of Satan as well. I for one believe that God has actively preserved and transmitted his word to us. You are the one I see distorting the Bible’s meaning.

                        > All ancient people believed that everything changes.

                        All most all ancient people also thought the Earth was flat and the sky was a physical dome over that flat Earth.

                        Paul plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change.

                        He says nothing of the kind. Paul does talk about the creation being in bondage to corruption. (Romans 8:20-22) This is not the intrinsic change you speak of but is fully consistent with the thermodynamical deterioration observed to result from random molecular motion.

                        > We confirm his words with sight in hundreds of billions of ancient
                        > galaxies. Not a single one of them clocks the frequencies of modern
                        > matter and the differences generally increase with distance (the age
                        > of the light).

                        You know as well as I do that only you see and what few follower you may have see the universe that way. Not only are there other Interpretation of these red-shifts but you also totally ignore the fact that they would only stretch the Biblical time frame to around 60,000 years. That’s not even enough time to get the light to which you are referring from those galaxies.

                        > The Bible repeatedly calls the Old testament era the eons but the age
                        > between Jesus and his second coming is short.

                        You only get that from you own personal translation and interpretation and not from a REAL Bible.

                        > There is a simple mechanism for why days and years continue to
                        > accelerate. One reason why days and years accelerate is gravity
                        > aberration, which I tried to explain in my last essay.

                        Which I have already shown to be totally bogus in my last two posts.

                        > Consider that the first 8 kings listed in the Sumerian king list,
                        > who lived before the flood, reigned for a sum of 241,200
                        > years. The kings after the flood, reigned between 1500 years
                        > and 40 days as the durations deteriorate through the generations.
                        > Some of the later kings in the list are confirmed by histories and
                        > inscriptions. Did the scribe really mean that the earliest people
                        > lived of tens of thousands of rotations around the Sun? Since
                        > the common notion of that era was that days and years were
                        > deteriorating, perhaps the scribe was trying to show how years
                        > had continued to shorten. (You may recall that the Babylonians
                        > did not have a concept of linear time. They measured varying
                        > time along the ecliptic with angles and confirmed it with varying
                        > amounts of water to time a watch that varied between day and
                        > night and summer and winter). Hesiod claims that the earliest
                        > people lived in the age of Kronos (when Saturn was the king of
                        > the planet gods) - their arms and legs remaining youthful until
                        > they died in their sleep. (Notice He does not says their skulls
                        > remained youthful). Children from the silver generations played
                        > at their mother's knee for lived a hundred years, but after maturity
                        > rapidly died. Hesiod wailed that his own iron generation never
                        > stopped laboring by day and dying by night. He claimed this
                        > degeneration would continue until children are born with gray
                        > temples. His explanations refer to the durations of life are
                        > changing.

                        So now you are relying on pagan corruption of the History given in the Bible to support your claim. For example the Sumerian king list probably results from an over exaggeration of the age in Genesis 5 and 11. Hesiod’s reference seems to be nothing more than a hyperboly.


                        >Job lists several geological age markers for a lifetime, including
                        > the dried sea. Since ocean sediments generally layer with
                        > minimum disturbance, we confirm with drill cores that Job was
                        > correct. The Mediterranean did dry repeatedly, which took
                        > millions of years (according to western time ideas, but may have
                        > happened in a decade in Jobs cyclical reference system). Job
                        > only lived for perhaps 250 revolutions around the Sun (140 years
                        > after he recovered). He ends his poem by stating that their faces
                        > changed before they died. Indeed we find the skulls of the
                        > ancient ones with thick brows, a marker for living for geological
                        > eons. Job's dried sea and deeply incised rivers around the Med.
                        > are clear indication that the Bible means what it says, not how
                        > modern translators adjust it to fit western notions of time.

                        No the above is you personal erroneous translation and interpretation coupled with interpretations of data made by that assumptions of the uniformitarian geology, and what the Bible actually says and not what the evidence actually indicates when not force into assumptions of uniformitarianism.

                        > We even find skulls of Neanderthal children with worn enamel
                        > on primary teeth as though they were already eons old, yet
                        > were still infants.

                        It would not require Neanderthal children to live eons to have worn enamel only years. Also enamel wear can also be speed up by some ones diet, in particular eating rough or acidic food can do the job.

                        > Genesis records the age of each patriarch when the primary son
                        > was born. We notice that succeeding generations matured and
                        > had children at a younger age. God told Noah that the length
                        > of life would be 120 years. Indeed, after the flood, the length
                        > of life continued to deteriorate, although Noah outlived his
                        > great grandchildren. Then Moses, who lived 120 years, said life
                        > will be only 70 years, yet if by reason of strength one lives longer,
                        > it will not be without suffering. We are still in the Moses era of
                        > seventy year lifetimes.

                        No real argument here but so what, this just shows that life spans decreased not that actual days were longer. This actually goes against your notion since if days and years were as long as you claim the number of years lives would tend to be smaller not bigger.

