SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

Did it ever occur to you that the old astrologer didn't own a decent pair of sunglasses?Try it yourself. Watch Venus until you think it has disappeared into the sun and then compare your results with those on the clay tablet. And then, check the official figures and see how far off you are.You are such an extremist! On the one hand you need bare-eyeball, Bronze Age observations to support your 'theory' of astronomy; and on the other hand: you need an Earth Orbiting Telescope to support your view of the Bronze Age Bible. Great range. Too bad it is so far off target. OR ... It shows that the ancients didn't have sunglasses, or telescopes, or accurate clocks, or automatic calculators, or Columbian coffee, or toilet paper ... (I digress).db

---

Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -

I smell a Velikhovsky in the air.On a serious note - there's a lot of crap flying in this thread. Would you inform us the mechanism for a proposed historical difference in the orbit of Venus?Why do I even ask?

You say "our" as if you own it too.Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your 'first principle' require the existence of an invisible guy? And if that is not enough, this invisible guy has a son. And if that isn't enough there is also a 'Ghost.' Three invisible guys. And if that isn't enough there are millions, yeah billions of invisible angels and demons all of whom are required to support and protect your first principle. Invisible things invented to assert a 'theory' which cannot be proven.Sound familiar?db

It's been a long time since I read him, but I too was wondering whether Immauel had read that same cuneiform tablet.db

I don't know what you think you have been reading, but from an astronomical point of view, it is 100% nonsense.

You are still not getting what I am saying - if everything is changing - it will be visibly evident everywhere in the universe. Nothing visible in the universe is staying the same.The only thing that does not change in the whole universe is symbolic stuff based on the very first principle that Peter predicted. Only the invisible, mathematical, symbolic things are unchanging and we invented them with the very first principle Peter predicted. Plato - who did not follow Aristotle’s first principle - proposed forms as his solution to the problem of change. To explain how people are prisoners of their language and way of thinking he told a story of a cave and its prisoners. Our habitual way of thinking about the physical world can hold us prisoner.http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htmThis message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-23-2005 10:49 PM

no, actually, you're still not getting what i'm saying. i'm not talking about first principles. i'm not basing logic on it. quite the contrary, i'm going around it. -- "in relation to everything else," then how is this different than staying the same?i'm not making any kind of statement. i'm asking a question. you have to explain this principle first -- YOUR first principle.then, i will work on deciphering what you're talking about, including but not limited to the obvious facts that many philosophers objected to objective reality, and quantum reality and string theory is supposedly founded on this "first principle" yet totally ignores the idea that things stay the same (or even in the same universe).This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-23-2005 10:51 PM

---

אָרַח

If matter is a relationship - for which there is ample quantum evidenceIf 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.I am not a follower of Velikovsky. He did not question the first principle.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.Can God really take the wise of the world with their own skills - their mathematical way of reasoning? He looks like He is on track to do so. Of course what I am saying is foolishness to those trained to only think with that little assumption. You are helping me prove that this really is our (the Western) first principle - our dogma about matter.

I believe that it could be different, but I consider it extremely unlikely.

Makes no sense, just stringing words together. Rubbish. Again you're just stringing words together but the statements have no meaning. The 'assumption' as you call it can be tested. Upper limits on the changes in fundamental constants can be measured. That's not assumption it's fact. Codswallop! That's just cop out metaphysical claptrap. WTF!!!! What 'simple evidence'???????It seems to me you talk in riddles and nonsense so as to negate being pinned down on specifics. You know this nonsense wouldn't occur if people didn't blindly follow the musings of Bronze Age goat herders in the Middle East. Huh? This really makes no sense whatsoever. The changes I think you are meaning would be manifest. They'd be so obvious as to destroy physics as we know it. This isn't seen.

hey, i didn't write that!i'm waiting until we get the fundamental assumption of your argument under control, and then we'll address theological, philosophical, and astronomical concerns.

---

אָרַח

This sounds like the advertisment to a sequel. Can Batman escape the evil Riddler? Can God really take the wise of the world? Take them where????

unfortunately, quantum mechanics, in part, has ushered in a new era of existential bullshit, and philosophical mental masturbation. we call it "postmodernism."this is not the first time i've heard this part of this argument, either. and scarily enough it does have some sense to it (when ptolemy's not trying to put it across anyhow).matter is essentially the collected sum electron repulsions, and various smaller quantum effects. it's almost all empty space, really. but there's no greater philosophic truth to that. so what if matter is just a relationship of electrical impulses and stuff that isn't even there all the time? on any scale larger than the atom, it doesn't especially matter. matter is still perceptably solid, and physical constants still apply -- otherwise, we'd never have devised them in the firts place. quantum mechanics is just plain bad and inefficient at describing the actions of two car on a road, let alone plants in a solar system.newtonian mechanics works perfectly well at that. whether or not everything really is in a constant state of flux, with quarks whizzing into and out existance, to the observer at our viewpoint, newtonian mechanics more than adequately functions to describe most of our universe. and where it does not, relativity works.which is why i posed the question - if we can't tell it's changing, what does it matter?added by edit: or rather, iron age collections of tradition collected by priests in exiled judah. but close enough, usually.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-24-2005 04:15 AM

---

אָרַח

Once you guys can figure out how to keep the space shuttles from blowing up and we can justify the enormous expense of the space program to pay your inflated salaries, we may find better purpose in life than what our esteemed (and enlightened) goat herders have brought us.

boo. poor taste.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 04-24-2005 04:16 AM

---

אָרַח