RE: [CreationTalk] Spiral histories
> 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
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>
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.
> 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.