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

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Of dark matter and energy and vestigial organs

Expand Messages
  • Temlakos
    ... I see now that regular spaces don t resolve properly. You might want to try these links:
    Message 1 of 6 , Jan 10, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Victor wrote:
      > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:
      >
      >> Everyone:
      >>
      >> Here's another thread-starter, to reply to a few comments I've noticed
      >> in the last two or three message cycles.
      >>
      >> First, about dark matter, and also about that other concept, dark
      >> /energy/: I urge everyone to follow these two links:
      >>
      >> <http://creationwiki.org/Dark matter>
      >>
      >> <http://creationwiki.org/Dark energy>
      >>
      >>
      > Your links do not work. I found the article on dark energy - but not
      > on dark matter. All I found was a css page.
      >

      I see now that regular spaces don't resolve properly. You might want to
      try these links:

      <http://creationwiki.org/Dark_matter>

      <http://creationwiki.org/Dark_energy>

      My apologies to everyone who tried to follow the old links and got the
      two words run together. Perhaps I needed to copy the links as they
      appeared, instead of specifying a traditional MediaWiki page name.

      Now in reply to the other part of this message: the existence and
      placement of far-off large objects in the universe does not appear to
      have anything to do with the eventual decay of matter. I /have/ seen
      reports suggesting that the elementary particles of matter (the
      traditional protons, neutrons, and electrons) are not repeat /not/ as
      rock-solid stable as their original discoverers supposed. This decay is
      very, very slow, but it does occur. I would regard it as more relevant
      to the /ending/ of all things, not their origin. Specifically, the
      Apostle Peter stated that God would melt all the elements with great
      heat at the very end of the world (probably after the Millennial Kingdom
      has run its course).

      But I would like to ask Victor this: Why be so hostile to mathematics?
      That's how we make predictions. And contrary to the continual canards
      from the evolutionistic establishment, creationists /do/ make
      predictions from their theories, and those predictions /have/ been
      vindicated. I offer, in those two articles, the mathematical vindication
      of the proposition that neither dark matter nor dark energy exist,
      because the origin of the universe is not repeat /not/ as the
      methodological naturalists would have you believe.

      Temlakos
    • steelville
      ... Contrary to the pretension of utility, it only shows the explanatory power not of evolution, but of darwinism. Meaning, darwinism can explain anything,
      Message 2 of 6 , Jan 10, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        >
        > What this shows is that, contrary to statements by some
        > antievolutionists, the theory of evolution does have tremendous utility.
        ---
        Contrary to the pretension of utility, it only shows the "explanatory
        power" not of evolution, but of darwinism. Meaning, darwinism can
        explain anything, since it is a blind-faith pagan metaphysics with no
        basis in fact.

        Breeding is an ancient farmers' trick. Breeding insects is novel, but
        rather another "no new thing under the sun". Killing a carrier before
        the carried can mature, whopie-doo.

