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

Spiral histories

Expand Messages
  • Victor McAllister
    Astronomers observe that edge-on spirals are slightly bluer on one side than the other. They assume that the redder edge is moving away and the bluer edge is
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 18 8:59 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Astronomers observe that edge-on spirals are slightly bluer on one side than the other. They assume that the redder edge is moving away and the bluer edge is moving towards us. Observing a color difference is not the same as observing the galaxy actually rotating.

      1. Consider that the farther away a galaxy, the more its matter shines at tiny fractions of the light frequencies emitted by local (modern) matter.

      2. Doppler calculated inter galactic velocities, suggest that (1) the stars are orbiting in the opposite direction to the sweep of arms. (2) The calculated speeds are so great that spirals should wind into tight coils. Spirals actually open outward, rather than wind up.

      3. When we compare the shapes of early spiral galaxies and nearer ones, we observe that star globs follow each other out in lanes, one behind the other. They move out along the sweep of the spiral arms, which is completely unlike the astronomical Doppler calculations.

      4. Pulsed jets emerge at many ranges from giant ellipticals, quasars, active galactic nuclei and local Herbig-Haro stars. Observations of local star HH-34 show a 4.5 year difference between the emergence of symmetrical, opposing knots. Galactic sized bi-directional jets may also emerge on different dates. Perhaps this is why spiral arms from the same galaxy often have different lengths.

      It is better to observe cosmic history than to speculate with mathematics. In the above pictures you can see that the emerging jet has a different color than the galactic core. Evidently the emerging matter has different inertial and spectral properties than core matter.

      http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/04/spiral-objections.html

      Frame 1 shows HUDF 4801 with a red pulsed jet emerging straight out from the core. The light from this ancient galaxy shines at 42% of the light frequencies of modern matter.

      Frame 2 shows HUDF 5658 with two blue globs emerging from opposite ends of an elongated core. The light from this galaxy shines at 48% of the frequencies emitted by modern atoms.

      Frame 3 shows HUDF 5694 with a red core surrounded by blue globs. The small galaxy with the blue ends seems to be the beginning stage of a small, ejected spiral. It shines at 48% of the frequencies emitted by local atoms.

      Frame 4 shows HUDF 6009 with a red core with a blue, pulsed  jet to the left. This galaxy shines at 1.8 times the wavelengths emitted by modern atoms.

      Frame 5 shows HUDF 4491 with a red core and a knotted blue jet. The light from this ancient galaxy shines at 48% of the light frequencies emitted by modern atoms.

      Evidently star globs emerge from (1) formless matter at the heart of the galaxy, (2) take up more volume as they spiral out, and (3) change their spectral frequencies as they accelerate outward. What we observe only fits the Hebrew creation account. God created (completed action) the plural heavens and the Earth first. Then Elohim’s wind dithered over the dark and formless Earth as He continued to command light to continue to be. Indeed, light dithering around within matter gives it extension. Half way through the creation week, He began to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place. He continues in unbroken continuity to call the stars to come out, yet none go missing.
       
      Visible galactic history defeats mere mathematical speculations. What is wrong with mathematics? Scientific definitions, measuring units, mathematical laws and cosmologies depend on an assumption, that matter does not change itself relationally as it ages. Visibly, we observe how the properties of matter keep changing as star globs emerge from formless matter at the core of galaxies. We observe how the light clocks accelerate along with the accelerating star streams that follow each other outwards in lanes in violation of every definition and law of physics.

      The photos of early spirals from NASA’s Hubble Ultra Deep Field are in the public domain.

