SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible

Gravity is an idea that has never been detected without complete dependance on assumptions. Newton said

quote:

---

I have not been able to discover the cause of these phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis.

---

Despite this, in the same passage, he said, gravity does really exist and follows his laws. There are several theories that attempt to give causes for gravity which can predict what we see in nearby spaces. No theory can predict what we see in galaxies or in the distant universe without inventing undetectable things. He calls himself by the name of Truth. Paul says let God be true and every man a liar. He does not deceive in either word or action. Could a God of integrity fill the universe with 99% undetectable things? No way! We invented these non existent things to protect our dogma. The Bible denies that man can decode even under the sun. I have not found a single statement in the Bible that grammatically agrees with a law of physics. Even the passages we use to hold up the Second Law, the exegesis is disputable at best, and contradicts the law at worst. We can observe all we want. Yet even instruments must be interpreted with preconceived - a priori - elementary ideas. I claim the Bible is accurate - even in astronomy. Christians have been in full retreat for over a hundred years in the area of astronomy. None of our theories hold water, and for some things, like the triangulation of SN1987a, we have no answer. Which creationist has shown how 6000 Biblical years can accommodate the great antiquity of the heavens? Yet in the original language, the Bible makes simple profound statements that impact this subject. But we no longer know how to think like the ancient prophets, because we also use the first principle of the last days. (I include myself. My Christian teachers trained me to think with the elementary ideas of the pagans, but they did it in good conscience. It was just part of our heritage.)Have our scientific theories made a single dent in the evolutionary juggernaut? Yet He promises that when our obedience is complete - we will defeat the speculations raised up against the knowledge of Him. Perhaps if we used the Bible as our weapon, and interpreted it with the historical grammatical method instead of science, we could do what the Bible promises. (II Corinthians 10:3 - 6)This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-26-2005 03:30 AM

ptolemy, you are quite simply deluded. You are stringing words together for display and not meaning.
What you write is complete scientific bunkum.
You postulate things about the universe that can be categorically ruled out at the zeroth order level.
I notice you produce not one calculation. Not a single number to be pinned down upon. You are empty of facts. Please get out your calculator and justify #4.
Physics, like all the sciences, eventually comes down to the fact you can either do it or you cannot. I don't think you can. You never provide a single calculation to be tied down to. It's all some artsy fartsy vague language and total off the wall craziness.Where's the meat?

Even our ideas about gravity and our mathematical laws can’t explain a spiral galaxy without inventing invisible, undetectable things. You are proving my point. It is easier to believe in invisible things, than to question the assumption upon which the whole system is historically founded. If our first principle, an assumption, the one Peter predicted, is false, mathematics could not model the long ago or far away. Yet it could be adjusted to work with precision in close by spaces and times.Of course it is vague. It is impossible to define with precision things like Western concepts of mass, energy and time if this little assumption is false.Of course it is foolishness. To question a first principle is the most foolish thing you can do. Yet the God of the Bible commands Christians in the imperative to rather be foolish than think oneself wise IN THIS AGE [touto aion]. Why? We would deceive ourselves. Why? Because he is taking the wise with their own craftiness. (I Corinthians 3:16 - 18).Why would God want to that? So that simple faith in His Word, in Jesus the Creator who came to die for us, would triumph over every conceivable system of science. Jesus said, I praise thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou didst hide these things from the wise and intelligent and didst reveal them to babes. Yes, Father, for thus it was well pleasing in Thy sight. Why? So that those who war with Him will be defeated with simple evidence, and those who believe His Word in simplicity will praise His wisdom forever.The simplest evidence supports what the Bible actually says, even in spiral galaxies.

ah so you are full of shit as people suggested.Well no need to lurk on this thread any longer - you've got nothing.

yeah. he won't even answer my question about his fundamental (mis)assumption.i haven't even gotten to some fun stuff yet, like:

quote:

---

Ecclesiastes 1:4

​

One generation goes, another comes,
But the earth remains the same forever.

---

(thanks to simple for point that one out, btw)

---

אָרַח

Either engage constructively or not at all. Your posting privileges are suspended for 24 hours.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You didn't answer his question. You said it is vague but you need to tell us how it is vague. Some calculations would be nice.

This assertion has been rebutted to good effect but you seem unable to comprehend your error. Repeating the assertion does not strengthen its appeal.At any rate, it is clear that your own philosophy cannot explain much of anything without invoking deity (an invisible, undetectable thing). Why would you do that? Is that why you believe? Because it is easier? That's foolishness isn't it? Of course it is.

