lundi 4 juillet 2016

Other Difference between Star Light in Transit and Creative Miracles

William asking*
... Why does it seem inconsistent with God’s nature to create the light from a supernova that never existed? It seem the Bible has the same “problem” when it speaks of Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed. Or bread from wheat that never existed, or fish too for that matter. ...

Lita replying*
... If we see its supernova, that’s an implied historical event. But if Star X never existed, and God simply created light in transit, that would mean that we could do scientific testing on a star that never actually existed. ... On Day 6, Adam was created as a fully-grown human man. If you or I were to go back in a time machine and see Adam, we might think he looked like a 20-something year old man, when in fact he was only hours old. Is this the same sort of implied history? Actually, it’s simply created maturity; when God created the universe, He did so in such a way that it could function with ecosystems, etc. ... First, the miracles were on a much smaller scale, and there were witnesses who knew them to be miracles. No woman at the feeding of the 5,000 would have been asking for the recipe for the multiplying loaves, for instance. And the miracles were intended as signs. I.e. the miracles were clearly extraordinary events intended to require a response of either belief or unbelief.

A little completion
  • Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed.
  • Or bread from wheat that never existed,
  • or fish too for that matter.

Christ creating wine from grapes that never existed.
Christ did create it from water that did exist, which is what He is using when creating wine through grapes as well.

Or bread from wheat that never existed,
Christ created the bread from the bread that did exist and the wheat in that bread, as usually He creates wheat from existing wheat through fertility in the fields. Or barley from existing barley. I think the multiplied loaves were barley loaves.

This has a connection with the Hebrew way of brewing Shekhor, I think, and therefore indirectly also with His first miracle, in Cana:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Beer and Bible

or fish too for that matter.
Not from "wheat that never existed" I hope.

By fertility, Christ as God the Son is creating new fish from existing fish. Again, the usual way was bypassed, but the basic skeleton of the process is there.

The many fish that helped to still the hunger of the crowd were created from the few which were given him.

Other completion
  • Distant starlight problem as a problem for young universe.
  • Starlight in transit and heliocentrism with its turned around reality vs appearance.

Distant starlight problem as a problem for young universe.
If that starlight is not really that distant, then there is no problem.

As distances beyond those measured with sun-shine and angles on planets have a cosmic distance ladder starting with parallax, and parallax depends for its proof certitude (not for mere possibility) on heliocentrism, if we are geocentrics, we don't have this problem.

If there is a sphere of fixed stars (roughly speaking, with some stars slightly more distant than others because covered by them, but not because of smaller parallax), the star X would have been only as far away as the sphere of fixed stars, which could be as close as one light day**, and in that case the supernova is regularly seen one day after it occurs. Which a creationist has no problem accepting as far as time scale is involved.

Sungenis and DeLano think God fixed the spheres of stars onto distances from the Sun, so that stars moving along with Sun would create same effect of parallax usable as distance measure as the Heliocentrics use for saying "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away", but there is no way of proving such a fixed distance of each star from Sun, and no way to disprove stars are instead moved around by angels. Whose fun with angles was no more intended for us to use as a distance measure than any bones from when C-14 level was 35 % of present one were meant to provide a timeline extending beyond 8000 BC.

So, parallax would still be possible, if one takes there solution, but there is no real practical gain to have from measuring parallax and therefore God is not deceiving us of anything if we don't get the right answers from the method we use. Precisely as God provided stars and star signs and planets and so, but is not deceiving us if astrology is wrong.

And of course placing stars at fixed distances from Sun (a k a neo-Tychonian system) is not a proven fact and therefore parallax is not a prove distance measure method, unlike triangulation of points where we know their distance or distances of points of observation and know all three corners or each triangle is fixed.

Starlight in transit and heliocentrism with its turned around reality vs appearance.
If God created the appearance of a Supernova occurring "billions of years ago", and the method of ascertaining the billions of years was not contestable as just shown, and it was just an appearance, none really happened, this would not be according to God's truthfulness.

I agree.

But if we were to be living on a planet that moves by rotation around itself and orbitation around Sun and this creates an appearance of being on a stationary Earth under a Sun which has a daily movement from East to West and yearly movements of higher or lower height over horizon (up to zenith as 90° over it) each year, would that be according to God's truthfulness?

The future Urban VIII while still a cardinal*** and a friend of Galileo told him "God could create the universe any way He liked and make it appear any way He liked" - I suppose the cardinal was speaking about God's power and for the moment passing over the question of God's truthfulness.

The point is, if any option which leaves reality and visual appearance as identic was open to God (and according to the cardinal's words it was), God was obliged by His truthfulness to chose one which does so.

Update 5.VII.2016
I forgot to sign the article, but it is still mine°.

I saw yesterday on FB a link to this article by Dr. Danny R. Faulkner on August 1, 2001:

AiG : Geocentrism and Creation
Originally published in Technical Journal (now Journal of Creation) 15, no. 2 (August 2001): 110–121.

On the Biblical side, he misses (did Bouw miss it too) the role of Joshua's Long Day in the debate.

In the earlier trial, when Galileo was not a suspect but only his book was, both he and Bellarmine agreed the miracle had taken place.

He argued, if Earth stopped moving the effect would visibly have been the same. Bellarmine argued that not so, since Earth stopping its rotation would not have stopped the Moon from orbitting around Earth.

So, Joshua's Long Day is a Biblical key passage for the issue. So is the fact that Earth is created before Sun. If Earth was still days 1, 2, 3, why should God set it moving on day 4 just because He creates the Sun? It is possible, but it is a stretch.

On the scientific side, he is not quite alert to all implications of the parallax issue.

He does not take in that the distantial implications of the observation termed parallax depend on heliocentrism.

Also, he overdoes in history of ideas how much Ptolemaic system depended on "perfect circles". It actually depended in origin on circles, as the perfect shape (non-angular, which stretched circles or ellipses are too).

And obviously, perfect circles as opposed to ellipses can hardly to any sober commenter come off as the main reason why anyone would prefer geocentrism over heliocentrism.

Also, the concrete daily movement of any celestial body is a fragment of a kind of spiral and a fragment which is very close to a perfect circle. Say its starting an orbit zenith over meridian of Paris and closes it about 24 hours later, the gap between starting point and closing point will be minuscule compared to the radius. It's only over longer terms that it makes sense to speak of ellipses rather than circles - namely when disregarding the daily movement.

Now, today I do sign.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Antonio-Maria Zaccaria

* Taken from Saturday's article:

CMI : What is the problem with starlight in transit?
Published: 2 July 2016 (GMT+10)

** If Messenger ever gets as far as one light day without reaching any sphere of fixed stars, next option would perhaps be two light days away.

*** Maffeo Barberini, I checked on wiki.
° Excepting any intellectual property quarrel which might arise from my extensive quoting at the beginning.

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire