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

Re: changing c...was: distance and time

Expand Messages
  • Victor
    ... Victor: I do indeed reject science as a method for decoding earth history. Without controversy, ancient documents should be interpreted in their historical
    Message 1 of 31 , Dec 1, 2004
      >--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, grant hallman <unilogic@p...> >wrote:
      > At 09:17 AM 28-11-04 -0000, Victor wrote:
      >
      > ...
      >
      >
      > >Please note that I am only reading the Bible in its historical >context
      > >- using the words as they were understood by students in Peter's >day.
      > > I am not trying to fit it to our system of thinking.
      >
      > Fine by me - as long as you aren't trying to fit the scientific
      >method of
      > thinking into someone's interpretation of the Bible.
      >
      Victor:
      I do indeed reject science as a method for decoding earth history.

      Without controversy, ancient documents should be interpreted in their
      historical context, not explained with our culture. For this reason
      Christians should not tailor the Bible to fit our scientific culture.
      Although the modern first principle had been invented when the New
      Testament was penned, contradictory first principles (such as Plato's
      system) were popular until the Western system became dominant.
      Furthermore, the Bible even identifies our first principle and clearly
      contradicts it.

      Someone could ask, if it clearly contradicts it, why do Bible scholars
      not discuss this issue? Because, as Paul so clearly warned, the
      elementary ideas, the first principles, of the philosophers take away
      ones freedom. We learn to think with these elementary ideas in
      kindergarten so we do not know how to think like the prophets in the
      Bible. It is natural to unconsciously adjust everything to fit your
      first principle. Christians do not consciously say, I am going to use
      the first principle of a pagan to interpret the Bible. Our education
      system hides our first principle, using it continuously without ever
      discussing it openly. Christians simply interpret the Bible with our
      culture and reasoning, and the vast majority of them probably never
      heard of our first principle and how fundamental it is to our whole
      way of thinking.

      > >Ok let pretend that I am going to define some property of matter
      > >without using Aristotle's assumption. I imagine that something >called
      > >mass exists and I define some way of measuring it such as weighing >it.
      > > If I do not hold Aristotle's assumption first, I can not be
      > >mathematically precise because there is no way to test to see if >this
      > >property of matter that I have invented changes. You say we could >put
      > >it on a precision scale and keep weighing it and since it stays the
      > >same, it must be a permanent property of matter.
      > >
      > >But wait! Lets imagine that I sealed a bean seed into a jar with
      > >water, soil and air, placed it on a precision balance scale and >keep
      > >weighing it. The seed starts to germinate and grow but the weight
      > >stays the same. Why? Because bean seeds are complex and they
      > >interact with their environment in complex ways.
      >
      > Well, no actually. The jar and its contents keep the same mass
      >because it's
      > a property of matter which doesn't change.
      >
      Victor:
      You cannot prove that without holding as self evident that something
      in matter is unchanging. Once you are under a first principle, it is
      difficult to think apart from it, as we usually make the evidence fit
      our basic assumption. Science is a system of making complex
      mathematical theories to force fit the evidence to its first
      principle. Evidence, however, can be interpreted so much simpler with
      biblical principles, without even using mathematics.

      A first principle cannot be proved, especially from within the system
      of thinking that is derived from it. For example, I cannot prove that
      the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, without holding this
      assumption as self evident. If everything really was decaying in an
      orderly way - together - as Paul states, then dithering motions within
      atoms (we call that time), atomic dimensions, "gravity", "mass", the
      whole thing could be shifting as a relationship. This is especially
      true today, when the assumption that atoms are unchanging defines the
      units of measurement. If atoms change as a relationship, every unit
      of measurement would shift with it, and we would see constants, not
      because they are real, but because we used our assumption to define
      them in the first place.

