## RE: [CreationTalk] Testing Mathematics

Expand Messages
• ... 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 1 of 20 , Jul 6, 2013

> 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

• ... 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 2 of 20 , Jul 7, 2013

> 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 3 of 20 , Jul 7, 2013
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 donÃ¢Â€Â™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 4 of 20 , Jul 8, 2013

-----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 donÃ¢Â€Â™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.

Thatâ€™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, itâ€™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 5 of 20 , Jul 8, 2013
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.Â

(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.Â  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.)Â

I will attempt to explain once again (later in the week)Â  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:
Â

-----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

Â

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 donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t refute the

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

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

>Â

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

Â

Thatâ€™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, itâ€™s time to move on.

Â

Â

------ 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 6 of 20 , Jul 10, 2013
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 7 of 20 , Jul 11, 2013

> 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 8 of 20 , Jul 15, 2013
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Pete Miles wrote:
Â

Again, you cant use emperical observational science to test math.Â
Â
You are mixing two different things.Â Units and Math are two different things.Â  Units are arbitrary.Â  They are just physical quantities that are commonly agreed upon by the people that are using them.
Â
But Math is always math.Â  1+1 is always 2.Â  10 times 10 is always 100,Â  Square root of 64 is always 8.Â  Math is not abstract.
Â
Units of measure do change, have always changed, and will always change.Â  For example, what is the length of a cubit?Â  Has this length been constant throughout its use in the Bible?
Â
Â

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. Â

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 9 of 20 , Jul 17, 2013
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 10 of 20 , Jul 18, 2013
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Pete Miles wrote:
Â

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 11 of 20 , Jul 20, 2013

> 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 12 of 20 , Jul 23, 2013
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Chuck wrote:
Â

> 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.Â According to Stefanâ€™s calculations,
> G2 should get sucked into the black holeâ€™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
Â 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 AUâ€™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.

Â

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 ESOâ€™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 donâ€™t exist. The cores of
> galaxies are places where matter receives form and emerges,
> spreading out, in the opposite direction from Stefanâ€™s black hole
> predictions.Â

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

Â

> 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.

Â

This is a straw man. Â 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.

Â

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.

Â

Â
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.
Â

Â

• ... 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 13 of 20 , Jul 24, 2013

>>> 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:

>