---

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

that the best delusions are ones that are circular in nature. You have set yourself up a grand delusion.There is no falsifiable or predictive aspect to it. You can weasel out of any criticism because the whole framework rests on disregarding any outside evidence and at the same time not needing to provide any yourself.This allows no debate. As I have said several times - what you have got are sentences with words you don't understand and phrases whose implications you don't follow.The only thing I will remind you of - is that conventional physics has explanatory power, it makes predictions that are subject to experiment and/or observation - what you have put forth not only doesn't do this; by definition it cannot do this.It's metaphysical claptrap bordering upon a solipsism.

On the contrary, I have given you simple evidences that can be used to test whether our first principle is false. However, I cannot propose a test that assumes the definitions, laws and mathematical theories that are based on this first principle. That would be begging the question.

1. Isaiah 44:24b and 42:5, using the Hebrew verb tenses / stems it says, the earth continually stretches, expands, and everything on or from the earth also expands. Other passages explain the sound like thunder when the rift happened, the wide plain (in Hebrew) that accepted the waters of the flood, that God made a division to accepted the water of the deluge, and that the earth is stretched out upon the waters.
   1. It is beyond question that a great GLOBAL rift runs through all the oceans and that it often follows the contours of the lands (e.g. Africa - Americas), with perpendicular offset rifts.
   2. That most of the earthquakes occur along this seam.
   3. That fresh magma wells up as the seam (magma melts when pressure is relaxed - like water flashes to steam when a boiler ruptures) and produces new sea floor. (It is not local pressure that splits the crust open.)
   4. That the subduction zones were proposed before they even looked for evidence - to keep the earth from expanding.
   5. That the drill cores from the ocean trenches found layered sediments that mostly came from the land. The trenches are not filled with jumbled up oceanic oozes and clays that would be necessary if subduction really was happening.
   6. The evidence for subduction is invisible - the evidence that supports what the Bible says is visible.
   7. Simple evidence supports this, since the continents do not fit back together except on a globe 2/3 its present size. However, if matter is a decaying relationship - in which the very structure changes together - GPS, VLBI, laser ranging to the GEOS, etc could not measure this stretching. Because - orbits, meter sticks, clocks everything would be affected_together if what the Bible says is literally true.
   ​
2. That the Bible states 12 times that the heavens are continuously pounded / spread out.
   1. That long stings of tiny quasar like objects are found around active galaxies. At the end of some of these strings small galaxies and even clumps (Abel clusters) of micro galaxies are found.
   2. These objects have different redshifts yet are sometimes linked with radio contours, hydrogen streams, have bow shocks etc.
   3. The dimmest objects ever photographed (the Hubble Deeps) the chains of tiny naked galaxies are the predominant feature. Most of the objects are in chains with different redshifts. In some cases these tiny blue objects are seen with gas streams back to a larger object - as though caught in the process of ejection.
   4. But this visible evidence is excluded - because redshifts are the yeardstick. When the redshift surveys produces nonsense - e.g. the fingers of god pointing back to the earth from all directions in the sky, it is still accepted as dogma. Clearly the redshift distance formula is an inadequate gauge of distance.
   ​
3. That the Bible agrees with every ancient society on the subject of solar system catastrophes. It uses identical language for the shattering of a great planet as the Phoenicians in Job and Isaiah - but honors YHWH as the one who saved the world from grave danger
   1. That all the ancient astronomers seemed to have measured a smaller solar system.
   2. e.g. Cassini, Flamsteed & Richter used two methods of measuring parallax and measured a solar system 7% smaller than ours in 1672. Flamsteed used a micrometer eyepiece to compare the diurnal parallax with close bright stars when Mars stopped its motion against the background stars at conjunction. During the same month, Cassini measured the parallax when Mars occulted a bright star - (measured from S. America and Europe) to arrive at an angle only one second different from Flamsteed’s.
   3. Ptolemy measured the synodic periods, sometimes using eclipses 800 years apart, and his periods are almost identical to ours.
   4. Yet he measured the maximum elongation of Venus and Mercury and they are too large. Yet he used these erroneous measurements to calculate his parameters and they worked for a thousand years. Why did his errors cancel? I assume he did not have a computer to cull millions of possible fictitious measurements to select the ones that worked.
   5. Even his catalog of the stars, when compared to ours, shows the stars in the galactic plane, the milky way, are more accurate than those not in the plane. He seems to have measured a smaller galaxy!!!
   6. He even gives the construction details of the dioptra he used to measure diameters in the solar system. His diameter of the moon, at perigee and apogee, are to large in degrees, minutes and seconds. His diameter of every planet is too large, when compared to ours.
   7. If matter really is a relationship that ages and changes, it should affect the orbits continuously. However, if matter itself is the cause of this expansion, the synodic periods should not change. Why not? If a day went by in an hour, we would still call it a day, as Augustine commented 1600 years ago.
   8. Angles are one form of measurement that should not be affected if matter is a decaying relationship
   ​
4. I have given you three different ways to test our first principle against the actual grammatical statements of the Bible. The simple evidence supports the Bible.
5. What I have given you is falsifiable. We can look at the chains of quasars in the sky, we can look for the non existent oceanic sediments in the deep ocean trenches, we can compare the measurements of the ancient astronomers with ours. The symbolic evidence, the mathematical system based on or first principle, is the one you would need to question if you would test the first principle that Peter predicted and all of us use continuously.

