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

Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical Universe

Expand Messages
  • Victor McAllister
    ... This is the heart of the mathematical problem. Calculus depends on the notion of independent variables, things that change independently of anything else,
    Message 1 of 9 , Dec 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...>wrote:

      >
      >
      > > Pythagoras discovered that ratios of lyre string lengths
      > > produced harmonious notes. Emboldened by his
      > > mathematical analysis of music, he proposed that the
      > > distances to the planets followed similar ratios, the music
      > > of the spheres. Actually, Pythagoras was forcing nature
      > > to fit his fondness for mathematics.
      >
      >
      >
      > Actually Pythagoras was applying his mathematics to an erroneous model of
      > the universe that was based on superficial observation. As a result
      > Pythagoras math produced an erroneous conclusion because it was based on an
      > erroneous model of the universe, and thus it does not show a problem with
      > his math. It is much like dating the Earth as being 4.5 billion years old
      > based the erroneous theory that the Earth form by acieration. When you base
      > your mathematical model on an erroneous model you will invariantly get
      > erroneous results,
      >
      >
      >
      > > Mathematical symbols are never detected in nature.
      >
      >
      >
      > This is a straw man argument since no one claim that the actual
      > mathematical
      > symbols are found in nature, however those mathematical symbols do describe
      > real properties of objects in the universe.
      >
      >
      >
      > >A scientist could argue, "Mathematics follows logical
      > > principles like the identity law (A = A). . Nothing
      > > in the visible universe follows the law of identity since
      > > everything is observed to change.
      >
      >
      >
      > Here is yet another straw man argument. While the identity law is a basic
      > principle of Mathematics is just that a basic principle. More advanced
      > Mathematics such as Calculus does deal with change. Furthermore the
      > observed
      > changes in the universe follow the mathematics used to describe them.
      >
      >
      This is the heart of the mathematical problem. Calculus depends on the
      notion of independent variables, things that change independently of
      anything else, such as linear time. In the visible universe, we never see
      anything that is independent. We observe everything changing together,
      relationally.

      >
      >
      > > Answer: Let's test this law by substituting hydrogen atoms
      > > for symbolical A's. Hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies
      > > shine from the ancient universe. The more ancient the light,
      > > the more its light-clocks differ from the light emitted by
      > > local hydrogen. The earliest galaxy analyzed to date,
      > > clocked less than 8% of the frequencies of modern hydrogen.
      >
      >
      >
      > This is not a fact but just your own personal interpretation of the
      > observed
      > what is called red-shift. Unlike your wording the term red-shift is not an
      > interpretation by a description of what is actually observed. The term
      > red-shift refers to the observation of spectral lines being seen as shifted
      > to the red end of the spectrum and nothing more. The term blue-shift is
      > also
      > used for a shifting in the opposite direction.
      >
      >
      That is an observed fact. Light from long ago has a different color than
      light from modern atoms. Because scientists begin their every thought with
      a a first law, the one Peter predicted, they cannot even imagine that
      ancient atoms shone with different colors than modern atoms.

      The ancient Egyptians painted the Sun red and the sky tan, as it would have
      been if the Sun was red 3000 years ago. The notion that our sky is blue is
      a recent phenomena. Homer wrote of the wine-dark sea, the bronze sky,
      wine-colored oxen and green honey. Xenophanes said the rainbow had three
      colors: purple, green-yellow and red. Empedocles, Democritus and the
      Pythagoreans thought the only colors were white, black, red and yellow.
      Pliny, Quintilian and Cicero wrote that until Alexander's time, the Greeks
      only painted with four colors. Lazarus Geiger, made a study of color
      references in ancient sources. He claimed that, over the centuries,
      languages developed a color sense in the sequence: black and white; red;
      yellow; green and lastly blue. A hundred years later, Brent Berlin and Paul
      Kay discovered that languages evolve as they discern colors with the
      sequence: black and white; red; green; yellow; and last of all blue. The
      colors the ancient described are similar to the colors observed on Mars,
      that has a sky that is tan from iron rust. The simplest explanation is that
      the Sun shone red a few thousand years ago, as we observe that ancient
      galaxies shine in red.

      No experiment has ever detected light changing frequency as it passes
      through a vacuum. Matter can absorb light and retransmit it at other
      frequencies leaving absorption bands in the spectra. Experiments with very
      narrow band detectors shows that light of different of different
      frequencies passing through the same space doesn't affect each other. The
      notion that frequencies are additive into a "composite wave" is an artifact
      of broad band detectors, not the not in the reality of individual bits of
      light. Extremely dim light from ancient galaxies passes into our solar
      system awash with intense light which does not affect it in the slightest.



      > There are three phenomenon that are know to cause such sifts in light.
      >
      > 1. The Doppler affect which is caused by the relative motion between the
      > source and observer. This is used every day one Earth measuring the speed
      > of
      > planes and cars. In this case if the source and observer are heading away
      > from each other there is a red-shift and when they are heading towards each
      > other there is a blue-shift.
      >

      This is an effect observed in experiments. No problem here.

      >
      > 2. Gravitational red-shift was predicted by General Relativity, which is
      > the
      > shifting of light towards the red when it is coming out of a gravitational
      > field. There is also a corresponding blue-shift when light is going into a
      > gravitational field. This affect has been directly observed and measured
      > and
      > it fits the math of General Relativity.
      >
      >
      We do observe clocks running at different speeds depending on their
      proximity to massive objects. However, the light does not change its
      frequency in transit. Light never changes its frequency, although it may
      change its wavelength when passing through a dense medium such as glass or
      water.



      > 3. Also predicted by General Relativity is that light would be red-shifted
      > by an expansion of space and blue-shift by a contraction of it.
      >
      >
      General relativity is based on the notion that the properties of matter are
      fixed, not emerging. The GR effects are adequately explained by relational
      changes in all matter.



      >
      > All of which were known before the cosmic red-shift was actually observed
      > and not created to explain it away as you seem to imply.
      >
      > That said this 8% of the frequencies observed in the lab is readily
      > explainable by any of these factors or a combination of them. Fur more even
      > if your interpretation were correct it would only decrease measured time by
      > a factor 1 to 12.5. This would only increase the 6,000 years of the
      > Biblical
      > time scale to 75,000 years at current clock rates hardly the eons you are
      > claiming. To stretch 6000 years into 4.5 billion would require a factor of
      > 1
      > to 750,000. So these clocks would have be ticking at less than 0.000133%
      > which would require a greater red shift than the cosmic back ground
      > radiation. Thus even if you interpretation of cosmic red-shift were correct
      > it would still disprove your changing Earth idea.
      >
      >
      You are rejecting what Solomon wrote. Time is in our minds. It has no
      actual existence. What we observe in cosmic history at many ranges is that
      the spectral clocks accelerate along with the outward accelerating star
      streams.

      >
      >
      > Furthermore the fact that you refuse to use a recognizable term such as
      > red-shift suggests an attempt at hiding what you are really talking about
      > so
      > as to trick the reader into accepting your own personal interpretation as
      > though it were some kind of a problem for a scientific perspective when it
      > is not.
      >
      > As a changing earth creationist, I reject the first law of the last days.
      Why? Because the Bible predicted it and clearly shows that it is false.
      That is why changing earth creationists have a different world view than
      either YEC or OEC. We reject the foundational assumption upon which western
      science was historically founded. That is why we do not have any problems
      with the evident age of the universe in only 6,000 cycles around the Sun.
      We simply accept that every bit of matter is changing itself, exactly as
      Paul describes a universe enslaved to change.


      >
      > Furthermore the vary terms you do use such as "frequencies" goes against
      > you
      > main premise because it is one of the very mathematical symbols you decry.
      > No only that it is not an observed quantity but calculated by the very
      > mathematics you are attacking specifically. The actual measured quantity is
      > wave length, and you only get the frequency by dividing the wave length by
      > the speed of light.
      >
      >
      I am using the word frequency in a relative sence, not with respect to
      atomic perpetual motion standards as in the scientific system. We reject
      the notion that their are any atoms that do perpetual motion so we cannot
      define frequency in a precise way, only relative to modern atoms or
      relative to ancient atoms.

      >
      >
      > > Pioneer 10 & 11 transmitted their clock signals from the past
      > > as they exited the solar system in opposite directions. Their
      > > clock frequencies changed with distance (relative to NASA's
      > > hydrogen maser clocks of the moment) at approximately the
      > > Hubble ratio.
      >
      >
      >
      > The Pioneer anomaly as it is called has had many proposed solutions from
      > evolutionists and creationists a like and yours is just a new one added to
      > the bunch, That said a resent study of the actual telemetry data has shown
      > that effect is most likely a result of thermal emissions on the space craft
      > reflecting off the high gain antenna dish. The observed changes in the
      > affect over time are consistent with this conclusion.
      >
      > http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
      >
      >
      I am not the only one who has proposed that clocks are changing speed as
      the answer to the Pioneer anomaly. I am aware of the thermal emissions
      hypothesis. The plutonium oxide is decaying, putting out less heat as it
      ages. The radiators are out past the edge of the dish antenna. Me thinks
      this is not unlike subduction, invisible matter, black holes and other
      mathematical stories.

      >
      >
      > So the only actual evidence for your idea turns out to be a lot of hot air,
      > or at least thermal radiation.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Scientist: "The same mathematical laws that work in the solar
      > > system work everywhere."
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Answer: The laws only work locally when referenced to
      > > undetectable, symbolical things like mass, energy and time.
      >
      > Mass, energy and time are labels given to real observable properties of the
      > objects in the universe and not undetectable, symbolical things.
      >

      On the contrary, they were contrived with an idea, the one Peter predicted
      for the last days. If matter is changing relationally, both sides of a
      balance scale would chagne and all local clocks would change.


      >
      >
      > If you doubt that mass is a real thing try pushing a Boeing 747 some time.
      > Try jumping off the Earth; you will see gravity. You will see that mass is
      > property of matter that describes how much an object resists changes in
      > motion and how much gravity it produces.
      >
      >
      >
      > If you doubt that energy is real, try not paying your electric bill some
      > time or not filling up your car with gasoline.
      >
      >
      >
      We only observe energetic EVENTS, slower and faster process and more or
      less massive objects. No one has ever isolated any mass, energy or time.
      THey were contrived mathematically with the idea Peter predicted for the
      last day mockers.

      >
      > If you doubt that time is real look in a mirror and compare what you see to
      > a picture from 40 years ago.
      >
      >
      > What I see is real, relational change. I age and that has nothing to do
      with time, just the degeratation of my body. No one has ever detected any
      time, which supports Solomon who says God put it in our minds, which is why
      we cannot understand earth history.

      >
      > The point is that while you may call mass, energy and time undetectable,
      > symbolical things they are indeed descriptions of real phenomenon that you
      > can't just dismiss. The fact is that ALL of these are real and detectable
      > phenomenon and your claims to the contrary do not change that fact.
      >
      > Real things are observable. Symbolical things are not, they only exist in
      minds. No one has ever detected symbolical, mathematical versions of
      reality.



      > The laws do not even fit solar system history. A few
      > millennium ago, people recorded close planet passages
      > and the shattering of a nearby planet. The Bible mentions both of

      > these.



      These are baseless claims that you are making with out any references other
      than your personal claim. Please give actual references such as chapter and
      verse in the Bible so that people can check it out in a real Bible.

      Job 9:13 "God will not turn back His anger; Beneath Him crouch the helpers
      of Rahab." The word Rahab means broad, proud or storm. The Rahab that is
      shattered is not spelled the same in Hebrew as the Canaanite woman. The
      word for god in this verse is elowahh - used 56 times in the Bible, 40
      times in the book of Job. It can refer to a false God, such as Habab 1:11
      "But they will be held guilty, They whose strength is their god." or Job
      12:6 "The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those who provoke God
      [el] are secure-- those who carry their god [elowahh] in their hands."

      Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; Awake as in
      the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not Thou who cut
      Rahabin pieces, Who pierced the dragon?"

      The word LORD here is the personal name of the Jewish God, the self
      existent one, so this passage is not referring to a planet-god as in the
      Job 9 text. The text says it happened long ago in the eon generations. The
      verb for cutting Rahab indicates continuous action. If a great planet was
      broken up, the pieces would continue to fragment. The piercing verb
      describes an intensive action. The word dragon is tanniyn - an aquatic
      dinosaur or sea serpent.

      Psalm 89:8 - 11 O LORD God of hosts, who is like Thee, O mighty LORD? Thy
      faithfulness also surrounds Thee. Thou dost rule the swelling of the sea;
      When its waves rise, Thou dost still them. Thou Thyself didst crush
      Rahablike one who is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy
      mighty
      arm. The heavens are Thine, the earth also is Thine; The world and all it
      contains, Thou hast founded them.

      Job 26:11-14 "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. By
      his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom he cut Rahab to pieces. By
      his breath the skies became fair; his hand pierced the gliding serpent. And
      these are but the outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear
      of him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"



      The simple fact is that this claim is based on nothing but your personal
      erroneous interpretation of select portions of the Bible. You are further
      confusing ancient mythology about pagan gods with the planets that have the
      same name. Now you are not the only person to make this mistake but you
      specific interpretation is unique.



      > Visible cosmic history defies the laws of physics.



      WRONG! It is only your personal interpretation of your own superficial look
      at galaxies that defies the laws of physics, and that is because they have
      no bases in reality.

      Yet anyone who cares to believe cosmic history can see teh simple visible
      evidence for stars emerging and spreading out from compact sources, exactly
      as described by the Biblical creator.

      > Scientists have invented a mythical universe that is 99% invisible,
      > to force nature to fit their mathematical laws.



      Actually this 99% figure is only needed to save the atheistic Big Bang from
      reality not the law of physics.



      > The problem is that the mathematical laws were founded on an
      > inflexible law. What law? In the last days, the Apostle Peter
      > wrote, mockers will come. They will claim evidence from dead
      > ancestors supports their first law "arche ktiseous" that "all things

      > remain the same."



      WRONG!! We have been over this many times before. This is you own personal
      translation and not what a real Bible.


      If it is my personal translation, then why do scientists do exactly what
      Peter predicted. WHy do they obfuscate the age of the plural heavens and
      disregard the twice flooded earth with stories about magical things like
      invisible matter and vacuum explosions. Clearly this prophesy has come true
      and God is about to do what He says, make foolish the wise of this age.

      The actual reference is 2 Peter 3:4



      2 Peter 3:4 (KJV) 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.



      Nothing about your so called first law and noting about "evidence from dead
      ancestors supports" nor does it say "all things remain the same." The fact
      is that your personal corrupt translation does not even fit the Greek "αρχης
      κτισεως" is no place translated "first law" except by you Victor but is
      always translated as "beginning of the creation" or "beginning of the
      world." I challenge you victor to find just one person in the last 2000
      years other than your self or some one influenced by you that translates
      this as "first law.

      I have shown you before where it is translated as a first law. Jesus used
      teh exact expression when he talked about GOd's firs law to human
      societies. However, this did not fit the model of reality traditionally
      handed down by the Catholics . . .

      The phase "all things continue as they were" does not mean "all things
      remain the same" but it is referring to processes going on with out
      interruption by such thing a medicals. This is the real first principle of
      the real scoffers that fulfill this prophecy.

      panta houtos diamenei - means all things remain the same


      > Scientists have invented mythical things to protect their
      > fundamental creed. A tiny bit of vacuum exploded and
      > created everything out of nothing.



      WRONG! What you are referring to here is the purely atheistic Big Bang and
      it is required to try to explain the universe with out God, and not to
      protect your so called first law.

      Changing Earth Creationists have a different world view because we reject
      this first law, which is the historical basis for western science. YE or OE
      creationists also are followers of this law, not just the evolutionists.

      > Every galaxy is surrounded by four times as much invisible
      > matter as the natural kind to force the laws of gravity on
      > billions of uncooperative galaxies.



      You are referring to what is called dark matter and it is not invisible but
      simply dose not glow like stars do. Even if it does not interact directly
      with light it would still be potentially visible by bending background
      light. Furthermore it is not proposed so as to force the laws gravity on
      galaxies but it is the simplest of three solutions to fact that observed
      stellar and galactic motion simply require more gravity than can be
      accounted for by the stars and planets. The other two are modifications to
      gravity theory that are viable alternatives to dark mater but more
      complicated. By the way this is not the first time this anomalous motion has
      lead to a new discovery based on gravity. Anomalous motion of Saturn lead to
      the discovery of Uranus and anomalous motion of Uranus lead to the discovery
      of Neptune. By the way even if dark mater does not exist then it still dose
      not lead to you notion of intrinsic change it just means we don't know as
      much about gravity as we think we do.

      It is called dark because it is invisible and has never been detected
      except with assumption dependent mathematics, the mathematics of the first
      law.