      > >You see the opposite of Aristotle's assumption is that matter is a
      > >complex relationship. Experiments have been going on for over a
      > >century with atoms and whatever matter is it sure seems to be complex.
      >
      > "Complex", yes.
      >
      > > What if I smash two bits of stuff together and pick up the pieces and
      > >find that there is only a fraction of the original stuff left. Try it
      > >with two high speed protons, and only a fraction of the original
      > >"mass" is found after the collision. Try it with a positron and an
      > >electron and only light is left. Whatever mass is, it sure does not
      > >seem to be some independent property of matter.
      >
      > Your examples simply do not show that, in fact the opposite. As long
      as the
      > matter stays as matter, it retains the same mass. The discovery of
      "missing
      > mass" in particle physics led to successful discoveries of neutrinos and
      > mass-energy conversions, all based on the assumption that
      mass-energy is in
      > fact conserved.
      >
      Victor:
      Energy is a nebulous thing that exists in equations and cannot be
      separated from matter or light with any experiment. Yet it is
      convenient to treat it as a separable entity, but we invented it. It
      exists in our minds, not in reality. What the ancients measured, and
      what we see in the distant universe, does not fit our rational system.
      We even have to invent "dark energy" springing out of the vacuum, that
      even contradicts our principles of conservation, in order to force fit
      the evidence to our assumption. Simpler explanation: matter decays as
      a relationship. In which case, every definition of physics is founded
      upon a false first principle.

      > > It can even
      > >disappear. No philosopher has been able to explain duality and non
      > >locality - but if matter is a complex relationship - such things would
      > >be expected - normal - not radical or incomprehensible.
      >
      > Again your conclusions are unwarranted. The examples u cite earlier are
      > explainable if mass and energy are both accounted for. For the above
      to be
      > warranted, you would first have to explain exactly what "matter is a
      > complex relationship" actually means, and show quantitatively how that
      > would lead to the "expectation" that such things are "normal". Otherwise
      > you're just handwaving: "Look, it's so complex, but i have this
      (completely
      > untestable) assertion!".
      >

      Victor:
      I can NOT explain how an e-coli can divide into two identical cells in
      20 minutes using millions of complex operations. It takes precise
      sequencing to assemble a motor in its bearings and provide a power
      system to rotate the flagellum at 270 rev / sec. Even decoding the
      DNA would not allow such an explanation because there are even events
      that operate on the DNA. However, I could watch e-coli consistently
      divide and say it is normal for them to do so as a complex relationship.

      I am not hand waving. If anyone thinks they can explain an atom, then
      they don't understand how complex they are. Certainly we can
      statistically predict the probability of some action, but that does
      not explain why. If I try to trick a single subatomic "particle" into
      revealing its path through a double slit, it stops doing its quantum
      tricks. If I try to find out if it is a particle or a wave like
      entity, it switches to fit my measuring device. The act of observing
      changes the observed. Yet even the measurement of one "twin" affects
      the other "twin" ten kilometers away. Experiments with Bell's
      Inequality makes it clear that, whatever matter is, it cannot be
      described with local properties. My claim, is that if I interpret
      what the Bible says about matter literally - that would be expected
      because matter is a relationship NOT MADE of independent or even semi
      independent things like mass or energy.

      > >What if atoms are like bean seeds in a jar, they are affecting
      > >themselves and their environment?
      >
      > Of course they are, which is /unlike/ beans in a jar, which /cannot/
      > interact with its environment.
      >
      > >What if this relationship is
      > >shifting, interacting as a relationship.
      >
      > What if u finally explained precisely what u mean by this? U use the
      phrase
      > like a magic charm, one size fits all occasions and explains everything,
      > aka nothing. Get specific.
      >
      Victor:
      I cannot use mathematical specificity if I deny the first principle.
      I can only interpret the evidence with the simplest explanations.

      Ok
      1. Atoms are a complex relationship with light. God made something in
      the beginning and it had no form but twice it says it had a surface.
      Then God said let there be light and matter took shape. That is very
      profound, because atoms sure seem to be a relationship with light.
      Charges and motions within atoms appear to be related to virtual
      light, internal light that does not escape unless we split the atom -
      and then an intense light is emitted as in a nuclear bomb. The God of
      the Bible, mentioned the house of light that has a border, whose paths
      within its house are mysterious, which is also the place where
      darkness dwells. That is the most amazing description of atoms I have
      ever read. God in the same passage, also mentioned huge dinosaurs
      living in the Jordan that men would not try to capture or kill. This
      description of atoms comes to us from the age of the dinosaurs.

      2. Every characteristic of an atom is related to the others - nothing
      is independent.

      3. Atoms shift internally over the ages. Primordial atoms were
      different and yet they were the same substance. The evidence seems to
      show that they were more compact yet did not affect each other in the
      same way gravitationally as modern atoms.

