## Testing Mathematics

Expand Messages
• Jacob probably counted sheep every day and kept tallies, since part of the flocks he managed belonged to his uncle Laban. Jacob understood that what he counted
Message 1 of 20 , Jul 3, 2013
• 0 Attachment

Jacob probably counted sheep every day and kept tallies, since part of the flocks he managed belonged to his uncle Laban. Jacob understood that what he counted was changing: birthing, maturing and dying. Ancient people, understood that everything changes. They used numbers for counting nature’s objects (e.g. sheep) as the objects themselves changed.

Jacob’s practical, dynamic, arithmetic is unlike the complex mathematics scientists use for their earth histories. Scientific histories are based on assumptions about changelessness. They inevitably presume ancient atoms were identical to modern ones and use “measuring ideas” based on that assumption. They define a host of undetectable, mathematical entities such as mass, energy, time, physical “constants” and “mathematical laws” based on the western metaphysics, that the essence of substance is changeless. The idea that matter is not changing its intrinsic nature originated with medieval Catholic scholars who laid the foundation for westernism, centuries ago.

Even if ancient atoms were not identical to modern ones, 1 + 1 would still be always = 2. However, everything that could be counted with the number “one” would continue to change so that ancient “ones” would not be like modern “ones.” In such a universe, logic and mathematics would only work locally and in nearby spaces and times. In such a universe, we could not understand earth history mathematically because nothing in the ancient world would work exactly like it does in the modern world.

Let’s test the basic assumption used in mathematical versions of earth history. Giant telescopes (paid for by taxpayers) are even now observing galactic history, the only history that is visible as it happened. We observe that many early galaxies were tiny, without starry arms. The light from these ancient galaxies often shines at less than 10% of the frequencies emitted by modern atoms. Indeed, there is a general relationship between increasing distance and the slowness of atomic light clocks. This relationship is also observed in four spinning spacecraft sent into distance areas of the solar system. NASA used transponders on those spacecraft to return a signal that originated in hydrogen-maser atomic clocks. When the hydrogen atoms were compared to their clock speed from hours ago, they also were observed to accelerate at approximately the same speed (relative to distance - the past) as the hydrogen atoms in billions of distant galaxies.

Early galaxies have strange shapes, compared to local galaxies. Their red cores are often surrounded by strings of equally-spaced, bluer star globs. Please examine the pictures of primordial galaxies from the HUDF. The pictures are in the public domain since they are from NASA. In countless examples, we observe that the star globs accelerate out and spread out as galaxies intrinsically grew into huge, local, growth spirals. Visibly, the properties of all matter continue to change relationally. Relationally means the clock speeds change along with the volumetric and inertial properties as the star streams in billions of galaxies violate every law of scientific physics.

http://www.godsriddle.info/2013/07/testing-mathematics.html

Of course what is visible makes no sense to scientists. They were trained to think that symbols (such as m, t, E and G) are real. They were trained to “solve” practice problems with these symbols in school. Most of them have never heard that science was founded on a metaphysical assumption, that the essence of substance is changeless. http://godsriddle.org/principles/the-first-principle/

It is not surprising that their cosmologies focus on undetectable, mathematical things such as invisible matter. They often imagine that 80 % of the matter in the universe is invisible. The vacuum of space time is alleged to stretch out, pushing away distant galaxies that are standing still relative to their local vacuums. The differences between ancient light-clocks and modern ones are accounted for by stretching vacuums. All the magical stories about a vacuum explosion, invisible black holes and vacuums that pull more energy out of the vacuum to keep on stretching out the vacuum are unnecessary if they could only question the fundamentalist assumption upon which their science was contrived.

What is visible in cosmic history only fits a literal version of creation, not the traditional exegesis that came from the Latin Vulgate.
First God created (completed action verb) the heavens and the Earth. The earth was (completed action verb) formless and void. Then God’s wind dithered in unbroken continuity as He continued to command light to continue to be (imperfect verbs). Evidently it was then that matter began to receive form as a relation with light. To this day, light continues to dither around within all matter, evidently giving it extension.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

Half way through the creation week, Elohim continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the place that spreads out (Hebrew raqiya). Repeatedly the Bible explains that God continues (in unbroken continuity) to spread out the heavens and the Earth. Indeed, Earth’s continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major surface seas. The sea floors are younger than the continents as they continue to form along a global expansion seam as emerging, molten lava solidifies. What is visible invalidates the assumptions at the foundation of all scientific earth-histories.

What is wrong with mathematics? There is nothing wrong with simple arithmetic that accepts the visible reality that everything changes. We observe that everything in the universe that can be numbered is changing. Indeed, the Bible states that the creation is enslaved to change. When mathematics is mingled with metaphysics to define undetectable things, the result is the greatest system of mythology in history, scientific accounts of beginnings.

Carefully test, with the light from long ago, the basic creed that is the foundation for mathematical science. If you accept what is visible as real, rather than undetectable mathematical entities, you might see the evidence that God is about to make foolish the greatest system of knowledge ever created by man, western science. What glory He will get when He reduces the wise to fools and proves that man cannot come to know Him through philosophy, only by the child-like faith of a sinner that trusts His promises alone for salvation.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist
• Math is what is not being tested. Math is math, form simple addition to complex differential equations. Science theories is not used to test math. Math is
Message 2 of 20 , Jul 4, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Math is what is not being tested.  Math is math, form simple addition to complex differential equations.

Science theories is not used to test math.  Math is used to test science.

In today's world the more we study simple things, the more we find that they are far more complex.

For example, Newton dropped an apple and "discovered gravity"
The force of gravity used to be thought to be a constant based on the tests done at the time.

As our experiments become more sophisticated, we find that the force of gravity is also a function of the masses of the two objects in test and the distance between them.

We used to think the mass of a object with a fixed number of atoms would always be a constant, but if the velocity of that mass aproaches the speed of light, it does change, even though the number of atoms doesn't.

Thus the gravity model that seems very simple and stable changes beased on relative velocities.  This doesn't even talk about how the universal gravitational constant, G, changes.

Then there are 400 years of attemps to measure the speed of light.  There is strong evidence based on the measurements that the speed of light has been decaying over the last 400 years.  There is a lot of debate on the analysis of the reduction of the speed of light because the tools used 400 years ago were not as accurate as the tools we have today.  So much of the past is pure speculation.

But if the speed of light was changing, then how does the mass of an object change if it is a function of the speed of light.  Could it mean that the mass of an object can increase at a greater rate with slower velocities in the past?  I don't know because that is all forensic science and can never be tested today.

None of this tests Math.  Math is used to test them.

Many of the models we have are just mathematical emperical models derived to fit experimental data while minimizing the error between the model and the measured data.  Mathematics isn't the problem, the derived models are the problem.

A taylor series expansion of cosine(x) is an infinite series, but for small values of x, cosine(x) is equal to x.  Math isn't to be tested here.

Math can not be tested by theories that can never be tested or proven from the past.  Math is the tool we use to test theories about the physics of the past.

• ... Newton rejected first principles and established mathematical, operational definitions for matter, space and time - they are (he claimed) what we measure.
Message 3 of 20 , Jul 4, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Pete Miles wrote:

Math is what is not being tested.  Math is math, form simple addition to complex differential equations.

Science theories is not used to test math.  Math is used to test science.

Newton rejected first principles and established mathematical, operational definitions for matter, space and time - they are (he claimed) what we measure. He wrote, "The quantity of motion is the measure of the same" "the quantity of matter is the measure of the same." By not questioning or examining first principles, he failed to notice that he was building an empirical, mathematical system that is based on a first principle. A first principle is an idea so elementary that it cannot be proven. It must be accepted by unsupported and unshakable faiths. Newton's faith actually came from the medieval scholastics who came up with the notion that the essence of substance is changeless. (This is not a contradiction to Newton's alchemy, since in his mind gold was an amalgam of mercury). The scholastics got the idea that matter is not intrinsically changing from their religion, not from any external evidence. In the Catholic religion, God allegedly sees the future and cannot change. The biblical God is never said to see the future and the Bible plainly tells us the He changes His mind, (not His character or overall plans). He even solicits believers to pray so that He will change by answering their prayers.

