Do Creationists Believe in the Universe

[Givemeareason]

So you are just going to ignore what every single telescope manufacturer has to say on the subject of magnification so you can continue your incorrect beliefs?

No, I think they are just making stuff up to prop up the 95% Fairie Dust they require in their theories because they think they can treat plasma like solids, liquids and gasses. And then when it doesn't match reality - start making up that 95% Fairie Dust. I think their egos prevent them from admitting they are wrong and have not a clue.

Who mentioned anything about religion except you? If I chose to accept the Big Bang theory because of religion - it would be on the top of my list, since a priest invented it.

I'm objecting on purely scientific grounds in which every single manufacturer of telescopes agrees, as does every piece of the science.

http://www.telescope-optics.net/telescope_magnification.htm

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_eyepieces_understanding.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnification#Measurement_of_telescope_magnification

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic40.html

"There is the usual trade-off between magnification, which increases as the focal length of the first lens is made longer and light-gathering power, which depends on the inverse of the f/number of the first lens and therefore decreases as the focal length is made longer so that the f/number is made greater."

http://old.observers.org/beginner/eyepieces.freeman.html
"Not enough light. When you look at any particular object, the amount of its light entering the front of your telescope is fixed. If you are looking at an extended object, like the surface of the Moon, or a planet, or a galaxy or nebula, then as you increase magnification, that light is spread out over an ever-greater area of the retina of your eye, so the image looks dimmer and dimmer. Spread it out too much, and it will become too dim to see at all. What's more, various kinds of fine or low-contrast detail become hard to see before the object itself vanishes."

The hubble takes extremely high resolution images and it is time lapsed which intensifies the light coming in dramatically. This is how we get the magnificent photos from the ground also. All you are talking about is irrelevant.

 

[fat wee robin]

"In he beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" In your view, what are the heavens?

This includes the galaxies ,of course .

 

[fat wee robin]

But heaven was the Kingdom of God? Right?

Heavens , not heaven, dear friend .

 

[fat wee robin]

In the beginning of the perfect physical third Heaven God brought into the physical world, from things which do not appear, the Heaven/air and the Earth/ground. But the ground was without form and void/empty and darkness/death was upon the deep/water which came from the gases in the Heaven/air. At this time, there was NO physical Earth but only ground without form/dust.

God moved/brooded on the face of the waters because of the death which was upon everything He had created APART from Himself. EVERYthing apart from God is subject to death and it moved God and He Spoke:

Let there be Light. Jesus IS the Light of the first Day and He came into the physical world from within the invisible Spirit of God. Jesus will form/shape the air, dust and water into everything which exists in the physical world and He will give life to Humans, beasts of the field and fowl of the air.

The first firmament which God called Heaven was made on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8
The other firmaments/heavens (the present Cosmos and the Third Heaven) were made on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 Amen?

Interesting indeed .

 

[Ben West]

Interesting indeed .

Amen. God thought so too and placed the entire History of His 6 Days of Creative work in the First Chapter of Genesis. Amen?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The hubble takes extremely high resolution images and it is time lapsed which intensifies the light coming in dramatically. This is how we get the magnificent photos from the ground also. All you are talking about is irrelevant.

So you are going to ignore the science then?

Yes, another that follows the Ostrich theory.

 

[Givemeareason]

So you are going to ignore the science then?

Yes, another that follows the Ostrich theory.

Just like all the science is ignoring you. I know... the moon landing was faked too.

 

[fat wee robin]

Bub, listen to your own stupidity. You are suggesting that the King James TRANSLATORS "corrected" what was originally INSPIRED directly from God to the ORIGINAL writers. Do you know how idiotic that sounds? Basically, you are trying to tell me that the King James TRANSLATORS had to correct God because God wasn't sovereign enough to inspire his original authors correctly.
Considering you have obviously never studied the Bible a day in your life, it is rather laughable you are trying to argue with me, since I study it on a daily and could educate you under the table. Boastful, yes, but true nonetheless.

Note he number of posts . Perhaps he has taken root .

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just like all the science is ignoring you. I know... the moon landing was faked too.

