Logic and creation

[Twilight]

Here's the abstract of their Nature paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.430..181G

And here's a press release about it that includes more details and some diagrams: http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?q=node/8

Here's the full text of a paper in Nature by Gregory Wirth talking about the importance of the findings: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6996/full/430149a.html

As most of the quote on the nature.com site was pay per view...

I can only quote this exclamation of surprise:

"The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much greater distances than expected — and hence at earlier times in the history of the Universe — is a challenge to our understanding of how galaxies form."

[Bravus]

(lots of double posts - might want to tidy up a little)

Whilst I hate to burst your expanding universe bubble Bravus...

If what you say is true, then would not everything expand?

Wouldn't everything including the space between all the atoms in our bodies for instance be constantly expanding?

Yep, and that is exactly what's happening. Not just the space between the atoms but the atoms themselves. The rate is too slow to be perceptible, but it's even more subtle than that. Say your whole body expanded by a centimetre. But everything in space would also expand by a centimetre, including the ruler or measuring tape you'd use to measure your height.

No bubble bursting. You've just described the universe as it actually is.

[Twilight]

I might actually drop a short note to Roberto Abraham, one of the scientists on this team, to ask whether there've been further developments since 2004 in this field.

That's assuming, of course, that Twilight is willing and able to confirm that I have in fact found what he's been talking about. If he had something different in mind I hope he'll link it.

Hubble has done something similar as you will see in my earlier post with the video link.

Both show fully formed Galaxies at a point in time where Evolutionary motivated secular science demanded young galaxies that were still in the process of forming.

Notice the previous exclamation of surprise.

These are "mature galaxies" that were found.

So the "baby galaxy" propoganda from the video link I posted can be dismissed.

You cannot go far wrong if you stand on the word of God.

But if you stand on the shoulders of foolish men, wise in their own eyes, reaching for the stars, building their own tower and denying God's Glory, then you will fall down, and it is going to hurt...

[Bravus]

It's not correct to say they find 'nothing but mature galaxies'. It's correct to say that they do find mature galaxies that the current model at the time (the hierarchical model) had not predicted.

I'll email Roberto Abraham now and post any response I receive here.

But unexpected findings are very welcome in science, because that's how science advances!

[Bravus]

So the "baby galaxy" propoganda from the video link I posted can be dismissed.

In other words 'here's my evidence but please ignore the evidence'. That video is simplified and popularised, but it summarises the work of astronomers. They know whether galaxies are young or old. If they don't, your whole argument falls over, because if they can't identify young galaxies they can't identify old ones either - they're all just galaxies.

[Twilight]

(lots of double posts - might want to tidy up a little)

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Whilst I hate to burst your expanding universe bubble Bravus...

If what you say is true, then would not everything expand?

Wouldn't everything including the space between all the atoms in our bodies for instance be constantly expanding?

Yep, and that is exactly what's happening. Not just the space between the atoms but the atoms themselves. The rate is too slow to be perceptible, but it's even more subtle than that. Say your whole body expanded by a centimetre. But everything in space would also expand by a centimetre, including the ruler or measuring tape you'd use to measure your height.

No bubble bursting. You've just described the universe as it actually is.

So you are saying that all the suns are expanding at an exponential rate, becoming less dense as the age of the universe increases?

[Twilight]

It's not correct to say they find 'nothing but mature galaxies'. It's correct to say that they do find mature galaxies that the current model at the time (the hierarchical model) had not predicted.

I'll email Roberto Abraham now and post any response I receive here.

But unexpected findings are very welcome in science, because that's how science advances!

It is only unexpected if you base your beliefs on evolutionary biased secular science Bravus.

It would not have been unexpected if one had rested their faith that inspiration is indeed inspiration and not a mere analogy...

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So the "baby galaxy" propoganda from the video link I posted can be dismissed.

In other words 'here's my evidence but please ignore the evidence'. That video is simplified and popularised, but it summarises the work of astronomers. They know whether galaxies are young or old. If they don't, your whole argument falls over, because if they can't identify young galaxies they can't identify old ones either - they're all just galaxies.

And how do they decide they are young or old?

By assuming the Suns themselves have a certain age depending on their "size" and "colour" etc?

Is this how they guage it Bravus?

If you notice the link you quoted expressed surprise to find "mature" galaxies.

