Christian Forums

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-57244708

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteNew dark matter map reveals cosmic mystery

An international team of researchers has created the largest and most detailed map of the distribution of so-called dark matter in the Universe.

The results are a surprise because they show that it is slightly smoother and more spread out than the current best theories predict.

The observation appears to stray from Einstein's theory of general relativity - posing a conundrum for researchers.

The results have been published by the Dark Energy Survey Collaboration.

Dark Matter is an invisible substance that permeates space. It accounts for 80% of the matter in the Universe.

Astronomers were able to work out where it was because it distorts light from distant stars. The greater the distortion, the greater the concentration of dark matter.

Dr Niall Jeffrey, of École Normale Supérieure, in Paris, who pieced the map together, said that the result posed a "real problem" for physics.

"If this disparity is true then maybe Einstein was wrong," he told BBC News. "You might think that this is a bad thing, that maybe physics is broken. But to a physicist, it is extremely exciting. It means that we can find out something new about the way the Universe really is."

Prof Carlos Frenk, of Durham University, who was one of the scientists that built on the work of Albert Einstein and others to develop the current cosmological theory, said he had mixed emotions on hearing the news.

"I spent my life working on this theory and my heart tells me I don't want to see it collapse. But my brain tells me that the measurements were correct, and we have to look at the possibility of new physics," said Prof Frenk.

"Then my stomach cringes, because we have no solid grounds to explore because we have no theory of physics to guide us. It makes me very nervous and fearful, because we are entering a completely unknown domain and who knows what we are going to find."

Using the Victor M Blanco telescope in Chile, the team behind the new work analysed 100 million galaxies.

The map shows how dark matter sprawls across the Universe. The black areas are vast areas of nothingness, called voids, where the laws of physics might be different. The bright areas are where dark matter is concentrated. They are called "halos" because right in the centre is where our reality exists. In their midst are galaxies like our own Milky Way, shining brightly like tiny gems on a vast cosmic web.

According to Dr Jeffrey, who is also part of a department at University College London, the map, clearly shows that galaxies are part of a larger invisible structure.

"No one in the history of humanity has been able to look out into space and see where dark matter is to such an extent. Astronomers have been able to build pictures of small patches, but we have unveiled vast new swathes which show much more of its structure. For the first time we can see the Universe in a different way."

But the new dark matter map is not showing quite what astronomers expected. They have an accurate idea of the distribution of matter 350, 000 years after the Big Bang, from a European Space Agency orbiting observatory called Planck. It measured the radiation still present from that moment, called the cosmic microwave background, or more poetically, the "afterglow of creation".

Drawing on the ideas of Einstein, astronomers, such as Prof Frenk, developed a model to calculate how matter should disperse over the next 13.8bn years to the present day. But the actual observations from the new map are out by a few per cent - it shows that matter is slightly too evenly spread.

As a result, Prof Frenk thinks there may be big changes afoot in our understanding of the cosmos.

"We may have uncovered something really fundamental about the fabric of the Universe. The current theory rests on very sketchy pillars made of sand. And what we may be seeing is the collapse of one of those pillars."

But others, such as Prof Ofer Lahav, of University College London, have a more conservative view.

"The big question is whether Einstein's theory is perfect. It seems to pass every test but with some deviations here and there. Maybe the astrophysics of the galaxies just needs some tweaks. In the history of cosmology there are examples where problems went away, but also examples when the thinking shifted. It will be fascinating to see if the current 'tension' in Cosmology will lead to a new paradigm shift," he said.

The DES collaboration consists of over 400 scientists from 25 institutions in seven countries.

As usual, more information is leading to changes, possibly very big ones. In other words, more "sciences so called' of this world have been wrong. As they have been wrong over and over and over and over again. Concerning a great many issues. They learn by being wrong. Being wrong is an intricate part of the processes of the "sciences so called" of this world. Along with an arrogance built upon fallen humanities misplaced self confidence. A confidence which their long record of being wrong so many times, does not support. Yet when I and all others read, watch, or listen to their presentations, they are most very often presented as facts. People who disagree with them are even ridiculed. This exact condition is described in the scriptures, and the "sciences so called" of this world are front and center concerning this woeful condition.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, 7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The new and admitted knowledge that at least 80% of what actually exists is invisible to us, is exactly what scripture plainly states and or demonstrates. We cannot come to proper observation and conclusion because we are not even privy to the majority of what actually exists. Which the "so called sciences" of this world have lately had to admit. Of course they will never present these facts as such.