      Victor, Changing Earth Creationist
       
    • Chuck
      ... This is not an accurate description of the measurement of galactic rotation. This sounds like a description by some who does not know what they are talking
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 19 7:47 PM
      • 0 Attachment

        > Astronomers observe that edge-on spirals are slightly bluer on

        >
        one side than the other. They assume that the redder edge iscolor=navy>
        >
        moving away and the bluer edge is moving towards uscolor=navy>
        >
        . Observing a color difference is not the same as observing
        >
        the galaxy actually rotating.
        style='color:navy'>

        This is not an accurate description of the measurement of galactic rotation. This sounds like a description by some who does not know what they are talking about. Astronomers do not observe a color change but a shift in spectral lines. Specifically the light from segments of a galaxy is put through a prism to separate the spectrum as well as taking the galaxy’s over all redshift. These spectra have dark absorption lines know from laboratory experiments. In all but a few really near by Galaxies like Andromeda, the general spectra of a galaxy these lines are shifted to red end of the spectrum forming the galactic red shift generally associated with desistance. If a galaxy is tilted from our perspective and the spectra of segments going out from the center will have these lines shifted to red on one side and the blue on the other relative the galaxy’s over all redshift.    

        Further more the Doppler shift is such well known and understood effect that it is effectively the same as observing the galaxy rotating. The Doppler shift on a rotating object is an easily recognizable pattern and even if your interpretation of the general galactic red shift were correct this red and blue shift is still identical to rotational Doppler shifts. This means that the actual data show that stars are going around the center in the opposite direction of what you are saying which is why you are dismissing it. I have no doubt that if the rotational Doppler shifts showed the motion of the stars was in the direction of the spiral arms that you would be touting it as proof you were right, but because it say you are wrong you continue to dismiss it, without even trying to provide an alternative explanation.

        > 1. Consider that the farther away a galaxy, the more its matter

        >
        shines at tiny fractions of the light frequencies emitted by local
        >
        (modern) matter.

        WRONG!! What is observed is wave length shifts of spectral absorption lines not matter shining at tiny fractions of the light frequencies emitted by modern matter. The only way you get your tiny fractal of the light frequencies is by assuming, in accordance with your own so called first law, that the speed of light is constant. If the speed of light were faster then the wave lengths would be longer but the light frequency would be the same. If the speed of light were slower the light frequencies would be longer but the wavelengths would be the same. Also if the speed of light were slower the light would not have gotten here yet so either way you have big problem.

        > 2. Doppler calculated inter galactic velocities, suggest that

        >
        (1) the stars are orbiting in the opposite direction to thecolor=navy>
        >
        sweep of arms.

        This is correct and it shows that your entire claim is bogus. The Doppler effect is such a well established phenomenon that casually dismissing what are clear Doppler indications of rotational motion of the stars without an alternative explanation hints at intellectual dishonesty.

        > (2) The calculated speeds are so great that spirals should wind

        >
        into tight coils.

        That is only the case if the spiral arms are physical structures, but not if they are a result of density waves or gravitationally aligned orbits. Even if they are physical structures the wind up process would take 100’s of millions of years and would not show up even over 1000’s of years. Also some spiral galaxies have a high degree of wind up.

        > Spirals actually open outward, rather than wind up.

        Based on what, a sequence of galaxies that you personally have invented based on the same assumptions used by evolutionists?

        > 3. When we compare the shapes of early spiral galaxies and nearer

        >
        ones, we observe that star globs follow each other out in lanes, one
        >
        behind the other. They move out along the sweep of the spiral arms,
        >
        which is completely unlike the astronomical Doppler calculations.color=navy>

        You are assuming based on the traditions of men (evolutionists) that you are seeing a development of galaxies over time. You see no actual motion just a sequence of galaxies that you are pasting together in a evolutionary sequence that matches your claim. Even looking at the sequence you personally have provided show no sequence, In fact three of them have the same red-shift and so would show no time sequence. You are interpreting evidence the same way evolutionists do.

        You are basing your conclusion on an alleged sequence of galaxies where Doppler shifts are observed in single galaxies so you are dismissing object Doppler measurements based on a subjective sequence of your own invention.

        One other problem with analyzing such images is that extremely distant galaxies are lower resolution than nearer ones and so detail is lost do to both resolution and relative brightness.