                        > There is no way to arrive at a linear chronology from the literal
                        > text of the Bible or of the ancients

                        WRONG! James Ussher did so about 300 hundred of years ago in The Annals of the World. It’s actually quite easy since the Bible gives so much linier time data.

                        >. Everyone believed that days and years were deteriorating,
                        > just like Jacob stated with words.

                        Jacob said nothing of the kind. He was comparing the length of his life to that of his ancestors not commenting on the actual length of a day or year

                        > Indeed, we confirm that ancient days were longer than modern
                        > days with the several places in the Bible where people moved
                        > great distances in few days, such as Jacobs driving suckling
                        > lambs 300 miles in seven days.

                        That’s an average speed of 3.6 mph for 12hour a day quit doable.

                        Mean while if a were just 100 times longer back then it would be 0.43 inches an hour that’s slower than a snail,

                        > Elijah ran from Mount Carmel to Jezreel around sunset.

                        I Kings 18:46 makes no mention of sun set. Besides so what it only shows that he out ran Ahab’s Chariot and nothing else with regards to time. Further more it the hand of the LORD was on Elijah, with that kind help he could ran around the Earth in the opposite direction and still got to Jezreel in an instant

                        > The Levite with the concubine on the donkey walked for
                        > miles as the Sun was setting in Judges.

                        You seem to be refereeing to Judges 19:14 and it says no such thing no even in Hebrew. It only indicates that went down when they got near Gibeah.

                        > Xenephon and Alexander could march farther in a day
                        > than armies can today.

                        1. Please give a reference.

                        2 If true so what, all it shows is that they more loyal and better discipline than armies of today.

                        > The foot soldiers (spearmen) who accompanied the Apostle
                        > Paul traveled too far in just part of a night.

                        Give chapter and verse for this.

                        > The translators apply their western time notions to the text and
                        > reject its literal meaning.

                        The only one I see rejecting the Bibles literal meaning is you. You can’t even quote from a real Bible , but you have to give your own personal translation / interpretation because you claims can not be found in a real Bible.

                        > Peter is warning about false teachers. In chapter 2, false
                        > teachers in the church. In chapter three the false way of
                        > thinking that distorts the earth and cosmic histories of
                        > the last days. Please notice I am not saying Christians
                        > are mockers. I am saying when we adjust the Bible to
                        > fit the uniformitarian ideas of the mockers, we are
                        > disregarding Peter's warning.

                        I agree, though we clearly disagree on what is meant by adjusting the Bible to fit the uniformitarian ideas of the mockers

                        > Peter predicted that mockers would say,
                        > "panta houtos diamenei ap arches ktiseos."

                        OK, No problem here this how my copy of the Textus Receptus.

                        > Panta means oneness, the sum of all things that exist.
                        > Since there is no definite article, evidently Peter means
                        > all things that exist.
                        > The adverb houtos means in this manner.
                        > Diamenei is a present, active, indicative verb – to
                        > continue to remain in the same state or condition.

                        OK your word definitions are find though διαμένει ‘s definition could be stated in a shorter such as “remain permanently” or “continue”

                        > The mockers believe that all things that exist continue
                        > to stay the same.

                        Not quite a direct substitution of Greek word for their English definitions yields: “all things that exist in this manner continue to remain in the same state or condition.”

                        Now if it were not for the word οὕτως then we have you would have “all things that exist continue to remain in the same state or condition” and your translation would be correct, however that is not the case. Since manner means a “way of behavior” the definition of οὕτως can then be stated as “in this way of behavior.”

                        As a result the mockers actually believe that all things that exist in this way of behavior continue to stay the same.

                        > Here is a rendition. "Where is the promise of His coming?
                        > For since the fathers slept (died), all things that exist continue
                        > to remain the same - from the first ordinance."

                        So a better way of rendering it would be “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers slept, all things that exist in this way of behavior continue to remain the same from the beginning of Creation or put in better English “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.”

                        In any case what Peter is predicting is that the scoffers will claim that the behavior (process) of all thing continue unchanged from the beginning of the Universe which is an accurate description of uniformitarianism. Hence it is not that all things remain the same but that all things behave the same. Thus in the both the Greek and English (KJV) it is the continuance of behavior and not a continuance of basic properties that is the principle of the scoffers.

                        > We confirm that Peter really is talking about all things that exist
                        > remaining the same, …They actually claim that since atoms
                        > formed from a soup of particles, they have remained the same.

                        Except that no such claim is made. According the Big Bang, the Scoffer’s cosmology only hydrogen was originally produced with other atoms formed later in stars by way of nuclear fusion, further more fusion contuse to occur in stars while other atom decay. Even stable atoms periodically absorb and omit energy as light. There fore the do no and have remained physically the same since the soup of particles, but their behavior has remained the same.

                        > Every time Christians have tried to adapt the Bible to fit
                        > philosophy, it has always resulted in nonsense.

                        A fact you prove with every post you make.









                        ------ 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.