      I will predict what the James Webb space telescope will find. It will
      find incredibly dense micro galaxies, shooting out dense balls of
      stars that expand into the present version of galaxies. These
      objects, like those in the Hubble Deep Fields, will be minimally
      affected by gravity as they shoot out equally spaced clumps of stars
      in long equally spaced strings. The Bible describes the early sky as
      dense like molten bronze and spreading out like hammer blows on metal.
      Hammer blows are often "time repetitive." How did the people who
      lived in the age of dinosaurs, the earliest ages in the Bible,
      describe so perfectly what we would see with our space telescopes.

      > >Such changes could not be
      > >measured with a scale, or in any other local experiment, because even
      > >the apparatus and the standards of measurement would be affected.
      >
      > Why would they? Why would everything change exactly so as to cancel
      out?

      Victor:
      The objects you think would need to exactly cancel out, are in fact
      defined using Aristotle's ASSUMPTION that something about matter is
      unchanging. You are trying to make the data fit your assumption again,
      which is normal. Everyone uses their first principle all the time as
      the basis of their entire way of thinking. If it is false, the entire
      system of scientific reasoning is false from the ground up.

      >
      > Followon question: How could things change that way, even if they wanted
      > to? Because the properties of mass/energy do not all scale in the same,
      > linear fashion. You have never replied to this fatal problem in your
      position.
      >
      Victor:
      Again, you are assuming that matter is not a relationship. I am a
      relationship. Every part of my body is inseparable from the others.
      If I try to separate them, I would not function the same as if I am
      whole. My mind affects my organs and visa versa and complex chemical
      messengers continually affect all the parts TOGETHER. Every part of a
      relationship affects the others. No part is independent.

      A bee hive is a relationship. Individual bees can be separated, but
      they will die apart from the hive, because they are an inseparable
      complex relationship. They continually pass chemical messengers from
      bee to bee that regulates all the functions of the hive. A hive is a
      relationship.

      An e-coli is a complex relationship. Every part works together.
      Messengers move back and forth through the incredible complexity of
      this "simple" life form. Disrupt one part, such as the cell membrane,
      and it dies.

      Why in the world should we believe that atoms, that are incredible
      complex, are not a relationship? Why should we hold the pagan's first
      principle and never, ever question it? After all, the parts of an
      atom are continually interacting with each other. Messengers, called
      virtual photons, flit back and forth causing complex things we call
      charge and motion. According to the scientific system, if "charged"
      parts of an atoms tried to move, everything in the universe would
      collapse into primordial formlessness because they should loose
      "energy" and spiral in. (I am using your definitions as an example, I
      am not agreeing they are valid.) Electrons cannot move internally or
      the universe would cease to exist. So even motion in an atom, is an
      interaction with light which is why Feynman's diagrams are so useful.
      Why should I force the whole universe to fit this little untested
      assumption that the Bible predicted, everyone thinks is self evident,
      and yet the whole universe is clearly demonstrating is false. Or do
      you prefer to imagine that the universe is made of 99% undetectable
      things so that our first principle can be protected?

      > > All
      > >the constants of physics depend on this assumption. Peter predicted
      > >that this would be the first principle of the last days, and it sure
      > >looks like a first principle to me, since every aspect of scientific,
      > >mathematical reasoning must start first with this assumption.
      > >
      > >Everything we see in the universe is complex and interacting with
      > >things around it. What right do we have to believe Aristotle that the
      > >one thing in the universe that does not change is matter itself?
      >
      > You do know that modern science does not assume that matter is
      unchanging,
      > right?
      >
      Victor:
      On the contrary, it assumes that the nature of matter is unchanging.
      In this scheme, things can change, even be destroyed, but it does not
      change its "being." The contradictory system, used by all the
      ancients before the Greeks, was that everything, including time, is a
      decaying complexity. It is this system that the Bible declares. In
      such a system, human knowledge is very limited, however. No matter
      how hard we studied, we could not get much beyond what the Bible
      declares. We wisest man, according to the Bible, was Solomon. He
      declared that even if a wise man study day and night, he can not
      discover, he can not figure it out causally. That is what one would
      expect if our first principle is false.