Imagine that Newton claims to measure matter on a scale and to define units for measuring "mass." In order to do so, He uses an operational and mathematical definition. Mass is what I measure. However, he has assumed in a circular way his fundamentalist faith, that the essence of substance is changeless.  If matter is changing relationally, both sides of a scale would be changing and it would remain in balance, not because matter is unchanging, but because it changes in a orderly, relational manner.

Imagine that Newton rejects the common place notions of time (which He says he does - things like crowing roosters and sunrises) and establishes a operational and mathematical definition of time. He defines time operationally with clocks and presumes that time cannot change. "Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration." "Absolute space, in its own nature, without relation to anything external remains always similar and immovable." Newtons mathematical system depends on his first principle, a medieval notion, that matter is not intrinsically changing itself. It is impossible to invent an empirical science without circularly relaying on the blind faith that matter is not changing itself. Yet he knew that ancient eclipses almost never fit his version of time and mathematical orbits.

This faith is blind because we can see that past. Every clock in the whole universe is observed to continually change. In billions of galaxies, we observe a literal version of creation as stars continue to form and spread out from formless matter in the heart of each galaxy. The inertial and atomic clocks are observed to change together as the star continue to move outwards, in defiance of the operational definitions and mathematical laws of physics. Even when we compare an atomic clock with its own transponded signal from hours ago, we find that atomic clocks are changing in the same direction and with about the same ratio (with respect to distance - the past) as the atomic clocks in hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies.

Is there local evidence against the first principle of physics.

The continents only fit together on a tiny globe and new earth crust continues to form. The Bible plainly states that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and that it did not rain in the Adam's day. It did not rain, but water came up out of the ground.

For centuries, the optical parallax to the Sun has continued to change and has done so even after scientists established the canonical distance to the planets with clocks.

The Bible plainly describes what all ancient people described 3500 years ago, close planet passages and the shattering of a nearby planet.

Even mathematics is based on first principles. To try to decode the universe with mathematical laws one must hold the faith that matter is not changing itself relationally.  In a universe where everything changes relationally (as the Apostle Paul described with wonderful descriptive Greek verbs in Romans 8, even mathematics fails.

How will the Bible vanquish science. The visible creation of the universe is being imaged by telescopes. What is visible fits the literal Hebrew text, but not the traditions used by modern translation based on the Latin Vulgate. Read the literal account of the creation days on the changing Earth Creationist web page under the menu item Creation Days.  http://godsriddle.org/

Scientists either close their eyes to creation or invent a magical universe crammed full of undetectable things (vacuum stretching forces and invisible matter) to prevent the visible creation from being so.

What glory the Creator will get when He vanquishes western science. Man cannot find Him through philosophy and mathematics. Yet He rejects no sinner who trusts Him alone for the salvation freely provided by the cross of Jesus Christ.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

http://godsriddle.org/principles/empiricism-versus-creation/

In today's world the more we study simple things, the more we find that they are far more complex.

For example, Newton dropped an apple and "discovered gravity"
The force of gravity used to be thought to be a constant based on the tests done at the time.

As our experiments become more sophisticated, we find that the force of gravity is also a function of the masses of the two objects in test and the distance between them.

We used to think the mass of a object with a fixed number of atoms would always be a constant, but if the velocity of that mass aproaches the speed of light, it does change, even though the number of atoms doesn't.

Thus the gravity model that seems very simple and stable changes beased on relative velocities.  This doesn't even talk about how the universal gravitational constant, G, changes.

Then there are 400 years of attemps to measure the speed of light.  There is strong evidence based on the measurements that the speed of light has been decaying over the last 400 years.  There is a lot of debate on the analysis of the reduction of the speed of light because the tools used 400 years ago were not as accurate as the tools we have today.  So much of the past is pure speculation.

But if the speed of light was changing, then how does the mass of an object change if it is a function of the speed of light.  Could it mean that the mass of an object can increase at a greater rate with slower velocities in the past?  I don't know because that is all forensic science and can never be tested today.

None of this tests Math.  Math is used to test them.

Many of the models we have are just mathematical emperical models derived to fit experimental data while minimizing the error between the model and the measured data.  Mathematics isn't the problem, the derived models are the problem.

A taylor series expansion of cosine(x) is an infinite series, but for small values of x, cosine(x) is equal to x.  Math isn't to be tested here.

Math can not be tested by theories that can never be tested or proven from the past.  Math is the tool we use to test theories about the physics of the past.

• ... Not really. Sure algebra and calculus are more complex but fundamentally they are based on the same concepts. In fact Algebra and Calculus are ultimately
Message 4 of 20 , Jul 4, 2013
• 0 Attachment

>Jacob’s practical, dynamic, arithmetic is unlike the complex

>
mathematics scientists use for their earth histories.color=navy>

Not really. Sure algebra and calculus are more complex but fundamentally they are based on the same concepts. In fact Algebra and Calculus are ultimately derived from the math Jacob would have used to count sheep.

>
Scientific histories are based on assumptions about changelessness.

While true they are also based on assumptions about changes. You are oversimplifying the situation.

>
They inevitably presume ancient atoms were identical to
>
modern ones and use “measuring ideas” based on that
>
assumption.

It is not inevitable, though with out any evidence of changes in atoms it is a reasonable assumption. That said there is evidence in the form of helium retention and diffusion rates in zircon crystals substantial accelerated nuclear decay rates in the past reducing the radiometric age of the Earth to 4-8 thousand years. That’s 4-8 thousand years based on modern clocks.

>They define a host of undetectable, mathematical entities

>
such as mass, energy, time, physical “constants” and
>
“mathematical laws” based on the western metaphysics,
>
that the essence of substance is changeless.color=navy>

First of all mass, energy, time, and physical constants are not pure mathematical entities but observable measurable properties of matter and the universe.

Mass is basically the amount of residence of matter to changes in motion and that resistance can be measured without comparing it to another mass.

Energy is basically the ability to do work and it to is a measured quantity and as it turns out the bases of mass.

Time is actually a measurement of change and on we all experience.

Physical constants are properties of the universe that show NO evidence of change and not just mathematical entities.

Mathematical laws are also are principles that are tested and shown to work over time and not just mathematical entities

The term “essence of substance” is a vague term that you have NAVER defined. So what exactly is “the essence of substance” define the term or stop using it. The repeated use of such undefined terms is the type of thing that suggests you are a liar. The use of vague undefined terms is a common trait of deception.

>
The idea that matter is not changing its intrinsic nature originated
>
with medieval Catholic scholars who laid the foundation forcolor=navy>
>
westernism, centuries ago. style='color:navy'>

What exactly do you mean by the term “intrinsic nature” of mater?  Modern science accepts all types of changes to matter, space and time so without a precise definition of what you mean by intrinsic nature of mater there is no bases for judging the accuracy of your statement.

> Even if ancient atoms were not identical to modern ones, 1 + 1 would

>
still be always = 2. However, everything that could be counted with the
>
number “one” would continue to change so that ancient “ones” would
>
not be like modern “ones.” style='font-weight:bold'>In such a universe, logic and mathematics
>
would only work locally and in nearby spaces and times. In
such a
>
universe, we could not understand earth history mathematically
>
because nothing in the ancient world would work exactly like it
>
does in the modern world.
style='color:navy'>

WRONG as long as everything changed in a mathematically understandable manner then we could understand earth history mathematically. Also such changes would leave evidence behind unless every thing changed in such a manner that the changes would be totally undetectable. If that were the case then those would also be totally me

> Let’s test the basic assumption used in mathematical versions

>
of earth history.

And let’s test the validity of your tests.

> Giant telescopes (paid for by taxpayers) are even now observing

>
galactic history, the only history that is visible as it happened.

WRONG. What telescopes observe are individual galaxies at varying distances. We do not observer the long term history of any one galaxy you can only concluded that look deeper into space represents a history if you assume that older galaxies are what near by galaxies were like in the passed such that what it observed is an Evolutionary sequence of galaxies.

Second what you call “history that is visible as it happened” can be easily proven to be nothing but a loss of resolution occurring in a digital camera has the object being looked at gets more distant. Accurately analyzing images requires understanding the technology involved in acquiring those images.

> We observe that many early galaxies were tiny, without starry arms.

We observe NOTHING of the kind. This claim as stated above based on misinterpreting low resolution images of distant galaxies. This can be proven by simply taking a nearby galaxy and reducing its resolution to that of ones like you are describing and ten enlarging them again to the size of the images you a posting on your site. The fact that you are WRONG is easily proven, and yet you persist at pushing this PROVEN erroneous claim as though it were undeniable fact. This suggests that you are ether deliberately ignoring clear facts or you are liar. In ether case it is evidence of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

>
The light from these ancient galaxies often shines at less than 10%
>
of the frequencies emitted by modern atoms.
color=navy>

The correct term for this is galactic red shift and your description is not accurate. All of the frequencies we observe today are seen in these ancient galaxies however the spectral lines of individual elements particularly hydrogen, are seen shifted to the red end of the spectrum hence the term red shift. The fact that you totally refuse to uses the accepted term suggests that you are trying to hide what to are referring to from your reader. This is yet another indication of dishonesty on your part.

> Indeed, there is a general relationship between increasing distance and

>
the slowness of atomic light clocks. This relationship is also observed in
>
four spinning spacecraft sent into distance areas of the solar system.
>
NASA used transponders on those spacecraft to return a signal that
>
originated in hydrogen-maser atomic clocks. style='font-weight:bold'>When the hydrogen atoms
>
were compared to their clock speed from hours ago,color=navy>
>
they also were observed to accelerate at approximately the
same speed
>
(relative to distance - the past) as the hydrogen atoms in billions of distant
>
galaxies.

1 The Pioneer anomalous acceleration is a = 1.25 times faster. This not close enough to be considered approximately the same speed

2 The Pioneer anomaly acceleration is opposite direction of what is observed in distant galaxies. Distant galaxies are red shifted while Pioneer anomaly is a blue shift.

3 The Pioneer anomaly acceleration is opposite direction of what you idea predicts. If the atomic clocks were accelerating as you claim the signal would be red shifted while the Pioneer anomaly is a blue shift and thus the opposite of what your idea predicts and so you claim is falsified. That is it is proven WRONG.

• Victor, You missed the premise of my argument. You can not use observations, that are highly subjective and are often proven wrong after better measurement
Message 5 of 20 , Jul 5, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Victor, You missed the premise of my argument.  You can not use observations, that are highly subjective and are often proven wrong after better measurement techniques are discoovered,  to prove the validity of mathematics.

Mathematics is used to test the validity of observations

This is about as black and white as it gets.

Unless you can find some proof that 1+1 does not equal 2 in some unobservale past.

• ... This result was predicted by General Relativity 97 years ago so all this does is confirm General Relativity. ... There is a serious flaw in this analogy.
Message 6 of 20 , Jul 6, 2013
• 0 Attachment

> Physicist Tan Ke Yun et al from the Chinese Academy of Sciences

> published his
style='font-weight:bold'>estimate of the speed of gravity as between
> 0.93 - 1.05 % light-speed. He
used two gravimeters coupled
> to rubidium clocks, one in Mongolia
and one in western China ,
> to monitor the tidal phase delay from gravity during three
> eclipses. The instantaneous position of the Sun (which we cannot
> see) averages 8.3 minutes from its optical position. If gravity
> travels at the same speed as light, the tides will be attracted
> towards its optical position. The tides are simultaneously
> attracted to the place where the Moon was a little over one second
> ago. The result should be a phase delay in the distortion of the
> Earth’s surface during an eclipse. The in-elasticity of the
earth’s
> crust also has an effect on the gravimeters.

This result was predicted by General Relativity 97 years ago so all this does is confirm General Relativity.

> Aberration is the change in the effective direction of light

> or gravity due to their propagation speeds and the motions
> of the Earth
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Georgia;color:black'>. If light has the same speed as gravity, they would
> have similar aberrations.
style='font-weight:bold'>However, the aberration of gravity
> would accelerate the earth’s orbit but the aberration of light
> only affects the direction we point our telescopes when looking
> at a star.

There is a serious flaw in this analogy. Light is a propagation of a wave within an Electromagnetic field, gravity on the other hand is not a propagation but the instantaneous condition of a field as a result you do not get an aberration affect in gravity  like you do with light. You would get this affect with a gravitational wave but with a gravity field. In fact you don’t get it with an electric field either. The result is that there is no Gravitational Aberration.

> If gravity has an aberration equivalent to light speed, it

> would accelerate Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Accelerate
> means our orbit would gradually open outwards – slowly
> but steadily increasing our distance from the Sun. It would
> also accelerate Earth’s rotation. The ratio of days in a year
> should remain the same - as the days and the years
> accelerated.

WORNG.
First of all gravity is not a propagation but a field condition of space time so there is no Gravitational Aberration.

Second. If there where is the distance to the sun is 11,686 times the diameter of the Earth so any affect Earth rotation would be 1/11,686th that on the Earth orbital velocity so the ratio of days in a year would NOT remain the same.

Third. If you accelerate the Earth Orbital velocity it would spiral outward and actually slow down which is the opposite of what your theory predicts. By the way increasing gravity at the same time does not prevent this.

>
color=black face=Georgia> Jacob claimed his days and years were shorter and worse than the
> days and years of his fathers (Genesis 47:9).

Genesis 47:9 (KJB) And Jacob said unto Pharaoh, The days of
the years of my pilgrimage are an hundred and thirty years:
few and evil have the days of the years of my life been, and
have not attained unto the days of the years of the life of my
fathers in the days of their pilgrimage.

This verse says nothing of the kind, Jacob is taking about the length of his life a compared to that of his for fathers, and not the length of day and years.

> Old people still notice days and years speeding up as we age, but

> we are trained to reject our memories and believe clocks.

Our perception of time is affected by a lot of things. Time often seems to go faster when you are having a good time but seems to drag when you are board. One factor that affects our perception of time is how long we have lived relative to the length of time in question. If you are 5 a year is 1/5th of your life but when you are 5o it is 1/50th.  The simple fact is that ones subjective perception of the passage time is affected by so many factors that it is not that reliable.

> Solar planets have logarithmically increasing spacings.

> We also find logarithmic spacings in planets around
> neighboring stars.
The push from the aberration of gravity
> pushes outward more on the outer planets than inner planets,
> which results in logarithmic spacings (Titius Bode Effect).
class=apple-converted-space>

Incase you haven’t noticed gravity drops by the square of the distance which makes it inherently logarithmic. The logarithmic spacing in planets results from the distances at which planets are far enough apart to not have much of an effect on each other allowing for stable orbits.

> Thirty-five hundred years ago, all societies told stories

> about catastrophically close planet passages and the
> crushing of a nearby planet.

Give references for this claim.

>
size=2 color=black face=Georgia>The Bible mentions both events, although it denies that the
> planets are gods.

NO it dose NOT. Neither are mentioned at all plainly or other wise.

IF you want to make the case for this claim give chapter and verse.

> The optical parallax to the Sun has steadily decreased since

> the days when Greeks first measured it with angles. The angular
> parallax has continued to decrease even after the canonical distance
> to the planets was established with clocks (radar) sixty years ago.
style='font-weight:bold'>

NO it has NOT. Actual measurements are all over the place with most of them being with in the margins of experimental error. The simple fact is that all measurements except one set from ancient Greece can be found in one transit of Venus. This proves that your alleged evidence is noting more than experimental error.