        > 4. Pulsed jets emerge at many ranges from giant ellipticals,

        >
        quasars, active galactic nuclei and local Herbig-Haro stars.color=navy>
        >
        Observations of local star HH-34 show a 4.5 year differencecolor=navy>
        >
        between the emergence of symmetrical, opposing knots.color=navy>
        >
        Galactic sized bi-directional jets may also emerge on different
        >
        dates. Perhaps this is why spiral arms from the same galaxycolor=navy>
        >
        often have different lengths.style='color:navy'>

        The jests ejected from Galaxies and Herbig-Haro stars tend to be ejected perpendicular to the plane of rotation and as such are not related to spiral arms.

        > It is better to observe cosmic history than to speculate with mathematics.

        speculate: Form a theory or conjecture about a subject without firm evidence.

        Things such as Doppler measurements of the rotation of stars and galaxies is speculation, because the doppler effect IS based firm evidence. The doppler effect is even used by cops in measuring the speed of cars. If you think that the doppler effect is not based on firm evidence then try flooring your car past a speed trap some time and then try convincing the judge that speed ticket was based on nothing but mathematical speculation.

        What is 100% pure speculation that more distant galaxies are seen as they were younger when than nearby ones and assembling and evolutionary sequence based on that speculation which is following the tradition of men (evolutionists). I suppose you consider it ok to follow the traditions of men when those traditions agree with your ideas.

        > In the above pictures you can see that the emerging jet has a

        >
        different color than the galactic core.style='color:navy'>  Evidently the emerging
        >
        matter has different inertial and spectral properties than core matter.

        You do realizes that the color of hot objects like stars and the material of these jets have different colors based on their temperature, don’t you? This most likely means the galactic cored have a different temperatures from the jets they eject.

        For all your talk about not following the traditions of men nor your so called first law you certainly seem to be perfectly willing to do follow both when they can be used to produce results that you like.

         



      • Chuck
        http://tinyurl.com/d9vwq2u Here is response specifically to Victor s five frames of distant galaxy images. The above link is a direct link to the image he was
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 20 6:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          http://tinyurl.com/d9vwq2u

          Here is response specifically to Victor’s five frames of distant galaxy images. The above link is a direct link to the image he was referring too.

          Before going on it needs to be noted in valuating such images that they are small parts of a larger image that is a 2D image of a large amount of 3D space. One of the results is that objects could be near each other in the image but be separated by Billions of LY of space because one is much further away than the other.

          The other factor is that the resolution of the images of these galaxies is quite low. When you reduce an image of a near by galaxy to the same resolution you get similar images so these are likely low resolutions images of spiral galaxies not much difference from near by one .

          Note none of my analyses of used mathematics other than the conversion of the red-shifts back to red-shift format unless specifically stated. What I did was compare these images to similar resolution images of near by galaxies, with out using a bit of math.

          With in mind let’s look at these images.

          > http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/04/spiral-objections.html
          >
          > Frame 1 shows HUDF 4801 with a red pulsed jet emerging

          >
          straight out from the core. The light from this ancient galaxy
          >
          shines at 42% of the light frequencies of modern matter.color=navy>

          First of all this image looks like a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy including the ends of two spiral arms.  Furthermore the red jet is not coming from the core but from what seems to be a quasar either inside or near by this galaxy. So while it is evidence that quasars are associated with spiral galaxies it is not the formation of a spiral arm.

           

          Red-shift z = 2.38


          > Frame 2 shows HUDF 5658 with two blue globs emerging

          >
          from opposite ends of an elongated core. The light from thiscolor=navy>
          >
          galaxy shines at 48% of the frequencies emitted by moderncolor=navy>
          >
          atoms.

          Are you aware of the fact that most galaxies are tilted from our perspective? This is a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy tilted from our perspective. The mathematically calculated angle is about 30 degrees

          Red-shift z = 2.083

          > Frame 3 shows HUDF 5694 with a red core surrounded by

          >
          blue globs. The small galaxy with the blue ends seems to becolor=navy>
          >
          the beginning stage of a small, ejected spiral. It shines at 48%
          >
          of the frequencies emitted by local atoms.style='color:navy'>

          This too is a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy. A close look at this images shows the “blue globs” to be bright spots on the spiral arms. Red-shift z = 2.083

          The small galaxy with the blue ends looks like a well formed spiral galaxy tilted from our perspective, with a mathematically calculated angle is 42 degrees. It is most likely a few million LY further away than the first one.