      > Scientists imagine that all ancient light gets stretched by the
      > vacuum of space-time.



      This was actually predicted by General Relativity before galactic red-shift
      was discovered. Furthermore even if light is not being stretched by an
      expansion of space, red-shift could still be easily explained by a simple
      Doppler shift or a gravitational red-shift. So the idea that if light is
      stretched by an expansion of space causing red-shift happen to be the
      simplest model, but tot the only one other than your intrinsic change.



      > They speculate that the vacuum of space-time pushes galaxies
      > away at close to light speed. The most pervasive force in the
      > universe is dark energy that pulls more energy out of the vacuum
      > to accelerate the expansion of the vacuum.



      You are referring to dark energy which was invented to save the atheistic
      Big Bang from the reality of an accelerating expansion to the universe.
      Young Earth creation cosmologies do not need dark energy because these
      results come out of them naturally.



      > All of these speculative myths were woven out of mathematical
      > cloth. Yet none of them are necessary if we accept that the creation
      > is enslaved to change that is an orderly arrangement (Romans 8:19 -22).



      Once again you pervert scripture to make your point. Try reading a real
      Bible for a change.



      Romans 8:19-22 (KJV)

      19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
      manifestation of the sons of God.

      20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by
      reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,

      21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
      corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

      22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain
      together until now.





      These verses are fully consistent with observed thermodynamic deterioration


      I have shown you before that the actual text contradicts the 2nd law in at
      least three different aspects. No one during the biblical age could have
      imagined laws of thermodynamics. Origen interpreted this as changes in the
      quality of all things, exactly as the text is in the literal sense.

      > No ancient galaxy shines with atomic perpetual motion, which
      > is the basis for scientific empiricism.



      This is a straw man because the quantum model of the atom does not have
      perpetual motion but electrons exist in clouds of probability around the
      nucleus called orbitals and these orbitals have actually been observed. Nor
      is any for of perpetual motion the basis for scientific empiricism. This
      statement makes you either ignorant of current atomic theory or a liar.

      On the contrary, the primary measuring standard for science is the second,
      operationally defined with atomic light vibrations. From teh seoncd,
      scientists operationally define thousands of other empirical standsards
      such as lengths, velocities, and laws of physics. Yet we can see the past
      back to the creation era. Every atom changes. No ancient galaxy shine with
      the light frequencies of modern matter.


      > The most powerful evidence for biblical creation is visible cosmic
      history.



      I'm inclined to agree but we Cleary disagree on what that history is. You
      base you ideas on the superficial appearance of galaxies, while I look
      deeper and get a more accurate picture.

      You are trying to decode the universe mathematically with the first law of
      the last days. What is visible trumps what is mathematical, the history of
      how galaxies formed exactly as described in the Bible.

      > 1. God finished creating the plural heavens (the galaxies) and the
      > Earth first. The earth was formless until God continued to
      > command light to continue to be.

      You pervert scripture yet again adding you own words. First let's look at a
      real Bible.



      Genesis 1:1-3 (KJV)

      1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

      2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face
      of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

      3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.



      Among other things you insert the word continue which is not justified by
      the Hebrew. The simple fact it that you repeated claim that the Bible says
      something and then insert you own word and not the words of a real Bible. No
      surprises since you have made it clear that you not believe that we have a
      real Bible.

      The verb form is imperfect, a continuing action both for the commands of
      God and for the results - for light to continue to be. You are following
      the traditional Catholic interpretation that postulates one time commands
      in linear, short days, not the days of the creation account where the Sun
      moon and stars are continuing to form and continuing to spread apart.


      One more thing one what do you base your claim the heavens are galaxies?



      > 2. God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and
      > continues to place them in the spreading place (Hebrew
      > raqiya). He continues to finish the heavens and the earth,
      > according to the Hebrew text for the seventh day. We
      > observe great bursts of light from the early universe as
      > matter is energized by light. Jets of newly formed matter
      > emerge from point sources in countless galaxies.



      One again you pervert scripture a common practice of perverters of
      scripture. Genesis one and two say nothing of the kind. You then insert your
      own interpretation of your superficial observation. This comment is so mixed
      up it's hard to even tell what you are referring too.

      We should accept the text grammatically, not traditionally.

      > 3. God continues to call the stars to come out, to spread
      > out in unbroken continuity yet no star goes missing
      > (Isa 40:26). He spreads out the plural heavens like a tent,
      > into crumbly fine things (Isa 40:22). He spreads out dense
      > things into thin clouds in the heavens (Job 37:18).



      Isaiah 40:22 (KJV)

      22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants
      thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain,
      and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:



      Isaiah 40:26 (KJV)

      26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things,
      that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the
      greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.



      Job 37:18 (KJV)

      18 Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten
      looking glass?



      As can be seen when we look at real Bible these verses do not say what you
      claim they do.

      Try the Hebrew, rather than the KJV and you will see that the spreading of
      the heavens continues in unbroken continuity.


      >The stars did not accrete from space dust



      I agree with this point



      > but spread out form compact places.



      This however is not true.



      > The star streams do not close, they accelerate outwards
      > as billions of galaxies grew into huge, growth spirals.



      This claim is proven false by the fact that the stars in spiral galaxies
      including our own orbit the center in the opposite direction of spiral, and
      not with it as you claim. This phenomenon can be easily seen in sink. Fill a
      sink with water and then start the water spinning in the sink. It will form
      a spiral in opposite direction of the spin.


      False. We observe the history of how they came out and they historically
      followed the spiral. The notion that the rotate counter to the spiral (and
      the theory of density waves) was contrived with the notion that the
      properties of matter are not changing as the stars emerge from the tohu
      bohu core of the galaxy.

      Once again your myth is busted.



      > Stars sometimes have double-lobed explosions, but
      > a remnant continues. We observe stars with double
      > jets forming dusty nebulae in our own Milky Way.
      > Evidently material in the heart of the star continues
      > to form and move out from its formless state.



      And you base this on what? Stars produce lots and lots of energy from
      nuclear fusion and this can cause some time cause stars to blow off layers
      into space forming nebulae,

      Look at Herbig Haro stars in nebula - look at the infrared..



      > 4. The Earth also continues to increase in volume.

      This is a baseless 100% bogus claim. I challenge you to find one single bit
      of actual evidence to support this claim.


      Try reading a book from S. Warren Carey, the Australian geoligist who
      documents innumerable evidences for an earth that increases in size.


      > Bible states that during Adam's era it did not rain and water came up out
      of the ground to water the earth.



      No problem here.



      > Indeed, the continents fit together on a tiny globe
      > without major surface seas.



      This yet another 100% bogus claim. This has no base in fact. It only works
      in computer models that bend the contents as need to for them to fit
      together. This cab be done with any random arrangement of continents.

      Actually it works on any model. Carey made his models on real globes before
      computers.


      > Isaiah 42:5 mentions that. He spreads out in unbroken
      > continuity the earth and its offspring (what issues out
      > or is born from the earth).



      This verse says nothing of the kind. Once again lets look at a real Bible
      and not your perverted interpretation.


      What issues from teh Earth also spreads out, exactly as we confirm in the
      geology of the sea floor.

      Isaiah 42:5 (KJV)

      5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them
      out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he
      that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk
      therein:



      The context is clearly to creation and not a continual process further more
      it likely refers to the land and not the entire planet.

      He claims to be the God who continues to spread out the heavens and
      continues to spread out the Earth - exactly as we confirm in the geology of
      our planet and in visible galactic history.

      > Indeed, new earth crust keeps on oozing out along a global,
      > undersea expansion seam. The theory of subduction is denied
      > by the layered, undisturbed sediments in the oceanic trenches.



      WRONG! Only slow uniformitarian subduction has a problem with undisturbed
      sediments in the oceanic trenches. The subduction in Catastrophic Plate
      Tectonics has no problem with undisturbed sediments in the oceanic trenches
      since most of the subduction occurred before the sediments were laid down.



      > The problem with mathematical theories is that they were
      > contrived with the first law of the last days.



      WRONG! Your so called first law is a figment of your imagination and nothing
      more. No to mention the fact that you have to pervert II Peter 3:4 to get
      it.



      The simple fact is that your Changing Earth Creation idea is based entirely
      on a liberal textual theory started by Westcott and Hort that claims that
      God has not give people His word in their native languages but has allowed
      it to be corrupted. Furthermore on the bases of that theory you deny that
      that King James Bible is God's inerrant word in English and that in fact we
      do not have an authoritative copy of God's word, such that you are free to
      twist and manipulate the Greek and Hebrew for those that have learned
      neither.


      I look at all the texts in the original languages.

      You have the turned this twisting of God's word into an old Earth compromise
      view that tries to have it both ways by claiming vast amounts of time
      invented by the scoffers while also claiming only 6,000 years. Furthermore
      you then peace together superficial interpretation and flat out bogus claims
      as evidence for this view. To make this possible you twist II Peter 3:4 to
      mean a departure from the ancient idea intrinsic change. However your fake
      interpretation of scripture only superficially fit your superficial
      observations and interpretations and because when you try to project the
      rates of change suggested by those superficial observations and
      interpretations not only do they not agree with your fake interpretation of
      scripture but they don't agree with each other as well. So your solution is
      to attack the mathematics that shows your ideas to be erroneous so that when
      the contradictions are pointed out you can just dismiss it out hand has
      being based on you fake first law.

      I am not an Old Earther nor am I a young earther. I accept an ancient workd
      exactly as described in teh literal text with only 6,000 rotations around
      the Sun. I can do that because I am a Changing Earther - I accpet change as
      real which means I reject the first law of the last days - that all things
      remain the same.

      Put another way when some one with enough skill they to model your idea,
      like I have and calculate back the rates of your alleged evidence it becomes
      clear that not one aspect of work. So in your mind you conclude the problem
      is any attempt to apply mathematics to your ideas and not the ideas
      themselves.'



      You attack the mathematics used by science not because there is any thing
      wrong with it but because it exposes your entire Changing Earth Creation
      idea for the bogus idea it is.




      ----- Charles Creager Jr.

      Sorry Chuck for the hurried reply. I have to teach tomorrow on the subject
      - the glory of God. I am running out of time, although time does not exist
      - tomorrow is coming and I have lots of studies to do tonight. God's glory
      is visible today in the galaxies. Look!.

      For His glory,

      Victor


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Chuck
      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:45 PM To:
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 1, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of Victor McAllister
        Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:45 PM
        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical
        Universe



        >>>A scientist could argue, "Mathematics follows logical
        >>> principles like the identity law (A = A). . Nothing
        >>> in the visible universe follows the law of identity since
        >>> everything is observed to change.
        >>
        >> Here is yet another straw man argument. While the identity law
        >> is a basic principle of Mathematics is just that a basic principle.
        >> More advanced Mathematics such as Calculus does deal with
        >> change. Furthermore the observed changes in the universe follow
        >> the mathematics used to describe them.
        >
        > This is the heart of the mathematical problem. Calculus depends
        > on the notion of independent variables, things that change
        > independently of anything else, such as linear time.

        None of this changes the fact that your original statement is straw man
        argument. However if your changing Earth idea has any consistency an pattern
        to it there should still be a way to model it automatically.

        > In the visible universe, we never see anything that is independent.
        > We observe everything changing together, relationally.

        Not we but you. You are the only one that sees the universe this way.

        >>> Answer: Let's test this law by substituting hydrogen
        >>> atoms for symbolical A's. Hundreds of billions of
        >>> ancient galaxies shine from the ancient universe. The
        >>> more ancient the light, the more its light-clocks differ
        >>> from the light emitted by local hydrogen. The earliest
        >>> galaxy analyzed to date, clocked less than 8% of the
        >>> frequencies of modern hydrogen.
        >>
        >> This is not a fact but just your own personal interpretation
        >> of the observed what is called red-shift. Unlike your wording
        >> the term red-shift is not an interpretation by a description of
        >> what is actually observed. The term red-shift refers to the
        >> observation of spectral lines being seen as shifted to the red
        >> end of the spectrum and nothing more. The term blue-shift is
        >> also used for a shifting in the opposite direction.
        >
        > That is an observed fact. Light from long ago has a different
        > color than light from modern atoms.

        That is not what you said originally. Yes light from distant galaxies is
        redder than what is observed in a lab but that is not what you said. You
        were talking in terms of light clocks at the source which is an
        interpretation. As I said before there are other reasons why light from
        distant galaxies is redder than what is observed in a lab including a simple
        Doppler shift.

        > Because scientists begin their every thought with a a first law,
        > the one Peter predicted, they cannot even imagine that ancient
        > atoms shone with different colors than modern atoms.

        WRONG!! Besides the fact you first law bit is bogus, the problem is not that
        scientists can't imagine ancient atoms shining with different colors than
        modern atoms but that there is no reason to draw that conclusion given the
        fact that there are there other well established explanations for cosmic
        red-shift. One astronomer by the name of Halton Arp has actually proposed
        just such a model called intrinsic red-shift. So not only can it be imaged
        but it actually has been.

        >The ancient Egyptians painted the Sun red and the sky tan, as
        > it would have been if the Sun was red 3000 years ago. The
        > notion that our sky is blue is a recent phenomena. Homer
        > wrote of the wine-dark sea, the bronze sky, wine-colored oxen
        > and green honey. Xenophanes said the rainbow had three colors:
        > purple, green-yellow and red. Empedocles, Democritus and the
        > Pythagoreans thought the only colors were white, black, red and
        > yellow. Pliny, Quintilian and Cicero wrote that until Alexander's
        > time, the Greeks only painted with four colors. Lazarus Geiger,
        > made a study of color references in ancient sources. He claimed
        > that, over the centuries, languages developed a color sense in the
        > sequence: black and white; red; yellow; green and lastly blue. A
        > hundred years later, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay discovered that
        > languages evolve as they discern colors with the sequence: black
        > and white; red; green; yellow; and last of all blue. The colors the
        > ancient described are similar to the colors observed on Mars, that
        > has a sky that is tan from iron rust. The simplest explanation is
        > that the Sun shone red a few thousand years ago, as we observe
        > that ancient galaxies shine in red.

        Actually the simplest explanation is provided by Mars, Mar's atmosphere has
        the color it does because the dust in the air absorbs blue light.

        http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html

        Now the Genesis Flood would have put large a mounts of dust into the air
        that would have lingered for centuries after the flood resulting in as sky
        similar to Mars. Furthermore without such dust the Earth atmosphere would
        not skater light from a redder sun resulting in a black sky not a bronze
        one. This is evident from the fact that we have a blue sky and not a purple
        one.

        >> 1. The Doppler affect which is caused by the relative motion
        >> between the source and observer. This is used every day one
        >> Earth measuring the speed of planes and cars. In this case if
        >> the source and observer are heading away from each other
        >> there is a red-shift and when they are heading towards each
        >> other there is a blue-shift.
        >
        > This is an effect observed in experiments. No problem here.

        Therefore a Doppler affect is a viable explanation for galactic red-shift
        and thus there is no reason to even suspect your intrinsic change idea.

        >> 2. Gravitational red-shift was predicted by General Relativity,
        >> which is the shifting of light towards the red when it is coming
        >> out of a gravitational field. There is also a corresponding blue-shift
        >> when light is going into a gravitational field. This affect has been
        >> directly observed and measured and it fits the math of General
        >> Relativity.
        >
        > We do observe clocks running at different speeds depending on
        > their proximity to massive objects. However, the light does not
        > change its frequency in transit.

        I never said the light change its frequency but it does change its wave
        length. The gravitational reds-shift in General Relativity is a result of
        the fact that the light's frequency does not change in the process.

        >> 3. Also predicted by General Relativity is that light would be
        >> red-shifted by an expansion of space and blue-shift by a
        >> contraction of it.
        >
        > General relativity is based on the notion that the properties of
        > matter are fixed, not emerging. The GR effects are adequately
        > explained by relational changes in all matter.

        This is irrelevant to the fact that there are three other possible
        explanations for these red-shifts. Furthermore you have conceded that two of
        them are real, thus your intrinsic change is unneeded given that the
        phenomenon is readily explained by other known phenomenon that you
        personally admit to being real.

        >> All of which were known before the cosmic red-shift was
        >> actually observed and not created to explain it away as you
        >> seem to imply.
        >>
        >> That said this 8% of the frequencies observed in the lab is
        >> readily explainable by any of these factors or a combination
        >> of them. Fur more even if your interpretation were correct it
        >> would only decrease measured time by a factor 1 to 12.5.
        >> This would only increase the 6,000 years of the Biblical time
        >> scale to 75,000 years at current clock rates hardly the eons
        >> you are claiming. To stretch 6000 years into 4.5 billion would
        >> require a factor of 1 to 750,000. So these clocks would have
        >> be ticking at less than 0.000133% which would require a
        >> greater red shift than the cosmic back ground radiation. Thus
        >> even if you interpretation of cosmic red-shift were correct it
        >> would still disprove your changing Earth idea.
        >
        >You are rejecting what Solomon wrote. Time is in our minds.
        > It has no actual existence. What we observe in cosmic history
        > at many ranges is that the spectral clocks accelerate along with
        > the outward accelerating star streams.

