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

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

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2012 10:45 PM To:
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 1, 2013
      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 2 of 9 , Jan 1, 2013
        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 3 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013
          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 4 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
            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 5 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
              -----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 6 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
                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 7 of 9 , Jan 6, 2013
                  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.