What else have we learned, but that fully developed galaxies appear to have existed much further back in time than the "scientists so called" of this world imagined. Causing major problems for their theories regarding the big bang. What is this, but another example of that which I have addressed many times over on these boards. Complexity and order further and further back in time than deep time evolutionary scientists thought possible in relation to their deep time simple to complex theorizing. I have shared many articles on this topic concerning life in general, and the admitted complexity further and further back in time, scientists keep on observing. Not just biologically, but also concerning technology and social or societal structure. All such observations logically support the biblical creation account as simply stated, concerning a young earth and all creation which was complex from the beginning as cerated. This being one of the main reasons our "scientists so called" are ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge the truth. Their world view begins with an incorrect and false narrative of deep time, and continues with more presumptive errors concerning simple to complex evolutionary development.

They choose and determine to believe that the observed ability of life to change and adapt, must mean slow deep time evolution from simple to complex, rather than a designed mechanism put in place by the Most High and intelligent being. As scripture simply and plainly states. As I have always stated and still do maintain, the issues of disagreement between Creation science and Evolutionary science is a matter of faith. Not observable, testable and or proved science. We will all choose one way or another, either the God revealed in and through the Holy scriptures, or a god or idol of our own creation. This choice of course, involves far more than just the issues of science, which is but one part of a much bigger picture.

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/webb-telescope-finds-evidence-of-massive-galaxies-that-defy-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

QuoteWebb Telescope Finds Evidence of Massive Galaxies That Defy Theories of the Early Universe

The six "universe breakers" appear much larger than what scientists thought was possible at that time

Astronomers have identified what appear to be six massive galaxies from the infancy of the universe. The objects are so massive, that if confirmed, they could change how we think of the origins of galaxies.

The findings, published Wednesday in Nature, use data from the James Webb Space Telescope's infrared-sensing instruments to picture what the universe looked like 13.5 billion years ago—a time when it was just 3 percent of its current age.

Just 500 to 700 million years after the big bang, the potential galaxies were somehow as mature as our 13-billion-year-old Milky Way galaxy is now.

The mass of stars within each of these objects totals to several billion times larger than that of our sun, according to the research. One of them in particular might be as much as 100 billion times our sun's mass. For comparison, the Milky Way contains a mass of stars equivalent to roughly 60 billion suns.

"You shouldn't have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast," says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. "It's just crazy that these things seem to exist."

Researchers expected to find only very small, young galaxies this early in the universe's existence. How these "monsters" were able to "fast-track to maturity" is unknown, says Ivo Labbé, an astrophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia and the study's lead researcher, in an email to Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press.

According to most theories of cosmology, galaxies formed from small clouds of stars and dust that gradually increased in size. In the early universe, the story goes, matter came together slowly. But that doesn't account for the massive size of the newly identified objects.

"The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science," says Joel Leja, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Penn State and a co-author of the study, in a statement. "We've been informally calling these objects 'universe breakers'—and they have been living up to their name so far."

Emma Chapman, an astrophysicist at the University of Nottingham in England who was not involved in the research, tells the Guardian's Hannah Devlin that these findings, if confirmed, could change how we conceive of the early universe. "The discovery of such massive galaxies so soon after the big bang suggests that the dark ages may not have been so dark after all, and that the universe may have been awash with star formation far earlier than we thought," she tells the publication.

Still, it might not be time to rewrite cosmology just yet: The researchers say it's possible some of the objects could be obscured supermassive black holes, and that what appears to be starlight in the images could actually be gas and dust getting pulled in by their gravity.

"The formation and growth of black holes at these early times is really not well understood," Emma Curtis-Lake, an astronomer at the University of Hertfordshire in England who was not part of the study, explains to Science News. "There's not a tension with cosmology there, just new physics to be understood of how they can form and grow, and we just never had the data before."

To verify their findings, the researchers could take a spectrum image of the objects they've pinpointed. This would help reveal how old they are. Galaxies from the early universe appear to us as very "redshifted"—meaning the light they emitted has been stretched out on its long journey to Earth. The higher the redshift value, the more the light has been stretched and the more distant and aged the galaxy is. With spectroscopy, scientists could determine whether their potential galaxies, or "high-redshift candidates," are as old as they appear, or if they are just "intrinsically reddened galaxies" from a more recent time, says Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist who was not involved in the study, to CNET's Eric Mack.

While Leja agrees that more observations are needed to confirm the findings, he notes in the statement, "Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought. Even if we cut the sample in half, this is still an astounding change."

Same old same old. Much more complexity and development, much further back in time than the "sciences so called" of this world once thought. As always, these ever increasing tendencies regarding new evidence, ever increasingly suggest complexity from the beginning according to intelligent design.

Quote from: Amo on Tue May 23, 2023 - 16:47:40
Same old same old. Much more complexity and development, much further back in time than the "sciences so called" of this world once thought. As always, these ever increasing tendencies regarding new evidence, ever increasingly suggest complexity from the beginning according to intelligent design.