As far as the Greek measurements are concerned they so far off as to be clearly a result of a faulty method of measurement. This is because if the Earth had move that much in the last 2300 years it would have been at the center of the sun in well under the previous 4000 years.

> The most powerful evidence for accelerating orbits is visible

> cosmic history. Billions of galaxies grew from tiny globs of
> formless matter in the heart of each galaxy
size=2 color=black face=Georgia>

Your “most powerful evidence” is nothing but a result of the reduction of resolution as an object gets further away.  I have told you this several times and you continue to totally ignore the evidence against your claims.

> The arms of spiral galaxies have logarithmic spacings, like planet orbits.

News flash star in spiral galaxies orbit in the opposite direction of the spiral arms so the spacing of these are not the what causes the spacing of planets.

The simple fact is that noting you claim as any bases in reality, no bases in scripture, and frankly at best they are a product of your imagination.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Creation Science Talk

• ... WRONG! No such observation exists. Yes the star light from distant galaxies is exhibits a red-shift but there are three other ways for this to occur. 1.
Message 7 of 20 , Jul 6, 2013
• 0 Attachment

> Every clock in the whole universe is observed to continually

>
change. In billions of galaxies, we observe a literal version
>
of creation as stars continue to form and spread out fromcolor=navy>
>
formless matter in the heart of each galaxy.color=navy>  The inertial
>
and atomic clocks are observed to change together as the star
>
continue to move outwards, in defiance of the operationalcolor=navy>
>
definitions and mathematical laws of physics.color=navy>

WRONG!  No such observation exists.

Yes the star light from distant galaxies is exhibits a red-shift but there are three other ways for this to occur.

1. Doppler shift – Motion of galaxies away from us would cause their spectrums to be red-shifted. They are blue-shifted if they are heading toward us like Andromeda.

2. A Gravitational red-shift – This is a result of Gravity being red-shifted as it looses energy to a gravitational field. It gets blue-shifted when going into a gravitational field.

Both of these are established as real by observation.

3. Expansion of space – Which not directly observed it is predicted by the same theory that predicts gravitational red-shift.

The simple fact is that NO atomic clocks are observed in any galaxies. What we do observer is a red-shift in light which as three other viable explanations. This not evidence for your ideas in fact is actually is not consistent with them since you notions actually require that these galaxies be red-shifted 5 orders of magnitude more than they are. If your interpretation were correct we would observe these distant galaxies in infrared and microwave and so your idea if falsified that is it is proven WONG.

Neither do we observe stars moving out ward from the center’s of galaxies. Not only do stars orbit their galactic cores in the opposite direction of galactic spiral arms, but we do no observer any individual galaxies growing. To get such a notion you have to assemble a sequence of galaxies at varying distances and assume base on Evolutionary assumptions (Just as evolutionists do) that they represent a sequence of galactic Evolution. In gets even worst because what you are basing your sequence on is an artifact of the technology used to acquire the images.   In a digital image the further away a galaxy is the lower its resolution and if you try to enlarge those low resolution images is does not restore the lose of resolution and thus distorts image. This can be proven to be the case by taking an image of a near by galaxy and reducing its resolution to that of a more distant one and then enlarging again. The results are the same as the distant galaxy images thus your idea is once again falsified that is it is proven WONG.

> Even when we compare an atomic clock with its own

>
transponded signal from hours ago, we find that atomiccolor=navy>
>
clocks are changing in the same direction and with aboutcolor=navy>
>
the same ratio (with respect to distance - the past) as thecolor=navy>
>
atomic clocks in hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies.

WRONG AGAIN. The Pioneer Anomaly is a blue-shift not a red-shift. Not only meaning that it is the opposite of galactic red-shift but it is also the opposite of what your idea of accelerating atomic clocks says it should be. If atomic clocks were getting faster the transponded signal would show a red-shift but the Pioneer Anomaly is a blue-shift. The results are the same as the distant galaxy images thus your idea is once again falsified that is it is proven WONG.

> Is there local evidence against the first principle of physics.

> The continents only fit together on a tiny globe and new earth
> crust continues to form.

No they do not, at least not with out manipulation. Further more the alleged fit based on the potion of the continents that is above water. When you include the continental shelves you get even less of a fit.

> The Bible plainly states that the earth spreads out in unbroken

> continuity and that it did not rain in the Adam's day. It did not
> rain, but water came up out of the ground.
style='color:#333399'>

Which is total consistent with plate tectonics where both the continental and oceanic crusts are literally being stretched by plate subduction.

> For centuries, the optical parallax to the Sun has continued to

> change and has done so even after scientists established the
> canonical distance to the planets with clocks.
style='color:#333399'>

NO it has NOT. Actual measurements are all over the place with most of them being with in the margins of experimental error. The simple fact is that all measurements except one set from ancient Greece can be found in one transit of Venus. This proves that your alleged evidence is noting more than experimental error.

> The Bible plainly describes what all ancient people described 3500

> years ago, close planet passages and the shattering of a nearby planet.

NO it dose NOT. Neither are mentioned at all plainly or other wise.

IF you want to make the case for this claim give chapter and verse.

Here is the simple fact. you keep making the same claims despite clear evidence that they are wrong. Furthermore you don’t refute the evidence against your claims but rather you just ignore them this hints at intellectual dishonesty or even out and out lying.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Creation Science Talk

• ... *There is not a single mathematical formula in the Bible. The fundamental theorem of algebra was invented by Muslim scholars long after the apostles died.
Message 8 of 20 , Jul 6, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Pete Miles wrote:

Victor, You missed the premise of my argument.  You can not use observations, that are highly subjective and are often proven wrong after better measurement techniques are discoovered,  to prove the validity of mathematics.

Mathematics is used to test the validity of observations

This is about as black and white as it gets.

Unless you can find some proof that 1+1 does not equal 2 in some unobservale past.

There is not a single mathematical formula in the Bible. The fundamental theorem of algebra was invented by Muslim scholars long after the apostles died. (The Greeks used geometry, not formulas, in their science). The anti-bible crowd points out that the ratio pi is wrong in 1 Kings 7:23. The word circumference is a verb in this text. They were walking around the bronze sea - elbowing around it - not calculating a mathematical ratio. They could cast a bronze sea without the need for the ratio pi by building a clay mold with  a central peg and a rope. With a moveable sighting marker on a rope, a central sitting pole, four solstice poles on a large circle (to which the rope was attached at sunrise and sunset) and a leveled sighting bank beyond the circle (British henges), the ancients could predict eclipses without using mathematical formulas. We forget the simplicity of the ancient ways because we only know mathematical methods.

Numbers and formulas are only symbols, they have no actual reality. They exist only in minds. So how can symbols seemingly fit mathematical reality? They ONLY FIT the symbolical reality, and then only locally. They do not fit the real visible history of the cosmos or the astronomical accounts and earth histories of our ancestors.
This is why the mathematical universe is mythical, crammed full of undetectable, magical things. The “scientific” claim that 80 % of the matter in the universe is invisible is based on a mathematical, symbolical version of reality that has no counterpart in visible nature, either locally or in the distance.

Mathematical science defines reality with an elementary assumption that must be accepted by an unsupported and unshakable faith. What sort of faith supports western empirical science? The historical assumption upon which mathematical, empirical science was contrived was predicted in the Bible. Peter prophesied that mockers will come claiming "all things remain the same."