        Solomon wrote noting of the kind; however it is not relevant to fact that
        the above shows your Changing Earth idea to be 100% bogus.

        Even if time is in only in our minds you still need to increase the orbital
        period of the Earth by a factor of more than 750,000 you make it equivalent
        to 4.5 billion current orbital period of the Earth and the most you get from
        galactic red-shift is an increase by a factor of 12.5. You are nick picking
        about terminology but the result are the same no mater how you state it. The
        fact remains that you Changing Earth idea does not work.

        >> Furthermore the vary terms you do use such as "frequencies"
        >> goes against you main premise because it is one of the very
        >> mathematical symbols you decry. No only that it is not an
        >> observed quantity but calculated by the very mathematics
        >> you are attacking specifically. The actual measured quantity
        >> is wave length, and you only get the frequency by dividing
        >> the wave length by the speed of light.
        >
        > I am using the word frequency in a relative sence, not with
        > respect to atomic perpetual motion standards as in the
        > scientific system. We reject the notion that their are any atoms
        > that do perpetual motion so we cannot define frequency in
        > a precise way, only relative to modern atoms or relative to
        > ancient atoms.

        Irrelevant because it does not change the fact that your "frequencies" are
        not what is actually observed, but what is actually observed are wave
        lengths. Even your relative frequencies need to be calculated based on the
        observed wave lengths. Nor does it change the fact that those relative
        frequencies are way too small for you changing Earth idea to work.

        >>> Pioneer 10 & 11 transmitted their clock signals from the past
        >>> as they exited the solar system in opposite directions. Their
        >>> clock frequencies changed with distance (relative to NASA's
        >>> hydrogen maser clocks of the moment) at approximately the
        >>> Hubble ratio.
        >>
        >> The Pioneer anomaly as it is called has had many proposed
        >> solutions from evolutionists and creationists a like and yours is
        >> just a new one added to the bunch, That said a resent study of
        >> the actual telemetry data has shown that effect is most likely a
        >> result of thermal emissions on the space craft reflecting off the
        >> high gain antenna dish. The observed changes in the affect
        >> over time are consistent with this conclusion.
        >>
        >> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
        >
        > I am not the only one who has proposed that clocks are
        > changing speed as the answer to the Pioneer anomaly. I am
        > aware of the thermal emissions hypothesis. The plutonium oxide
        > is decaying, putting out less heat as it ages. The radiators are out
        > past the edge of the dish antenna. Me thinks this is not unlike
        > subduction, invisible matter, black holes and other mathematical
        > stories.

        The affect results from heat that is passed to the rest of the spacecraft
        from the plutonium oxide decay and those parts are directly behind the dish
        antenna. The fact is that until I read this paper I saw the Pioneer anomaly
        as a useful tool and was disappointed to find such a mundane explanation
        demonstrated to fit the facts. I read the paper several times looking for a
        flaw in it but found none. This is not a mathematical story but a fact shown
        by the actual data that showed anomaly to begin with.


        >> The point is that while you may call mass, energy and
        >> time undetectable, symbolical things they are indeed
        >> descriptionsof real phenomenon that you can't just
        >> dismiss. The fact is that ALL of these are real and
        >> detectable phenomenon and your claims to the contrary
        >> do not change that fact.
        >
        > Real things are observable. Symbolical things are not,
        > they only exist in minds. No one has ever detected
        > symbolical, mathematical versions of reality.

        Language is nothing but symbolical things the represent reality.

        "Mass" is the word that represents the real properties of matter that is a
        resistance to changes in motion and determines the strength of it
        gravitational attraction.

        "Energy" is the word that represents the real property of the ability mater
        to do work.

        "Time" is the word that represents the real world phenomenon of events
        happening in sequence.

        "Car" is the word that represents real motorized vehicles.

        "House" is the word that represents real buildings in which people live.

        "Victor" is the word that represents the real you.

        "Charles" is the word that represents the real me.

        All of the words listed above are symbolic things that only exist in our
        minds but they represent real people, and things in reality, that is unless
        you don't really exist.

        >>> The laws do not even fit solar system history. A few
        >>> millennium ago, people recorded close planet passages
        >>> and the shattering of a nearby planet. The Bible mentions
        >>> both of these.
        >>
        >> These are baseless claims that you are making with out any
        >> references other than your personal claim. Please give actual
        >> references such as chapter and verse in the Bible so that
        >> people can check it out in a real Bible.
        >
        > Job 9:13 "God will not turn back His anger; Beneath Him
        > crouch the helpers of Rahab." The word Rahab means broad,
        > proud or storm. The Rahab that is shattered is not spelled the
        > same in Hebrew as the Canaanite woman. The word for god in
        > this verse is elowahh - used 56 times in the Bible, 40 times in
        > the book of Job. It can refer to a false God, such as
        >Habab 1:11 "But they will be held guilty, They whose strength
        > is their god." Or
        > Job 12:6 "The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those
        > who provoke God [el] are secure-- those who carry their god
        > [elowahh] in their hands."

        Job 9:13 (KJV)
        13 If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers do stoop under
        him.

        While the word translated the proud is "rahab" it is used as an adjective
        here and not a proper noun as you seem to think. Besides planets do not have
        helpers,

        > Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;
        > Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it
        > not Thou who cut Rahabin pieces, Who pierced the dragon?"

        Isaiah 51:9 (KJV)
        9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the
        ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut
        Rahab, and wounded the dragon?

        > The word LORD here is the personal name of the Jewish God,
        > the self existent one, so this passage is not referring to a
        > planet-god as in the Job 9 text.

        No dispute here, but then again "rahab" is not used a proper known in Job 9

        > The text says it happened long ago in the eon generations. The verb
        > for cutting Rahab indicates continuous action. If a great planet was
        > broken up, the pieces would continue to fragment. The piercing verb
        > describes an intensive action. The word dragon is tanniyn - an aquatic
        > dinosaur or sea serpent.

        While I agree that dragon (tanniyn) it is pure speculation that Rahab refers
        to a planet.

        > Psalm 89:8 - 11 O LORD God of hosts, who is like Thee, O
        > mighty LORD? Thy faithfulness also surrounds Thee. Thou
        > dost rule the swelling of the sea; When its waves rise, Thou
        > dost still them. Thou Thyself didst crush Rahab like one who
        > is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy mighty
        > arm. The heavens are Thine, the earth also is Thine; The
        > world and all it contains, Thou hast founded them.

        Psalm 89:8-11 (KJV)
        8 O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy
        faithfulness round about thee?
        9 Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou
        stillest them.
        10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast
        scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.
        11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and the
        fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.

        Still nothing to really connect Rahab to a planet.

        > Job 26:11-14 "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his
        > rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom
        > he cut Rahab to pieces. By his breath the skies became fair;
        > his hand pierced the gliding serpent. And these are but the
        > outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of
        > him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"

        Job 26:11-14 (KJV)
        11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
        12 He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth
        through the proud.
        13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the
        crooked serpent.
        14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of
        him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?

        Once again "rahab" is translated as the proud is it is used as an adjective
        here and not a proper noun.

        The result is that there is no real connection made to a planet. Your claim
        that it is, is nothing more than speculation. However even if it is a
        destroyed planet is not what I was referring to. Nor is it a problem any
        mathematical models of the solar system be they Old Earth or Yung Earth. I
        was particularly referring to your claim of close encounters between
        planets.

        >>> Visible cosmic history defies the laws of physics.
        >> WRONG! It is only your personal interpretation of your
        >> own superficial look at galaxies that defies the laws of
        >> physics, and that is because they have no bases in reality.
        >
        > Yet anyone who cares to believe cosmic history can see the
        > simple visible evidence for stars emerging and spreading
        > out from compact sources, exactly as described by the
        > Biblical creator.

        Except for the fact that both your description of the cosmic history and
        what the Bible says are totally bogus.

        >>> The problem is that the mathematical laws were founded
        >>> on an inflexible law. What law? In the last days, the
        >>> Apostle Peter wrote, mockers will come. They will claim
        >>> evidence from dead ancestors supports their first law
        >>> "arche ktiseous" that "all things remain the same."
        >>
        >> WRONG!! We have been over this many times before.
        >> This is you own personal translation and not what a real Bible.
        >
        > If it is my personal translation, then why do scientists do exactly
        > what Peter predicted. WHy do they obfuscate the age of the
        > plural heavens and disregard the twice flooded earth with stories
        > about magical things like invisible matter and vacuum explosions.
        > Clearly this prophesy has come true and God is about to do what
        > He says, make foolish the wise of this age.

        Because it not verse five that is in dispute though your wording not what
        the Bible actually says.

        The fact is that Peter's prophesy has come true, what we are dispute is the
        meaning of the prophesy it self and not the fact that has bee fulfilled.

        >The actual reference is 2 Peter 3:4
        > 2 Peter 3:4 (KJV) 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.
        >
        >> Nothing about your so called first law and noting about
        >> "evidence from dead ancestors supports" nor does it say
        >> "all things remain the same." The fact is that your personal
        >> corrupt translation does not even fit the Greek
        >> "����� �������" is no place translated "first law" except
        >> by you Victor but is always translated as "beginning of
        >> the creation" or "beginning of the world." I challenge
        >> you victor to find just one person in the last 2000 years
        >> other than your self or some one influenced by you that
        >> translates this as "first law.
        >
        > I have shown you before where it is translated as a first law.
        > Jesus used teh exact expression when he talked about GOd's
        > firs law to human societies. However, this did not fit the
        > model of reality traditionally handed down by the Catholics . . .

        Which I totally refuted then and now do so again. As is so often the case
        you do not give a references however Jesus is recorded as using the phrase
        "����� �������" twice.

        Mark 10:6 (KJV)
        6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

        Mark 13:19 (KJV)
        19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the
        beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall
        be.

        In both cases not only is it translated as "the beginning of the creation"
        but the context requires it. In fact I check several translations and they
        all say "the beginning of the creation" or close to it. Not one says "first
        law". ONLY you say first law, no one else.

        >> The phase "all things continue as they were" does not mean
        >> "all things remain the same" but it is referring to processes
        >> going on with out interruption by such thing a medicals.
        >> This is the real first principle of the real scoffers that fulfill this
        prophecy.
        >
        > panta houtos diamenei - means all things remain the same

        ����� = all things

        ����� = in this manner

        �������� = continue

        Put them together and you get "all things in this manner continue."
        Adjusting the word order for a better fit to English results in "all things
        continue in this manner" which is a close mach to "all things continue as
        they were" Which is more in line with what the scoffers are actually saying
        than "all things remain the same."

        However even if you are right on this point, saying that the basic
        properties of matter do not intrinsically change is not saying that "all
        things remain the same" but that the change that is observed comes is a
        result of another source.

        Thus you are wrong on two counts.

        >>> Scientists have invented mythical things to protect their
        >>> fundamental creed. A tiny bit of vacuum exploded and
        >>> created everything out of nothing.
        >>
        >> WRONG! What you are referring to here is the purely atheistic
        >> Big Bang and it is required to try to explain the universe with
        >> out God, and not to protect your so called first law.
        >
        > Changing Earth Creationists have a different world view because
        > we reject this first law, which is the historical basis for western
        > science. YE or OE creationists also are followers of this law,
        > not just the evolutionists.

        This is a Red Herring be cause even if it were true it would be irrelevant
        to point in question which is that it is the atheistic Big Bang that
        requires a vacuum to explode and imagine such a thing because they leave God
        out of the picture not because of a disbelief in intrinsic change. Actually
        intrinsic change help the Big Bang since the laws of physics could be
        changed to fit what ever is required.

        It is NOT a disbelief in intrinsic change that is being used as an excuse to
        scoff at the Bible, but it IS the uniformity of physical processes, like
        radiometric dating, that are used as an excuse to scoff at the Bible.


        >>> All of these speculative myths were woven out of mathematical
        >>> cloth. Yet none of them are necessary if we accept that the
        >>> creation is enslaved to change that is an orderly arrangement
        >>> (Romans 8:19 -22).
        >>
        >>Once again you pervert scripture to make your point. Try reading
        >> a real Bible for a change.
        >> Romans 8:19-22 (KJV)
        >> 19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
        >> manifestation of the sons of God.
        >> 20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
        >> but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
        >> 21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
        >> bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
        >> of God.
        >> 22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
        >> in pain together until now.
        >>
        >> These verses are fully consistent with observed thermodynamic
        >> deterioration
        >>
        >> I have shown you before that the actual text contradicts the
        >> 2nd law in at least three different aspects.

        And I have already totally refuted that claim. By the way the observed
        thermodynamic deterioration goes beyond the 2nd Law of the thermodynamics.
        It includes the affect of applied energy on entropy.
        http://tinyurl.com/7x8glll

        >> No one during the biblical age could have imagined laws of
        >> thermodynamics..

        NO ONE? Not even the Lord Jesus Christ? Besides all that means is that it
        proves that Paul wrote by divine revelation and not just what he knew or
        could even imagine.

        >>> 1. God finished creating the plural heavens (the galaxies) and
        >>> the Earth first. The earth was formless until God continued to
        >>> command light to continue to be.
        >>
        >> You pervert scripture yet again adding you own words. First
        >> let's look at a real Bible.
        >>
        >>Genesis 1:1-3 (KJV)
        >>1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
        >>2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
        >> was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God
        >> moved upon the face of the waters.
        >>3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
        >>
        >> Among other things you insert the word continue which
        >> is not justified by the Hebrew. The simple fact it that you
        >> repeated claim that the Bible says something and then
        >> insert you own word and not the words of a real Bible.
        >> No surprises since you have made it clear that you not
        >> believe that we have a real Bible.
        >
        >The verb form is imperfect, a continuing action both for
        >> the commands of God and for the results - for light
        >> to continue to be.

        Yes the Hebrew verb is in the imperfect tense but using that them in English
        simply changes verse 3 to "And God saying, Let there be light: and there was
        light." It does not require or even imply the insertion of "continued" but
        you notions do require it. In translating from Hebrew to English the past
        tense is indicated by context,

        By the way you still have explained on what you base your claim that the
        heavens are galaxies?

        >>> 2. God continues to form the Sun, Moon and stars and
        >>> continues to place them in the spreading place (Hebrew
        >>> raqiya). He continues to finish the heavens and the earth,
        >>> according to the Hebrew text for the seventh day. We
        >>> observe great bursts of light from the early universe as
        >>> matter is energized by light. Jets of newly formed matter
        >>> emerge from point sources in countless galaxies.
        >>
        >> One again you pervert scripture a common practice of
        >> perverters of scripture. Genesis one and two say nothing
        >> of the kind. You then insert your own interpretation of
        >> your superficial observation. This comment is so mixed
        >> up it's hard to even tell what you are referring too.
        >
        > We should accept the text grammatically, not traditionally.

        I did look at the text in the Hebrew grammar and it does not say what you
        claim it does.

        >> As can be seen when we look at real Bible these verses
        >> do not say what you claim they do.
        >
        > Try the Hebrew, rather than the KJV and you will see that
        > the spreading of the heavens continues in unbroken continuity.

        I see that the Hebrew uses the imperfect tense as indicated by spreading but
        I see absolutely no reference to unbroken continuity.

        By the way, given the fact that some of the translators of the KJV were
        reading Hebrew as kids, I would say they were far better qualified than you
        are at understanding Hebrew.

        >>> The star streams do not close, they accelerate outwards
        >>> as billions of galaxies grew into huge, growth spirals.
        >>
        >> This claim is proven false by the fact that the stars in spiral
        >> galaxies including our own orbit the center in the opposite
        >> direction of spiral, and not with it as you claim. This
        >> phenomenon can be easily seen in sink. Fill a sink with
        >> water and then start the water spinning in the sink. It will
        >> form a spiral in opposite direction of the spin.
        >
        >False. We observe the history of how they came out and
        > they historically followed the spiral.

        We observer no such thing, you think you do because you are looking at these
        galaxies in a superficial manner.

        > The notion that the rotate counter to the spiral (and the
        > theory of density waves) was contrived with the notion
        > that the properties of matter are not changing as the stars
        > emerge from the core of the galaxy.

        1. The motion of stars around galactic cores has actually been measured and
        their motion is indeed opposite the direction of the spiral. They were
        measured by way of Doppler shifts a phenomenon you have already admitted is
        real.