Yes Amo, but none of that implies, suggests or even vaguely suggests that your description of those events are correct.  And once again you simply demonstrate that you are clueless about nearly anything and everything about science.  It is not "sciences so called" as you continue to spew forth; rather, it is the process of posit, test, refine that is necessarily inherent in the scientific method. That is, for example, how we have come from the ancients who looked at the sky in the morning to deduce what weather the day would bring to where we are today with a web site like "The Weather Channel" with its forecasts of an entire nation days into the future with nearly hour by hour descriptions.

If there are "sciences so called", it is to be found in the actions and proclamations of geologists or the like who examine things like the Grand Canyon and claim that it was formed by a global flood several thousand years ago.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed May 24, 2023 - 07:55:12



Quote from: Amo on Yesterday at 16:47:40

QuoteSame old same old. Much more complexity and development, much further back in time than the "sciences so called" of this world once thought. As always, these ever increasing tendencies regarding new evidence, ever increasingly suggest complexity from the beginning according to intelligent design.

Yes Amo, but none of that implies, suggests or even vaguely suggests that your description of those events are correct.  And once again you simply demonstrate that you are clueless about nearly anything and everything about science.  It is not "sciences so called" as you continue to spew forth; rather, it is the process of posit, test, refine that is necessarily inherent in the scientific method. That is, for example, how we have come from the ancients who looked at the sky in the morning to deduce what weather the day would bring to where we are today with a web site like "The Weather Channel" with its forecasts of an entire nation days into the future with nearly hour by hour descriptions.

If there are "sciences so called", it is to be found in the actions and proclamations of geologists or the like who examine things like the Grand Canyon and claim that it was formed by a global flood several thousand years ago.

What this shows is what a wonderful sense of humor our Heavenly Father has when He makes the point He will not be second guessed.

"rather, it is the process of posit, test, refine that is necessarily inherent in the scientific method."

Necessarily inherent only UNTIL God decides to mix things up.

It's not clear (to me at least) what it is that you find so hilarious.

Quote from: 4WD on Wed May 24, 2023 - 13:11:45
It's not clear (to me at least) what it is that you find so hilarious.

From the articles...

1. Astronomers have identified what appear to be six massive galaxies from the infancy of the universe. The objects are so massive, that if confirmed, they could change how we think of the origins of galaxies.

2. Just 500 to 700 million years after the big bang, the potential galaxies were somehow as mature as our 13-billion-year-old Milky Way galaxy is now.

3. The mass of stars within each of these objects totals to several billion times larger than that of our sun, according to the research. One of them in particular might be as much as 100 billion times our sun's mass. For comparison, the Milky Way contains a mass of stars equivalent to roughly 60 billion suns.

4."You shouldn't have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast," says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. "It's just crazy that these things seem to exist."

5. According to most theories of cosmology, galaxies formed from small clouds of stars and dust that gradually increased in size. In the early universe, the story goes, matter came together slowly. But that doesn't account for the massive size of the newly identified objects.

6. "The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science," says Joel Leja, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Penn State and a co-author of the study, in a statement. "We've been informally calling these objects 'universe breakers'—and they have been living up to their name so far."

Settled science.... There is no such thing because this proves they either got it wrong... or their findings were incomplete....

OR our Heavenly Father brought out His modeling clay once again and decided to mix things up a bit ....

I prefer to think God was instrumental in this because he is not going to have mortal men second guess Him and take Him out of the equation.

And that my friend is wonderfully good... and yes, funny.

Rella,

You probably aren't even aware of the Voth.

Quote from: Amo on Tue May 23, 2023 - 16:47:40
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/webb-telescope-finds-evidence-of-massive-galaxies-that-defy-theories-of-the-early-universe-180981689/

Quoted article below from link above. Emphasis is mine.

Same old same old. Much more complexity and development, much further back in time than the "sciences so called" of this world once thought. As always, these ever increasing tendencies regarding new evidence, ever increasingly suggest complexity from the beginning according to intelligent design.

I posted an article about this 6 pages ago in this very thread.  Since then, they've found even more/earlier things with the JWST that they're hypothesizing are artifacts left over from a different universe that existed before this one.

I am not making any theological point with this post.  My interest in cosmology is at the level of "wow, pretty pictures" and "cool, ain't technology something?"

Jarrod

Quote from: Rella on Wed May 24, 2023 - 16:49:28
Settled science....  There is no such thing....

Yes of course.  I really don't know why any astronomer and astrophysicist would make such a statement.

Quote from: Rella on Wed May 24, 2023 - 16:49:28I prefer to think God was instrumental in this because he is not going to have mortal men second guess Him and take Him out of the equation.

There is nothing about the big bang that takes God out of the equation.  It only changes what we think is the equation that he wrote down.

Quote from: Rella on Wed May 24, 2023 - 16:49:28"You shouldn't have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast," says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. "It's just crazy that these things seem to exist."

