"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I think you mean(which fits perfectly into a young earth time span) Just keeping you honest, Anita.. Radioisotope dating of lead is analyzed to be millions/billions of years old, but miraculously when we measure the helium it gives us a completely different date for the age of the earth of ONLY 6,000 YEARS (which fits perfectly into the Biblical time span).
OK, this is just strange. They can be typed out here . . . at least one or two of them.Sorry Zoegirl, good sources cannot be found on the Internet. However they are in my book if you're interested.
further in paper twoIn Paper 1 we argue that this structure is statistically significant, and that the size of the voids and the filament is larger than would be expected from CDM (Cold Dark Matter) simulations.
Let it go.Both analyses gave results consistent with those in Paper 1, but with larger error bars. In neither case, however, was the measured void probability function inconsistent with the cold dark matter simulations with 95% confidence.
Most of this paper was spent trying to call into question "expasion redshifts." If that were to happen then throw out your Bible, because as even you aknowledged, the Bible says the universe is expanding.But you ask how red-shifts disprove the Big Bang theory. And what about blue-shifts?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
This is Humphreys' model and as I said earlier, supernovae disprove it. But also, in 2003 the "Two Degree Deep Field" galaxy redshift survey proved his model of shells wrong. There are no concentric spherical shells of galaxies surrounding the Milky Way. I agree that we are the spiritual center.In so many ways the Bible tells us that the earth is the “spiritual center” of the Universe - the center and focus of G-d's attention and concern. We know from Genesis 1:14-15 that the heavens exists for the benefit of us on earth. However in the future, science (astronomy) will eventually discover that the earth IS ACTUALLY THE PHYSICAL CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (as it is in the middle of spheres called “red-shifts“ and our milky way galaxy is right in the middle of these spheres).
Read these:However what I do find refreshing is the helium findings in granite rock.
But that isn't what the Big bang is predicting.. The Big Bang is predicting that no matter where you are in the universe, you would see exactly the same average distribution of galaxies and redshifts. It's independent of where you are because you would witness an even distribution..Author Anita Meyer wrote:Hello Gman,
In so many ways the Bible tells us that the earth is the “spiritual center” of the Universe - the center and focus of G-d's attention and concern. We know from Genesis 1:14-15 that the heavens exists for the benefit of us on earth. However in the future, science (astronomy) will eventually discover that the earth IS ACTUALLY THE PHYSICAL CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE (as it is in the middle of spheres called “red-shifts“ and our milky way galaxy is right in the middle of these spheres).
Because by understanding the Doppler effect we can witness which stars are blue shift and red shift stars..Author Anita Meyer wrote:But you ask how red-shifts disprove the Big Bang theory. And what about blue-shifts?
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2635
Not sure what this has to do with the statement.. If the strings are too large for an early universe, how does this support a young universe?Author Anita Meyer wrote:The strings are to large for the early Universe. It also has to do with time, dark matter clouds, smaller clumps of matter, clouds of gas and dust, hydrogen atoms turning into helium atoms giving off visible light and radiation.
Here is a report from NASA:
http://www.universe.nasa.gov/news/galax ... n0704.html
I can not find anything in the Bible that says the atmosphere changed after the flood. There is nothing that says wine could not get people drunk before the flood. In the last 30 years, research has shown that ed (mist, stream) in Genesis 2:6 actually means rain cloud. This makes sense, because Gen. 2:5 gives two reasons for different types of plants not existing and in verses six and seven God fixes those problems.After the flood, something profoundly drastic had occurred. The atmospheric conditions were different. There are subtle clues in the Bible that bare evidence of this. For instance, shortly after the Great Flood when Noah grew a vineyard and got drunk off of it. Its possible that Noah did not realize that the atmospheric conditions played a part in grapes (wine) fermenting twice as fast.
Ham was the one who acted wrongly with respect to Noah's immodest behaviour. There is no reason to connect this with a hypothetical change in the fermenting of wine.Noah was so mad about this that he had cursed Canaan for not knowing what to do with him when he became drunk.
No, the early earth did not have much oxygen. You sound like your quoting Carl Baugh. He uses Humphreys' model for rings in the universe. I showed you that this model is wrong. He has a solid dome surrounding the earth. This sounds like near eastern creation myths. There was no solid dome in the Bible. He misuses "firmament" raqia in Genesis 1:6. This word means an expanse and comes from the verb raqa. In fact in verse 8 the raqia is renamed heavens. Many seem to confuse the material often connected to raqa with its meaning. It means to spread/expand and is often used for metal which was beaten out to make it expand, but the verb is also connected to land (Isaiah 44:24) and clouds (Job 37:18). In Job the word shachaq is wrongly translated sky. It means clouds. It here is referring to spreading the clouds to block the sun's heat which are now making peoples garments hot, because wind has blown away the storm. This can be demonstrated by just reading the context of Job 36:27-37:21. The subject is God's power seen in the atmosphere and focuses on thunderstorms. I've put together a detailed word study on this section. Carl tries to use Job 37:18 as evidence for a solid dome. He is wrong again.It's highly likely that the early earth conditions had been more pressured with twice the amount of oxygen and pressurized like a hyperbaric chamber. Geologist know that the early earth did in fact have more oxygen. Today they use hyperbaric chambers in hospitals to speed up healing.
Geologists have known for a long time that the early earth was covered by a global ocean. Then continents began to form through plate tectonics. Plate tectonics has recirculated the continents many times. So yes, most of the land masses have been under the oceans many times. The oceans, before the Cambrian period, had very little oxygen. That is one reason why no animals show up until about 600 Mya (possibly sponges). Then there was an explosion of animals 543 Mya called the Cambrian Explosion. This sounds a lot like the first part of Day 5 "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures."Oh, and one more thing… Geologists are now fully discovering that the ENTIRE earth was once completely covered by “marine flood sedimentation” (salt water from the sea) consisting of marine fossils which are found in all rock strata.