          > Frame 4 shows HUDF 6009 with a red core with a blue, pulsed jet

          >
          to the left. This galaxy shines at 1.8 times the wavelengths emitted
          >
          by modern atoms.

          This is consistent with a low image of a spiral galaxy, while tour so called pulls jet is consistent with even lower resolution spirals. They could be more distant or smaller satellite galaxies   Even if they are indeed pulse jest they are not the formation of a spiral arm since they already exist since a close look at the image shows the ends of two spiral arms.

          Red-shift z = 1.8  I noticed that you sited wavelengths here rather than frequency this show that you are assuming that the speed of light is constant and thus you are following your own so called first law.

          > Frame 5 shows HUDF 4491 with a red core and a knotted blue jet.

          >
          The light from this ancient galaxy shines at 48% of the light
          >
          frequencies emitted by modern atoms.

          This image is consistent with a low resolution image of a spiral galaxy that does seem to have ejected a smaller galaxy but this not evidence of a spiral arm forming not only because it is out side the parent galaxy, but a close look at the image show existing spiral arms.

          Red-shift z = 2.083

          So what you are doing is following the traditions of men (evolutionists) that distant galaxies show a developmental pattern and then mistaking low resolution images as growth images.

           

          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

          Genesis Science Mission

          Online Store

          Genesis Mission

          Creation Science Talk

        • Victor McAllister
          ... to show that science is a false system. Therefore, I cannot interpret the evidence with the assumptions of science. In fact, I take the opposite position
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 27 4:48 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> wrote:
             

            http://tinyurl.com/d9vwq2u

            Here is response specifically to Victor’s five frames of distant galaxy images. The above link is a direct link to the image he was referring too.

            Before going on it needs to be noted in valuating such images that they are small parts of a larger image that is a 2D image of a large amount of 3D space. One of the results is that objects could be near each other in the image but be separated by Billions of LY of space because one is much further away than the other.

            The other factor is that the resolution of the images of these galaxies is quite low. When you reduce an image of a near by galaxy to the same resolution you get similar images so these are likely low resolutions images of spiral galaxies not much difference from near by one .

            Note none of my analyses of used mathematics other than the conversion of the red-shifts back to red-shift format unless specifically stated. What I did was compare these images to similar resolution images of near by galaxies, with out using a bit of math.

            With in mind let’s look at these images.

            > http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/04/spiral-objections.html
            >
            > Frame 1 shows HUDF 4801 with a red pulsed jet emerging
            >
            straight out from the core. The light from this ancient galaxy
            >
            shines at 42% of the light frequencies of modern matter.

            First of all this image looks like a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy including the ends of two spiral arms.  Furthermore the red jet is not coming from the core but from what seems to be a quasar either inside or near by this galaxy. So while it is evidence that quasars are associated with spiral galaxies it is not the formation of a spiral arm.

             

            Red-shift z = 2.38


            > Frame 2 shows HUDF 5658 with two blue globs emerging
            >
            from opposite ends of an elongated core. The light from this
            >
            galaxy shines at 48% of the frequencies emitted by modern
            >
            atoms.

            Are you aware of the fact that most galaxies are tilted from our perspective? This is a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy tilted from our perspective. The mathematically calculated angle is about 30 degrees

            Red-shift z = 2.083

            > Frame 3 shows HUDF 5694 with a red core surrounded by
            >
            blue globs. The small galaxy with the blue ends seems to be
            >
            the beginning stage of a small, ejected spiral. It shines at 48%
            >
            of the frequencies emitted by local atoms.

            This too is a low resolution image of a well formed spiral galaxy. A close look at this images shows the “blue globs” to be bright spots on the spiral arms. Red-shift z = 2.083

            The small galaxy with the blue ends looks like a well formed spiral galaxy tilted from our perspective, with a mathematically calculated angle is 42 degrees. It is most likely a few million LY further away than the first one.