The problem is that mathematical reality is defined operationally. Take the fundamental measuring unit for empirical science, the second of time. No one has detected any time. Solomon claimed that long-time (Hebrew olam, Greek and English eons) is in our minds, which is why we cannot understand all that God has done from beginning to end. Newton and Einstein assumed that time is what clocks measure. You must believe that matter has a fixed essence, an unchanging nature, to invent an operation definition such as: 9,192,631,770 oscillations from cesium 133 is a fixed duration second. An operational definition is not concerned with whether time actually exists. It simply defines it and goes about mathematically manipulating it as though it were real. If atoms were changing themselves internally, all atomic clocks would keep tuning themselves to the changing atoms. Atomic clocks are really two clocks - the input and output clock. The input clock is tuned via a feedback circuit for a maximum signal strength for the output clock. Scientists simply assume the basic metaphysics of the western system, define seconds mathematically and invent meters, velocities, laws and constants all based on the basic assumption of westernism, an idea fabricated by Catholic medieval scholars.

Yet when we compare an atomic clock with its transponded reflections from hours ago (Pioneer Anomaly) atomic clocks keep on changing speed just like all light clocks do in hundreds of billions of ancient galaxies, at many ranges. Our mathematics works with great precision, says the scientist. It only works locally because scientists define physical reality with symbols that depend for their existence on the basic creed, the notion that atoms are perpetual motion engines. The fundamental definitions, the measuring units, the mathematical constants and laws, the entire structure of mathematical science exists in the symbolical realm, a realm that has no counterpart in the visible world of nature or in the ancient light that reveals cosmic history.

This is why the Bible states that light refutes error by exposing it. Light supports and reveals the truth because all that is visible is light, phos estin (Ephesians 5:13). Matter is a relation with light. The Earth had no extension until God’s wind continued (in unbroken continuity) to dither as He continually commanded light to continue to be. Light is the fundamental definer of reality, not mathematics. All physical reality involves light. This is why matter has non local and dualistic properties because everything that exists involves a relation with light.

Changing Earth Creationists accept cosmic history as we see it in all parts of the light spectrum. It is in galactic history that we see the simple evidence for a literal (rather than the traditional Latinized ) creation. The light from the creation era shows that everything changes relationally. We observe how the orbits accelerate along with the atomic clocks as billions of galaxies grew out of their unformed origins. The stars continue to form and spread out, as stated in the literal Hebrew of the creation account and the several other biblical texts that refer to earth and cosmic history. We see that the universe has vast age, as the Bible plainly states, yet the genealogical records show that our planet has only orbited the Sun about 6,000 times. The orbits continually accelerate outward along with the accelerating atomic and inertial clocks as billions of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals.

I recommend that creationists spend a few hours examining the images and spectra of ancient galaxies at many ranges. It is there that we see God’s great glory. We see creation as spelled out in the literal text and we see how completely the Word of God will triumph over science. How? The fundamental assumption upon which mathematical science was contrived is visibly false. Look and glorify the wisdom of the creator who can make foolish the wise of this age even using their mathematical skills to defeat them. Look!

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist
• ... So what the Bible is not a mathematical text Book. Also God intended for the Bible to be understood by all those who read it and not just those with
Message 9 of 20 , Jul 7, 2013
• 0 Attachment

> There is not a single mathematical formula in the Bible. The

> fundamental theorem of algebra was invented by Muslim
> scholars long after the apostles died. (The Greeks used
> geometry, not formulas, in their science).

So what the Bible is not a mathematical text Book. Also God intended for the Bible to be understood by all those who read it and not just those with special educations. This fact is illustrated by the fact  the New Testament was originally written in Koine Greek (the Creek of the common people) as opposed to Classical Greek the which was the Greek used by scalars. It is also why God has inspired the translation of the Bible in to other languages of which the King James Bible is the inspired English Translation.

>
The anti-bible crowd points out that the ratio pi is wrong in
> 1 Kings 7:23. The word circumference is a verb in this text.
> They were walking around the bronze sea - elbowing around
> it - not calculating a mathematical ratio. They could cast a
> bronze sea without the need for the ratio pi by building a clay
> mold with  a central peg and a rope. With a moveable sighting
> marker on a rope, a central sitting pole, four solstice poles on
> a large circle (to which the rope was attached at sunrise and
>sunset) and a leveled sighting bank beyond the circle (British
> henges), the ancients could predict eclipses without using
> mathematical formulas. We forget the
simplicity of the ancient
> ways because we only know mathematical methods.

And just like the anti-Bible crowd you missed the real solution to this supposed error. Like them, you only read verse 23 but verse 26 gives an additional detail that not only shows there is no error but that the Bible got it right to at least 3 significant digits.

1 Kings 7:23-26 (KJB)

23  And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the

one brim to the other: it was round all about, and

his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits

24  And under the brim of it round about there were

knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the

sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows,

when it was cast.

25  It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward

the north, and three looking toward the west, and three

looking toward the south, and three looking toward the

east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their

hinder parts were inward.

26  And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof

was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it

contained two thousand baths.

If you look a verse 26 you see that says that it was hand breadth thick. Now if the 30 cubit circumference was the inside circumference and you then you subtract two hand breadths from the 10 cubic diameter.

Now the standard figure for a cubit is 18 inches and a hand breadth is 4 inches. Now 10 cubits is 180 inches and subtracting 8 inches (two hand breadths) gives us 172 inches. 30 cubits is 540 inches. This results in pi = 3.14 which is pi to 3 significant digits.

I also ran this calculation for my own cubit and hand breadth. 1 cubit(Chuck) = 16.125 inches and 1 hand breath(Chuck)  = 3.625 inches. In this case I get pi = 3.141 which is pi to 4 significant digits. These results are actually quite impressive. You probably could not get much better results if you measured the molten sea with a modern tape measure.

> Numbers and formulas are only symbols, they have no actual

> reality. They exist only in minds. So how can symbols seemingly

> fit mathematical reality? They ONLY FIT the symbolical reality,

> and then only locally.

Actually that depends upon what reality actually is at its fundamental level. If as described in the Information Universe, reality is actually information at its fundamental level then the numbers and formulas are more than symbols and are in fact reality.

> They do not fit the real visible history of the cosmos or the

> astronomical accounts and earth histories of our ancestors.
size=2 face=Arial>

What you call the “visible history of the cosmos” is in reality a gross misinterpretation of artifacts of digital imaging resulting from decreasing resolution of images with distance.

>This is why the mathematical universe is mythical, crammed full

> of undetectable, magical things. The “scientific” claim that
80 %
> of the matter in the universe is invisible is based on a mathematical,
> symbolical version of reality that has no counterpart in visible nature,
> either locally or in the distance.

Actually this only true of the atheistic Big Bang cosmology and not true of Young Earth creation cosmologies. For example “dark energy” was invented to make the atheistic Big Bang fit reality. A Young Earth creation bounded cosmology has no need of “dark energy” and may not need dark mater. By the way even if dark mater is real would be neither undetectable, nor magical just not glowing with light so that it can be see from million of light years away.

> Mathematical science defines reality with an elementary assumption

> that must be accepted by an unsupported and unshakable faith.
> What sort of faith supports western empirical science? The historical
> assumption upon which mathematical, empirical science was contrived
> was predicted in the Bible. Peter
prophesied that mockers will come
> claiming "all things remain the same."

WRONG!!!! Science is NOT based on an assumption “all things remain the same” rather it is based on observation and experimentation. Furthermore not even the scoffers are claiming that “all things remain the same” in fact the word “evolution” means change. What the scoffer are claiming is that physical processes have remained unchanged since the beginning of the universe. In particular they claim that those processes have not been interrupted by miracles from God. Finally you are misquoting II Peter 3:3-4

2 Peter 3:3-4 (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.

By saying “all things continue as they were” Peter is say that the scoffer will be claiming that processes observed to day have remained unchanged and that is exactly what the scoffers actually claim.