Again I don't know why she would make such a statement.  Thirty years ago that is what nearly the entire world of cosmologists, astronomers, and astrophysicists thought about black holes.  All of what Nelson is talking about is simply an expanded data set requiring at least a fine tuning of the theory or perhaps a major overhaul for some of it.

Remember that from the late 1600s Newton's laws of motion have been known and used extensively and effectively.  They are still the laws of motion used to determine the motion and trajectories of our satellites in the neighborhood of the earth as well as out to the rest of the solar system. It wasn't until Einstein came along to add a refining theory to those laws. That is how science works. And anyone calling himself a scientist and doesn't know and recognize that is not a very good scientist.

It is sometimes hard for us today to understand just how much of the science we take for granted was virtually unknown to even our grandparents. And nearly everything we know today is an outgrowth or refinement of an earlier scientific status. Advances usually don't end up proving something wrong; but rather showing something incomplete.

Quote from:  4WDAdvances usually don't end up proving something wrong; but rather showing something incomplete.

And it will ALWAYS be incomplete without an intelligent creative design engineer (GOD) being part of the equation.

Quote from: DaveW on Thu May 25, 2023 - 05:01:42
And it will ALWAYS be incomplete without an intelligent creative design engineer (GOD) being part of the equation.

Newton's law of gravity is

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

where G is the gravitational constant, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between their centers of mass.

How would you make God a part of that equation?

Dave, I think I know what you meant, but you need to be careful with those kinds of statements. Confusion about such things is what leads so many like Amo so far astray in these matters.

Quote from: Texas Conservative on Wed May 24, 2023 - 16:56:58
Rella,

You probably aren't even aware of the Voth.

Hmmmm,

I am not a Trekkie 

I much prefer to follow the potential real forms, such as Mothman.

Removed, duplicate

Quote from: 4WD on Thu May 25, 2023 - 07:31:56
Newton's law of gravity is

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

where G is the gravitational constant, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between their centers of mass.

How would you make God a part of that equation?

Newton's law can be derived as a case of Einstein's gravity formula, which is Gμν = 8πTμν.  Look at that, we've already added some stuff to it!

String theory, to the extent I can wrap my head around it at all, postulates that all the formulas can be derived from one master formula which essentially represents the vibrations coming off some multi-dimensional strings.  At that point I think we have included God's vocal chords in the equation... good enough for me!

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu May 25, 2023 - 11:37:08
Newton's law can be derived as a case of Einstein's gravity formula, which is Gμν = 8πTμν.  Look at that, we've already added some stuff to it!

Indeed! And many years ago I went through that derivation. That is not an addition to Newton's law, rather Newton's law is a special case of Einstein's equation.

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Thu May 25, 2023 - 11:37:08String theory, to the extent I can wrap my head around it at all, postulates that all the formulas can be derived from one master formula which essentially represents the vibrations coming off some multi-dimensional strings.  At that point I think we have included God's vocal chords in the equation... good enough for me!

While I do truly believe that all such formulas are the result of God's creation, I do not think you can find any representation of God in them.  In Einstein's gravity formula, "G" does not stand for God.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu May 25, 2023 - 16:07:52
Indeed! And many years ago I went through that derivation. That is not an addition to Newton's law, rather Newton's law is a special case of Einstein's equation.While I do truly believe that all such formulas are the result of God's creation, I do not think you can find any representation of God in them.  In Einstein's gravity formula, "G" does not stand for God.

Where exactly do you think that whatever it is that has a formula... that that formula came about?

Surly not by evolution, and no... they dont allow God in anything. YOU know that

Quote from: Rella on Thu May 25, 2023 - 16:57:27
Where exactly do you think that whatever it is that has a formula... that that formula came about?

The natural law that the formula is describing came from God.  The formula came by man's observing the effects of that natural law, positing a theory, testing, evaluating the results and fine tuning the theory and in some cases describing it mathematically.  Man doesn't invent the natural law; man discovers it and produces a theoretical description for it and develops, if possible, a mathematical formula representing that description.

Quote from: RellaSurly not by evolution

No, not by evolution. Evolution, in whatever way it exists, is but another natural law from God through His creation.  It turns out that some natural laws are simply way too complicated for man to mathematically formulate, at least at the present time.  Evolution, in general, is one such law. Climate is another such law. There have been so many of those in the past across all branches of scientific inquiry which have lately yielded to some real progress.  That should continue.

