Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Water and Earth were Both Present Before the Six Days of Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Is there any way you could post your logic from within the link you posted that you agree with that answers my questions?

    I mean, you didn’t write the document you linked to, so can you give me a simplified answer of your own?

    Do you not believe that stars are moving through space?
    I mean, the only reason I do, is it’s what I’ve been told by observers...

    =M=
    Last edited by mtwilcox; October 8th, 2019, 10:05 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mtwilcox View Post
      Is there any way you could post your logic from within the link you posted that you agree with that answers my questions?
      I recommend you just read through the articles.

      If I try to shorten it, I might leave something out. If you have questions afterwards, I should be able to answer them, however.

      I mean, you didn’t write the document you linked to, so can you give me a simplified answer of your own?
      See above.

      Do you not believe that stars are moving through space?
      I mean, the only reason I do, is it’s what I’ve been told by observers...
      They are.

      But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        They are.

        But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.
        That’s true;
        Thanks to you I am starting to entertain the idea the universe has stopped expanding, and that the calculations for expansion rates have been based on stars that are just moving away from us.

        Given, nobody has seen or found the edge of the universe; it’s hard to prove it’s still expanding.

        I’ll bring this idea up to the astronomers, the next time I visit the observatory.
        I like the idea, I just have to think it over for a while, and do some research.
        A good place to start would be to find out which objects they were basing the expansion rates off of... then find out if like objects are also moving towards us...

        =M=

        Here’s a link to the observatory I visit:

        https://martzobservatory.org/

        They have taken some awesome pictures of God’s handiwork.

        [Psa 8:3 KJV] When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
        [Psa 8:4 KJV] What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
          I recommend you just read through the articles.

          If I try to shorten it, I might leave something out. If you have questions afterwards, I should be able to answer them, however.



          See above.



          They are.

          But stars moving through space and the universe expanding are two entirely different things.
          Not necessarily. Hubble found that in all directions from earth all but the galaxies closest to the earth are moving away from us. He found that by observation. That was such a blow to his belief in evolution and his hatred of God that he came up with the cosmological principle to deny what he observed. He wrote about this in his book The Observational Approach to Cosmology.

          The energy-corrections, it will be recalled, are the total effects of red-shifts on apparent luminosities,
          provided red-shifts are not velocity-shifts. The latter interpretation seems to follow directly from the
          preliminary assumption of uniformity.
          The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it
          would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which
          the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that
          we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central
          earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last
          resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the
          alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.
          A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the
          nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by
          distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The
          second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula
          somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper
          corrections had been applied.
          Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations. The apparent departures
          from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for
          redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be
          uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position. But the unwelcome supposition
          of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs. Therefore, we accept the uniform distribution, and
          assume that space is sensibly transparent. Then the data from the surveys are simply and fully accounted
          for by the energy corrections alone - without the additional postulate of an expanding universe.
          So, observation says the universe is expanding away from us in all directions. Hubble's law denies this and says no matter where a person is everything is always moving away from us. That is impossible. It's a logical fallacy. He created it to deny the earth having a favored location in the universe because of the implications of the earth being at the core of the universe. So, is the universe expanding? I think so. Is it expanding the way Hubble postulated it was? No. His observations say the universe is expanding in a rational way. Hubble's law is irrational and is a construct to deny creation.

          This next quote goes to show how much of current astronomy and cosmology relies on sheer assumption.

          Relativistic cosmology is a natural offshoot of Einstein's theory of general relativity. However, the
          cosmology is a superstructure, including other principles, and, if the present formulation were found to
          be inadequate, the failure would not necessarily affect the underlying theory. Relativity contributes the
          basic proposition that the geometry of space is determined by the contents of space. To this principle has
          been added another proposition, formulated in various ways and called by various names, but equivalent,
          in a sense, to the statement that all observers, regardless of their location, will see the same general
          picture of the universe. The second principle is a sheer assumption. It seems plausible and it appeals
          strongly to our sense of proportion. Nevertheless, it leads to a rather remarkable consequence, for it
          demands that, if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer,
          no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the
          assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the universe, no centre, no boundary; all
          must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial
          isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the universe must be pretty much alike
          everywhere and in all directions.
          Here is a link to Hubble's 1937 book. It's a free download. https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/...bble/paper.pdf

          And here is an interesting link on this subject from the creation side of the issue. https://www.adefenceofthebible.com/2...-the-universe/

          As far as the earth being an existing planet at the time of God creating the environment for life and life itself as well as man, I don't have a problem with that. God had been around for an eternity before He created humanity. Did He just sit around and do nothing for that eternity? I very much doubt it. It doesn't fit into His character. Remember God's advice to the sluggard? Go to the ant thou sluggard; consider her ways and be wise. Ants are constantly busy, and I can't imagine God telling the idler to do something He Himself does not do as God is not a hypocrite. He doesn't say do this and not do it Himself. He doesn't tell us to love our neighbors and not love others Himself. God is completely consistent.
          “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.”
          ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

          “One and God make a majority.”
          ― Frederick Douglass

          Comment


          • #35
            delete- I see I addressed this earlier

            Comment

            Working...
            X