        2. Density waves are not the only theory on how the spiral shape of galaxies
        are formed there at least two others that have the stars orbiting opposite
        the spiral.

        >>> Stars sometimes have double-lobed explosions, but
        >>> a remnant continues. We observe stars with double
        >>> jets forming dusty nebulae in our own Milky Way.
        >>> Evidently material in the heart of the star continues
        >>> to form and move out from its formless state.
        >>
        >> And you base this on what? Stars produce lots and
        >> lots of energy from nuclear fusion and this can cause
        >> some time cause stars to blow off layers into space
        >> forming nebulae,
        >
        > Look at Herbig Haro stars in nebula - look at the infrared.

        They were included in what I was already referring to. Stars blow off
        material all the time. The sun dose so, they are called solar flairs. Herbig
        Haro stars are ejecting material in jets from their polls. It looks like you
        are just speculating here. No surpise.

        >>> 4. The Earth also continues to increase in volume.
        >>
        >> This is a baseless 100% bogus claim. I challenge you to
        >> find one single bit of actual evidence to support this claim.
        >
        > Try reading a book from S. Warren Carey, the Australian geologist
        > who documents innumerable evidences for an earth that increases in size.

        Yet actual measurements of the size of the Earth show no increase in size.

        >>> Indeed, the continents fit together on a tiny globe
        >>> without major surface seas.
        >> This yet another 100% bogus claim. This has no base
        >> in fact. It only works in computer models that bend
        >> the contents as need to for them to fit together. This
        >> cab be done with any random arrangement of continents.
        >
        > Actually it works on any model. Carey made his models
        > on real globes before computers.

        I have seen these globes and they are anything but a perfect fit.

        >>> Isaiah 42:5 mentions that. He spreads out in unbroken
        >>> continuity the earth and its offspring (what issues out
        >>> or is born from the earth).
        >>
        >> This verse says nothing of the kind. Once again lets look at
        >> a real Bible and not your perverted interpretation.
        >>
        >>Isaiah 42:5 (KJV)
        >>5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens,
        >> and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and
        >> that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the
        >> people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:
        >>
        >> The context is clearly to creation and not a continual
        >> process further more it likely refers to the land and not
        >> the entire planet.
        >
        > What issues from teh Earth also spreads out, exactly as we
        > confirm in the geology of the sea floor.
        >
        > He claims to be the God who continues to spread out the
        > heavens and continues to spread out the Earth - exactly as
        > we confirm in the geology of our planet and in visible
        > galactic history.

        The biggest problem in translating Hebrew into English is that the verb
        tenses do not line up. English verb tenses are focused on time past,
        present, and future wile Hebrew tenses are focused on action such as perfect
        an imperfect. As a result time needs to be based on context and the context
        of the first phase is creation thus the Hebrew Active Participle is properly
        translated as past practicable for all three verbs. The uses created and
        stretched.

        Now after looking at this verse again I see that I made a mistake about the
        second phase connecting it to the first. My mistake resulted from the fact
        the word "spread" is both past and present from of the verb "to spread" it
        is also the past and present Participle from of the verb. So it turns out
        that the second phrase is not limited to creation but neither does it imply
        an expanding Earth

        1. God is spreading the oceanic crust by way of volcanic activity at the
        oceanic ridges but without increasing the size of the Earth thanks to
        subduction.

        2. God is spreading the land by volcanic activity and erosion filling in
        parts of the ocean area. Mountains are further being spread out by way of
        erosion.

        The verse is 100% correct in both Hebrew and KJV English however I
        personally made a mistake.

        By the way the fact that God had stretched out the heavens by stretching
        space it self is evident from galactic redshift.

        \

        >>> The problem with mathematical theories is that they
        >>> were contrived with the first law of the last days.
        >>
        >> WRONG! Your so called first law is a figment of your
        >> imagination and nothing more. No to mention the fact
        >> that you have to pervert II Peter 3:4 to get it.
        >>
        >> The simple fact is that your Changing Earth Creation
        > > idea is based entirely on a liberal textual theory started
        >> by Westcott and Hort that claims that God has not give
        >> people His word in their native languages but has
        >> allowed it to be corrupted. Furthermore on the bases of
        >> that theory you deny that that King James Bible is God's
        >> inerrant word in English and that in fact we do not have
        >> an authoritative copy of God's word, such that you are
        >> free to twist and manipulate the Greek and Hebrew for
        >>those that have learned neither.
        >
        > I look at all the texts in the original languages.

        Ok, but which textual line do you consider authoritative? That is which
        textual line do you consider closer the original autographs?









        ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

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

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





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Victor McAllister
        ... Peter said KNOW THIS FIRST. First in importance and precedence. What is the context? The age of the plural heavens and the geology of earth. What must we
        Message 3 of 9 , Jan 1, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:50 AM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:

          > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com]
          > On
          > Behalf Of Victor McAllister
          > Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:45 PM
          > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical
          > Universe
          >
          >
          >
          > >>>A scientist could argue, "Mathematics follows logical
          > >>> principles like the identity law (A = A). . Nothing
          > >>> in the visible universe follows the law of identity since
          > >>> everything is observed to change.
          > >>
          > >> Here is yet another straw man argument. While the identity law
          > >> is a basic principle of Mathematics is just that a basic principle.
          > >> More advanced Mathematics such as Calculus does deal with
          > >> change. Furthermore the observed changes in the universe follow
          > >> the mathematics used to describe them.
          > >
          > > This is the heart of the mathematical problem. Calculus depends
          > > on the notion of independent variables, things that change
          > > independently of anything else, such as linear time.
          >
          > None of this changes the fact that your original statement is straw man
          > argument. However if your changing Earth idea has any consistency an
          > pattern
          > to it there should still be a way to model it automatically.
          >
          > > In the visible universe, we never see anything that is independent.
          > > We observe everything changing together, relationally.
          >
          > Not we but you. You are the only one that sees the universe this way.
          >
          > >>> Answer: Let's test this law by substituting hydrogen
          > >>> atoms for symbolical A's. Hundreds of billions of
          > >>> ancient galaxies shine from the ancient universe. The
          > >>> more ancient the light, the more its light-clocks differ
          > >>> from the light emitted by local hydrogen. The earliest
          > >>> galaxy analyzed to date, clocked less than 8% of the
          > >>> frequencies of modern hydrogen.
          > >>
          > >> This is not a fact but just your own personal interpretation
          > >> of the observed what is called red-shift. Unlike your wording
          > >> the term red-shift is not an interpretation by a description of
          > >> what is actually observed. The term red-shift refers to the
          > >> observation of spectral lines being seen as shifted to the red
          > >> end of the spectrum and nothing more. The term blue-shift is
          > >> also used for a shifting in the opposite direction.
          > >
          > > That is an observed fact. Light from long ago has a different
          > > color than light from modern atoms.
          >
          > That is not what you said originally. Yes light from distant galaxies is
          > redder than what is observed in a lab but that is not what you said. You
          > were talking in terms of light clocks at the source which is an
          > interpretation. As I said before there are other reasons why light from
          > distant galaxies is redder than what is observed in a lab including a
          > simple
          > Doppler shift.
          >
          > > Because scientists begin their every thought with a a first law,
          > > the one Peter predicted, they cannot even imagine that ancient
          > > atoms shone with different colors than modern atoms.
          >
          > WRONG!! Besides the fact you first law bit is bogus, the problem is not
          > that
          > scientists can't imagine ancient atoms shining with different colors than
          > modern atoms but that there is no reason to draw that conclusion given the
          > fact that there are there other well established explanations for cosmic
          > red-shift. One astronomer by the name of Halton Arp has actually proposed
          > just such a model called intrinsic red-shift. So not only can it be imaged
          > but it actually has been.
          >

          Peter said KNOW THIS FIRST. First in importance and precedence. What is the
          context? The age of the plural heavens and the geology of earth. What must
          we know first? Mockers will come saying all things remain the same.

          I had wonderful Christian teachers who loved the Lord and His word. Yet
          they taught me to think with the Western tradition, that was founded on
          that very idea, that all things remain the same, that the properties of
          matter are fixed, not continually emerging. It was only when I decided to
          stop being double minded, tailoring the Bible to fit the traditions of men,
          that I was able to see the simple, visible evidence in the galaxies that
          supports the actual words of the Bible, not a scientific white wash, trying
          to make it look scientific.

          I have communicated with Halton Arp and read his books. (By the way his
          middle name is Christian). Narliker and Arp have proposed intrinsic
          redshift, but they do not accept that matter changes relationally
          (together). They can't do that because they were trained to think with the
          scientific paradigm. When things change relationally, there are no
          constants, no independent variables, no mathematical solutions to the
          universe. Yet we can see the very words of the Hebrew Bible right before
          our eyes, how the stars continue to form and spread out in the spreading
          place (Hebrew raqiya) as billions of galaxies grew from tiny naked globs.
          We see how God continues to give form to substances as He continues to
          command light to continue to be, exactly as spelled as in the Hebrew text,
          but not in the traditional Catholic exegesis that all modern translations
          follow.


          >
          > >The ancient Egyptians painted the Sun red and the sky tan, as
          > > it would have been if the Sun was red 3000 years ago. The
          > > notion that our sky is blue is a recent phenomena. Homer
          > > wrote of the wine-dark sea, the bronze sky, wine-colored oxen
          > > and green honey. Xenophanes said the rainbow had three colors:
          > > purple, green-yellow and red. Empedocles, Democritus and the
          > > Pythagoreans thought the only colors were white, black, red and
          > > yellow. Pliny, Quintilian and Cicero wrote that until Alexander's
          > > time, the Greeks only painted with four colors. Lazarus Geiger,
          > > made a study of color references in ancient sources. He claimed
          > > that, over the centuries, languages developed a color sense in the
          > > sequence: black and white; red; yellow; green and lastly blue. A
          > > hundred years later, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay discovered that
          > > languages evolve as they discern colors with the sequence: black
          > > and white; red; green; yellow; and last of all blue. The colors the
          > > ancient described are similar to the colors observed on Mars, that
          > > has a sky that is tan from iron rust. The simplest explanation is
          > > that the Sun shone red a few thousand years ago, as we observe
          > > that ancient galaxies shine in red.
          >
          > Actually the simplest explanation is provided by Mars, Mar's atmosphere has
          > the color it does because the dust in the air absorbs blue light.
          >
          > http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html
          >
          >
          Of course! Modern matter does not shine with red colors as it did during
          the days of the patriarchs so the only way we can see a bronze sky and a
          red sun is to filter the white light of the modern sun through rusty dust.
          Since the ancients never said the sky was blue and they did say it was
          bronze colored, what is wrong with believing what we see in the distant
          heavens - that all ancient matter shone with red spectra (which supports a
          universe where the properties of all matter are emergent). This is
          certified by the fact that a biblical version of geology is confirmed by
          the fact that the continents only fit together on a tiny globe without
          major surface seas. Three times the Bible says the earth spreads out in
          unbroken continuity, even that which is born or issues out from the earth
          also spreads out.
          .

          > Now the Genesis Flood would have put large a mounts of dust into the air
          > that would have lingered for centuries after the flood resulting in as sky
          > similar to Mars. Furthermore without such dust the Earth atmosphere would
          > not skater light from a redder sun resulting in a black sky not a bronze
          > one. This is evident from the fact that we have a blue sky and not a purple
          > one.
          >
          >
          That is an interesting hypothesis, since it rained for 40 days. Rain cleans
          dust out of the atmosphere, not the opposite. The water continued to rise
          for another 150 days as the underground aquifers (the tehom) continued to
          collapse. If you want to see what an underground tehom looked at, we have
          on preserved in the Burgess shale. The place was teeming with life, the
          soft bodies of worms still in their worm holes etc. The cliff face seems to
          be the walls of the tehom, the underground sea.

          Have you ever wondered why there are hundreds of layers of coal seams in
          the Ruhr valley in Germany? Forests grew up in a single season and died
          leaving layered sediments sandwiched between deep water specimen in sand.
          How could a forest grow in a season? Ancient days and years were much
          longer as Jacob clearly spells out. The earth was much closer to the Sun,
          since the Bible clearly says that the Sun, Moon and stars were placed in
          the spreading place. The Sun shone in infrared so that the vegetation
          (trees) could grow in a single long day. Me thinks you are twisting the
          text of the BIble to fit the very idea the Bible warns us about - the first
          law of the last day mockers - that all things remain the same. Perhaps the
          reason you are loosing the war of beginnings is you are tailoring the Bible
          to fit science. This has caused millions to reject the simple creation text
          that we confirm in a growing earth and galactic history.


          > >> 1. The Doppler affect which is caused by the relative motion
          > >> between the source and observer. This is used every day one
          > >> Earth measuring the speed of planes and cars. In this case if
          > >> the source and observer are heading away from each other
          > >> there is a red-shift and when they are heading towards each
          > >> other there is a blue-shift.
          > >
          > > This is an effect observed in experiments. No problem here.
          >
          > Therefore a Doppler affect is a viable explanation for galactic red-shift
          > and thus there is no reason to even suspect your intrinsic change idea.
          >
          >
          Dopplers are minor adjustments due only to relative motion (away or towards
          us). A "redshift" of 10.5 requires that either ancient galaxies are moving
          away at several times the speed of light, or that we "normalize" the
          mathematics by claiming the vacuum is spreading apart. In cosmological
          expansion, the galaxies are not really moving. They are standing still
          relative to local vacuums. It is the vacuum of space time that is allegedly
          expanding. This is an ad hoc story if their ever was one. We never observe
          ancient galaxies angularly separating. General relativity cannot
          countenance the visible history of how galaxies formed, which only fits the
          biblical text and cannot be made to fit the scientific dogma. The
          scientific universe that is 99% undetectable magic to protect the very
          first law Peter predicted for the last days.

          >> 2. Gravitational red-shift was predicted by General Relativity,
          >> which is the shifting of light towards the red when it is coming
          >> out of a gravitational field. There is also a corresponding blue-shift
          >> when light is going into a gravitational field. This affect has been
          >> directly observed and measured and it fits the math of General
          >> Relativity.
          >
          > We do observe clocks running at different speeds depending on
          > their proximity to massive objects. However, the light does not
          > change its frequency in transit.

          I never said the light change its frequency but it does change its wave
          > length. The gravitational reds-shift in General Relativity is a result of
          > the fact that the light's frequency does not change in the process.
          >

          >> 3. Also predicted by General Relativity is that light would be
          > >> red-shifted by an expansion of space and blue-shift by a
          > >> contraction of it.
          > >
          > > General relativity is based on the notion that the properties of
          > > matter are fixed, not emerging. The GR effects are adequately
          > > explained by relational changes in all matter.
          >
          > This is irrelevant to the fact that there are three other possible
          > explanations for these red-shifts. Furthermore you have conceded that two
          > of
          > them are real, thus your intrinsic change is unneeded given that the
          > phenomenon is readily explained by other known phenomenon that you
          > personally admit to being real.
          >
          >
          I only conceded Doppler, which is a relatively mild effect. GR was not
          contrived with the first law. In fact, Einstein orginally called relativity
          - a theory of invariance. He was simply twisting reality to fit his concept
          that matter is not a dynamic relation, a relation with light as the Bible
          shows (Eph 5:13 and Genesis first Day). Even the measuring system and the
          laws of physics depend on this very basic assumption - in modern words -
          that atoms are perpetual motion engines.

          Look, I understand where you are coming from. I also used to do what you
          do. I loved GR and mathematical physics. I worked with high tech
          mathematical physics for many years. I did not know that my way of thinking
          was founded on ideas from Catholic scholastics who adjusted Aristotle's
          metaphysics to fit their interpretations of the Bible. I was a Young Earth
          Creationist because I did not know how to think like Moses or the prophets.
          Consequently I had great problems with chronologies and natural histories.
          The worst part was that I really imagined that I could convince people to
          believe the Bible using science.

          One day, I repented of these activities. I asked God to give me wisdom - to
          help me abandon my double minded way of thinking. For years had had been
          tailoring the Bible to fit my scientific way of thinking. It was only
          after I repented of forcing God's word to fit my western ideas that I was
          able to see things in the scripture that previously, when I read them, it
          were as though a veil were over my mind. I did not know that Paul had
          warned that the elementary ideas of philosophy and the tradition of men
          (the schooling of men) would take us captive. It is terrible to have ones
          mind in captivity, to not know how to think except in the confines of the
          western box. I could only thing with the system that was founded on the
          very "first law" Peter predicted for the last days. No wonder I had so much
          trouble understanding creation.

          It was only when I accepted the ancient way of thinking of Moses and the
          prophets that I was able to take the scriptures literally and the simple
          visible evidence from galactic history as we see it. I have no probelm with
          an ancient universe in which the Earth has only orbited the Sun 6,000 times
          because I no longer follow the Catholic notions about time.