For what it is worth, I believe all those natural laws came about in the very first instant of God's creation.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu May 25, 2023 - 17:53:38
The natural law that the formula is describing came from God.  The formula came by man's observing the effects of that natural law, positing a theory, testing, evaluating the results and fine tuning the theory and in some cases describing it mathematically.  Man doesn't invent the natural law; man discovers it and produces a theoretical description for it and develops, if possible, a mathematical formula representing that description.No, not by evolution. Evolution, in whatever way it exists, is but another natural law from God through His creation.  It turns out that some natural laws are simply way too complicated for man to mathematically formulate, at least at the present time.  Evolution, in general, is one such law. Climate is another such law. There have been so many of those in the past across all branches of scientific inquiry which have lately yielded to some real progress.  That should continue.

For what it is worth, I believe all those natural laws came about in the very first instant of God's creation.

IMO, it is totally wrong, in discussions of all things scientific, to leave God out of the equation. But that is just me.

Quote from: 4WD on Thu May 25, 2023 - 07:31:56
Newton's law of gravity is

F=Gm₁m₂/r²

where G is the gravitational constant, m₁ and m₂ are the masses of the two bodies, and r is the distance between their centers of mass.

How would you make God a part of that equation?

Dave, I think I know what you meant, but you need to be careful with those kinds of statements. Confusion about such things is what leads so many like Amo so far astray in these matters.

What a silly question from a professed creationist. Revealing the real problem. Which came first, the laws of gravity put in place by God, or Newton's formula? Is God contained by the box of His own creation which He has contained us within? Shall we suppose He could not create other realities of existence within which our observed laws of gravity do not exist and or are very different? As though God Himself were limited by laws which He Himself created and put in place? Nonsense. God is not part of any of humanities puny observations or speculations. All such are our puny attempts at or toward expressing the creation of God within which we exist.

How silly to ask how one could make God a part, of an equation expressing and or helping explain the laws and or boundaries of the creation which God himself put in place. Nevertheless, from our side or perspective of the issue, we so very often attempt to bring God down to our level. Rather than raise our own understanding toward the ever expanding goal, of His.

A typical Amo word salad on this subject.

Quote from: 4WD on Fri May 26, 2023 - 11:51:16
A typical Amo word salad on this subject.

But absolutely correct 

Quote from: Rella on Fri May 26, 2023 - 13:34:15
But absolutely correct 

Absolutely incorrect and improper.  I have enough trouble sorting out the thinking of theologians about their views of God and all things spiritual.  I absolutely do not want to have to sort out the thinking of scientists about their views of God and all things spiritual.  The act of "putting God into the equation" is what got us Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei.  The world does not need more of that. What I, you or Amo know about God does not belong in any science book.  Or perhaps you think the spiritual thoughts of the likes of a Jim Jones ought to be included in the science books of your kids and grandkids.  I don't; and I expect neither do you. 

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 26, 2023 - 10:23:44
What a silly question from a professed creationist. Revealing the real problem. Which came first, the laws of gravity put in place by God, or Newton's formula?

As a creationist, I have never asked that question.  It wouldn't even occur to me to ask such a silly question.  Newton, who was a devout Christian, one with a deep faith in God, never asked that question. It simply wouldn't have dawned on him to even think to ask such a silly question. Only someone like you would even think to ask such a silly question.

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 26, 2023 - 10:23:44Is God contained by the box of His own creation which He has contained us within? Shall we suppose He could not create other realities of existence within which our observed laws of gravity do not exist and or are very different? As though God Himself were limited by laws which He Himself created and put in place? Nonsense. God is not part of any of humanities puny observations or speculations. All such are our puny attempts at or toward expressing the creation of God within which we exist.

The irony here is as much as you show your contempt at "our puny attempts at or toward expressing the creation of God within which we exist", that is precisely what you are doing when you try to lecture the rest of us on "creation science" and "creation scientists".  And you do that with an apparently minimal understanding of science at any level. 

You asked,

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 26, 2023 - 10:23:44Shall we suppose He could not create other realities of existence within which our observed laws of gravity do not exist and or are very different?

It is interesting to realize that is precisely what some atheistic scientists try to do with their introduction of a multiverse concept for the origin of this universe. Their explanation is that this is just one of an infinite number of universes that just happened to have all the exquisitely fine-tuned physical qualities and characteristics necessary to produce the solar system we live in.

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 26, 2023 - 10:23:44How silly to ask how one could make God a part, of an equation expressing and or helping explain the laws and or boundaries of the creation which God himself put in place. Nevertheless, from our side or perspective of the issue, we so very often attempt to bring God down to our level. Rather than raise our own understanding toward the ever expanding goal, of His.

Again, somewhat ironically, bringing God down to your level is precisely what you are doing with your explanation of how God did what He did in creating.  You have been adamant in resisting any attempt whatsoever at raising our own understanding toward the ever-expanding goal.  For you the goal is set; there is no such thing as expanding that goal. For you that goal is firmly set with the few hundred words of the first couple of chapters of Genesis constrained by your own interpretation of those words.