> Changing Earth Creationists accept cosmic history as we see

> it in all parts of the light spectrum. It
is in galactic history
> that we see the simple evidence for a literal (rather than the
> traditional Latinized ) creation. The light from the creation
> era shows that everything changes relationally. We observe
> how the orbits accelerate along with the atomic clocks as
> billions of galaxies grew out of their unformed origins. The
> stars continue to form and spread out, as stated in the literal
> Hebrew of the creation account and the several other biblical
> texts that refer to earth and cosmic history.
We see that the
> universe has vast age, as the Bible plainly states, yet the
>genealogical records show that our planet has only orbited the
> Sun about 6,000 times. The orbits continually accelerate outward
> along with the accelerating atomic and inertial clocks as billions
> of galaxies grew into huge growth spirals.
>
> I recommend that creationists spend a few hours examining the
> images and spectra of ancient galaxies at many ranges.

I have spent hours examining the images and spectra of ancient galaxies at many ranges as you ask and I have found that that your claims to be 100% totally bogus. The simple fact is that I see nothing that you claim. Yes there is galactic red-shift but not only can this be explained by observable phenomenon so that there is no need or reason for your magically accelerating atomic clocks, but it is some 5 orders of magnitude lower than your theory predicts that it should be. This is not a failure that you theory can survive and thus it is proven wrong.

The claim about orbits accelerating and galaxies growing out of unformed origins is base on two erroneous assumptions.

The first assumption is that you use the same Evolutionary assumption used by scoffers that assumes distant galaxies represent earlier evolutionary stages followed by nearby galaxies. NO PLACE do we observe in any one galaxy orbits accelerating or it growing at all. Like the scoffing atheists that push the big bang you are assembling images of distant galaxies into what you assume based on you theory is an evolutionary development. Evolutionists do the same thing with stars and the fossil record.

The second assumption is that the resolution of the images of ancient galaxies at many ranges is the same at all of those many ranges. This is an assumption that is easily proven wrong based on the digital technology for capturing the images in first place and the fact that the images of ancient galaxies at many ranges can be reproduced by reducing the resolution of near by galaxies to that of the ancient galaxies at many ranges.

So yes I have spent hours examining the images and spectra of ancient galaxies at many ranges as you ask and I have found that your claims have no bases in reality. This is not because I am locked into some philosophical assumption that keeps me from seeing it but because I have examined you claims and found them to be 100% totally bogus.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Creation Science Talk

• ... Indeed, I have long since ceased to bother reading his posts.
Message 10 of 20 , Jul 7, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:54 -0400, Chuck wrote:
> Here is the simple fact. you keep making the same claims despite clear
> evidence that they are wrong. Furthermore you donât refute the
> evidence against your claims but rather you just ignore them this
> hints at intellectual dishonesty or even out and out lying.

Indeed, I have long since ceased to bother reading his posts.
• ... From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Elphick Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 5:57 PM To:
Message 11 of 20 , Jul 8, 2013
• 0 Attachment

-----Original Message-----
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Oliver Elphick
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 5:57 PM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Testing Mathematics

On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:54 -0400, Chuck wrote:

>> Here is the simple fact. you keep making the same claims despite clear

>> evidence that they are wrong. Furthermore you donât refute the

>> evidence against your claims but rather you just ignore them this

>> hints at intellectual dishonesty or even out and out lying.

>

> Indeed, I have long since ceased to bother reading his posts.

That’s what I doing from now on unless he actually responds to something I write in a manner worth responding too. The main reason I kept responding to his material was I want to understand it in case I need to deal with this idea latter on. Having learned all I can, it’s time to move on.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

• Sorry! I am teaching in a five day vacation Bible School this week. I am teaching Paul s missionary work and the gospel to young kids. Nothing about creation
Message 12 of 20 , Jul 8, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Sorry! I am teaching in a five day vacation Bible School this week. I am teaching Paul's missionary work and the gospel to young kids. Nothing about creation or science.

(One 11 year old is really sharp. He came last year and told me he did not believe that God created the universe but believed in the big bang. So today I threw in some slides about how Greek kids learned geometry. I showed him how Greeks had geometrical shapes for all numbers. He was really interested in learning about geometrical numbers - so he promised to come back Tuesday.  Tarsus was considered the greatest center of philosophy during Paul's youth (according to Strabo). Augustus' teacher was trained in Tarsus. I am making up my own power point every night so I am swamped this week.)

I will attempt to explain once again (later in the week)  why hermeneutically the creation account cannot be made to fit western linear thinking - by again emphasizing how western first principles are the opposite of those from the Old Testament era. Sorry for the delay.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Chuck wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Elphick
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 5:57 PM
To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Testing Mathematics

On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:54 -0400, Chuck wrote:

>> Here is the simple fact. you keep making the same claims despite clear

>> evidence that they are wrong. Furthermore you donâ€™t refute the

>> evidence against your claims but rather you just ignore them this

>> hints at intellectual dishonesty or even out and out lying.

>

> Indeed, I have long since ceased to bother reading his posts.

That’s what I doing from now on unless he actually responds to something I write in a manner worth responding too. The main reason I kept responding to his material was I want to understand it in case I need to deal with this idea latter on. Having learned all I can, it’s time to move on.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

• Again, you cant use emperical observational science to test math. You are mixing two different things. Units and Math are two different things. Units are
Message 13 of 20 , Jul 10, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Again, you cant use emperical observational science to test math.

You are mixing two different things. Units and Math are two different things.  Units are arbitrary.  They are just physical quantities that are commonly agreed upon by the people that are using them.

But Math is always math.  1+1 is always 2.  10 times 10 is always 100,  Square root of 64 is always 8.  Math is not abstract.

Units of measure do change, have always changed, and will always change.  For example, what is the length of a cubit?  Has this length been constant throughout its use in the Bible?

• ... You just don t get it do you, Victor. It is not that we don t understand what you are saying it s that we don t see the text the way you do. I don t know
Message 14 of 20 , Jul 11, 2013
• 0 Attachment

> I will attempt to explain once again (later in the week)  why

> hermeneutically the creation account cannot be made to fit
> western linear thinking

You just don’t get it do you, Victor. It is not that we don’t understand what you are saying it’s that we don’t see the text the way you do.

I don’t know what Bible you are reading but my King James Bible has a lot of linearity to it as does the Hebrew and Greek. The Bible starts with the beginning of History and ends with it ending and the creation of a new heaven and Earth. Much of it is linear historical narrative.

The problem is that you have a overrated opinion of your personal knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and of translating between languages. This evidenced by the fact you interpret several passages in both the Old and New Testament in clearly erroneous way.  Jacob’s conversation with Pharaoh comes to mind as a good example.

>- by again emphasizing how western first principles are the

> opposite of those from the Old Testament era.

Since the Old Testament, Like the New Testament was inspired by God, and so it is not limited to the way of thinking of its earthly authors. There are plenty of cases particularly in the case of prophecy where the earthly author did not fully understand what he was writing. Yet today we have either seen how they came to pass, in some cases personally or in some case can see more clearly how they can come to pass. John’s prophecy about the dead bodies of the two witnesses being seen by the entire world is good example.

My point is that part of you problem is that you are limiting the Bible to the thinking of the time when it was written which is actually a rather liberal perspective.

• ... Numbers are symbols. The Babylonians invented a number system based on 60. They had different rules than we use with our Arabic numerals, decimal system
Message 15 of 20 , Jul 15, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Pete Miles wrote:

Again, you cant use emperical observational science to test math.

You are mixing two different things. Units and Math are two different things.  Units are arbitrary.  They are just physical quantities that are commonly agreed upon by the people that are using them.

But Math is always math.  1+1 is always 2.  10 times 10 is always 100,  Square root of 64 is always 8.  Math is not abstract.

Units of measure do change, have always changed, and will always change.  For example, what is the length of a cubit?  Has this length been constant throughout its use in the Bible?

Numbers are symbols. The Babylonians invented a number system based on 60. They had different rules than we use with our Arabic numerals, decimal system and algebraic manipulations. The Babylonian method for calculating a square root (as explained by the Greek Hero) was an iterative method of homing in by approximations. The Babylonians could estimate the volume and number of men needed to dig a canal with methods unlike ours. Their sawtooth (A and B) methods of estimating the changing speed of the Sun and Moon (against the background stars) was radically different from the way we do it.

