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: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:03 AM To:
    Message 1 of 9 , Jan 4, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Victor McAllister
      Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:03 AM
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] RE: [frequenciesCreationTalk] Non Mathematical Universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

      By the way Solomon still said no such thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

      Please give a reference for this.

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

      It condemns the worship of ALL false gods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      There is not reference to orderly submission here.

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

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

      παντα = all things that exist

      ουτως = in this manner

      διαμενει = remain permanently in the same condition

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

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

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

      2 Peter 3:4 (KJV)
      4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
      > fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

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

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

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

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

      3. Those elements then formed molecules and eventually life.

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

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

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

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









      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

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

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





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Victor McAllister
      ... No one during Peter s era could have imagined that things all things remain the same. Their earth histories were about how their ancestors lived for eons,
      Message 2 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:

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

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

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

        Lets examine Thomas' metaphysics using modern terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

        Victor


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

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

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

          To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com

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



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



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

          >>

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

          >

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

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


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

          >

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

          >

          > Lets examine Thomas' metaphysics using modern terms.

          >

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



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



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



          <Please wait while stop laughing>



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



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





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



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



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

          >>>

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

          >>

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

          >

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



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



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

          >>

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

          >

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



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



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

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





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



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







          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

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

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

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

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













          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Oliver Elphick
          ... I long since gave up reading Victor s tripe.
          Message 4 of 9 , Jan 5, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            On 05/01/13 20:52, Chuck wrote:
            > Your entire Changing Earth Creationists notion is based on twisted
            > interpretations of scripture, coupled with total illogic. Frankly unless you
            > can clearly define "substance of being" and what about it you thing is
            > intrinsically changing there is no reason to continue. Frankly I don't think
            > you can do it because I don't you even know or care for that matter.

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

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


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

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

              Notice what Paul said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

              Victor


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