QuoteAs a creationist, I have never asked that question.  It wouldn't even occur to me to ask such a silly question.  Newton, who was a devout Christian, one with a deep faith in God, never asked that question. It simply wouldn't have dawned on him to even think to ask such a silly question. Only someone like you would even think to ask such a silly question.

How very strange. I quote a post from you asking the very question I am addressing which can be seen by all, which you deny you ever asked.

QuoteThe irony here is as much as you show your contempt at "our puny attempts at or toward expressing the creation of God within which we exist", that is precisely what you are doing when you try to lecture the rest of us on "creation science" and "creation scientists".  And you do that with an apparently minimal understanding of science at any level.

Yes, how dare us puny minded uneducated scientific dwarfs, question such elitist scientific genius lords such as yourself. Even after you have declared us to be so very ignorant. I find the real irony to be, that you do not find fallen humanities groping in the darkness of "science so called", to be puny compared to God's omniscients. Casting His divinely inspired account of creation under the bus of the "sciences so called" of this world.

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

QuoteIt is interesting to realize that is precisely what some atheistic scientists try to do with their introduction of a multiverse concept for the origin of this universe. Their explanation is that this is just one of an infinite number of universes that just happened to have all the exquisitely fine-tuned physical qualities and characteristics necessary to produce the solar system we live in.

What atheistic scientists decide to do in attempts to save or support their precious theories, has nothing at all to do with God's creative abilities, and the endless possibilities associated with the same.

QuoteAgain, somewhat ironically, bringing God down to your level is precisely what you are doing with your explanation of how God did what He did in creating.  You have been adamant in resisting any attempt whatsoever at raising our own understanding toward the ever-expanding goal.  For you the goal is set; there is no such thing as expanding that goal. For you that goal is firmly set with the few hundred words of the first couple of chapters of Genesis constrained by your own interpretation of those words.

Here in again, lies one of your major problems. The extreme limits you place upon God's word. Which word is in fact all encompassing truth. With depths of meaning we will no doubt be studying throughout endless ages. You think God's divinely inspired word is restrictive and cumbersome in relation to the "sciences so called of this world" which you seem to prefer, instead of enlightening and instructive concerning the actual facts of real science. All of which is directly in line with the truths of God's word as stated to humanity in perfectly understandable language, which God Himself has preserved to be understood in the now many languages we use. It is God's word that is ever expandable and revealing, when trusted by faith, and backed up by real scientific observation in direct line with that faith in His written word. Not the combined speculations of atheists and professed believers alike, in the "sciences so called" of this world. The first few hundred words of the Holy scriptures are filled with infinitely more knowledge than all the speculations of the sciences of this world will ever be. As all the saved will learn throughout the eternal ages.

Biblical creationists do not try to explain how God created what He cerated at all. They simply believe He did create the world in the time scale conclusively pointed out and stated within those first few hundred words. While examining and observing the evidences for all to see, which support their faith in the same. To the contrary, it is "Christian" evolutionists who unquestionably attempt to explain how God created what he has, and introduce deep time scales necessary to their theories. Theories which they share with atheists, which biblical creationists consider to be among the "sciences so called" of this world. Stop twisting the issue, and accusing us of exactly what you are doing. You know who uses these tactics, but we won't go there. Since those who use their tactics would try to ban and or censure me as they do as well, if I did.   

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 27, 2023 - 23:00:26
How very strange. I quote a post from you asking the very question I am addressing which can be seen by all, which you deny you ever asked.

The question you asked:

Quote from: Amo on Fri May 26, 2023 - 10:23:44
What a silly question from a professed creationist. Revealing the real problem. Which came first, the laws of gravity put in place by God, or Newton's formula?

As I said, I have never asked that question.  It is not a question that I would ever ask.  I have stated over and over again that the laws of nature, which if you do not realize it include the law of gravity, were put in place with the creation of the Big Bang. That is, again if you do not realize it, about 13+billion years before Newton's formula.

So obviously the silly question that you put forth is your silly question.

Quote from: Amo on Sat May 27, 2023 - 23:00:26
You think God's divinely inspired word is restrictive and cumbersome in relation to the "sciences so called of this world" which you seem to prefer, instead of enlightening and instructive concerning the actual facts of real science.

That's hilarious.  You are the one who think's "God's divinely inspired word is restrictive and cumbersome"; specifically, it is restricted to your own narrow interpretation independent of anything else. That of course makes it very cumbersome in the light of God's own general revelation.

By the way, that you install yourself as the guide to walk the line between "sciences so called of this world" and the "actual facts of real science" is even more hilarious. As if you had even an inkling of the "actual facts of real science".  You have demonstrated again and again that you do not.

QuoteAs I said, I have never asked that question.  It is not a question that I would ever ask.  I have stated over and over again that the laws of nature, which if you do not realize it include the law of gravity, were put in place with the creation of the Big Bang. That is, again if you do not realize it, about 13+billion years before Newton's formula.