      > >After all, if we look in the distant universe, we see light from long
      > >ago atoms and they are shifted in comparison to local atoms. The most
      > >distant light comes from tiny compact naked galaxies that do not look
      > >like anything around here and they do not seem to move like any thing
      > >around here. What is simpler, to believe the visible evidence that
      > >atoms shift as a relationship, or to invent invisible things so that
      > >we never have to admit that the whole system of scientific reasoning
      > >is based an assumption that the Bible predicted by we protect at all
      > >costs from investigation. Simple explanations are far more likely to
      > >be valid than thousands of tons of papers covered with differential
      > >equations. It is really simple and obvious if we just believe what
      > >the Bible says that matter itself decays in an orderly way.
      >
      > "Simple" is only better than "complex" if it is also "correct". You have
      > not (and cannot) show that redshift is a result of atoms changing "as a
      > relationship". For one thing, if u /could/ show this, u would contradict
      > your own requirement that the shift could not be observed.
      >
      Victor:
      I am not saying the shift cannot be observed. I said it cannot be
      observed locally. When we observe distant primordial atoms, we are
      looking at them as they were - we are seeing the past. Local atoms
      would shift along with our equipment, they would exists in the same
      time frame as we do, and so the changes could not be observed locally.

      Example: Isaiah says the earth continually increases in size. Local
      experiments could not detect such changes. Even GPS, laser ranging to
      LAGOS or VLBI to distant quasars would fail because we use our
      definition of time and matter in the mathematical calculations.
      However, the simplest kinds of evidence show that the early earth was
      indeed much smaller, as I have pointed out in past posts. We could
      also look at the evidence on the surface of other planets, such as
      magnetic stripes on Mars (that apparently only had a single northern
      sea). Distant galaxies and star clusters are invariably smaller and
      appear to be expanding and ejecting other dense objects that expand
      into more defuse galaxies. You see God can defeat scientific
      reasoning even while providing simple non mathematical evidence that
      His Word is TRUE.

      > >You see, I just took the Bible literally when the Apostle Paul says
      > >that matter is subject to corruption.
      >
      > Yeah - that means rust, wear, decomposition. Phenomena which are well
      > understood by science and do not require "special" explanations.
      >
      > cheers - grant
      Victor:
      No Paul twice uses words to describe this corruption that have to do
      with orderliness, like soldiers who obey their orders with discipline
      and lined up in formation. He also twice uses together words in Greek
      to describe this corruption. Rust is disorderly - chaotic. Different
      parts rust at different rates - usually the surface first. If matter
      corrupts as Paul states - then every part would have to be affected -
      it would have to be together.

      Again - as Peter says, the first thing you need to know is the first
      principle. Yet Christian schools never mention this historical little
      assumption. Why do we enslave our students to think with pagan
      principles? Why don't we at least discuss the issue? It is because
      we would seem to be foolish? We want to seem scientific. However,
      the Bible commands us to embrace foolishness rather than try to be
      wise in this age, because then we would deceive ourselves. He even
      say He cannot give us wisdom if we think with two minds, James 1.
      Thinking with the pagan system and the Bible, both, surely is double
      minded. We have tried it for centuries and look where it has gotten us.

      Christians - please start thinking about this first principle. He can
      even do what the Bible says, He can defeat the wisdom of this age.
      All He had to do was do what the Bible says He did, and the evidence
      clearly supports. However, we must free ourselves from the pagan's
      first principle in order to think biblically about the universe.

      I know it is the hardest thing you can do, to examine your first
      principle, but it is the most important thing, in the realm of
      physics, that you can think about. Think about it.
    • Victor
      ... Victor: Daniel, you seem to be reading more into it than is in the text. It does not mention time or measuring, just dividing or distinguishing the days,
      Message 31 of 31 , Dec 6, 2004
        > > > Daniel: This is inane. According to you we can not measure time.
        > > > However, the Bible clearly states that we can uses the sun,
        > moon,
        > > > and stars to measure the passage of time.
        > > >
        > > Victor:
        > > The passage you refer to, Genesis 1:14, does NOT say God gave us
        > the
        > > sun, moon and stars so we could "measure" the passage of time. Two
        > > verbs are used in this verse
        > >
        > > 1. God "said"- [qal] -to say, to think, to command, to promise;
        > > [imperfect] - an action or condition which is incomplete. The
        > > imperfect sometimes describes a single action in the past - but it
        > > suggests unfinished action. (Either what God commanded is not yet
        > > completed - or it is emphasizing the process that was not complete
        > > then. Ancient Hebrew did not have verb tenses like past, present or
        > > future).
        > >
        > > 2. to "divide" [hiphil] - to separate, set apart, to make a
        > > distinction, difference; [infinitive] corresponding to the "ing" in
        > > English. What God placed in the sky keeps on setting apart the
        > days
        > > and years.
        > >
        > > 1. This DOES NOT imply that this is a linear process. It is by
        > its
        > > very nature cyclical and says nothing, in this passage, whether the
        > > days and years are equal.
        > >
        >
        > Daniel: Read the passage again!
        >
        > Genesis 1:14
        > "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
        > separate the day from the night, and **let them serve as signs to
        > mark seasons and days and years**"
        >
        > Let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years!
        >

