## RE: [CreationTalk] Re: Gravity Aberration

Expand Messages
• ... Genesis Science Mission Online Store Genesis Mission Creation Science
Message 1 of 11 , Nov 9, 2012
------ 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
> 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

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
• From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 3:40 PM To:
Message 2 of 11 , Nov 9, 2012
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

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.
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]
• ... 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 3 of 11 , Nov 10, 2012
--- 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
> > 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
>
>
>

Victor
• ... 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 4 of 11 , Nov 10, 2012
>>> 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.

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]
• ... 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 5 of 11 , Nov 13, 2012
> >> 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
• From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of VictorM Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:00 PM To:
Message 6 of 11 , Nov 14, 2012
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

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

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.

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.