So obviously the silly question that you put forth is your silly question.

Ah, I see. You bypassed the issue of the question you asked which I was addressing altogether. Choosing to zero in upon a question I would never ask either, accepting in relation to someone asking the question you yourself posed, which I was addressing. So be it.

Yes your condescending highness, I do realize that the law of gravity is a law of nature put in place by God. Once again I must point out concerning your above statement, that it is you and your deep time evolutionary allies, that are declaring you know how God created everything. With your deep time theories concerning slow evolutionary development of everything. Not biblical creationists. Theories by the way, which have been proved wrong in many ways many times over in the past, and are facing serious challenges today as knowledge increases. So be it.

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 28, 2023 - 07:04:10
That is, again if you do not realize it, about 13+billion years before Newton's formula.

OR - 5,000 years before.  [given a biblical 6 24 hour days of creation]

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 28, 2023 - 07:55:51
Theories by the way, which have been proved wrong in many ways many times over in the past, and are facing serious challenges today as knowledge increases. So be it.

This is where you show your ignorance. Theories have been adjusted to fit with technological advancements in research and study, but not abandoned, wiped clean, and replaced with a radically and altogether different theory. That is just how science works, but in your small mind, if they didn't get it 100% correct the time theorizing, it was "proved wrong".

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 28, 2023 - 07:14:50
That's hilarious.  You are the one who think's "God's divinely inspired word is restrictive and cumbersome"; specifically, it is restricted to your own narrow interpretation independent of anything else. That of course makes it very cumbersome in the light of God's own general revelation.

By the way, that you install yourself as the guide to walk the line between "sciences so called of this world" and the "actual facts of real science" is even more hilarious. As if you had even an inkling of the "actual facts of real science".  You have demonstrated again and again that you do not.

Not so but in your twisted mind. My narrow interpretation as you suggest, has a been confirmed by every expert interpretation or translation ever composed. Unless you can or will finally provide a translation which confirms that any translator ever saw or detected anything like what you propose the creation account really chronicles. Please feel free to do so. There is interpretation which consists of simply conveying meaning and ideas between separate languages, which does not attempt to change, but rather intends to retain meaning between languages. Then there is the interpretation which you are speaking of, which is exactly making something mean what one intends, rather than necessarily what was or is intended. Applying symbolism or metaphorical interpretation. This is what you choose to apply to the creation account, while there is no suggestion that such should be done, other than your opinion that it must be so, accordingly as you have already chosen to believe in deep time evolutionary theories. To the contrary, other scriptures conclusively back up the idea that the creation account is to be taken as an historical account of what happened, in the time frame simply and conclusively stated.

Nor again, is taking God's word for just what it simply and plainly states restrictive and or cumbersome, but to those who choose to question it. To the contrary, faith in God's word as simply stated and backed up throughout, sets one's feet upon the proper path of true enlightenment and ever expanding and truthful knowledge. Preventing the condition which scripture describes as ever learning but never able to come to a knowledge of truth. You have chosen an understanding which is completely foreign to the holy scriptures. Which is composed by atheists, non believers, and professing believers who support that which is not supported anywhere in scripture, alike. If you could or can support your deep time evolutionary theory from or with scripture at all, this would of course be a step in the right direction, toward convincing those who place scripture above all other claimed authorities.

Psa 119:98  Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me.
99  I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation.
100  I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.
101  I have refrained my feet from every evil way, that I might keep thy word.
102  I have not departed from thy judgments: for thou hast taught me.
103  How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.
105  NUN. Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
106  I have sworn, and I will perform it, that I will keep thy righteous judgments.
107  I am afflicted very much: quicken me, O LORD, according unto thy word.
108  Accept, I beseech thee, the freewill offerings of my mouth, O LORD, and teach me thy judgments.
109  My soul is continually in my hand: yet do I not forget thy law.
110  The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.
111  Thy testimonies have I taken as an heritage for ever: for they are the rejoicing of my heart.
112  I have inclined mine heart to perform thy statutes alway, even unto the end.
113  SAMECH. I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love.
114  Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.
115  Depart from me, ye evildoers: for I will keep the commandments of my God.
116  Uphold me according unto thy word, that I may live: and let me not be ashamed of my hope.
117  Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe: and I will have respect unto thy statutes continually.
118  Thou hast trodden down all them that err from thy statutes: for their deceit is falsehood.
119  Thou puttest away all the wicked of the earth like dross: therefore I love thy testimonies.
120  My flesh trembleth for fear of thee; and I am afraid of thy judgments.
121  AIN. I have done judgment and justice: leave me not to mine oppressors.
122  Be surety for thy servant for good: let not the proud oppress me.
123  Mine eyes fail for thy salvation, and for the word of thy righteousness.
124  Deal with thy servant according unto thy mercy, and teach me thy statutes.
125  I am thy servant; give me understanding, that I may know thy testimonies.
126  It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.
127  Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yea, above fine gold.
128  Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
129  PE. Thy testimonies are wonderful: therefore doth my soul keep them.
130  The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 28, 2023 - 08:45:56
Not so but in your twisted mind. My narrow interpretation as you suggest, has a been confirmed by every expert interpretation or translation ever composed.