The Greeks had geometrical methods of solving problems, by drawing out geometrical figures. They could solve trigonometric problems with geometrical figures. Their numbers were based on real objects like sea shells (without the need for a zero) that could be arranged in geometrical shapes.

Numbers and rules for manipulating them only exist in our minds.

I disagree with you that observational methods cannot test mathematics. The issue is fundamental. We can test the mathematical notion that atoms remain the same in their essence by observing cosmic history. It is this fundamentalist assumption that is the basis for most scientific operational definitions, empirical measuring units and mathematical laws of physics. These things were defined mathematically, but not independently of the assumption that matter is not continuing to change itself.

Imagine for a moment that Adam explains the creation to Eve. He says God made two great lights for ruling over the day and night. See he says, there is one and there is the other so one plus one is two. Yet we observe that all ancient suns were remarkably different from local stars. Adams 1s added up to 2 and so do ours. However, nothing He could add was like what we add because every atom has been changing throughout cosmic history. The Bible plainly states that the creation is enslaved to change. In a universe where matter is changing relationally, their is no way to decode the cosmos mathematically. We can only observe its history, the only history that is visible as it happened back to the creation era.

We observe on the features of the moon that great flood plains of lava have altered its surface. Indeed if you take away the mare, the highlands fit together on a much smaller moon. If you take away the lowlands of Mars, the highlands also fit together on a tiny globe. On Mars we have the advantage of magnetic stripes running around the whole planet that reveal how the planet grew in size. The Bible states that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and even what is born (emerges) from the earth also spreads out. Indeed, if you take away the younger oceans the continents fit together on a much smaller earth.

Plato, in the Republic Book 7: "For when a man knows not his own first principle, and when the conclusion and intermediate steps are also constructed out of he knows not what, how can he imagine that such a fabric of convention can ever become science?" Plato had no respect for mathematicians. He wrote that he hardly ever knew a mathematician capable of reasoning because they did not begin by analyzing their first principles

Changing Earth Creation insists that Christians should use biblical principles, rather than ones from philosophy. Peter even warned us of the "first law" of the last days - the notion that all things remain the same. He prophesied that mockers will obfuscate the age of the heavens and Earth's watery past with this idea - that all things remain the same. Indeed, mathematical earth histories are always based on the notion that atoms are perpetual motion engines but when we observe the history of how hundreds of billions of galaxies formed - they never followed the laws of physics because every atom is observed to change, change relationally.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

Recent Activity:
Creation Talk is a service of the Northwest Creation Network
http://nwcreation.net/

Find us on Facebok

Patronize our store - all proceeds support creation missions.
http://store.nwcreation.net
.

• Victor - there is only one response left for you Proverbs 26:4
Message 16 of 20 , Jul 17, 2013
• 0 Attachment
Victor - there is only one response left for you Proverbs 26:4
• ... Proverbs 26:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:5&version=NIV I am simply trying to point out how great will be the glory to God
Message 17 of 20 , Jul 18, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Pete Miles wrote:

Victor - there is only one response left for you Proverbs 26:4

Proverbs 26:5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2026:5&version=NIV

I am simply trying to point out how great will be the glory to God when He does what He promised, makes foolish the wise of this age. The triumph of the Bible over science is not far away. Telescopes are taking new and deeper vistas of the creation era. What is visible is utterly unscientific. It only fits a hermeneutic interpretation of the biblical creation texts.

Victor, Changing Earth Creationist

• ... unusual X-ray flares from the vicinity of SgrA*. While the initial prediction was that G2 would fall right into Sagittarius A* since then its path has been
Message 18 of 20 , Jul 20, 2013
• 0 Attachment

> Stefan Gillessen, from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial

> Physics, made a prediction in 2011. He predicted that G2, a dark
> object near the center of our galaxy, would get sucked into the
> Sagittarius A* black hole. Two enormous jets emerge from the
> vicinity of SgrA* and extend out into a bar that connects to the
> spiral arms of our galaxy.
style='font-weight:bold'>According to Stefan’s calculations,
> G2 should get sucked into the black hole’s gravity in mid 2013.
>
> It is now the summer of 2013 and Stefan Gillessen admits that
G2
> has not collided with the black hole. There have been no reports of
unusual X-ray flares from the vicinity of SgrA*.

While the initial prediction was that G2 would fall right into Sagittarius A* since then its path has been calculated more accurately. It is actually passing about 267 AU’s, though some of the gas may actually fall into the 4,300,000 solar mass supper massive Black Hole, it is not being sucked into it. Calculating the exact path of a gas cloud from 26,000 light years away is rather difficult and it is expected that the initial prediction would be off by a little bit. The fact that it would not fall right into the Black hole has been known since last year.

http://www.mpg.de/4696934/black_hole_big_meal

Observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope show that G2 has

>morphed into a long, pulsed, bidirectional jet that is moving out
> from the G2 object. Gillessen still thinks that eventually, perhaps
> in a year, the jet will swirl back around to approach the black hole.
> So far, the double jet is moving out in opposition to the alleged
>gravity of the supposed black hole.

As is so often the case you are totally misinterpreting what is going on. This is not a bidirectional jet that is moving out from the G2 object as you claim but the gas clown being stretched as it rounds the black hole. Furthermore given the fact that it is making a near miss of the black hole this stretching affect has been expected and has the gas passes its point of closest approach it will swing back out like a space craft doing a fly by of a planet. By the way the curve in the stretched out gas cloud it a result of its path curving around the Sagittarius A*.

http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1332e/

> Back in 2012, I predicted that the dark object would not be eaten

> by the black hole because black holes don’t exist. The cores of
> galaxies are places where matter receives form and emerges,
> spreading out, in the opposite direction from Stefan’s black hole
> predictions.

Please give a link to this so called prediction of yours. That said what is being observed is not in opposition to Stefan’s prediction but the difference is a result of his calculated path being off by 267 AU’s it is actually consistent with later predictions that were better able to calculate the gas cloud’s path.

> There are two ways to explain why billions of spiral galaxies encircle a point.

> According to scientists, matter is spiraling inward, down the drain of a
black hole.

This is a straw man.  No Scientist is claiming that spiral galaxies are spiraling into their central black holes but orbiting them and as I have pointed out before the orbits are in the opposite direction of the spiral arms.

Victor, what you are doing is making a mockery of the Bible by claiming it says things it does not say and then claiming clearly bogus things as support for those false claims.

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Creation Science Talk

• ... towards. The prediction for a black hole is not just off by a little bit. What happened contradicts the very notion that a black hole even exists. What
Message 19 of 20 , Jul 23, 2013
• 0 Attachment
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Chuck wrote:

> Stefan Gillessen, from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial
> Physics, made a prediction in 2011. He predicted that G2, a dark
> object near the center of our galaxy, would get sucked into the
> Sagittarius A* black hole. Two enormous jets emerge from the
> vicinity of SgrA* and extend out into a bar that connects to the
> spiral arms of our galaxy. According to Stefan’s calculations,
> G2 should get sucked into the black hole’s gravity in mid 2013.
>
> It is now the summer of 2013 and Stefan Gillessen admits that G2
> has not collided with the black hole. There have been no reports of
unusual X-ray flares from the vicinity of SgrA*.

While the initial prediction was that G2 would fall right into Sagittarius A* since then its path has been calculated more accurately. It is actually passing about 267 AU’s, though some of the gas may actually fall into the 4,300,000 solar mass supper massive Black Hole, it is not being sucked into it. Calculating the exact path of a gas cloud from 26,000 light years away is rather difficult and it is expected that the initial prediction would be off by a little bit. The fact that it would not fall right into the Black hole has been known since last year.

