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

RE: [CreationTalk] Testing Mathematics

Expand Messages
  • Chuck
    ... 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 1 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.

       

       

       

       

       

    • Victor McAllister
      ... 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 2 of 20 , Jul 15, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Pete Miles <robots@...> 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
          https://www.facebook.com/nwcreationnetwork

          Watch our videos on YouTube
          http://www.youtube.com/user/ashcrac

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


        • Pete Miles
          Victor - there is only one response left for you Proverbs 26:4
          Message 3 of 20 , Jul 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Victor - there is only one response left for you Proverbs 26:4
          • Victor McAllister
            ... 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 4 of 20 , Jul 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Pete Miles <robots@...> 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


            • Chuck
              ... 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 5 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

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

                 



                 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/

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

                > 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.

                Genesis Science Mission

                Online Store

                Genesis Mission

                Creation Science Talk

                 

                 

                   

              • Victor McAllister
                ... 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 6 of 20 , Jul 23, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Chuck <chuckpc@...> 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.

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

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

                   


                  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*.

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

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

                  > 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.
                   

                   


                • Chuck
                  ... 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 7 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
                    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.
                    face=Georgia>

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

                    >>
                    color="#9136ad">http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.4215.pdf

                    > 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:

                    >
                    color="#9136ad">http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/09/sagittarius-a.html

                    Thanks for actually providing that, however the prediction that  Sagittarius A* would not swallow G2 is not unique to you.  The prediction of that event was dependent on the accuracy of the initial calculations of its G2 direction of motion. When last September it was discovered that that calculation was off a little it became clear that it would miss the central black hole and as such would not get swallowed.

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

                    By the way based on your history if G1 had gotten swallowed you would have ignored it.

                     

                     

                     

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