Maybe the basis for maturity and youth that they use is based on a false idea that everything starst as random components that stitch themselves into complex systems over time perhaps?

Because if God created the Galaxies by speaking them into existance as fully functioning life support systems, (which hypothesis the Bible supports), then the size or colour of Suns is irrelevant as a guage of age...

And you would expect to see fully functioning life support systems, no matter how far you go back in time.

[Bravus]

Quote:

It is only unexpected if you base your beliefs on evolutionary biased secular science Bravus.

It would not have been unexpected if one had rested their faith that inspiration is indeed inspiration and not a mere analogy...

You have already conceded, in the past, that the Bible is silent on the issue of when and how the universe was created (you believe it predated the creation of this world which you date to about 6000 years ago). You have clearly acknowledged that your view on this topic is 'speculation', informed by but not directly drawn from Scripture. Ironically, your view is formed using an analogy between the creation of the universe and the creation of life on earth. Characterizing your own speculation as 'inspiration' is... dangerous.

[phkrause]

Making assumptions and labeling peoples or groups as a way answering questions is rather 'boring' and not worth replying too.

I'm in agreement with you CoAspen, there are just to many that love labels and the only way to reply to them is to go along with there game. As far as Twilight is concerned, most of what he says I am in agreement with, but I do agree that he doesn't need to label others. The only label I know of is "we are sinners".

[Twilight]

Quote:

It is only unexpected if you base your beliefs on evolutionary biased secular science Bravus.

It would not have been unexpected if one had rested their faith that inspiration is indeed inspiration and not a mere analogy...

You have already conceded, in the past, that the Bible is silent on the issue of when and how the universe was created (you believe it predated the creation of this world which you date to about 6000 years ago). You have clearly acknowledged that your view on this topic is 'speculation', informed by but not directly drawn from Scripture. Ironically, your view is formed using an analogy between the creation of the universe and the creation of life on earth. Characterizing your own speculation as 'inspiration' is... dangerous.

It was not a "concession" I made Bravus, you make it sound like you argued me into a corner.

It was an expression of my beliefs before any conversation with yourself... :-)

I have stated all along that my point is this:

YOU do not have the "best theory" known to man, with this philosophy of the Big Bang.

There is another thought that has just as much, nay more, reason to take acceptance in a Christians mind.

And the last sentance:

"Characterizing your own speculation as 'inspiration' is... dangerous"

Is disingenous.

When one "speculates" based on "inspiration" as a source, rather than "secularlism", then that speculation can be examined with the physical evidences that can be observed and loose conclusions can be drawn.

It is not stating that it "happened" exactly this way, but it is stating it is a "distinct" possibility.

If you want to through confusion or deliberation, charge me falsely with claiming "inspiration" on this matter, then I leave that for God to judge.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

How do you know it is "unformed matter"?

Simple, that is what the secular scientists that worship the religion of naturalistic evolution, have presented and you have clearly accepted it.

Why cannot it just be "matter"?

You say I limit God with my interpretation.

But I am saying God forms fully operating systems in the Bible.

You are limiting God to the bias that secular evolutionary thought imposes on you.

Why is it limiting God to state He has brought everything into existance as a fully functioning system?

What is limiting about that?

If you are arguing that I limit my uderstanding to the direct revelation of God revealed in the Bible, and if anything contradicts that revelation, I dismiss it.

Then yes...

...Guilty as charged.

Creationism and Anti-theism are not good bed fellows...

You eally enjoy putting labels on people. I would suggest you carefully read what I have posted and then ask specific questions about something you do not understand. Making assumptions and labeling peoples or groups as a way answering questions is rather 'boring' and not worth replying too. It matters nothing to me what you believe or think as my salvation is not dependent ond that. What I do dislike about your postings is the lack of common sense and the ability to discern fact from opinions and then expect others to dialogue with you. Bravus gets an A+ for doing that, but then he is a teacher and has more patience with students.

You could of course deal with my points rather than attempt to attack my character? :-)

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Making assumptions and labeling peoples or groups as a way answering questions is rather 'boring' and not worth replying too.

I'm in agreement with you CoAspen, there are just to many that love labels and the only way to reply to them is to go along with there game. As far as Twilight is concerned, most of what he says I am in agreement with, but I do agree that he doesn't need to label others. The only label I know of is "we are sinners".

When generalising, is it wrong to "label" a group.