          Becoming a Changing Earth Creationist does not require science degrees, or
          mathematical ways of thinking. It requires that one read the literal words
          of God in the simplicity of how ancient people thought, before the pagans
          and Catholics tried to invent science. There is not a single verse in the
          Bible that an ancient person would have understood scientifically. Moses
          could no more imagine a scientfiic understanding of creation that he could
          have understood a relational database. Neither the scientific creed nor
          databases existed in Moses day.


          > >> All of which were known before the cosmic red-shift was
          > >> actually observed and not created to explain it away as you
          > >> seem to imply.
          > >>
          > >> That said this 8% of the frequencies observed in the lab is
          > >> readily explainable by any of these factors or a combination
          > >> of them. Fur more even if your interpretation were correct it
          > >> would only decrease measured time by a factor 1 to 12.5.
          > >> This would only increase the 6,000 years of the Biblical time
          > >> scale to 75,000 years at current clock rates hardly the eons
          > >> you are claiming. To stretch 6000 years into 4.5 billion would
          > >> require a factor of 1 to 750,000. So these clocks would have
          > >> be ticking at less than 0.000133% which would require a
          > >> greater red shift than the cosmic back ground radiation. Thus
          > >> even if you interpretation of cosmic red-shift were correct it
          > >> would still disprove your changing Earth idea.
          > >
          > >You are rejecting what Solomon wrote. Time is in our minds.
          > > It has no actual existence. What we observe in cosmic history
          > > at many ranges is that the spectral clocks accelerate along with
          > > the outward accelerating star streams.
          >
          > Solomon wrote noting of the kind; however it is not relevant to fact that
          > the above shows your Changing Earth idea to be 100% bogus.
          >
          >
          Solomon is writing what all people in his days believed. The actuality of
          time had not been invented then. Ancient people simply used the varying
          cycles of the heavens to record events and to regulate their lives. The
          notion that time exists came 1300 years after Solomon, inspired by the
          ideas of a pagan philosopher (Plotinus) and a Catholic disciple of Plotinus
          (Augustine). The notion of linear time was more than 2500 years yet future
          to Solomon. There is not a shred of visible evidence for the existence of
          time. No one has measured its temperature or duration (against what would
          you measure its duration)? Yet what the ancients recorded about the vast
          eons of the early people is visibly confirmed. We observe how orbits
          acclerate outwards in billions of galaxies (at many ranges) grew into huge
          growth spirals. The Biblical Creator says that is what He does in unbroken
          continuity - continue to call the stars to come out.


          > Even if time is in only in our minds you still need to increase the orbital
          > period of the Earth by a factor of more than 750,000 you make it equivalent
          > to 4.5 billion current orbital period of the Earth and the most you get
          > from
          > galactic red-shift is an increase by a factor of 12.5. You are nick
          > picking
          > about terminology but the result are the same no mater how you state it.
          > The
          > fact remains that you Changing Earth idea does not work.
          >
          > You are still trying to relate reality to the idea that something does not
          change. What we observe is that the atoms and the orbits both accelerate.
          There are no fixed references or constants visible in the real uinverse
          (the one we observe with light) not the symbolical universe of
          mathematics.



          > >> Furthermore the vary terms you do use such as "frequencies"
          > >> goes against you main premise because it is one of the very
          > >> mathematical symbols you decry. No only that it is not an
          > >> observed quantity but calculated by the very mathematics
          > >> you are attacking specifically. The actual measured quantity
          > >> is wave length, and you only get the frequency by dividing
          > >> the wave length by the speed of light.
          > >
          > > I am using the word frequency in a relative sence, not with
          > > respect to atomic perpetual motion standards as in the
          > > scientific system. We reject the notion that their are any atoms
          > > that do perpetual motion so we cannot define frequency in
          > > a precise way, only relative to modern atoms or relative to
          > > ancient atoms.
          >
          > Irrelevant because it does not change the fact that your "frequencies" are
          > not what is actually observed, but what is actually observed are wave
          > lengths. Even your relative frequencies need to be calculated based on the
          > observed wave lengths. Nor does it change the fact that those relative
          > frequencies are way too small for you changing Earth idea to work.
          >

          We can't actually measure frequencies or wavelength - without a fixed
          standard. What standard does western science use? THe idea Peter predicted
          fo4r the last days, that all things remain the same. Scientific empiricism
          was founded on the notion that matter is unchanging in being

          >>> Pioneer 10 & 11 transmitted their clock signals from the past
          >>> as they exited the solar system in opposite directions. Their
          >>> clock frequencies changed with distance (relative to NASA's
          >>> hydrogen maser clocks of the moment) at approximately the
          >>> Hubble ratio.
          >>
          >> The Pioneer anomaly as it is called has had many proposed
          >> solutions from evolutionists and creationists a like and yours is
          >> just a new one added to the bunch, That said a resent study of
          >> the actual telemetry data has shown that effect is most likely a
          >> result of thermal emissions on the space craft reflecting off the
          >> high gain antenna dish. The observed changes in the affect
          >> over time are consistent with this conclusion.
          >>
          >> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
          >
          > I am not the only one who has proposed that clocks are
          > changing speed as the answer to the Pioneer anomaly. I am
          > aware of the thermal emissions hypothesis. The plutonium oxide
          > is decaying, putting out less heat as it ages. The radiators are out
          > past the edge of the dish antenna. Me thinks this is not unlike
          > subduction, invisible matter, black holes and other mathematical
          > stories.

          The affect results from heat that is passed to the rest of the spacecraft
          > from the plutonium oxide decay and those parts are directly behind the dish
          > antenna. The fact is that until I read this paper I saw the Pioneer anomaly
          > as a useful tool and was disappointed to find such a mundane explanation
          > demonstrated to fit the facts. I read the paper several times looking for a
          > flaw in it but found none. This is not a mathematical story but a fact
          > shown
          > by the actual data that showed anomaly to begin with.
          >
          >
          >
          In seven and a half years of monitoring the Pioneer "Doppler shifts" they
          lost 1.5 seconds relative to NASA's clocks of the moment relative to the
          expected clock rates. Other spinning space craft, such as Ulysses and
          Galileo, showed the same effects. Every attempt to land on a planet always
          lands long, not because they did not adjust the orbit repeatedly with
          Doppler navigation. Even MSL, with its guided descent, landed long. They
          did not take into account that distant clocks, because they are in the
          past, are clocking slower speeds than the clocks of the moment. Even when
          spacecraft swing passed Earth for a "gravity boost, they also experience a
          fly-by anomaly an unexpected boost in speed. I propose they are one and the
          same effect. They are navigating with Doppler, not taking into account that
          yesterdays clocks run slower than todays. because yesterdays atoms were
          relationally different from todays.

          This is what we observe in galactic history. That ancient clocks pulsed at
          tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern atoms. The proof that this is
          real is how the star streams moved out, not closing, as billions of
          galaxies grew into huge, growth spirals. This is the best proof for the
          Biblical creator because what we see is exactly what He says He is doing in
          unbroken continuity, calling the stars to come out, spreading out the
          plural heavens from dense things to fine spread out structures.

          >> The point is that while you may call mass, energy and
          >> time undetectable, symbolical things they are indeed

          > >> descriptionsof real phenomenon that you can't just
          > >> dismiss. The fact is that ALL of these are real and
          > >> detectable phenomenon and your claims to the contrary
          > >> do not change that fact.
          > >
          > > Real things are observable. Symbolical things are not,
          > > they only exist in minds. No one has ever detected
          > > symbolical, mathematical versions of reality.
          >
          > Language is nothing but symbolical things the represent reality.
          >
          > "Mass" is the word that represents the real properties of matter that is a
          > resistance to changes in motion and determines the strength of it
          > gravitational attraction.
          >
          > "Energy" is the word that represents the real property of the ability mater
          > to do work.
          >
          > "Time" is the word that represents the real world phenomenon of events
          > happening in sequence.
          >
          > "Car" is the word that represents real motorized vehicles.
          >
          > "House" is the word that represents real buildings in which people live.
          >
          > "Victor" is the word that represents the real you.
          >
          >
          Cars are visible and so are houses. Mass energy and time have no
          correlation with anything visible. They only have symbolical existence,
          only existing in human minds. They are perfectly undectectable and were
          contrived mathematically with the western "first law".



          > "Charles" is the word that represents the real me.
          >
          > All of the words listed above are symbolic things that only exist in our
          > minds but they represent real people, and things in reality, that is unless
          > you don't really exist.
          >
          > >>> The laws do not even fit solar system history. A few
          > >>> millennium ago, people recorded close planet passages
          > >>> and the shattering of a nearby planet. The Bible mentions
          > >>> both of these.
          > >>
          > >> These are baseless claims that you are making with out any
          > >> references other than your personal claim. Please give actual
          > >> references such as chapter and verse in the Bible so that
          > >> people can check it out in a real Bible.
          > >
          > > Job 9:13 "God will not turn back His anger; Beneath Him
          > > crouch the helpers of Rahab." The word Rahab means broad,
          > > proud or storm. The Rahab that is shattered is not spelled the
          > > same in Hebrew as the Canaanite woman. The word for god in
          > > this verse is elowahh - used 56 times in the Bible, 40 times in
          > > the book of Job. It can refer to a false God, such as
          > >Habab 1:11 "But they will be held guilty, They whose strength
          > > is their god." Or
          > > Job 12:6 "The tents of marauders are undisturbed, and those
          > > who provoke God [el] are secure-- those who carry their god
          > > [elowahh] in their hands."
          >
          > Job 9:13 (KJV)
          > 13 If God will not withdraw his anger, the proud helpers do stoop under
          > him.
          >
          > While the word translated the proud is "rahab" it is used as an adjective
          > here and not a proper noun as you seem to think. Besides planets do not
          > have
          > helpers,
          >

          The ancient told of how the planet milleed about during the confrontation
          between Jupiter and the planet that was shattered in collision with
          apparently one of Jupiter's moons. The Greeks called one of the shattered
          planets Phaethon and told of the devastation it produced on Earth
          (evidently in North Africa) when it was destroyed. Every ancient society
          recalled teh shattering of planets and how other planets milled about
          during the confrontation. It was only after the destruction, that the
          Babyloninas claimed new tablets of destiny (orbits) were assigned to the
          remaining planets. The BIble uses the same terms as those used by the
          Canaanites to describe the shattering, so evidently it really happened.


          >
          > > Isaiah 51:9 "Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD;
          > > Awake as in the days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it
          > > not Thou who cut Rahabin pieces, Who pierced the dragon?"
          >
          > Isaiah 51:9 (KJV)
          > 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the
          > ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut
          > Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
          >
          > > The word LORD here is the personal name of the Jewish God,
          > > the self existent one, so this passage is not referring to a
          > > planet-god as in the Job 9 text.
          >
          > No dispute here, but then again "rahab" is not used a proper known in Job 9
          >
          >
          Rahab is a descriptive word for what they claimed to see - the mighty
          stormy one, the great watery planet that was shattered. No ancient society
          was without stories of the shattering so it is not surprising that if it
          really happened, the Bible would also mention it. Yet the Bible plainly
          condemns worshipping the planets as gods.

          > The text says it happened long ago in the eon generations. The verb
          > for cutting Rahab indicates continuous action. If a great planet was
          > broken up, the pieces would continue to fragment. The piercing verb
          > describes an intensive action. The word dragon is tanniyn - an aquatic
          > dinosaur or sea serpent.

          While I agree that dragon (tanniyn) it is pure speculation that Rahab refers
          > to a planet.
          >
          > > Psalm 89:8 - 11 O LORD God of hosts, who is like Thee, O
          > > mighty LORD? Thy faithfulness also surrounds Thee. Thou
          > > dost rule the swelling of the sea; When its waves rise, Thou
          > > dost still them. Thou Thyself didst crush Rahab like one who
          > > is slain; Thou didst scatter Thine enemies with Thy mighty
          > > arm. The heavens are Thine, the earth also is Thine; The
          > > world and all it contains, Thou hast founded them.
          >
          > Psalm 89:8-11 (KJV)
          > 8 O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy
          > faithfulness round about thee?
          > 9 Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou
          > stillest them.
          > 10 Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast
          > scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.
          > 11 The heavens are thine, the earth also is thine: as for the world and
          > the
          > fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.
          >
          > Still nothing to really connect Rahab to a planet.
          >
          >
          Again the reference system is the writing of the ancient, not the way we
          think today. Hermeneutics means accepting things in their historical
          context, whcih in every society, was about the shattering of a planet. It
          should not surprise us that we find thousands of shattered planet pieces
          orbiting the Sun, complete with crystals formed deep underground under
          volcanic conditions and rocks (cubanite) formed in warm, liquid water.
          Asteroids and comets are similar in composition and shapes. The difference
          is that comets with their elongated orbits still retain some of their
          water, while the water has evaporated into space from the more circular
          asteroids.


          > Job 26:11-14 "The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his
          > > rebuke. By his power he churned up the sea; by his wisdom
          > > he cut Rahab to pieces. By his breath the skies became fair;
          > > his hand pierced the gliding serpent. And these are but the
          > > outer fringe of his works; how faint the whisper we hear of
          > > him! Who then can understand the thunder of his power?"
          >
          > Job 26:11-14 (KJV)
          > 11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.
          > 12 He divideth the sea with his power, and by his understanding he smiteth
          > through the proud.
          > 13 By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the
          > crooked serpent.
          > 14 Lo, these are parts of his ways: but how little a portion is heard of
          > him? but the thunder of his power who can understand?
          >
          > Once again "rahab" is translated as the proud is it is used as an adjective
          > here and not a proper noun.
          >
          >
          No need for nouns. People were called according to their properties. Adam
          was dirt because that was what he was made of . Jacob was the supplanter
          because that is what he did - grab his brothers heel. Lea was the cow eyed,
          because apparently she had large eyes. Joseph was increase, because
          Rachel's first child increased the tribe. Benjamin was the son of sorrow
          because his mother died in child birth. So in the patriarchal age, names
          were not just an identifier, but descriptive (adjective - if you will). The
          supplanter had his name changed to Israel when he prevailed in his
          wrestling with God for a blessing. Abram had his name changed to Abraham
          when he became the father of the promised son through whom the world would
          be blessed. Rahab was the proud planet, the one that challenged the
          predominant planet to battle for supremacy in the Solar system and lost .

          The result is that there is no real connection made to a planet. Your claim
          > that it is, is nothing more than speculation. However even if it is a
          > destroyed planet is not what I was referring to. Nor is it a problem any
          > mathematical models of the solar system be they Old Earth or Yung Earth. I
          > was particularly referring to your claim of close encounters between
          > planets.
          >
          > >>> Visible cosmic history defies the laws of physics.
          > >> WRONG! It is only your personal interpretation of your
          > >> own superficial look at galaxies that defies the laws of
          > >> physics, and that is because they have no bases in reality.
          > >
          > > Yet anyone who cares to believe cosmic history can see the
          > > simple visible evidence for stars emerging and spreading
          > > out from compact sources, exactly as described by the
          > > Biblical creator.
          >
          > Except for the fact that both your description of the cosmic history and
          > what the Bible says are totally bogus.
          >

          Yet we can see in cosmic history exactly what the Hebrew text says, but not
          the traditional Catholic exegesis which modern translators relate to.

          >>> The problem is that the mathematical laws were founded
          >>> on an inflexible law. What law? In the last days, the
          >>> Apostle Peter wrote, mockers will come. They will claim
          >>> evidence from dead ancestors supports their first law
          >>> "arche ktiseous" that "all things remain the same."
          >>
          >> WRONG!! We have been over this many times before.
          >> This is you own personal translation and not what a real Bible.
          >
          > If it is my personal translation, then why do scientists do exactly
          > what Peter predicted. WHy do they obfuscate the age of the
          > plural heavens and disregard the twice flooded earth with stories
          > about magical things like invisible matter and vacuum explosions.
          > Clearly this prophesy has come true and God is about to do what
          > He says, make foolish the wise of this age.

