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

Re: [CreationTalk] gold corrupting

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    ... The Greek idea of atoms is that they were both uncuttable and unchanging. They were seen as uniformly solid specifically because they were considered
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 11, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      >>> The Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science

      >>> because they lived in the era when everyone believed
      >>> that everything changes. Their grammar did not even
      >>> allow them to imagine unchanging matter, since their
      >>> present tense of the verb to be - einai - could not be
      >>> static. In the ancient system everything changes
      >>> together, in parallel.

      >>

      >> Actually the main reason the Greeks were unable to
      >> invent an empirical science was that they never tested
      >> their ideas experimentally or observationally which is
      >> an important part of modern science. Your claim that
      >> they could to imagine unchanging matter is shown
      >> false because the Greek idea of the atom was that of an
      >> unchanging bit of matter.

      >

      >Ancient people could not imaging that matter is not
      > continually changing itself. This was the historical
      > impediment to inventing science that stymied the
      > Greeks for hundreds of years. 
      >
      > Greek atoms were uncutable things The motion of
      > the uncuttables continued to change so that all things
      > grew old with age, as Lucretius the Roman atomists
      >explained. 

       

      The Greek idea of atoms is that they were both uncuttable and unchanging. They were seen as uniformly solid specifically because they were considered unchanging.

       

      http://www.chemteam.info/AtomicStructure/Greeks.html

       

      http://tinyurl.com/atoms-gm2

       

      So some ancient people could and did conceive of unchanging matter. Yes intrinsic change was generally accepted at the time but you made an absolute statement that was blatantly wrong.

       

      The fact is that the main reason the Greeks were unable to invent an empirical science was that they never went beyond philosophy to testing their ideas experimentally or observationally. Experiment and observation are an important part of modern science and the real founding principle of science not your fake first law.

       

      > The two orderly submission (hupotasso) verbs are in

      > verse 20 Hupotasso is a compound of hupo (under)
      > and (tasso) to order or arrange. Polybius used hupotasso
      > for troops who were arranged in orderly submission under
      > their officers. This is the exact opposite of the 2nd law
      > which is based on random disorder. The universe in an
      > orderly manner submitts to God's command to
      face=Helvetica> deteriorate..

      Romans 8:20 (KJB) For the creature was made subject
      to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath
      subjected the same in hope,

      While it is true that the word “hupotasso” is used in military usage it referrers to arranging troops under a commander in non-military use, it was used to referrer to voluntarily giving in. “Hypotassō” generally means to subordinate, in both cases in verse 20 the idea is about being “put in subjection to some one or some thing” and hence the King James Bible translation of “hupotasso” as “subject” and “subjected.” You are taking a special military usage for the Greek word “hupotasso” and drawing a conclusion that goes beyond the text.

      Even if you are correct in that point it still fit the 2nd law of thermodynamics and thermodynamic degeneration in general has an ordered nature to the process as shown by the fact that it can be mathematically described. What thermodynamic degeneration indicates it everything deteriorates by becoming more random which is the ultimate result of deterioration and not a totally disorderly process. In fact is that the act of producing order of any kind causes disorder to increase elsewhere. For example the putting troops into order under a commander usually results in disorder among civilians being attracted or other wise getting it the way.

      >  How? Two together verbs explain that it does it together,

      > that is as a relation. The word phthora was used by the
      > philosophers for matter itself deteriorating - fundamental change.

      Romans 8:22 (KJB)  For we know that the whole creation

      groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

       

      First of all verse 22 must be taken at least in part figuratively since only living things literally groan and feel pain. However the thermodynamic changes in an object cause degeneration in the environment and then on to other object so degeneration in a real way dose cause “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together.” Yes the entire creation is corrupting it self together but that does not equate to the relational change you are describing. In fact the relational change you are describing is a growth process not a degeneration process.

       

      >>> Relational changes are observable, however, because

      >>> we see the past back to the creation era with telescopes.
      >>>  Not a single ancient galaxy clocks the light frequencies
      >>> of modern atoms.

      >>
      >> Not correct! Neither galaxies nor modern atoms clock any
      >> light frequencies but atoms do emit and absorb light and
      >> they have preferred frequencies depending on the atoms
      >> What you are referring to is galactic red-shifts that are not
      >> an indication of relational changes but a result of gravity,
      >> motion and the stretching of space. The first two of these
      >> have been experimentally verified to occur and the physic
      >> that allows for gravitational redshift also allows for the
      >> expansion of space..    
      color=black>
      >>
      >> Ancient orbits were vastly slower than modern ones. We
      >> observe how the stars continued to accelerate outward as
      >> billions of galaxies grew into growth spirals. 
      >>

      >> NO such thing is actually observed. On the contrary this
      >> interpretation of spiral galaxies is proven wrong by the
      >> observed fact that the stars in a galaxy orbit in the
      >> opposite direction of the galaxy’s spiral.

      >
      >Scientists have a blind creed, so they cannot accept the
      > visible history of how galaxies grew - the stars globs coming
      > out ALONG the spiral arms not rotating counter to the sweep
      > of the arms.

      No because what we see are pictures with start inside and outside spiral arms with no visible hint of motion. There is no single galaxy that can be followed through any kind of growth. You have to surmise it by using images of different galaxies based on the assumption that they represent a growth sequence.

      http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2457.html

       

      > Examine cosmic history with the light from long ago, rather than

      > trying to decode it mathematically with their creed.

      The fact is that the actual motion of the stars in galaxies has been determined by examining cosmic history with the light from long ago. Specifically the spectra of the light form galaxies. The same spectra you claim shows that these galaxies clocked light frequencies different from modern atoms. What this spectra shows besides the main galactic redshift are Doppler shift patterns of the starts orbiting the galactic center in the opposite direction of the spiral arms. Both spectral analyses are equally decoding the light mathematically and frankly you can’t except one and deny the other and be intellectually honest but this is exactly what you do.    

      > Science was founded on the notion that all things remain the same,

      > as predicted in the Bible.

      WRONG!! Science was founded on experimentation and observation and not any notion that all things remain the same. In fact science is filled with change. NO ONE claims that all things remain the same, this is totally bogus. Further more the Bible predicts not such thing. Your so called first law is a totally bogus invention of yours, that even you have to twist to make it fit you notions.   

       

       

      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

      Genesis Science Mission

      Online Store

      Genesis Mission

      Creation Science Talk

       

       

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.