You have shown nothing. You are taking things out of context, and mistranlated, and trying to 'shoehorn' things into that do not mean anything like it is intended to mean.Why don't you read Isaiah 42-46 IN CONTEXT?? It has nothing to do with geography and the physical bounds of the earth.Your insisting that these ancient texts say what they don't doesn't demonstrate anything at all, except that you are not realistic.

A first principle is a tiny assumption that forces one to shoehorn all of physical reality to fit that conjecture about the nature of matter. I also shoehorn reality to fit my first principles - but I got mine from the Bible. I was raised in Western schools that got theirs from the pagan Greeks. Two different principles ===> two different shoehorns. I have tested mine - have you tested yours? Remember the only kinds of tests that are valid are ones that can result in a falsifiable outcome. You cannot use the system built upon an elementary idea to authenticate it - that is circular reasoning.The context in Isaiah.

quote:

---

Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not be disheartened or crushed, Until He has established justice in the earth; And the coastlands will wait expectantly for His law. . . .
Thus says God the LORD, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it, And spirit to those who walk in it,
I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I will also hold you by the hand and watch over you, And I will appoint you as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations,. . . .
The LORD will go forth like a warrior, He will arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail against His enemies.
I have kept silent for a long time, I have kept still and restrained Myself. Now like a woman in labor I will groan, I will both gasp and pant.
I will lay waste the mountains and hills, And wither all their vegetation; I will make the rivers into coastlands, And dry up the ponds.
And I will lead the blind by a way they do not know, In paths they do not know I will guide them. I will make darkness into light before them And rugged places into plains. These are the things I will do, And I will not leave them undone.

---

The context is: his promise to send His Chosen one to destroy his enemies and establish justice in the earth. The context is: I continually stretch out the heavens and the earth - that is the evidence of my limitless power that I can accomplish the promises I made about a righteous worldwide kingdom with the Servant of the Lord reigning from Jerusalem.The rules for understanding all ancient texts, biblical or otherwise, is to interpret them with the language and meaning of when they were written. No biblical author could ever have intended a scientific meaning. Scientific reasoning did not even exist when the Bible was written. Why then do we, Christians, tailor it to fit our scientific culture? Let me quote your very words when I am attempting to interpret the Bible with hermeneutics. If you want to argue that it doesn’t say that - use the grammar of the original - not the standard that it is not realistic in our way of thinking that did not even exist when Isaiah wrote.You see we judge what the Bible says using the first principle that history shows we got from the Greeks, to make it realistic. What a mess we have made trying to shoehorn it into our way of thinking. Every few years we have to adjust its meaning to try to make it fit the latest scientific theory. And yet it claims to be the unalterable truth. If the Bible really is the truth, it is a Tyrannosaurs Rex, that will eventually subdue falsehoods. Yet we try to defend its invincible, powerful truth with our puny way of thinking. Peter even predicted the very first principle that science is founded upon and clearly contradicts it, as do other biblical authors. I will quote back your own words, as one Christian to another, I feel sorry for you.This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-27-2005 04:52 PM

Sigh. Even when you quote the entire passage, you use it out of context.

Attention, EvC posters. This topic will close at post #300 or so, as do all posts. Please make your final points and bring them up in your next post. Ptolemy, I think that your best bet is to back off of your theory and attempt to teach these guys a bit of good old fashioned Bible study!This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 06-08-2005 05:06 PM

I don't see that your comment furthers the discussion. If you believe it is "out of context" shouldn't you give a hint or two as to why you think it is and how it would be read in context?