SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

shows tiny blue objects arching out as though ejected from the center.

ptolemy writes:What we see in at the greatest distance is how they were and what is close is how they are. I accept what we see as valid. Why do scientists populate the universe with more than 90% undetectable things? They are faced with paradoxes that don’t fit their primary assumption, their arche, so they must invent undetectable things to explain away what is visible.For example, galaxies are paradoxical. The stars apparently orbit at about the same speed without regard to distance from the center. In the solar system, the earth orbits at ~30 km/sec. Uranus which is 19 times farther, (19 AU), rotates at 30 / (19), about 7 km/sec, so the earth laps Uranus 84 times for its one orbit. That this relationship does not work in galaxies is visibly evident, especially in spiral galaxies. The arms of a spiral galaxy are connected back to the hub with gas linkages and streams of stars as though they were ejected. http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/.../43/images/a/formats/web.jpgHowever, ejections would demand some sort of fundamental change. Astronomers explain this visible phenomena with invisible density waves for which there is not a shred of visible evidence. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions More than ten times the Old Testament mentions the continuous spreading of the heavens. The simple visible evidence fits exactly what the grammar of the text says.Thomas Kuhn, the historian of Scientific Revolutions, explained that science is a system that shares a common paradigm and the evidence is seen from that perspective. What is the most basic assumption of science? Peter says the first thing to know (what is first in precedence and rank) is the arche of the last days. He explains their arche as all things diamenei. That little Greek word means they think things remain the same in relation.Perhaps you think, how could matter change as a relationship when we measure constants? Yet constants are always associated with things that change as a relationship, like mechanical or chemical equilibria. The constants are not an indication that things are not changing, but that billions of reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other and the whole process can shift as a relationship. The reason the constants do change is because they are defined in terms of the whole shifting relationship. The light from the most distant stars shows that matter has shifted as a relationship. May I suggest that you look up the twice repeated Greek together-words that Paul uses to explain the corruption of all creation. (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change as a relationship are interconnected in complex ways, they change-together.

ptolemy writes:It is when they try to make mathematical theories that they always fail.

If matter is a relationship - for which there is ample quantum evidence

If the relationship shifts - and all the light from primordial galaxies is shiftedThen matter could be a deteriorating - aging relationship. It would be like a shifting equilibrium.

Because we have invented laws and constants based on the assumption of changelessness - we cannot imagine that matter could decay. The Apostle Paul wrote that the whole creation phthora [degenerates - corrupts]

There is no way to propose a causal reason why the solar system would increase in size if atoms are not perpetual motion machines. The cause would be fundamental, and you can’t break it down into a higher level of specificity.

The Bible twice states that the earth also continually increases in size - for which there is simple evidence. Again there is no way to precisely define why - if the cause is fundamental. Why? Matter is fundamental to everything.

The ancients spoke of close encounters
The Bible seems to record oneThe ancients mention a planet shattering
The Bible uses almost identical language and that God saved the world from chaos.

As hard as we try - we cannot imagine that matter can change - shift as a relationship. Yet the universe is full of evidence of such change. It is easier to invent a fictitious universe made of undetectable things than to question one’s first principle.

When our symbolic system is applied to the most distant sky - we have to invent undetectable things to make our mathematical laws fit what is visible.

1 The earliest people could build great megaliths. The Egyptians left records that only a few thousand skilled workers built the pyramids.
2 Dinosaurs that should not be able to stretch out their long necks, left tracks in soft clays showing that they could run.
3 Primordial galaxies often look tiny - and even show visible evidence of ejections.
4 Every spiral galaxy is a gravitational anomaly. Yet we can visibly see gas streams that connect their arms back to the core as though they were ejected.
5 All the ancients, including the Bible, mention things in the solar sytem that make no sense at all using our laws of gravity.