Why would you believe the moon landing was faked?

I'm not the one trying to tell you about 95% Fairie Dust in cosmology because they refuse to treat a universe 99% plasma like plasma. You have yet to justify why I should accept treating plasma like solids, liquids and gasses; when we don't do that in any plasma laboratory on this earth - or in space?

You seem to keep forgetting the science is supporting me, not you. Whether it comes to magnification or any other cosmological topic you care to discuss.

EDIT: I accept the science, why do you ignore it?

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx
"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness. An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer. "

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic40.html
"There is the usual trade-off between magnification, which increases as the focal length of the first lens is made longer and light-gathering power, which depends on the inverse of the f/number of the first lens and therefore decreases as the focal length is made longer so that the f/number is made greater."

http://old.observers.org/beginner/eyepieces.freeman.html
"Not enough light. When you look at any particular object, the amount of its light entering the front of your telescope is fixed. If you are looking at an extended object, like the surface of the Moon, or a planet, or a galaxy or nebula, then as you increase magnification, that light is spread out over an ever-greater area of the retina of your eye, so the image looks dimmer and dimmer. Spread it out too much, and it will become too dim to see at all. What's more, various kinds of fine or low-contrast detail become hard to see before the object itself vanishes."

So givemeareason, I am giving you a scientific reason to question what you have been told. The question is are you going to accept the science or the PR they proclaim simply to keep their theories alive? We can logically deduce from the science that magnification does not allow one to see further into space - but even a lesser distance as the light is spread out over a larger area and dims as the magnification is increased according to the inverse square law of light. That unfortunate law of physics they told you about.

 

[Givemeareason]

Why would you believe the moon landing was faked?

I'm not the one trying to tell you about 95% Fairie Dust in cosmology because they refuse to treat a universe 99% plasma like plasma. You have yet to justify why I should accept treating plasma like solids, liquids and gasses; when we don't do that in any plasma laboratory on this earth - or in space?

You seem to keep forgetting the science is supporting me, not you. Whether it comes to magnification or any other cosmological topic you care to discuss.

EDIT: I accept the science, why do you ignore it?

http://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx
"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness. An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer. "

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1230/phys1230_fa01/topic40.html
"There is the usual trade-off between magnification, which increases as the focal length of the first lens is made longer and light-gathering power, which depends on the inverse of the f/number of the first lens and therefore decreases as the focal length is made longer so that the f/number is made greater."

http://old.observers.org/beginner/eyepieces.freeman.html
"Not enough light. When you look at any particular object, the amount of its light entering the front of your telescope is fixed. If you are looking at an extended object, like the surface of the Moon, or a planet, or a galaxy or nebula, then as you increase magnification, that light is spread out over an ever-greater area of the retina of your eye, so the image looks dimmer and dimmer. Spread it out too much, and it will become too dim to see at all. What's more, various kinds of fine or low-contrast detail become hard to see before the object itself vanishes."

So givemeareason, I am giving you a scientific reason to question what you have been told. The question is are you going to accept the science or the PR they proclaim simply to keep their theories alive? We can logically deduce from the science that magnification does not allow one to see further into space - but even a lesser distance as the light is spread out over a larger area and dims as the magnification is increased according to the inverse square law of light. That unfortunate law of physics they told you about.

I don't know why you keep referring to the eye? The Hubble is a high tech sensing system which time lapses to whatever the extent needed to enhance the image created to whatever level the sensory system used to detect the image and the hardware/software that processes the image can develop. Having an unobstructed view is the key.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I don't know why you keep referring to the eye? The Hubble is a high tech sensing system which time lapses to whatever the extent needed to enhance the image created to whatever level the sensory system used to detect the image and the hardware/software that processes the image can develop. Having an unobstructed view is the key.

And time lapse only allows it to receive brighter images and extend it's distance from 357.14 times the naked eye, to approximately 3 times that. The inverse square law always applies.

The further something is, the less light reaches any given area observed. So the choice you are offering is to ignore the science or accept the claims of those that themselves are ignoring it? All because they have an incorrect belief in what redshift is?