            > Frame 4 shows HUDF 6009 with a red core with a blue, pulsed jet
            >
            to the left. This galaxy shines at 1.8 times the wavelengths emitted
            >
            by modern atoms.

            This is consistent with a low image of a spiral galaxy, while tour so called pulls jet is consistent with even lower resolution spirals. They could be more distant or smaller satellite galaxies   Even if they are indeed pulse jest they are not the formation of a spiral arm since they already exist since a close look at the image shows the ends of two spiral arms.

            Red-shift z = 1.8  I noticed that you sited wavelengths here rather than frequency this show that you are assuming that the speed of light is constant and thus you are following your own so called first law.

            > Frame 5 shows HUDF 4491 with a red core and a knotted blue jet.
            >
            The light from this ancient galaxy shines at 48% of the light
            >
            frequencies emitted by modern atoms.

            This image is consistent with a low resolution image of a spiral galaxy that does seem to have ejected a smaller galaxy but this not evidence of a spiral arm forming not only because it is out side the parent galaxy, but a close look at the image show existing spiral arms.

            Red-shift z = 2.083

            So what you are doing is following the traditions of men (evolutionists) that distant galaxies show a developmental pattern and then mistaking low resolution images as growth images.

             

            ------ Charles Creager Jr.

            I am not arguing from withing a scientific world view, but using the Bible to show that science is a false system. Therefore, I cannot interpret the evidence with the assumptions of science. In fact, I take the opposite position from scientists, since I take literally the prediction about the first law of the last days - which is the foundation for scientific reasoning.

            There are about 9,000 background galaxies wallpapering the nine square minutes of the HUDF. The background galaxies are too small to resolve with current telescopes (they take up only a few pixels). Of the galaxies that take up at least 10 pixels: 269 are spirals, 100 early ellipticals, 114 are chains (a row of equally-spaced star globs), 126 are double clumps, 97 are tadpoles with an emerging tail and 178 are clumps of star globs (apparently the earliest stage of an elliptical). See Elemgreen et all on galaxy morphologies in the HUDF. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/631/1/85/fulltext/62384.text.html 

            The earliest spirals have arms made of separate globs that have rotated out only a portion of a turn. Local spiral arms have rotated out more than a full turn and the spiral lanes are continuous in dust. We observe in galactic history the visible evidence for the biblical creation sequence.

            The holy Scriptures are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15). Our reading of creation and earth history is not as simple.
            (1) Our translators follow the Latin traditions by rendering each creation event as completed. Ancient Hebrew had no verb tenses since people in the biblical age had no concept of an actual time. The Hebrew grammar shows the creation events as continuing or repeated actions. (2) We interpret creation with science, a system foreign to how the biblical prophets thought and communicated. There is not a single verse in the Bible that supports a scientific world view.

            Science is a system of philosophy and the Bible warns us that the elementary principles of philosophy take us captive (Colossians 2:8).
            What kind of elementary philosophical assumption can keep us from interpreting biblical creation literally? In the last days mockers will obfuscate the age of the plural heavens with an idea - that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 5).

            The scientific definitions of matter and time, the empirical measuring units, the mathematical laws and constants presuppose that matter is not changing relationally as it ages. Our laws work, claims the scientist. They only work locally in the symbolical world of mathematical reality. The only history that is visible as it happened is galactic history. The star stream orbits are going in the opposite direction from the laws of physics. None of the laws of physics fit the visible history of the universe. What is visible clearly violates the western concept of time. We observe how the atomic clocks and the stars stream orbits both accelerate.

            He commands us to lift up our eyes and observe the heavens that declare His glory without words (philosophy). We observe how galaxies started out as unformed matter. Those ancient atoms clocked tiny fractions of the light frequencies of modern matter. We observe how the stars continue to come out, exactly what He says He does in unbroken continuity. The Biblical God commands us in the imperative, Isaiah 40:26 "Lift up your eyes on high and see who has created these stars, The One who leads forth their host by number, He calls them all by name; Because of the greatness of His might and the strength of His power, Not one of them is missing."

            Billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals in violation of every law and definition of physics. What is visible is real. Mathematical models only exist in minds. The scientific universe emphasizes invisible matter, stretching vacuums and other ad hoc explanations because of the very idea Peter predicted. Their structured philosophy is based on the notion that matter is not changing its properties relationally, that is in parallel.

            Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

          • Chuck
            ... What Bible are you using? Because it is not any Bible I have ever seen. You are definitely no using the King James which God s inspired inerrant word,
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 28 6:31 PM
            • 0 Attachment

              > I am not arguing from withing a scientific world view,

              >
              but using the Bible to show that science is a false system.color=navy>

              What Bible are you using? Because it is not any Bible I have ever seen. You are definitely no using the King James which God’s inspired inerrant word, translated into English by divine inspiration. You can not be using any Greek New Testament or Hebrew Old testament text that I have ever seen since non of the things you claim are in Bible are in any of them. That’s right you do not believe that God has preserved His word and transmitted with out error to us in our own language. (English) Also since you only “accept that the scripture, as originally written, is God’s word,” then you can not possibly believe we have an inerrant copy of God’s word since the originals have been lost.

              So I ask again What Bible are you using?       

              > Therefore, I cannot interpret the evidence with the assumptions

              >
              of science.

              You say this yet you claim scientific data such as galactic red shift’s that you have reinterpreted as evidence for you position. Not only that but you use uniformitarian interpretations of geology such as the floor of the Mediterranean sea as evidence for your position. So no matter how much you claim you don’t you do in fact interpret the evidence with same the assumptions you denounce. You may not realize that you do so, you may even have convinced yourself that you don’t but you do use those assumptions even if you do not know it.

              > In fact, I take the opposite position from scientists, since I take

              >
              literally the prediction about the first law of the last days -
              >
              which is the foundation for scientific reasoning.color=navy>

              Except that your so called first law is not the foundation for scientific reasoning, but empirical experimentation and observation are. In fact your so called first law is found no place except your own writings. You have based on a totally erroneous translation of 2 Peter 3:4 which you then twist to mean any denial of your notion of intrinsic change.

              > There are about 9,000 background galaxies wallpapering the

              >
              nine square minutes of the HUDF. The background galaxiescolor=navy>
              >
              are too small to resolve with current telescopes (they take up
              >
              only a few pixels). Of the galaxies that take up at least 10
              >
              pixels: 269 are spirals, 100 early ellipticals, 114 are chains
              >
              (a row of equally-spaced star globs), 126 are double clumps,color=navy>
              >
              97 are tadpoles with an emerging tail and 178 are clumps ofcolor=navy>
              >
              star globs
              (apparently the earliest stage of an elliptical). See
              >
              Elemgreen et all on galaxy morphologies in the HUDF.color=navy>
              >
              href="http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/631/1/85/fulltext/62384.text.html" target="_blank">http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/631/1/85/fulltext/62384.text.html 

              I have a full resolution tiff of the HUDF and can see what’s there. By the way thanks for actually providing a reference.

              > The earliest spirals have arms made of separate globs that have rotated

              >
              out only a portion of a turn. Local spiral arms have rotated out more
              >
              than a full turn and the spiral lanes are continuous in dust. We observe
              >
              in galactic history the visible evidence for the biblical
              creation sequence.

              The problem here is the lowness of the resolution distorts the images of these galaxies. I have seen this affect in digital images that I have personally taken where the loss of detail the results from low resolution distorts what it in the image. You have got to consider the effect of distance on the resolution of an object. Not only do these images not show a Biblical creation sequence but it shows no sequence. If you shrink an image of near by galaxy to the same resolution of as these distant galaxies, the near by galaxies then look much like the distant galaxies. This shows that the images of these distant galaxies are low resolution images of fully formed galaxies and not any kind of developmental process.       