          Because it not verse five that is in dispute though your wording not what
          > the Bible actually says.
          >
          > The fact is that Peter's prophesy has come true, what we are dispute is the
          > meaning of the prophesy it self and not the fact that has bee fulfilled.
          >
          > >The actual reference is 2 Peter 3:4
          > > 2 Peter 3:4 (KJV) 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.
          > >
          > >> Nothing about your so called first law and noting about
          > >> "evidence from dead ancestors supports" nor does it say
          > >> "all things remain the same." The fact is that your personal
          > >> corrupt translation does not even fit the Greek
          > >> "αρχης κτισεως" is no place translated "first law" except
          > >> by you Victor but is always translated as "beginning of
          > >> the creation" or "beginning of the world." I challenge
          > >> you victor to find just one person in the last 2000 years
          > >> other than your self or some one influenced by you that
          > >> translates this as "first law.
          > >
          > > I have shown you before where it is translated as a first law.
          > > Jesus used teh exact expression when he talked about GOd's
          > > firs law to human societies. However, this did not fit the
          > > model of reality traditionally handed down by the Catholics . . .
          >
          > Which I totally refuted then and now do so again. As is so often the case
          > you do not give a references however Jesus is recorded as using the phrase
          > "αρχης κτισεως" twice.
          >
          > Mark 10:6 (KJV)
          > 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
          >
          > Mark 13:19 (KJV)
          > 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the
          > beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall
          > be.
          >
          >
          Look at the context. He is not talking about the beginning of creation but
          about laws - and he mentions the first law God gave to all people. What
          words mean has to do with context, not traditions that came from medieval
          Catholic friars. Marriage did not happen at the beginning of creation - but
          on the sixth day. The atmosphere formed; the water seeped underground; the
          ground sprouted plants that grew into trees and produced fruit; the Sun,
          and stars continued to form and continued to be placed in the spreading
          place; water continued to formed living things that reproduced and the dirt
          continued to form animals that reproduced and populate the earth with
          animals before God formed the man and woman and gave them the first law for
          later generations - that a man should leave his father and mother and cling
          to his wife - wet no children were born yet.

          Why is it so hard to accept the literal that? Because western people have
          invented a concept of linear time and a concept of one time commands not
          supported by the Hebrew text?

          Where did this exegesis come from? Friar Thomas was very instrumental in
          inventing the notion hat the essence of substance is changeless. The monks
          invented mechanical clocks whose ticking suggested linear time that fit
          Bishop Augustine's concept of an actual, real time that allegedly God
          created in the beginning.


          In both cases not only is it translated as "the beginning of the creation"

          > but the context requires it. In fact I check several translations and they
          > all say "the beginning of the creation" or close to it. Not one says "first
          > law". ONLY you say first law, no one else.
          >
          > >> The phase "all things continue as they were" does not mean
          > >> "all things remain the same" but it is referring to processes
          > >> going on with out interruption by such thing a medicals.
          > >> This is the real first principle of the real scoffers that fulfill this
          > prophecy.
          > >
          > > panta houtos diamenei - means all things remain the same
          >
          > παντα = all things
          >
          > ουτως = in this manner
          >
          > διαμενει = continue
          >
          > Put them together and you get "all things in this manner continue."
          > Adjusting the word order for a better fit to English results in "all things
          > continue in this manner" which is a close mach to "all things continue as
          > they were" Which is more in line with what the scoffers are actually saying
          > than "all things remain the same."
          >
          > However even if you are right on this point, saying that the basic
          > properties of matter do not intrinsically change is not saying that "all
          > things remain the same" but that the change that is observed comes is a
          > result of another source.
          >
          > Thus you are wrong on two counts.
          >
          > Look at how Paul describes change - as an orderly submission that is
          characterized by together words. Things that change in an orderly manner
          together, change relationally exactly as we observe in the history of how
          matter has continued to change as galaxies grew.


          > >>> Scientists have invented mythical things to protect their
          > >>> fundamental creed. A tiny bit of vacuum exploded and
          > >>> created everything out of nothing.
          > >>
          > >> WRONG! What you are referring to here is the purely atheistic
          > >> Big Bang and it is required to try to explain the universe with
          > >> out God, and not to protect your so called first law.
          > >
          > > Changing Earth Creationists have a different world view because
          > > we reject this first law, which is the historical basis for western
          > > science. YE or OE creationists also are followers of this law,
          > > not just the evolutionists.
          >
          > This is a Red Herring be cause even if it were true it would be irrelevant
          > to point in question which is that it is the atheistic Big Bang that
          > requires a vacuum to explode and imagine such a thing because they leave
          > God
          > out of the picture not because of a disbelief in intrinsic change. Actually
          > intrinsic change help the Big Bang since the laws of physics could be
          > changed to fit what ever is required.
          >
          >
          Notice what Peter said, "panta houtôs diamenei ap archés ktiseôs." *Panta**
          *is oneness, the sum of all things that exist. There is no definite article
          so Peter means: *all things that exist** *. *Houtôs** *is an adverb that
          means *in this manner** *. *Diamenei** *is a present, active, indicative
          verb - *to remain permanently in the same state or condition.** **The
          speakers believe that all things that exist are continuing to stay in the
          same condition.** *

          Peter uses the word apo to tie this phrase to the rest of the sentence. *
          Since** *the fathers died (autou aph és gar oi pateres). Apo can mean a
          separation as when things formed. The Big Bang theory indeed believes in
          change, that atoms separated from the primordial soup, and since that era
          all atoms have continued to remain in the same condition. Notice that the
          big bang fits the false principle used by the false teachers of the last
          days. Because the scientific creed is denied by cosmic history, they have
          filled the universe up with magical things - invisible matter, spreading
          vacuums that spread light etc. They have obfuscated the the cosmos. In
          fact, they reject the history of the stars - that they were ek palai - that
          they came out long ago exactly as provided in Moses account - that the
          stars continued to form in the spreading place. What Moses wrote is
          confirmedin cosmic history but denied by the false teachers who adhere to a
          first law - that all things remain in the same state or condition.

          Its getting late - I will stop here.

          Victor


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Chuck
          From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:03 AM To:
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
            Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:03 AM
            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical Universe

            >>> Because scientists begin their every thought with a a
            >>> first law, the one Peter predicted, they cannot even
            >>> imagine that ancient atoms shone with different colors
            >>> than modern atoms.
            >>
            >> WRONG!! Besides the fact you first law bit is bogus, the
            >> problem is not that scientists can't imagine ancient atoms
            >> shining with different colors than modern atoms but that
            >> there is no reason to draw that conclusion given the fact
            >> that there are there other well established explanations for
            >> cosmic red-shift. One astronomer by the name of Halton
            >> Arp has actually proposed just such a model called intrinsic
            >> red-shift. So not only can it be imaged but it actually has been.
            >
            > Peter said KNOW THIS FIRST. First in importance and precedence.
            > What is the context? The age of the plural heavens and the geology
            > of earth. What must we know first? Mockers will come saying all
            > things remain the same.

            You are twisting what Peter said here however to avoid getting off track I deal with that in response to the section that deals with it.

            > I had wonderful Christian teachers who loved the Lord and
            > His word. Yet they taught me to think with the Western
            > tradition, that was founded on that very idea, that all things
            > remain the same, that the properties of matter are fixed, not
            > continually emerging.

            This reveals a fundamental flaw in your logic. That is that you are equating two non equivalent phrases: “all things remain the same” and “the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging.” The phase, “all things remain the same” implied a total lack of change, while the phase, “the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging” only indicates a lack of change in the properties of matter over time and not the total lack of change implied by the first statement.

            That said the notion that the properties of matter are fixed is not held by modern science. Since mass is actually form of energy, if the energy of a particle changes so does it mass. There are all sorts of processes including nuclear decay that change the properties of atoms.

            > I have communicated with Halton Arp and read his books.
            > (By the way his middle name is Christian). Narliker and
            > Arp have proposed intrinsic redshift, but they do not
            > accept that matter changes relationally (together). They
            > can't do that because they were trained to think with the
            > scientific paradigm.

            I never claimed that they accepted your notion of intrinsic change, but that was not what you said. You said that scientists cannot even imagine that ancient atoms shone with different colors than modern atoms. Arp’s intrinsic redshift does just that. It proves that your claim on that point is wrong. Not accepting your notion that matter changes relationally does not require being locked into the scientific paradigm but only concluding that it is at hart an unworkable concept.

            > When things change relationally, there are no constants, no
            > independent variables, no mathematical solutions to the universe.

            If things changed in that manner then it would be totally undetectable and therefore totally irrelevant. However you have stated certain thing as evidence such as the red shift of galactic that clearly have not changed relationally and therefore could be used as bases for checking the idea. Such checking shows the degree of red-shift is insufficient be changing at the same rate needed to stretch 6,000 year into the equivalent of 4.5 billion years of modern length.

            >>>The ancient Egyptians painted the Sun red and the sky tan,
            >>> as it would have been if the Sun was red 3000 years ago.
            >>> The notion that our sky is blue is a recent phenomena. Homer
            >>> wrote of the wine-dark sea, the bronze sky, wine-colored oxen
            >>> and green honey. Xenophanes said the rainbow had three colors:
            >>> purple, green-yellow and red. Empedocles, Democritus and the
            >>> Pythagoreans thought the only colors were white, black, red and
            >>> yellow. Pliny, Quintilian and Cicero wrote that until Alexander's
            >>> time, the Greeks only painted with four colors. Lazarus Geiger,
            >>> made a study of color references in ancient sources. He claimed
            >>> that, over the centuries, languages developed a color sense in the
            >>> sequence: black and white; red; yellow; green and lastly blue. A
            >>> hundred years later, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay discovered that
            >>> languages evolve as they discern colors with the sequence: black
            >>> and white; red; green; yellow; and last of all blue. The colors the
            >>> ancient described are similar to the colors observed on Mars, that
            >>> has a sky that is tan from iron rust. The simplest explanation is
            >>> that the Sun shone red a few thousand years ago, as we observe
            >>> that ancient galaxies shine in red.
            >>
            >> Actually the simplest explanation is provided by Mars, Mar's
            >> atmosphere has the color it does because the dust in the air absorbs blue light.
            >>
            >> http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html
            >
            > Of course! Modern matter does not shine with red colors as it did during
            > the days of the patriarchs so the only way we can see a bronze sky and
            > a red sun is to filter the white light of the modern sun through rusty dust.
            >

            Mar’s sky is not red because sun is filtered through rusty dust, but because the blue is absorbed by the dust and the rest is scattered by the dust.

            >> Now the Genesis Flood would have put large a mounts of dust
            >> into the air that would have lingered for centuries after the flood
            >> resulting in as sky similar to Mars. Furthermore without such dust
            >> the Earth atmosphere would not skater light from a redder sun
            >> resulting in a black sky not a bronze one. This is evident from the
            >> fact that we have a blue sky and not a purple one.
            >
            > That is an interesting hypothesis, since it rained for 40 days. Rain
            > cleans dust out of the atmosphere, not the opposite. The water
            > continued to rise for another 150 days as the underground aquifers
            > (the tehom) continued to collapse.

            That 40 day of rain was at the beginning of the Flood and the Flood lasted around 360 days. During the this time and for years afterwards there would have been considerable volcanic activity which would have through a lot of dust into the air.


            >>>You are rejecting what Solomon wrote. Time is in our minds.
            >>> It has no actual existence. What we observe in cosmic history
            >>> at many ranges is that the spectral clocks accelerate along with
            >>> the outward accelerating star streams.
            >>
            >> Solomon wrote noting of the kind; however it is not relevant to
            >> fact that the above shows your Changing Earth idea to be 100%
            >> bogus.
            >
            > Solomon is writing what all people in his days believed. The
            > actuality of time had not been invented then.

            If Solomon and the other human Biblical authors wrote only what people in their days believed then there is no reason to believe that the Bible was any more inspired than the Iliad.

            By the way Solomon still said no such thing.

            > Ancient people simply used the varying cycles of the heavens to
            > record events and to regulate their lives.

            They also believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a physical dome like structure with the sun moon and starts in it.

            >> Even if time is in only in our minds you still need to increase
            >> the orbital period of the Earth by a factor of more than 750,000
            >> you make it equivalent to 4.5 billion current orbital period of the
            >> Earth and the most you get from galactic red-shift is an increase
            >> by a factor of 12.5. You are nick picking about terminology but
            >> the result are the same no mater how you state it. The fact
            >> remains that you Changing Earth idea does not work.
            >
            > You are still trying to relate reality to the idea that something
            > does not change. What we observe is that the atoms and the
            > orbits both accelerate. There are no fixed references or constants
            > visible in the real universe (the one we observe with light) not the
            > symbolical universe of mathematics.

            I get it now. You have set up a system where you can accept any thing that superficially supports your idea, wiles being able to totally dismiss any thing poses a challenge to it. Talk about the epitome of intellectual laziness.

            >> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bruce-betts/3459.html
            >>The affect results from heat that is passed to the rest of
            >> the spacecraft from the plutonium oxide decay and those
            >> parts are directly behind the dish antenna. The fact is that
            >> until I read this paper I saw the Pioneer anomaly as a
            >> useful tool and was disappointed to find such a mundane
            >> explanation demonstrated to fit the facts. I read the paper
            >> several times looking for a flaw in it but found none. This
            >> is not a mathematical story but a fact shown by the actual
            >> data that showed anomaly to begin with.
            >
            > In seven and a half years of monitoring the Pioneer "Doppler
            > shifts" they lost 1.5 seconds relative to NASA's clocks of the
            > moment relative to the expected clock rates. Other spinning
            > space craft, such as Ulysses and Galileo, showed the same effects.

            That is not all that surprising if it is a heat affect.

            > Every attempt to land on a planet always lands long, not because
            > they did not adjust the orbit repeatedly with Doppler navigation.
            > Even MSL, with its guided descent, landed long. .

            Please provide a reference for this claim. By the way MSL landing was not guided from Earth but by it’s on board equipment

            > Even when spacecraft swing passed Earth for a "gravity boost,
            > they also experience a fly-by anomaly an unexpected boost in
            > speed. I propose they are one and the same effect.

            However this does not occur every time. The most likely cause is related to the distribution of mass on a rotating Earth.

            >> Language is nothing but symbolical things the represent reality.
            >>
            >> "Mass" is the word that represents the real properties of matter
            >> that is a resistance to changes in motion and determines the
            >> strength of it gravitational attraction.
            >>
            >> "Energy" is the word that represents the real property of the
            >> ability mater to do work.
            >>
            >> "Time" is the word that represents the real world phenomenon
            >> of events happening in sequence.
            >>
            >> "Car" is the word that represents real motorized vehicles.
            >>
            >> "House" is the word that represents real buildings in which
            >> people live.
            >>
            >> "Victor" is the word that represents the real you.
            >
            > Cars are visible and so are houses. Mass energy and time have no
            > correlation with anything visible. They only have symbolical
            > existence, only existing in human minds. They are perfectly
            > undectectable and were contrived mathematically with the western
            > "first law".

            WRONG! Time Mass and energy correlate with visible affect of matter.


            > The ancient told of how the planet milleed about during the
            > confrontation between Jupiter and the planet that was shattered
            > in collision with apparently one of Jupiter's moons. The Greeks
            > called one of the shattered planets Phaethon and told of the
            > devastation it produced on Earth (evidently in North Africa)
            > when it was destroyed. Every ancient society recalled the
            > shattering of planets and how other planets milled about
            > during the confrontation. It was only after the destruction,
            > that the Babyloninas claimed new tablets of destiny (orbits)
            > were assigned to the remaining planets. The BIble uses the
            > same terms as those used by the Canaanites to describe the
            > shattering, so evidently it really happened.

            Please give a reference for this. The Babylonians myths also talked about a planet called Niberu for which there is no evidence and on which their god’s supposedly lived.

            > Rahab is a descriptive word for what they claimed to see -
            > the mighty stormy one, the great watery planet that was
            > shattered. No ancient society was without stories of the
            > shattering so it is not surprising that if it really happened,
            > the Bible would also mention it.

            Please give a reference for this.

            >Yet the Bible plainly condemns worshipping the planets as gods.

            It condemns the worship of ALL false gods.

            > Again the reference system is the writing of the ancient, not
            > the way we think today. Hermeneutics means accepting things
            > in their historical context, whcih in every society, was about the
            > shattering of a planet. It should not surprise us that we find
            > thousands of shattered planet pieces orbiting the Sun, complete
            > with crystals formed deep underground under volcanic conditions
            > and rocks (cubanite) formed in warm, liquid water. Asteroids and
            > comets are similar in composition and shapes. The difference is
            > that comets with their elongated orbits still retain some of their
            > water, while the water has evaporated into space from the more
            > circular asteroids.

            First of all I don’t have a real problem Rahab being a destroyed planet. I just want more than your word for it. So far all I have seen is your speculation.

            Second, even if Rahab is a destroyed planet it not inconsistent with YEC and does not provide evidence for your changing Earth idea.

            >> Which I totally refuted then and now do so again. As is so
            >> often the case you do not give a references however Jesus
            >> is recorded as using the phrase "αρχης κτισεως" twice.
            >>
            >> Mark 10:6 (KJV)
            >> 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them
            >> male and female.
            >>
            >> Mark 13:19 (KJV)
            >> 19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from
            >>the beginning of the creation which God created unto this
            >> time, neither shall be.
            >
            >Look at the context. He is not talking about the beginning of
            > creation but about laws - and he mentions the first law God
            > gave to all people. What words mean has to do with context,
            > not traditions that came from medieval Catholic friars.