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

 

[Givemeareason]

You do not think that the Hubble can image a galaxy at 10 to 15 billion light years which is its projected range? Is that correct?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You do not think that the Hubble can image a galaxy at 10 to 15 billion light years which is its projected range? Is that correct?

Not in the slightest, unless you believe the unaided human eye can see 42,000,336 light years which would equate to over three times the light gathering power of Hubble itself and allow it to see 15 billion light years distant.

And here you go. Here is the fact sheet on Hubble and the calculator.

http://www.spacetelescope.org/about/general/fact_sheet/
http://www.cruxis.com/scope/limitingmagnitude.htm

Of course in their fantasy world these galaxies are of metaphysical magnitudes to support their erroneous belief in redshift. They must apply supernatural events and entities all because of their erroneous belief that redshift equals distance. They must further add other Fairie Dust entities because they treat plasma like solids, liquids and gasses instead of plasma.

Parallax is only good to about 200 parsecs (652 light years). http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solar/hipparcos.html#c1

Beyond this the only thing cosmologists use to measure distances is redshift. Their assumption of redshift is incorrect. Those standard candles ain't so standard as technology increases.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/spitzer/news/spitzercepheids20110112.html

Their models fail repeatedly.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/15jun_nustar/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliosphere
""The IBEX results are truly remarkable! What we are seeing in these maps does not match with any of the previous theoretical models of this region."

They can't even get correct what is right next door. All because once again - their incorrect pre-concieved beliefs about what redshift is and continuing to treat a universe 99% plasma like that 1% of solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems.

 

[toLiJC]

I started to wonder if Creationists even believe in the universe since I know they argue against the Big Bang. Since there was no concept of the universe when Genesis was written I am wondering if they also deny the universe in order to retain the earth centered view of all existence. Otherwise, I don't see how they can reconcile belief in Genesis with the modern view of the universe.

there is an uncaused part of the universe before the creation, and it includes the space, the so-called "word"(the seed of God), the so-called "waters"(the souls and the primordial substance), and the time as a course that can be measured

Blessings

 

[pat34lee]

This is your assumption, yet animals were not the subject of the Bible - nor was any time spent describing them. The animals all came before Adam two by two - male and female. This was to show Adam he himself as yet had no helper or companion and her value. We can be fairly certain God is consistent in His actions. You "assume" the animals were not created the same way man was - despite the fact the Bible uses what you translate as soul when talking about animals too.

So I can accept Moses and God calling both animals and humans souls, or your version. Sorry - you loose out.



It says nothing of the sort. Again with assumptions.

"And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

"Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

"The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Let's get it straight the woman added the not touch it clause, and I am sure the serpent probably spoke from within the tree - showing that touching it would not cause death. Adam was judged guilty because he was told directly by God, and "chose" to disobey. IMO because he did not want to loose that companion - made clear by the procession of male and female, two by two until every animal had passed before him to be named. You are assuming in the first case the animals were created differently when the same word is used, just because the Bible goes into more detail with man - the subject of the Bible - not the animals. In the second case you again assume Adam must of misspoke, even if it was the woman that did.

Adam was condemned because he willingly disobeyed and when confronted did not ask for forgiveness - but tried to blame the woman "The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”" And ultimately tried to shift the blame to God Himself since He put the woman there.

First section: that is why I asked specifically what you believed.

As for animals, I hope that they have souls, but then we are even more culpable when we kill them, even for food. As we were to be their caretakers, we are already responsible for anything we do that causes them to suffer or die needlessly.
http://dogbeatsman.quora.com/All-Dogs-Go-to-Heaven-dueling-church-signs

God for sure didn't change the command and tell Adam and Eve two different things. Adam, as first created, was responsible for Eve. His first fault was letting her deal with the serpent when it was his job. As for whether he or Eve added to the command, it is more likely that he did.

"Don't eat anything from that tree. Don't even touch it. In fact, don't go near it..."

 

[pat34lee]

The KJV is the lowest rated in accuracy compared to the old texts of all the translations available.