As long as you understand I am generalising, it should not be an issue.

But I will attempt to be more specific in future if generalising causes such concern.

:-)

[Bravus]

Read the quote of yours that I quoted, and then claim that I have 'falsely claimed inspiration'.

If I've misunderstood, please clarify.

[Twilight]

Read the quote of yours that I quoted, and then claim that I have 'falsely claimed inspiration'.

If I've misunderstood, please clarify.

It seemed you were making the claim that I was claiming I am "inspired" therefore this is the truth.

If that is not the case, I apologise and withdraw my statement.

[Bravus]

{virtual handshake} :D

[BobRyan]

That was a good video. It demonstrates the absurdity of the evolutionist's God-did-not-do-it position.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Why is accepting the inspiration from God in the Bible going to lead us back into the Stone Age?

The point is very simple.

God shows us in the Bible, in the only example we have of Him creating, that He does this by calling fully formed systems into place.

The Big Bang argues against this.

So to state that the Big Bang is the best theory we have, is ignoring the only inspired account we have of God "creating".

...

And guess what.

When they turned the Hubble telescope and aimed it towards the point in the sky where they expected to see the "formation of the universe" from the Big Bang, they found what?

FULLY FORMED GALAXIES.

So with that in mind, which theory fits best?

The one based on naturalism that wants to insert evolutionary theory everywhere?

Or the one based on the Bible and Gods Creative process?

I say the Bible.

Well said. Points to be "dodged" and "ducked" by those who would rather imagine origins than read about it in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

So yes, BB could/would be best explanation. Some may be forgetting that Bible is not a science book!!!! .

Turns out that birth is a "physical event"

Turns out that breathing is a "physical event".

Turns out that dying is a "physical event".

All of them observable and often observed, described, studied, evaluated, defined by "science".

And yet we believe in the virgin birth, the incarnation of God the Son, and the resurrection of Lazarus and of Christ as well as the real physical ascension of Christ into heaven.

Oh but wait! Those are physical events and the "bible is not a science book" so maybe they did not happen just as the Bible said after all?

Yes? err.. um... "no".

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Why is accepting the inspiration from God in the Bible going to lead us back into the Stone Age?

The point is very simple.

God shows us in the Bible, in the only example we have of Him creating, that He does this by calling fully formed systems into place.

The Big Bang argues against this.

So to state that the Big Bang is the best theory we have, is ignoring the only inspired account we have of God "creating".

...

And guess what.

When they turned the Hubble telescope and aimed it towards the point in the sky where they expected to see the "formation of the universe" from the Big Bang, they found what?

FULLY FORMED GALAXIES.

So with that in mind, which theory fits best?

The one based on naturalism that wants to insert evolutionary theory everywhere?

Or the one based on the Bible and Gods Creative process?

I say the Bible.

Well said. Points to be "dodged" and "ducked" by those who would rather imagine origins than read about it in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

But then when you base your ideas on "secularly motivated" scientific theories, then you have to dodge and duck.

What part does God have in "securalism"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

So yes, BB could/would be best explanation. Some may be forgetting that Bible is not a science book!!!! .

Turns out that birth is a "physical event"

Turns out that breathing is a "physical event".

Turns out that dying is a "physical event".

All of them observable and often observed, described, studied, evaluated, defined by "science".

And yet we believe in the virgin birth, the incarnation of God the Son, and the resurrection of Lazarus and of Christ as well as the real physical ascension of Christ into heaven.

Oh but wait! Those are physical events and the "bible is not a science book" so maybe they did not happen just as the Bible said after all?

Yes? err.. um... "no".

in Christ,

Bob

But what you have forgotten Bob is that you have to get the approval of "science falsely so called" first...

That, it seems, takes precedence over inspiration in many quarters.

When that is the authority, the foundation of ones worldview, then it is not long before the divinely inspired Bible gets demoted to the "lower leagues"...

And this happens in many many Christians experience.

Not realising in many cases they are extending their hands across the Abyss...

[cardw]

But what you have forgotten Bob is that you have to get the approval of "science falsely so called" first...

That, it seems, takes precedence over inspiration in many quarters.

[Twilight]

The only "science falsely so called" here is your calling inspiration science of any kind.

You're basically saying that if any discovery in science contradicts the Bible then it's not real science.

Absolutely...

Gods revelation or mans opinion?

Which is likely to be the truth?