        --aec
      • Victor
        ... noticed ... Kingdom ... vindication ... I am not hostile to mathematics. I studied differential equations etc and used them in my work. I am arguing with
        Message 3 of 6 , Jan 14, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Temlakos <temlakos@...> wrote:
          >
          > Victor wrote:
          > > --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Temlakos <temlakos@> wrote:
          > >
          > >> Everyone:
          > >>
          > >> Here's another thread-starter, to reply to a few comments I've
          noticed
          > >> in the last two or three message cycles.
          > >>
          > >> First, about dark matter, and also about that other concept, dark
          > >> /energy/: I urge everyone to follow these two links:
          > >>
          > >> <http://creationwiki.org/Dark matter>
          > >>
          > >> <http://creationwiki.org/Dark energy>
          > >>
          > >>
          > > Your links do not work. I found the article on dark energy - but not
          > > on dark matter. All I found was a css page.
          > >
          >
          > I see now that regular spaces don't resolve properly. You might want to
          > try these links:
          >
          > <http://creationwiki.org/Dark_matter>
          >
          > <http://creationwiki.org/Dark_energy>
          >
          > My apologies to everyone who tried to follow the old links and got the
          > two words run together. Perhaps I needed to copy the links as they
          > appeared, instead of specifying a traditional MediaWiki page name.
          >
          > Now in reply to the other part of this message: the existence and
          > placement of far-off large objects in the universe does not appear to
          > have anything to do with the eventual decay of matter. I /have/ seen
          > reports suggesting that the elementary particles of matter (the
          > traditional protons, neutrons, and electrons) are not repeat /not/ as
          > rock-solid stable as their original discoverers supposed. This decay is
          > very, very slow, but it does occur. I would regard it as more relevant
          > to the /ending/ of all things, not their origin. Specifically, the
          > Apostle Peter stated that God would melt all the elements with great
          > heat at the very end of the world (probably after the Millennial
          Kingdom
          > has run its course).
          >
          > But I would like to ask Victor this: Why be so hostile to mathematics?
          > That's how we make predictions. And contrary to the continual canards
          > from the evolutionistic establishment, creationists /do/ make
          > predictions from their theories, and those predictions /have/ been
          > vindicated. I offer, in those two articles, the mathematical
          vindication
          > of the proposition that neither dark matter nor dark energy exist,
          > because the origin of the universe is not repeat /not/ as the
          > methodological naturalists would have you believe.
          >
          > Temlakos
          >
          I am not hostile to mathematics. I studied differential equations etc
          and used them in my work. I am arguing with the basic assumption that
          one must have in order to try to decode the universe with mathematics.
          What assumption is that?

          Peter predicted that in the last days, false teachers would come
          saying - panta outos diamenei - all things remain the same in being.
          Denying changes in being is the very assumption upon which science was
          historically founded. Aquinas allowed for every kind of changes in
          matter - but the essence of matter could only change if matter was
          destroyed.

          How could matter change its being? The apostle Paul twice repeated
          two Greek verbs when he described how the creation is in bondage to
          phthora - fundamental change. He twice used verbal forms of hupotasso
          - an orderly submissive arrangement. He twice used-together verbs to
          describe these changes. Things that change together in an orderly way
          change relationally.

          What is relational change? It is the most common kind of change that
          we see every day. In relational change, things change in parallel -
          everything changing together. For example, a single celled creature
          reproduces relationally. Every part of the cell acts in parallel,
          simultaneously changing. You cannot force a system of causality on
          relational change, because everything in the cell changes together.
          There is harmony and order - because we see together changes.

          Are atoms the only things in the whole universe that do not change
          relationally? Why do we insist that atoms are perpetual motion
          machines? Because science uses perpetual motion atoms to DEFINE their
          empiricist system. They measure distance, time, frequencies, energy,
          mass etc with their perpetual motion atoms. An empiricist system
          cannot precisely define time without assuming that something,
          somewhere moves with perpetual, regular, repeated motion. Even our
          system of mathematics, although it works locally, could not work at
          all for the distant past if matter changes relationally.

          We see the past with our eyes. No perpetual motion atoms gleam from
          billions of distant galaxies. We also see how the galaxies grew from
          tiny naked objects packed with stars to huge, local, growth spirals.
          The properties of all matter in the whole universe visibly change
          relationally. If matter changes relationally, then science and
          mathematics will go down as the greatest system of foolishness man has
          ever built on the ideas of a pagan Greek.

          He promises that at some point He will make foolish the wisdom of the
          world. Scientists are building huge new telescopes. I predict that the
          telescopes will substantiate a biblical cosmic history and science
          will fail completely - becoming what the Bible predicts - moros -
          Greek for foolishness. Perhaps this is why the Bible commands (in the
          imperative) that we not seek to be wise in this age - because He is
          taking them with their own skills. What if we do seek to be wise in
          this age - Paul said we will deceive ourselves. I used to try to be
          wise in this age - but now I accept the foolishness of biblical
          physics - because it will triumph over science someday.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.