I don't have a problem with most translations except for the NIV, ESV and one or two other similar bibles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's because It doesn't say "a God" in John 1:1, does It?

It does when you translate it correctly from the Hebrew though, now doesn't it. Which is why they were very careful to call God "the - ton" Theon (the God) in that verse, to differentiate it from theos (a god or divine).

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/1.htm

 

[random person]

That's not what the Bible says.

It says:[VERSE=Genesis 1:1,KJV]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/VERSE]Note "heaven" in Verse 1 is singular.

It is not until Genesis 2:1, after the creation week, that we see "heaven" plural.[VERSE=Genesis 2:1,KJV]Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[/VERSE]All three of them are containment areas, populated by specific objets d'art.

First Heaven = 0-62 miles up = the atomosphere = populated by the air, clouds, birds, etc.

Second Heaven = 62 miles-edge of universe = outer space = populated by planets, moons, stars, etc.

Third Heaven = Heaven proper = populated by Crystal Sea, Throne of God, mansions under construction, etc.

Incorrect!

The Lowest Air That We Breathe/Spiritual Realm (metaphor) = aer (#109) See 1 Thessalonians 4:17

First Heaven = messouranema (#3321) See Revelation 19:17

Second Heaven = epouranios (#2032)

Third Heaven = ouranos (#3772) See Matthew 24:30; 2 Corinthians 12:2

 

[Justatruthseeker]

First section: that is why I asked specifically what you believed

I follow no set religion - I am a seeker of truth, wherever that may lead me. I try to hold no pre-conceived beliefs, because those prevent you from discerning truth. I follow no set religion because religion is man-made. Faith is not a religion, it is a state of mind.

As for animals, I hope that they have souls, but then we are even more culpable when we kill them, even for food. As we were to be their caretakers, we are already responsible for anything we do that causes them to suffer or die needlessly.
http://dogbeatsman.quora.com/All-Dogs-Go-to-Heaven-dueling-church-signs

No one knows, because the Hebrews understood they were one and the same. http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/3-21.htm
Anyone that claims they know the answer is in all likelihood quite wrong.

Exactly - so causing animals needless suffering would be the same as causing a human needless suffering since they all share that same breath (ruarch) all of you assure means given a soul when it comes to only Adam.

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/3-19.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ecclesiastes/3-19.htm

Exodus 23:5; Proverbs 27:23; Isaiah 1:11; Deuteronomy 25:4; Luke 15:4-7

But there is a difference between them: 1 Corinthians 15:39.

God for sure didn't change the command and tell Adam and Eve two different things. Adam, as first created, was responsible for Eve. His first fault was letting her deal with the serpent when it was his job. As for whether he or Eve added to the command, it is more likely that he did.

"Don't eat anything from that tree. Don't even touch it. In fact, don't go near it..."

God didn't tell Eve anything that we know for sure. Nor do we know for sure what Adam told her. Anything we say concerning either would be pure speculation on both our parts.

But we do know Adam's sin - trying to blame the woman and God instead of asking for forgiveness. It doesn't matter what God or Adam may have told Eve - she was deceived.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That's not what the Bible says.

It says:[VERSE=Genesis 1:1,KJV]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.[/VERSE]Note "heaven" in Verse 1 is singular.

It is not until Genesis 2:1, after the creation week, that we see "heaven" plural.[VERSE=Genesis 2:1,KJV]Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.[/VERSE]All three of them are containment areas, populated by specific objets d'art.

First Heaven = 0-62 miles up = the atomosphere = populated by the air, clouds, birds, etc.

Second Heaven = 62 miles-edge of universe = outer space = populated by planets, moons, stars, etc.

Third Heaven = Heaven proper = populated by Crystal Sea, Throne of God, mansions under construction, etc.

Based upon the presumption of translators. The same exact word is used in both places. The same exact word.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/1.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2-1.htm

Only humans with pre-conceived ideas would choose to hold that belief. Apparently Moses and God saw no difference, using the same word to describe both. That stance is indefensible. If it is singular in one, it is singular in the other. If it is plural in one, it is plural in the other.