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

Re: Biblical Objectivity

Expand Messages
  • VictorM
    ... You really should read Halton Arp s astronomy observations. He was ostracized by the scientific community for merely showing the statistical correlation
    Message 1 of 62 , May 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:
      > > > > Victor M:
      > > > > ...
      > > > > In the scientific system, objective truth has degenerated
      > > > > from what is visible to what is mathematical.
      > > >
      > > > Randy C:
      > > > That is exactly the opposite of "degeneration"!
      > > >
      > > > Eyesight is the LEAST reliable and LEAST objective way
      > > > of gaining evidence. It can be fooled in MANY ways.
      > > >
      > > > As is always the case, you are EXACTLY wrong.
      > > >
      > > > Get professional help.
      > > Victor M:
      > > It is not just eyesight that observes a biblical cosmic
      > > history.
      > Randy C:
      > Actually not even eyesight confirms your delusional claims.
      > That's because ONLY YOU see the things that you claim to
      > see.
      > That's one of the arguments against trusting vision. People
      > suffering from delusions, such as you undeniably do, claim
      > to see things that are not actually there.
      > > Many kinds of instrumentation are sensitive to light. The
      > > instruments record exactly what the Bible states.
      > Actually, there is ZERO evidence of that.
      > > It is the subjective empirical system that refuses to
      > > believe the reality their own instruments record, because
      > > they have a blind creed - that the properties of matter
      > > are fixed not emerging.
      > Victor, Victor, Victor, you seek repeating that undeniable
      > untruth.
      > It ISN'T true.
      > How do we know?
      > Because science accepts all sorts of ways that matter
      > changes. Radioactivity is just one example.
      > Furthermore, that supposed "blind creed" CAN'T be true.
      > Why not?
      > ALL fundamental "creeds" in ALL belief systems are talked
      > about ALL OF THE TIME.
      > There are no exceptions.
      > How do we know?
      > Because YOU - Victor M - have been repeatedly asked to
      > provide examples and have unable to do so.
      > So in summary:
      > You tell repetitive lies. What's most fascinating is that
      > you are just lying a little bit. No. Everything you say
      > is exactly the opposite of the truth.
      > If you say something is black, upon research we see that
      > it is actually white. If you said it was actually gray,
      > there might be room to discuss the shade of gray. But
      > when you say that it is black instead, we are forced to
      > ask whether or not you are off your meds.
      > You are getting professional help by now, right?

      You really should read Halton Arp's astronomy observations. He was ostracized by the scientific community for merely showing the statistical correlation between quasars with much different spectra and the minor axes of active galaxies. He suggested they were ejected and intrinsically changed into minor galaxies. The astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge documented a high redshift quasar at the end of a jet inside NGC7319 (one of the Stephan's Quintet galaxies).

      The kind of change scientists are allowed to accept are never relational. In relational change, every property changes in parallel, together, incrementally, while it still remains the same thing. In radioactive change, what it used to be is no longer what it is later because on part of it change catastrophically. We see billions of ancient galaxies. No ancient hydrogen clocked the frequencies of modern hydrogen. Evidently ancient hydrogen atoms were scale models of modern ones, because they clocked minuscule fractions of the light frequencies of modern atoms.


    • Dave Oldridge
      --On Monday, May 07, 2012 5:10 PM +0000 VictorM ... All false. You believe your private interpretation of the words of the Bible,
      Message 62 of 62 , May 8, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --On Monday, May 07, 2012 5:10 PM +0000 VictorM <godsriddle@...>

        > I just believe the words of the Bible instead of twisting them to fit
        > science. That is the difference between Changing Earth Creationists and
        > Young or Old Earth creationists. We take the Bible literally and notice
        > that the simplest evidence fits the Scripture. Indeed, we accept
        > literally the creation account and confirm it in the visible history of
        > galaxies.
        > What a day of glory that will be for the Creator when he shows scientists
        > to be what He promises to prove (moros is the Greek word).

        All false. You believe your private interpretation of the words of the
        Bible, meaning you believe in your own omniscience. You do not accept the
        visible history of the universe but, instead, have manufactured your own
        out of that private (too literal) interpretation.

        What a day of glory it will be when the Creator banishes all those who use
        His name in vain from His presence for ever!


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