        Victor:
        Daniel, you seem to be reading more into it than is in the text. It
        does not mention time or measuring, just dividing or distinguishing
        the days, years and seasons.

        1. The creation account in Genesis is from God not man - no human was
        on the scene at this stage. It gives the sequence of how God created
        the earth, the planets, animals, man, and finally woman.

        2. The account mentions the first, second and third day. Each was
        marked by a single period of light and darkness, called evening and
        morning. No reference is made to how long that was, just that it each
        was set apart by an evening and a morning.

        3. On the fourth day God made the sun, moon and stars so that they
        would be used to DIVIDE and SET APART the days, seasons and years.
        By the way, God had already made the building blocks of the "heavens
        and the earth" on the first day. No human was there to say what that
        matter looked like. On the first day, what he made had no form or
        shape until He made light. The evidence shows that atoms are
        intimately involved with light so that even the shape of atoms
        involves interactions with light.

        4. Using the sun, moon and stars to distinguish days etc is a
        cyclical system that in no way implies that days and years are
        unchanging. In fact Israel himself said that the days and years do
        change in Genesis 47:9. Please use the blueletterbible.org site to
        look up the grammar and words in the original language.


        > > 2) This does not imply that time is a thing. Solomon states that
        > God
        > > put time (`owlam) in our minds (heart and mind are equivalent in
        > > ancient languages like Greek and Hebrew). God is not a deceiver by
        > > tricking our minds. The concept of time is very useful for
        > > categorizing the sequence and arrangement of events. He also
        > endued
        > > us with a conscience that is very useful. In the Bible, time is NOT
        > > SOME INDEPENDENT THING. In this passage, Solomon states that this
        > > long-time "in our mind" prevents us from understanding how
        > > beautifully things worked in the past. He apparently thought, like
        > > all the ancients, that the past was superior to the present (things
        > > worked beautifully in the beginning).
        > >
        >
        > Daniel: You keep telling me the Bible says this and the Bible says
        > that...yet you never give specific references, why? Try to be more
        > specific?
        >
        Sorry. I have given references to this in previous posts - it is in
        Ecclesiastes 3:11. I suggest you look up the Hebrew words and grammar
        on blueletterbible.org 'owlam - the thing that is in our minds means
        long time.

        > > 3) The Bible repeatedly implies and EVEN STATES DIRECTLY that
        > ancient
        > > days were longer than later days. The Greek and Hebrew repeatedly
        > > states that those few generations between Adam and Christ lived
        > during
        > > the long ages, the vast eons.
        > >
        >
        > Daniel: This makes no sense. Thought experiment time!
        >
        Victor:
        Societies who have a different concept of time are radically different
        from each other (e.g. Mayans). This is doubtless why we are so
        different from all previous people because no other people ever
        imagined that time is linear.

        If we just limited our discussion to Greek, the New Testament, where
        words and grammar are more precise than in Hebrew.
        chronos aionons - long ages past
        pro aion before the ages
        telos aion - conclusion of the ages
        sunteleia aion - the completion of the ages
        peleroma chronos - fulness of time
        ekpalai - from the beginning a great while ago - Peter uses this to
        say the stars are very ancient..
        palai - formerly, a long time ago, ancient time

        Repeatedly the Bible uses words that have to do with long time,
        ancient time, the long ages but also counts the generations back to Adam.