              > (1) Our translators follow the Latin traditions by rendering each creation

              >
              event as completed. Ancient Hebrew had no verb tenses since people in
              >
              the biblical age had no concept of an actual time. The Hebrew grammar
              >
              shows the creation events as continuing or repeated actions.color=navy>

              The translators of the King James Bible translated the Bible in English which required translating the Hebrew imperfect, perfect and imperative tenses in to the English time tenses. Since even the English perfect and imperfect are time based there is no exact English equivalent to the Hebrew imperfect, and perfect so translating the tenses was a necessary part of translation. Furthermore you clearly do not understand the proper use of the Hebrew imperfect when describing past events. What the Hebrew imperfect was indicating was that was doing something at that point and not you notion of continuing or repeated actions. In the case of the King James Bible God inspired the translation so that it is an inerrant translation of God’s word in the English language. God has authenticated its inspired translation by using the King James Bible to win more souls to Jesus Christ than any other translation and even more than the Greek and Hebrew.

              > (2) We interpret creation with science, a system foreign to how the

              >
              biblical prophets thought and communicated.style='color:navy'>

              You are ignoring the fact that the real author of the Bible was God working through the human authors, thus what they wrote was often beyond the full understanding of the human authors and in some case we can understand it better to day. In the case of prophecy this because we are closer to the events being for told than the writers. The same can be said of the King James Bible which accurately translated thing that neither the original human authors not the King James Translators fully understood that we can today. In some cases this is because we have lived through the filament of a prophecy.

               

              > Science is a system of philosophy and the Bible warns us that

              >
              the elementary principles of philosophy take us captivecolor=navy>
              >
              (Colossians 2:8).
              What kind of elementary philosophical assumption
              >
              can keep us from interpreting biblical creation literally?style='font-weight:bold'> In the last
              >
              days mockers will obfuscate the age of the plural heavens
              with
              >
              an idea - that all things remain the same (2 Peter 3:3 - 5).
              color=navy>

              You are quoteing 2 Peter 3:3 – 5. This dose even qualify as a translation is nothing but your personal twisted interpretation. Here is what a real Bible says:

              2 Peter 3:3-5 (KJB)
              3  Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
              walking after their own lusts,
              4  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the
              fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the
              beginning of the creation.
              5  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
              God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of
              the water and in the water:

               Not that it says “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” not “that all things remain the same”. The King James Bible clearly indicates that it is a continuance of process and sure enough those that scoff at the Bible do so on the bases of the claim that physical processes have continued without interruption by miracles such Creation and the Flood.

              One the other hand you translation of “that all things remain the same” is not being used by any one. No one is mocking at the Bible on this bases and science makes no such claim because science fully recognizes and deals with change. To make you interpretation work you have to twist you false translation to allow accepting any form or amount of change bur not accepting your idea of intrinsic change, which is a 100% illogical connection.

               

              > The scientific definitions of matter and time, the empirical

              >
              measuring units, the mathematical laws and constantscolor=navy>
              >
              presuppose that matter is not changing relationally as it ages.

              While true it is also true that your notion matter is changing relationally has no bases in fact.

              > Our laws work, claims the scientist. They only work locally

              >
              in the symbolical world of mathematical reality.color=navy>

              No these laws work every place we can test them and in the real world not just some mathematical reality. However observations do show that mathematic so indeed underline what we call reality.  A vary well known and often repeated experiment in physics called the double slit experiment strongly suggests that what we call reality is fundamentally information mathematically processed as we need it to give us a consistent reality.

              http://tinyurl.com/double-slit-GM

              > The only history that is visible as it happened is galactic history.

              >
              The star stream orbits are going in the opposite direction from
              >
              the laws of physics. None of the laws of physics fit the visible
              >
              history of the universe.
              What is visible clearly violates the western
              >
              concept of time. We observe how the atomic clocks and the stars
              >
              stream orbits both accelerate. style='color:navy;font-weight:bold'>

              What you call “history that is visible as it happened is galactic history” is nothing more that a reduction in the resolution of Galactic images of galaxies that are further away. The reason why what you think you see violate the laws of physics in because it has not bases in reality but is noting more than the loss of detail that results from lower resolution images of distant galaxies. So you entire Changing Earth Creation idea has as it best evidence your inability or unwillingness to understand the loss of detail that occurs in the image of an object as it gets further away. The fact that you then claim this as evidence for what Bible says makes a mockery of God’s word.

               

               

              ------ 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.