            Mark 10:1-12 (KJV)
            1 And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of
            Judaea by the farther side of Jordan: and the people resort
            unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.
            2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it
            lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
            3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses
            command you?
            4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of
            divorcement, and to put her away.
            5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the
            hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
            6 But from the beginning of the creation God made
            them male and female.
            7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother
            , and cleave to his wife;
            8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no
            more twain, but one flesh.
            9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
            put asunder.
            10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of
            the same matter.
            11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away
            his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against
            her.
            12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be
            married to another, she committeth adultery.

            Yes the larger context is law but the immediate context is the Creation man. Jesus even says, “God made them male and female,” which is clearly a reference to the creation of man and not a law. This further proven to be the case because Jesus goes on to say, “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.” For what cause is that? That cause is the fact that, “God made them male and female.” This has every thing to do with the context of the verse and not any one’s traditions.

            By the way I notice that you ignored Mark 13:19 which as not connection to any law.

            > Marriage did not happen at the beginning of creation – but on the sixth day.

            Wow six whole days after Genesis 1:1 out of what would have been about 4,000 years in the 1st century A.D. That would be 0.00041% of the time from Genesis 1:1 to the time of Jesus.

            Pleas tell me you are joking about this one? If you do I will believe it.

            Not only was it such a ridiculously small amount time to make a big to do about but it was still part of the creation week.

            Sunday (1/6/2013) is the 6th days of the year, and any event that evening will be a bout as far from the beginning of the year as the creation of Eave would have been from Genesis 1:1. Latter this year it would be accurate to say the such an event happened at the beginning of the year, much more can the creation of man be said to have happened at the beginning of the creation.

            > The atmosphere formed; the water seeped underground;
            > the ground sprouted plants that grew into trees and produced
            > fruit; the Sun, and stars continued to form and continued to
            > be placed in the spreading place; water continued to formed
            > living things that reproduced and the dirt continued to form
            > animals that reproduced and populate the earth with animals
            > before God formed the man and woman

            All of which God did in 6 day that were about the same length as today.

            > and gave them the first law for later generations - that a man
            > should leave his father and mother and cling to his wife – wet
            > no children were born yet.

            First of all lets look at what the Bible actually says as opposed to you commentary.

            Genesis 2:21-25 (KJV)
            21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
            and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh
            instead thereof;
            22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made
            he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
            23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
            my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out
            of Man.
            24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall
            cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
            25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

            These is no reference of a law given by God at the time of this event. This is a narrative and the only one mentioned as speaking is Adam. Verse 24 is part of the narrative description and not something being said at that time by God or any one else. It is a comment placed in the narrative by Moses when he wrote Genesis 2. He did so by divine inspiration but the reference was not part of the events being described.

            >>> The phase "all things continue as they were" does not mean
            >>> "all things remain the same" but it is referring to processes
            >>> going on with out interruption by such thing a medicals.
            >>> This is the real first principle of the real scoffers that fulfill this
            >>> prophecy.
            >>>
            >>> panta houtos diamenei - means all things remain the same
            >>
            >> παντα = all things
            >>
            >> ουτως = in this manner
            >>
            >> διαμενει = continue
            >>
            >> Put them together and you get "all things in this manner continue."
            >> Adjusting the word order for a better fit to English results in "all
            >> things continue in this manner" which is a close mach to "all things
            >> continue as they were" Which is more in line with what the scoffers
            >> are actually saying than "all things remain the same."
            >>
            >> However even if you are right on this point, saying that the basic
            >> properties of matter do not intrinsically change is not saying that "all
            >> things remain the same" but that the change that is observed comes
            >> is a result of another source.
            >>
            >> Thus you are wrong on two counts.
            >
            > Look at how Paul describes change - as an orderly submission that
            > is characterized by together words. Things that change in an orderly
            > manner together, change relationally exactly as we observe in the
            > history of how matter has continued to change as galaxies grew.

            http://www.piney.com/Red.Herring.gif

            Here is yet another red herring because even if it were true it is irrelevant to point. How ever Paul said no such thing.

            Romans 8:18-23 (KJV)
            18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not
            worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
            19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the
            manifestation of the sons of God.
            20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but
            by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
            21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the
            bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children
            of God.
            22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth
            in pain together until now.
            23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits
            of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for
            the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

            There is not reference to orderly submission here.

            >>>>> Scientists have invented mythical things to protect their
            >>>>> fundamental creed. A tiny bit of vacuum exploded and
            >>>>> created everything out of nothing.
            >>>>
            >>>> WRONG! What you are referring to here is the purely
            >>>> atheistic Big Bang and it is required to try to explain the
            >>>> universe with out God, and not to protect your so called
            >>>> first law.
            >>>
            >>> Changing Earth Creationists have a different world view
            >>> because we reject this first law, which is the historical basis
            >>> for western science. YE or OE creationists also are followers
            >>> of this law, not just the evolutionists.
            >>
            >> This is a Red Herring be cause even if it were true it would be
            >> irrelevant to point in question which is that it is the atheistic
            >> Big Bang that requires a vacuum to explode and imagine such
            >> a thing because they leave God out of the picture not because
            >> of a disbelief in intrinsic change. Actually intrinsic change help
            >> the Big Bang since the laws of physics could be changed to fit
            >> what ever is required.
            >
            > Notice what Peter said, "panta houtôs diamenei ap archés ktiseôs."
            > *Panta** *is oneness, the sum of all things that exist. There is no
            > definite article so Peter means: *all things that exist** *. *Houtôs
            >** *is an adverb that means *in this manner** *. *Diamenei** *is
            > a present, active, indicative verb - *to remain permanently in the
            > same state or condition.** **The speakers believe that all things
            > that exist are continuing to stay in the same condition.** *

            For the goggleth time your translation and interpretation is totally wrong. Once again I will use your own definitions despite the fact that I can find no source other than you defining διαμενει as remain permanently in the same state or condition.

            παντα = all things that exist

            ουτως = in this manner

            διαμενει = remain permanently in the same condition

            Now the actual phrase is “παντα ουτως διαμενει” putting together your definitions we get “all things that exist in this manner remain permanently in the same state or condition.”

            Now the word “manner” means “behavior”. Now placing this into the above translation we get “all things that exist in this behavior remain permanently in the same condition”

            Put more simply Peter is saying that the scoffers will be saying “all things continue in the same be behavior.” This is fully consistent with what the real scoffers actually claim. That being that the physical processes seen today have been working uninterrupted (by things like miracles) since the beginning of the universe. This is also consistent with the King James wording.

            2 Peter 3:4 (KJV)
            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.

            > Peter uses the word apo to tie this phrase to the rest of the
            > sentence. * Since** *the fathers died (autou aph és gar oi
            > pateres). Apo can mean a separation as when things formed.
            > The Big Bang theory indeed believes in change, that atoms
            > separated from the primordial soup, and since that era all
            > atoms have continued to remain in the same condition.
            > Notice that the big bang fits the false principle used by the
            > false teachers of the last days.

            Your description of the Big Bang show that you do not know what you are talking about. According to the Big Bang cosmology:

            1. Atoms did not separated from a primordial soup, but Hydrogen atoms formed as quarks came together to form protons and neutrons which in turn formed atoms of hydrogen and helium.

            2. The gravity then collapsed clouds of and hydrogen and helium onto stars where fusion created heavier elements.

            3. Those elements then formed molecules and eventually life.

            4. Radiometric decay further causes atoms to change though time.

            So contrary to you claim the “atom have continued to remain in the same condition” is totally false.

            Now it is true the Big Bang cosmology fit the real claim of the scoffers that being that the physical processes seen today have been working uninterrupted (by things like miracles) since the beginning of the universe. However it does not fit what you claim.

            In fact nothing fits what you claim. Not the Bible, not Universe and not even the claim of the scoffers.









            ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

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

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





            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Victor McAllister
            ... No one during Peter s era could have imagined that things all things remain the same. Their earth histories were about how their ancestors lived for eons,
            Message 5 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:

              > **
              >
              >
              > From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com]
              > On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
              > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:03 AM
              >
              > To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              > Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical
              > Universe
              >
              > >>> Because scientists begin their every thought with a a
              > >>> first law, the one Peter predicted, they cannot even
              > >>> imagine that ancient atoms shone with different colors
              > >>> than modern atoms.
              > >>
              > >> WRONG!! Besides the fact you first law bit is bogus, the
              > >> problem is not that scientists can't imagine ancient atoms
              > >> shining with different colors than modern atoms but that
              > >> there is no reason to draw that conclusion given the fact
              > >> that there are there other well established explanations for
              > >> cosmic red-shift. One astronomer by the name of Halton
              > >> Arp has actually proposed just such a model called intrinsic
              > >> red-shift. So not only can it be imaged but it actually has been.
              > >
              > > Peter said KNOW THIS FIRST. First in importance and precedence.
              > > What is the context? The age of the plural heavens and the geology
              > > of earth. What must we know first? Mockers will come saying all
              > > things remain the same.
              >
              > You are twisting what Peter said here however to avoid getting off track I
              > deal with that in response to the section that deals with it.
              >
              > > I had wonderful Christian teachers who loved the Lord and
              > > His word. Yet they taught me to think with the Western
              > > tradition, that was founded on that very idea, that all things
              > > remain the same, that the properties of matter are fixed, not
              > > continually emerging.
              >
              > This reveals a fundamental flaw in your logic. That is that you are
              > equating two non equivalent phrases: �all things remain the same� and �the
              > properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging.� The phase, �all
              > things remain the same� implied a total lack of change, while the phase,
              > �the properties of matter are fixed, not continually emerging� only
              > indicates a lack of change in the properties of matter over time and not
              > the total lack of change implied by the first statement.
              >

              No one during Peter's era could have imagined that things all things remain
              the same. Their earth histories were about how their ancestors lived for
              eons, back when planets passed close to Earth and caused great
              catastrophes. The Greeks mentioned how the Sun suddenly swung wildly to the
              north and then back to the south as flaming debris hit north of Greece
              setting everything on fire. Mountains sprung up and huge floods washed away
              the coastal cites when planets approached earth. The Bible mentions one
              occasion when the kokabiym (plural) stars fought from their courses as a
              flood swept away Sisera's iron chariots. Kokab was the Hebrew name for
              Mercury and Kokab Nogah was Venus. People who believe that ancient days and
              years were long and planets sometimes devastate the earth could not think
              scientifically. Why not? The notion that the essence of substance does not
              change did not become a first law until after the popes approved teaching
              Friar Thomas' system to westerners.

              Aquinas used the term ipsum esse subsistens in the Summa as an argument for
              the existence of God. When Moses asked God his name, he called himself I AM
              (Exodus 3:14). Therefore God is a self subsisting being, not dependent on
              the existence of anything else. Thomas reasoned that God is pure essence.
              (of course no one has ever seen any essence, but that is alright since we
              can't see God). All things that exist derive their esse from God. The
              Catholics followed Augustine's ideas that God could not change since He was
              not in time and saw all the future at once. Since God had a changeless
              BEING (a noun), created things must also have a being (again a noun) that
              is changeless. Everything could change, but the being could not change
              unless substances ceased to be. This became the first law of the western
              system.

              Lets examine Thomas' metaphysics using modern terms.

              Water can change state, hard as ice, invisible as a vapor. Water can change
              color. Boil black walnuts in water and you can dye a Franciscan's brown
              robe. Add water to cement and it becomes a rock (chemical change). In a
              modern lab, you can use electrolysis to separate water into hydrogen and
              oxygen. If you add a spark to the vial of oxygen and hydrogen - PUFF - you
              get back the water. All these are examples of what Friar Thomas called
              accidental changes. Everything is allowed to change in many ways. What is
              NOT allowed is for a substance's BEING to change. How do we know what is a
              substance's being? What if you sent a vial of water plunging into the fiery
              Sun and it disintegrated completely. Aha! We now observe what happens when
              a substance changes its BEING - it ceases to be substance. Every kind of
              change is allowed, even the annihilation of matter, but substances do not
              change their being - since they got their existence from God who, in the
              Catholic tradition, is absolutely changeless (not in time).

              Of course this is philosophy, something not found in the Bible. The Bible
              warns about the elementary ideas of philosophy that can take us prisoner
              (Col 2:8). The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change
              and uses orderly-submission verbs and together-verbs to describe this kind
              of change (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change in an orderly
              together-manner, change relationally. Don't use the King James. Look it up
              in Greek.

              When modern scientists invented symbolical things like mass, energy and
              time - they were contrived with the notion that matter has an unchanging
              being - that the properties of matter today are the same as those
              yesterday. Changes in being cannot be measured, but they can be observed.
              If matter were changing relationally both sides of a balance scale would
              change and all local clocks would change together.

              The two kinds of evidences Peter uses are the best for examining whether
              matter is intrinsically changing.

              Peter mentioned the age of the plural heavens - that they are ekpalai -
              came out long ago. We observe galactic history and it does just what Peer
              says - the stars came out from what were originally naked galaxies as
              billions of galaxies grew into huge, growth spirals. THis is the most
              powerful evidence for the creation sequence - that naked galaxies existed
              before the stars continued to form in the spreading place - which confirms
              a literal Hebrew text rather than the traditional Latin renditions.

              Peter also mentions the twice inundated Earth as evidence against the first
              law of the last days. The geology of earth fits the simple biblical
              statements - that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity. Psa 24:1 -
              2 says He founded the earth upon the sea and continues to establish it upon
              the underground streams. The fact that the continents fit together on a
              tiny globe is simple evidence that matter is continuing to recieve form as
              God continues to command light to continue to be. He continues to finish
              two things according to Genesis 2, the plural heavens and the earth.

              I will write another essay on galactic history to help you with
              understanding evidence with optics rather than with assumption dependent
              mathematics.

              > I have communicated with Halton Arp and read his books.
              > > (By the way his middle name is Christian). Narliker and
              > > Arp have proposed intrinsic redshift, but they do not
              > > accept that matter changes relationally (together). They
              > > can't do that because they were trained to think with the
              > > scientific paradigm.
              >
              > I never claimed that they accepted your notion of intrinsic change, but
              > that was not what you said. You said that scientists cannot even imagine
              > that ancient atoms shone with different colors than modern atoms. Arp�s
              > intrinsic redshift does just that. It proves that your claim on that point
              > is wrong. Not accepting your notion that matter changes relationally does
              > not require being locked into the scientific paradigm but only concluding
              > that it is at hart an unworkable concept.
              >

              Arp is assuming that some aspect of matter changes as it distances itself
              from the galactic cores. Paul uses together-verbs and orderly-submission
              verbs to illustrate how the creation is enslaved to cahgne. Relational
              change is where things change together - where no aspect of physical
              reality is not affected by the change. That is the kind of change that the
              western system excludes. YEt that is the kind of changes we observe as the
              light frequencies change along with the space matter takes up and its
              inertial properties as billions of galaxies grew in defiance of every
              mathematical definition and mathematical law of science.



              >
              > > When things change relationally, there are no constants, no
              > > independent variables, no mathematical solutions to the universe.
              >
              > If things changed in that manner then it would be totally undetectable and
              > therefore totally irrelevant. However you have stated certain thing as
              > evidence such as the red shift of galactic that clearly have not changed
              > relationally and therefore could be used as bases for checking the idea.
              > Such checking shows the degree of red-shift is insufficient be changing at
              > the same rate needed to stretch 6,000 year into the equivalent of 4.5
              > billion years of modern length.
              >
              > >>>The ancient Egyptians painted the Sun red and the sky tan,
              > >>> as it would have been if the Sun was red 3000 years ago.
              > >>> The notion that our sky is blue is a recent phenomena. Homer
              > >>> wrote of the wine-dark sea, the bronze sky, wine-colored oxen
              > >>> and green honey. Xenophanes said the rainbow had three colors:
              > >>> purple, green-yellow and red. Empedocles, Democritus and the
              > >>> Pythagoreans thought the only colors were white, black, red and
              > >>> yellow. Pliny, Quintilian and Cicero wrote that until Alexander's
              > >>> time, the Greeks only painted with four colors. Lazarus Geiger,
              > >>> made a study of color references in ancient sources. He claimed
              > >>> that, over the centuries, languages developed a color sense in the
              > >>> sequence: black and white; red; yellow; green and lastly blue. A
              > >>> hundred years later, Brent Berlin and Paul Kay discovered that
              > >>> languages evolve as they discern colors with the sequence: black
              > >>> and white; red; green; yellow; and last of all blue. The colors the
              > >>> ancient described are similar to the colors observed on Mars, that
              > >>> has a sky that is tan from iron rust. The simplest explanation is
              > >>> that the Sun shone red a few thousand years ago, as we observe
              > >>> that ancient galaxies shine in red.
              > >>
              > >> Actually the simplest explanation is provided by Mars, Mar's
              > >> atmosphere has the color it does because the dust in the air absorbs
              > blue light.
              > >>
              > >> http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/14C.html
              > >
              > > Of course! Modern matter does not shine with red colors as it did during
              > > the days of the patriarchs so the only way we can see a bronze sky and
              > > a red sun is to filter the white light of the modern sun through rusty
              > dust.
              > >
              >
              > Mar�s sky is not red because sun is filtered through rusty dust, but
              > because the blue is absorbed by the dust and the rest is scattered by the
              > dust.
              >
              > Agreed. If the ancient sun was red, as the Egyptians painted it, and
              ancient atoms were smaller, the peak of sunlight would be infrared and sky
              colors would be tan because both solar emissions and atmospheric atoms
              would both be intrinsically different. THe visible history of how stars
              keep on changing their colors from infrared to white and this is related to
              the past (distance) is powerful evidence that the notion that all things
              remain the same is false.