        > If an experimenter travels back to the time of Methuselah (how?
        > magically transported by God) with her atomic clock in hand (as well
        > as appropriate astronomical equipment.) What will she measure.
        >
        > Note: a second is defined today as 1/86,400 part of the mean solar
        > day and is equal (in the international system of measures) to the
        > duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
        > the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
        > of the cesium-133 atom.
        >
        > Another thought experiment:
        > Say our time travelling experimenter takes the worlds oldest man (in
        > modern recorded history), when he was a baby, back and places him in
        > the crib with baby Methuselah. Assuming that the reason for both
        > men's longevity was due to some inherent quality and not some random
        > (and nonreproducible) factor in their envireonment. Will Methuselah
        > still outlive him by a factor of nearly ten?
        >
        > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6535389/
        >
        Victor:
        You are trying to make the universe fit your assumption. Peter in II
        Peter 3:3 - 4 tells us what the most important, the first thing to
        know about the thinking of the last days. If you reject the
        assumption that matter does not change in being or relationship,
        cesium beam transitions are meaningless for decoding the past.

        >
        > > Aristotle, known as the father of science, seems to have been the
        > > first person to treat time as a separate thing. The idea that
        > time is
        > > linear is very recent and did not begin til monks in Europe built
        > > mechanical clocks that ticked. It was the repetitive sound of
        > these
        > > clocks that first seems to have suggested linear time. (Using this
        > > idea of linear time, the Europeans were able to write down the
        > notes
        > > of music and begin to play multi-part music. The ancients all
        > > apparently played the same note together because they did not have
        > our
        > > idea about time that is essential for our kind of music.) All non
        > > Western societies believed time was variable. We are the only
        > > civilization anywhere that has imagined that time is linear.
        > >
        > > > First off we don't call the oscillations of atoms "time." We use
        > the
        > > > oscillations of atoms to measure the passage time. Before the
        > atomic
        > > > age, time we used astronomical standards to measure the passage
        > of
        > > > time. This was the case throughout most of written human
        > history.
        > > > Even the Bible clearly states that the heavenly bodies can and
        > were
        > > > used to measure time.
        > > >
        > > > Genesis 1:14
        > > > "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
        > > > separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to
        > mark
        > > > seasons and days and years,"
        > > >
        > > > In fact Show us where in the Bible that people back then
        > measured
        > > > things any differently than we do today.
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Leviticus 19:36
        > > > "Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah [ 19:36
        > An
        > > > ephah was a dry measure. ] and an honest hin. I am the LORD your
        > > > God, who brought you out of Egypt."
        > > >
        > > > Oh and one more Biblical quote about your Supposed shifting of
        > > > measurements:
        > > >
        > > > Proverbs 20:10
        > > > "Differing weights and differing measures- the LORD detests them
        > > > both."
        > >
        > > Victor:
        > > The idea that scales are to use honest standards for weight in no
        > way
        > > implies that matter is unchanging. Even while they used scales,
        > the
        > > ancients seemed to all have believed that time and matter were
        > > decaying continuously. Their ancestors could lift great megaliths
        > > that they couldn't budge. Huge dinosaurs ran around this planet.
        > If
        > > they were alive today they would have trouble stretching out their
        > > necks unless their bones were made of titanium. Actually the
        > fossils
        > > of dinosaurs show their bones were porous like birds - yet they
        > were
        > > massive. Ancient animals tended to be huge - often much larger
        > than
        > > the modern varieties. Something has changed. The Bible has the
        > > answer, but it is the assumption that the pagan Aristotle invented
        > > that holds our minds in a vise.
        > >
        > > Think about it.
        >
        > Daniel: As far as I can determine, you are making all this up. Think
        > about it? Give me something tangable to think about and I will.
        >
        > So far you have offered up zero proof for your claims. Thus I am not
        > impressed.
        Victor:
        Of course I have offered zero proofs. I am talking about an
        assumption. Proofs are based on this elementary assumption and never
        go back to prove the first principle - because you cannot prove it.

        Look up Isaiah 42:5 and look at the Hebrew verb forms. It says the
        earth and everything on it continually spreads out.
        Isaiah 44:24 again not only does God continually spread out the
        heavens but also the earth. You cannot make a stronger anti-science
        statement than to say the earth was smaller in the past and that it
        continually stretches and spreads out - uninterrupted action. And yet
        the Bible says it. Should we believe what the Bible says - or should
        we interpret it with science, the system founded on an idea invented
        by a pagan. If you change your first principle, the evidence jumps
        into a whole different way of thinking - one in which the Bible is the
        only profound system of truth.

        Can the God of the Bible defeat scientific reasoning itself? Can He
        really make his enemies His footstool, those who say He did not
        create? Can He use their own skills to defeat them. (I Corinthians
        3:18-20) If you just think about this little assumption, you will see
        how He does it.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.