That is simply not true. There are any number of "expert" interpretations and translations that certainly would not confirm your narrow interpretation.  The only twisted mind here is yours.

Let me say one more time, I don't really care if you want to translate/interpret the creation day as a 24-hour day.  If that helps you in your faith in God, then so be it.  I do care when you impugn any who might disagree with you and declare their faith to be considerably less than your own and when you impugn the entire scientific community for not adhering to your "actual facts of real science", as if you had even an inkling of what that was.

Quote from: Alan on Sun May 28, 2023 - 08:05:32

This is where you show your ignorance. Theories have been adjusted to fit with technological advancements in research and study, but not abandoned, wiped clean, and replaced with a radically and altogether different theory. That is just how science works, but in your small mind, if they didn't get it 100% correct the time theorizing, it was "proved wrong".

That is a big fat negative. Within the theory of evolution are many other supporting theories regarding time, slow development over time, different mechanisms of change, this, that, and the other. Many of which have been proved wrong. The following video addresses just a few of these theories regarding the development of humanity proved wrong over the course of time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3ZmfgnpUdE

Quote from: Amo on Sun May 28, 2023 - 08:45:56
If you could or can support your deep time evolutionary theory from or with scripture at all, this would of course be a step in the right direction, toward convincing those who place scripture above all other claimed authorities.

If that is the requirement to acknowledge the existence of "deep time", then of course you can't acknowledge the existence of electrons, protons, electricity, gravity, stars beyond what you can see with your own eyes, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation other than visible light and nearly the entire field of the physical and biological sciences.

QuoteThat is simply not true. There are any number of "expert" interpretations and translations that certainly would not confirm your narrow interpretation.  The only twisted mind here is yours.

Let me say one more time, I don't really care if you want to translate/interpret the creation day as a 24-hour day.  If that helps you in your faith in God, then so be it.  I do care when you impugn any who might disagree with you and declare their faith to be considerably less than your own and when you impugn the entire scientific community for not adhering to your "actual facts of real science", as if you had even an inkling of what that was.

Please do share these translations with us, as I have asked you to do many times.

I care nothing for your constant condescending drivel concerning my supposed ignorance, and your supposed superiority regarding supposed authentic scientific facts. Many of which are not facts at all, but rather agenda driven collected evidences supporting faith in a particular world view. Built every bit upon presumptions of that particular faith and world view, as Biblical Creationism's presumption that the creation account of Genesis is historical and literal. I debate your faith, not proved scientific facts. Which your deep time theory of evolution is not. My main beef, is that what you believe is not found anywhere in scripture at all, but by your or others private interpretations. Scripture absolutely does not simply or otherwise state anything like what you believe anywhere in its entirety. But by private interpretation and or application. While to the contrary, it backs up the historical and literal plainly stated six day creation in many places throughout.

Again, please do provide a single Bible translation which does in fact relate the Genesis creation account as you understand it. Then at least we can move on from there. If proper context and biblical support from many other scriptures are not proofs of what the scriptures actually mean and intend, then what is or can be? How is anyone supposed to determine proper translation and or interpretation apart from such, without such representing private interpretation? How can or do you defend your beliefs, debate or argue them, if in fact all scripture right from the get go, is subject to such widely varying interpretation or translation? What surety can scripture provide under such conditions? What surety can anyones words provide or convey under such conditions?

Quote from: 4WD on Sun May 28, 2023 - 09:17:52
If that is the requirement to acknowledge the existence of "deep time", then of course you can't acknowledge the existence of electrons, protons, electricity, gravity, stars beyond what you can see with your own eyes, electromagnetism, electromagnetic radiation other than visible light and nearly the entire field of the physical and biological sciences.

The holy scriptures do not address electrons, protons, electricity, and so on and so forth. They do directly address the issue of time. Many times over. Nor do any creationists deny or debate the existence of the scientific realities you mentioned above. Though they may entertain different views regarding some of them. They may all be tested and proved right before our very eyes. Deep time theories regarding the unknown past cannot. That is why they are theories, not scientific fact. They have no choice, but to allow for presumptions concerning conditions which may or may not have existed as basically guessed according to a particular faith in this or that world view. Just as Biblical Creationists presume the Genesis account is historical and literal as God's word plainly states and backs up throughout.