              >> Now the Genesis Flood would have put large a mounts of dust
              > >> into the air that would have lingered for centuries after the flood
              > >> resulting in as sky similar to Mars. Furthermore without such dust
              > >> the Earth atmosphere would not skater light from a redder sun
              > >> resulting in a black sky not a bronze one. This is evident from the
              > >> fact that we have a blue sky and not a purple one.
              > >
              > > That is an interesting hypothesis, since it rained for 40 days. Rain
              > > cleans dust out of the atmosphere, not the opposite. The water
              > > continued to rise for another 150 days as the underground aquifers
              > > (the tehom) continued to collapse.
              >
              > That 40 day of rain was at the beginning of the Flood and the Flood lasted
              > around 360 days. During the this time and for years afterwards there would
              > have been considerable volcanic activity which would have through a lot of
              > dust into the air.
              >

              Dust in the air in our days tends to make sunsets redder, because the
              atmospheric path of sunlight is longer near the horizon. The Egyptian
              pictures of a red sun and tan sky suggest it is not near the horizon.


              >
              > >>>You are rejecting what Solomon wrote. Time is in our minds.
              > >>> It has no actual existence. What we observe in cosmic history
              > >>> at many ranges is that the spectral clocks accelerate along with
              > >>> the outward accelerating star streams.
              > >>
              > >> Solomon wrote noting of the kind; however it is not relevant to
              > >> fact that the above shows your Changing Earth idea to be 100%
              > >> bogus.
              > >
              > > Solomon is writing what all people in his days believed. The
              > > actuality of time had not been invented then.
              >
              > If Solomon and the other human Biblical authors wrote only what people in
              > their days believed then there is no reason to believe that the Bible was
              > any more inspired than the Iliad.
              >
              > By the way Solomon still said no such thing.
              >
              >
              > > Ancient people simply used the varying cycles of the heavens to
              > > record events and to regulate their lives.
              >
              > They also believed the Earth was flat and the sky was a physical dome like
              > structure with the sun moon and starts in it.
              >

              Medieval people thought the Earth was flat, but ancient people knew that if
              you moved north different stars rise while southern ones set. It is true
              that the Greeks believed the sky was made of crytaline spheres.

              >> Even if time is in only in our minds you still need to increase
              >> the orbital period of the Earth by a factor of more than 750,000
              >> you make it equivalent to 4.5 billion current orbital period of the
              >> Earth and the most you get from galactic red-shift is an increase
              >> by a factor of 12.5. You are nick picking about terminology but
              >> the result are the same no mater how you state it. The fact
              >> remains that you Changing Earth idea does not work.
              >
              > You are still trying to relate reality to the idea that something
              > does not change. What we observe is that the atoms and the
              > orbits both accelerate. There are no fixed references or constants

              > > visible in the real universe (the one we observe with light) not the
              > > symbolical universe of mathematics.
              >
              > I get it now. You have set up a system where you can accept any thing that
              > superficially supports your idea, wiles being able to totally dismiss any
              > thing poses a challenge to it. Talk about the epitome of intellectual
              > laziness.
              >
              >
              Look, all systems of complex knowledge are founded on assumptions which
              the pagan Greeks called arche - first principles. It is impossible to
              construct an epistemic system without using a first principle as a
              foundation. Your first principle (or first law) is historical - it arose in
              western Europe from medieval Catholic metaphysics. Science is a complex
              structure, but its foundations rest on a simple assumption - the one the
              Bible predicts.

              Changing Earth Creationists cannot build a great structured system of
              knowledge, like scientists do. Why not? We accept a different principle,
              the one all ancient people used during the age of the biblical prophets,
              that everything endures change. Although we cannot build a system of
              scientific knowledge, we can accept visible cosmic history that confirms a
              literal creation account.

              You can't become a Change Earth Creationist without abandoning the first
              law of the last days. There is no compromise position. Either matter is
              changing itself or it is not. If it IS, you can accept galactic history as
              we see it. If it is NOT, the record shows that scientists have invented a
              great deal of magic to explain away the visible evidence that every atom
              keeps changing as billions of galaxies intrinsically grew. The Biblical God
              commands us to lift up our eyes and look at the plural heavens - how He
              cotinues to call the stars to come out and how He continues to spread out
              the heavens. Look at the sky, (galactic history) instead of the
              mathematical laws, and you will see how great will be the triumph of the
              Word of God over science.

              Victor


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chuck
              ... From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 3:36 AM To:
              Message 6 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                -----Original Message-----

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

                Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 3:36 AM

                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com

                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical
                Universe



                On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:



                >>> I had wonderful Christian teachers who loved the
                >>> Lord and His word. Yet they taught me to think
                >>> with the Western tradition, that was founded on
                >>> that very idea, that all things remain the same, that
                >>> the properties of matter are fixed, not continually
                >>> emerging.

                >>

                >> This reveals a fundamental flaw in your logic. That
                >> is that you are equating two non equivalent phrases:
                >> "all things remain the same" and "the properties of
                >> matter are fixed, not continually emerging." The
                >> phase, "all things remain the same" implied a total
                >> lack of change, while the phase, "the properties of
                >> matter are fixed, not continually emerging" only
                >> indicates a lack of change in the properties of matter
                >> over time and not the total lack of change implied
                >> by the first statement.

                >

                > No one during Peter's era could have imagined that
                > things all things remain the same. Their earth histories
                > were about how their ancestors lived for eons, back
                > when planets passed close to Earth and caused great
                > catastrophes. The Greeks mentioned how the Sun
                > suddenly swung wildly to the north and then back to
                > the south as flaming debris hit north of Greece setting
                > everything on fire. Mountains sprung up and huge
                > floods washed away the coastal cites when planets
                > approached earth. The Bible mentions one occasion
                > when the kokabiym (plural) stars fought from their
                > courses as a flood swept away Sisera's iron chariots.
                > Kokab was the Hebrew name for Mercury and Kokab
                > Nogah was Venus.

                Please give references to these claims. The least you can do give Biblical
                references when you claim the Bible says anything.


                > People who believe that ancient days and years were
                > long and planets sometimes devastate the earth could
                > not think scientifically. Why not? The notion that the
                > essence of substance does not change did not become
                > a first law until after the popes approved teaching Friar
                > Thomas system to westerners.

                >

                > Aquinas used the term ipsum esse subsistens in the
                > Summa as an argument for the existence of God. When
                > Moses asked God his name, he called himself I AM
                > (Exodus 3:14). Therefore God is a self subsisting being,
                > not dependent on the existence of anything else. Thomas
                > reasoned that God is pure essence. (of course no one has
                > ever seen any essence, but that is alright since we can't
                > see God). All things that exist derive their esse from God.
                > The Catholics followed Augustine's ideas that God could
                > not change since He was not in time and saw all the future
                > at once. Since God had a changeless BEING (a noun),
                > created things must also have a being (again a noun) that is
                > changeless. Everything could change, but the being could
                > not change unless substances ceased to be. This became
                > the first law of the western system.

                >

                > Lets examine Thomas' metaphysics using modern terms.

                >

                > Water can change state, hard as ice, invisible as a vapor.
                > Water can change color. Boil black walnuts in water and
                > you can dye a Franciscan's brown robe. Add water to
                > cement and it becomes a rock (chemical change). In a
                > modern lab, you can use electrolysis to separate water
                > into hydrogen and oxygen. If you add a spark to the
                > vial of oxygen and hydrogen - PUFF - you get back
                > the water. All these are examples of what Friar Thomas
                > called accidental changes. Everything is allowed to
                > change in many ways. What is NOT allowed is for a
                > substance's BEING to change. How do we know what
                > is a substance's being? What if you sent a vial of water
                > plunging into the fiery Sun and it disintegrated
                > completely. Aha! We now observe what happens when
                > a substance changes its BEING - it ceases to be
                > substance. Every kind of change is allowed, even the
                > annihilation of matter, but substances do not change
                > their being - since they got their existence from God
                > who, in the Catholic tradition, is absolutely changeless
                > (not in time).



                You took a very round about way to do it. But the end result was that I was
                100% correct, that you have illogically connected "all things remain the
                same" to "a substance's being remains the same."



                So according to you someone cans accept that every thing in the universe
                changes except the nebulous concept of "substance of being" and that in you
                eyes is say that all thing remain the same.



                <Please wait while stop laughing>



                So what this boils down to that the only form of change you accept as not
                adhering to you fake 1st law is this undefined notion of "substance of
                being."



                Will you at least define what you mean by "substance of being?"





                > Of course this is philosophy, something not found in
                > the Bible. The Bible warns about the elementary ideas
                > of philosophy that can take us prisoner (Col 2:8). The
                > Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to
                > change and uses orderly-submission verbs and
                > together-verbs to describe this kind of change
                > (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change in an orderly
                > together-manner, change relationally. Don't use the
                > King James. Look it up in Greek.



                I have not restricted my study of these the King James Bible but I have
                looked it up in Greek your notion of orderly-submission is not there nor is
                your notion of intrinsic change. Not in Greek, not in English. You are
                artificially adding orderly to the text. No surprise really you do it all
                the time.



                >>>> Now the Genesis Flood would have put large
                >>>> a mounts of dust into the air that would have
                >>>> lingered for centuries after the flood resulting
                >>>> in as sky similar to Mars. Furthermore without
                >>>> such dust the Earth atmosphere would not
                >>>> skater light from a redder sun resulting in a
                >>>> black sky not a bronze one. This is evident from
                >>>> the fact that we have a blue sky and not a purple
                >>>> one.

                >>>

                >>> That is an interesting hypothesis, since it rained for
                >>> 40 days. Rain cleans dust out of the atmosphere,
                >>> not the opposite. The water continued to rise for
                >>> another 150 days as the underground aquifers
                >>> (the tehom) continued to collapse.

                >>

                >> That 40 day of rain was at the beginning of the
                >> Flood and the Flood lasted around 360 days.
                >> During the this time and for years afterwards there
                >> would have been considerable volcanic activity
                >> which would have through a lot of dust into the air.

                >

                > Dust in the air in our days tends to make sunsets
                > redder, because the atmospheric path of sunlight is
                > longer near the horizon. The Egyptian pictures of a
                > red sun and tan sky suggest it is not near the horizon.



                With several time more dust in the atmosphere you would get the same affect
                with out being near the horizon.



                >>> Ancient people simply used the varying cycles
                >>> of the heavensto record events and to regulate
                >>> their lives.

                >>

                >> They also believed the Earth was flat and the sky
                >> was a physical dome like structure with the sun moon
                >> and starts in it.

                >

                > Medieval people thought the Earth was flat, but ancient
                > people knew that if you moved north different stars rise
                > while southern ones set. It is true that the Greeks believed
                > the sky was made of crytaline spheres.



                If you check the cosmologies of ancient civilizations the show that they
                believed the Earth was flat.



                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_religion

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_religion





                > Changing Earth Creationists cannot build a great structured
                > system of knowledge, like scientists do.



                This is most accurate statement I have read from you so far, because your
                Changing Earth Creationists notion has nothing to do with knowledge. In fact
                it is the antithesis of knowledge. In fact I have to apologize for calling
                you an Old Earth Creationist, after all I had no business insulting Old
                Earth Creationists in such a manner. Even the most liberal Theistic
                evolutionist I have ever encountered does not twist scripture as much as you
                do. Your entire Changing Earth Creationists notion is based on twisted
                interpretations of scripture, coupled with total illogic. Frankly unless you
                can clearly define "substance of being" and what about it you thing is
                intrinsically changing there is no reason to continue. Frankly I don't think
                you can do it because I don't you even know or care for that matter.







                ------ 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]
              • Oliver Elphick
                ... I long since gave up reading Victor s tripe.
                Message 7 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 05/01/13 20:52, Chuck wrote:
                  > Your entire Changing Earth Creationists notion is based on twisted
                  > interpretations of scripture, coupled with total illogic. Frankly unless you
                  > can clearly define "substance of being" and what about it you thing is
                  > intrinsically changing there is no reason to continue. Frankly I don't think
                  > you can do it because I don't you even know or care for that matter.

                  I long since gave up reading Victor's tripe.
                • Victor McAllister
                  ... Philosophical reasoning is incompatible with a literal interpretation of creation. You cannot get there from here. Why not? The western system was founded
                  Message 8 of 9 , Jan 6, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Oliver Elphick <olly@...> wrote:

                    > **
                    >
                    >
                    > On 05/01/13 20:52, Chuck wrote:
                    > > Your entire Changing Earth Creationists notion is based on twisted
                    > > interpretations of scripture, coupled with total illogic. Frankly unless
                    > you
                    > > can clearly define "substance of being" and what about it you thing is
                    > > intrinsically changing there is no reason to continue. Frankly I don't
                    > think
                    > > you can do it because I don't you even know or care for that matter.
                    >
                    > I long since gave up reading Victor's tripe.
                    >


                    Philosophical reasoning is incompatible with a literal interpretation of
                    creation. You cannot get there from here. Why not? The western system was
                    founded on the philosophical reasoning of medieval Catholics who were
                    attempting to reconcile the Bible with the philosophy of the pagan Greeks.

                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col%202:8&version=NASB

                    Notice what Paul said.

                    Watch out that we may be taken captive through (1) philosophy, (2) empty
                    deception, (3) tradition (teaching) of men and the stoicheia tou komou (the
                    elementary principles of the orderly system).

                    No ancient biblical author could imagine a philosophical interpretation of
                    creation and earth history. The elementary principle upon which the western
                    philosophical system was built was not invented until more than a 1000
                    years after the last book of the Bible was written. Yet a literal (non
                    philosophical) interpretation of creation is confirmed with optics -
                    because we see how the stars were formed after the galaxies - exactly as in
                    the Genesis account.

                    In answer to Chuck, I will analyze Romans 8 literally, in another essay,
                    about the creation being enslaved to change.

                    What is so hard for us is to understand that God intends to triumph over
                    science, not use science to glorify Himself.

                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor3:18-20&version=NASB

                    18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise
                    in this age, he must become foolish, so that he may become wise. 19 For the
                    wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, �*He is* the
                    one who catches the wise in their craftiness�; 20 and again, �The Lord
                    knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.�
                    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB

                    20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this
                    age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the
                    wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not *come to* know God, God
                    was well-pleased through the foolishness of the
                    [a<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28385a>
                    ]message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask
                    for [b<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28386b>
                    ]signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach
                    [c<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28387c>
                    ]Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,
                    24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power
                    of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser
                    than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For
                    [d<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28390d>
                    ]consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according
                    to [e<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28390e>
                    ]the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; 27 but God has chosen the
                    foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak
                    things of the world to shame the things which are strong, 28 and the base
                    things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are
                    not, so that He may nullify the things that are, 29 so that no
                    [f<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28393f>
                    ]man may boast before God. 30 But
                    [g<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28394g>
                    ]by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from
                    God, [h<http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1cor1:20-30&version=NASB#fen-NASB-28394h>
                    ]and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,
                    Someday, Paul says, when our obedience is complete, we will use the word of
                    God to bring down the great fortress of speculative reasoning raised up
                    against the knowledge of God. I take that to mean, when our obedience is
                    complete, we will use the power of God's word to utterly destroy the
                    scientific system that has been raised up against the knowledge of God.

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

                    Changing Earth Creationist goal is NOT to make fools out of believers, but
                    to use the literal word of God to reduce the wisdom of the world to
                    foolishness for His great glory. As Paul said, we deceive ourselves when we
                    want to be wise in this age. James said, when we make ourselves the friend
                    of the world system (the kosmou) we make ourselves the enemy of God. Why?
                    He intends to reduce the world's wisdom to foolishness so that no one can
                    boast that He came to know God through philosophy and science.

                    Victor


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