The double jet is pulsed. Half of it is moving away and the other half towards. The prediction for a black hole is not just off by a little bit. What happened contradicts the very notion that a black hole even exists. What happened is supported by countless jets remnants all around the center of out galaxy. THe largest jets extend out into a bar which connects to spiral arms that continually move outwards, growing into huge growth spirals, yet they are sourced in unformed matter at the core of the galaxy.

Imagine that we predict that a meteor will hit Earth (as happened last years in Russia). We predict an explosion in the atmosphere and that the Earth will swallow the meteor. However, the object, as in approaches, turns into a double jet. It doesn't even hit the Earth. Half the jet moves tangentially away and the other half tangentially in the opposite direction. We would have to conclude that the meteor was certainly active and acted apart from the Earth.

The initial parts of the double jet do not even bend from the alleged gravity of the invisible hole.I predicted that there is no hole in 21012, here:

http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/09/sagittarius-a.html

What we observe in the universe only fits the literal account of creation. It does not fit the attempts that scientists (creationists and secularists) make to adjust the universe to fit their creed, the one the BIble preidcted for the last days, that all things remain the same. The visible creation at many ranges only shows that God continues to form the stars and to continues to call them to continually come out, exactly as in the Hebrew grammatical text.

Observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope show that G2 has

>morphed into a long, pulsed, bidirectional jet that is moving out
> from the G2 object. Gillessen still thinks that eventually, perhaps
> in a year, the jet will swirl back around to approach the black hole.
> So far, the double jet is moving out in opposition to the alleged
>gravity of the supposed black hole.

As is so often the case you are totally misinterpreting what is going on. This is not a bidirectional jet that is moving out from the G2 object as you claim but the gas clown being stretched as it rounds the black hole. Furthermore given the fact that it is making a near miss of the black hole this stretching affect has been expected and has the gas passes its point of closest approach it will swing back out like a space craft doing a fly by of a planet. By the way the curve in the stretched out gas cloud it a result of its path curving around the Sagittarius A*.

> Back in 2012, I predicted that the dark object would not be eaten
> by the black hole because black holes don’t exist. The cores of
> galaxies are places where matter receives form and emerges,
> spreading out, in the opposite direction from Stefan’s black hole
> predictions.

Please give a link to this so called prediction of yours. That said what is being observed is not in opposition to Stefan’s prediction but the difference is a result of his calculated path being off by 267 AU’s it is actually consistent with later predictions that were better able to calculate the gas cloud’s path.

> There are two ways to explain why billions of spiral galaxies encircle a point.
> According to scientists, matter is spiraling inward, down the drain of a black hole.

This is a straw man.  No Scientist is claiming that spiral galaxies are spiraling into their central black holes but orbiting them and as I have pointed out before the orbits are in the opposite direction of the spiral arms.

Victor, what you are doing is making a mockery of the Bible by claiming it says things it does not say and then claiming clearly bogus things as support for those false claims.

What I am doing is showing how the LITERAL creation account only fits the visible universe, not the ad hoc stories scientists invent to protect their creed, that the properties of matter are fixed, not continually (and sometimes violently) emerging. We creationists need to get away from trying to interpret the creation with the Latin Vulgate, the traditions of men, instead of the grammatical Hebrew words.

The triumph of the word of God over science will be devastating complete. It will bring enormous glory to the Creator when He makes foolish the wise of this age, as He promised.

Since you are still struggling with the issue of time, I will write another essay on understanding the seven days without western notions of time. The text itself never mentions time. It does mention evenings, mornings, and sequential days. The notion that time exists had not even been invented yet by philosophers when Moses wrote. Understanding the text without adjusting it to fit western ideas about time, is supported by matter emerging from its formless state as galaxies grew into huge growth spirals at many ranges throughout cosmic history. I will explain this again in my next essay.

Victor, Changing Earth Creation.

• ... Sagittarius A* ... years ... would ... Black hole ... http://www.mpg.de/4696934/black_hole_big_meal ... towards. There is no double jet it is a gas cloud
Message 20 of 20 , Jul 24, 2013
• 0 Attachment

>>> Stefan Gillessen, from the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial

>>> Physics, made a prediction in 2011. He predicted that G2, a dark
>>> object near the center of our galaxy, would get sucked into the
>>> Sagittarius A* black hole. Two enormous jets emerge from the
>>> vicinity of SgrA* and extend out into a bar that connects to the
>>> spiral arms of our galaxy. According
to Stefan’s calculations,
>>> G2 should get sucked into the black hole’s gravity in mid
2013.
>>>
>>
> It is now the summer of 2013 and Stefan Gillessen
>>> has not collided with the black hole. There have been no reports
of
>>> unusual X-ray flares from the vicinity of SgrA*.

>> While the initial prediction was that G2 would fall right into Sagittarius A*

>> since then its path has been calculated more accurately. It is
actually
>> passing about 267 AU’s, though some of the gas may actually fall
into the
>> 4,300,000 solar mass supper massive Black Hole, it is not being sucked
>> into it. Calculating the exact path of a gas cloud from 26,000 light
years
>> away is rather difficult and it is expected that the initial
prediction would
>> be off by a little bit. The fact that it would not fall right into the
Black hole
>> has been known since last year.
face=Georgia>

>>

> The double jet is pulsed. Half of it is moving away and the other half towards.

There is no double jet it is a gas cloud stretched out by gravity arcing around the black hole. These images are in inferred so what you are calling pulses are variations in temperature as gas cloud speeds through the surround gas it,

> The prediction for a black hole is not just off by a little bit. What happened

> contradicts the very notion that a black hole even exists.
size=2 color=navy face=Georgia>

What has actually been observed is fully consistent with the prediction for a black hole. The earlier prediction that the gas cloud would fall into the black hole was in error because of a small inaccuracy in the measurement of the direction the cloud was moving. As more observation were made better accuracy was obtained showing that the cloud would miss the black hole by about 267 AU’s and the images obtained are what was expected based on the laws of physics from that close approach of the cloud flew by the central black hole.

http://www.mpg.de/4696934/black_hole_big_meal

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4215.pdf

http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1332e/

http://www.eso.org/public/videos/eso1332b/

> What happened is supported by countless jets remnants all around

> the center of out galaxy. THe largest jets extend out into a bar which
> connects to spiral arms that continually move outwards, growing into
> huge growth spirals, yet they are sourced in unformed matter at the
> core of the galaxy.

The jets actually seen coming from galactic cores are perpendicular to galaxies plain and have nothing to do with spiral arms. Furthermore the spiral arms do not move out ward but are formed from the motion of stars orbiting the center of the galaxy in the opposite direction of the spiral.  The simple fact is that neither your description of the behavior of this gas cloud nor that of spiral arms has any bases in reality.  They are both based on erroneous interpretation of images, that clearly and possibly deliberately ignore the technology used to get and process the images.

>Imagine that we predict that a meteor will hit Earth (as happened last

> years in Russia ).
We predict an explosion in the atmosphere and that
> the Earth will swallow the meteor. However, the object, as in
> approaches, turns into a double jet. It doesn't even hit the Earth.
> Half the jet moves tangentially away and the other half tangentially
> in the opposite direction. We would have to conclude that the meteor
> was certainly active and acted apart from the Earth.
size=2 color=navy face=Georgia>

First of all your description of behavior of the gas cloud is not accurate and so this illustration is irrelevant.

Second if an approach meteor behaved as you said the fact that it happened as it passed the Earth would suggest that gravitational tidal forces acting on the meteor triggered volatiles inside the meteor causing it the split forming your double jet. This could potentially happen as the volatiles were just below activation temperature and the gravitational tidal forces were just enough to raise the temperature the few degrees needed to reach activation temperature.

> The initial parts of the double jet do not even bend from the alleged

> gravity of the invisible hole.
style='color:navy'>

There is NO double jet and the bending is evident even in the 2004 image of G2 but it is harder to see because the cloud was cooler at that point, but it is there.

>I predicted that there is no hole in 21012, here:

>