[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

That's a good example of what I'm talking about. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was immortal. Indeed, in Genesis, God expresses concern that he might become so.

That was after he started to die, as God promised after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In the fallen state, man could no longer be allowed to 'regain' eternal life.

Many floods cover the earth, in the sense the Bible uses "earth" (eretz). The word does not mean the "whole world." It is used, for example to mean Israel.

It had to cover the earth to cover the high mountains, and kill all life on earth, what, you kidding?

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's a good example of what I'm talking about. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was immortal. Indeed, in Genesis, God expresses concern that he might become so.

That was after he started to die, as God promised after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Many floods cover the earth, in the sense the Bible uses "earth" (eretz). The word does not mean the "whole world." It is used, for example to mean Israel.

It had to cover the earth to cover the high mountains,

Mountains aren't that high in that area.

and kill all life on earth,

But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel."

what, you kidding?

Nope. You just made another addition to Scripture.

 

[dad]

That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Of course it is scriptural. Why would dying be some punishment if he was already going to die? That was a result of the sin. Apparently the tree of life would have reversed the effect, and he would live forever if he ate it. That is why an armed guard had to be posted.

Also, we were made in the image of God, and He is eternal, if we remember! The promise of a savior was given, and the idea was that man would have this eternal life.
We have it now by that savior. The promise was given before the world began! And thats no lie.

Tit 1:2 - In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;

 

[dad]

what, you kidding?


Nope.

Gen 7

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 8
. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.


As we see you must be kidding if you think only some local area was affected. That is patently absurd.

But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel." .

It could be applied to that, but by no means limited. Especially when He specifies, the 'whole earth' and clearly also says that all life will be wiped out as well, on that earth.


PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2007 4:52 am Post subject:
Barbarian observes:
That's a good example of what I'm talking about. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was immortal. Indeed, in Genesis, God expresses concern that he might become so.

Quote:
That was after he started to die, as God promised after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.


That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Many floods cover the earth, in the sense the Bible uses "earth" (eretz). The word does not mean the "whole world." It is used, for example to mean Israel.

Quote:
It had to cover the earth to cover the high mountains,


Mountains aren't that high in that area.

Since all life everywhere on earth was wiped out that is a moot point.

However high mountains are in any place now, does not mean that they were the same before the flood. For example, if there was a rapic continental separation it could have pushed up ranges, and caused a lot of mountain building.

 

[Barbarian]

7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
Gen 8
. 4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth.

As we see you must be kidding if you think only some local area was affected.[/quiote]

As you learned, the word translated as "earth" is used in scripture to mean the "land of Israel", as well as other sizes of land. So it doesn't mean the "whole earth."

Barbarian observes:
But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel." .

[quote:8d496]It could be applied to that, but by no means limited. Especially when He specifies, the 'whole earth' and clearly also says that all life will be wiped out as well, on that earth.

Yes, it does, but since the word represents a limited area, then we know that it doesn't mean the entire surface of the earth.

Barbarian observes:
That's a good example of what I'm talking about. Nowhere in the Bible does it say Adam was immortal. Indeed, in Genesis, God expresses concern that he might become so.

That was after he started to die, as God promised after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Barbarian observes:
Many floods cover the earth, in the sense the Bible uses "earth" (eretz). The word does not mean the "whole world." It is used, for example to mean Israel.

Since all life everywhere on earth was wiped out that is a moot point.

But that's not what it says, of course. It says it happened in the land. (eretz) Not the entire world.

However high mountains are in any place now, does not mean that they were the same before the flood. For example, if there was a rapic continental separation it could have pushed up ranges, and caused a lot of mountain building.

[/quote:8d496]

And the friction engendered would have boiled the oceans. And, of course, a rapid continental separation isn't Scriptural, either. You're just making stuff up to fill in the holes in your story.

 

[Slevin]

Of course it is scriptural. Why would dying be some punishment if he was already going to die?

LOL....

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel." .

The word cannot be limited to the little area you seem to wish. That is a bizarre and unfitting and, frankly, utterly ridiculous interpretation of the word in the context it is used. Not to mention there was no Israel even back then

"Definition
ground, land

1. ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
2. piece of ground, a specific plot of land
3. earth substance (for building or constructing)
4. ground as earth's visible surface
5. land, territory, country
6. whole inhabited earth
7. city in Naphtali "

http://www.studylight.org/isb/view.cgi?number=0127
There was not even an Israel at the time. You are way out of context here. Man cannot serve two masters, he will cling to the one or the other. Isn't it about time you decided who you believe??

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

If man was created to die, eating the fruit would be no big deal. The same tree that God had to guard that could give eternal life was in the same garden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Do you have some indication that they never ate it???? Like they were stupid??
Especially considering this
Gen 2
16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

" Thou shalt surely die.
moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... =17#Ge2_17

And the friction engendered would have boiled the oceans. And, of course, a rapid continental separation isn't Scriptural, either. You're just making stuff up to fill in the holes in your story.

ONLY if the state of the universe were the same as now, and you have absolutely no proof of that. I say it was different, because of the record of the bible.

Another instance of a planetary movement of water and land is right in creation week. The land was separated from the water. Only about 3 days later, animals were created to live on the earth! This tells us that a property of matter, or rock at the time seems to be that it cooled fast, and/or did not get as hot.

Likewise in the future, the whole earth will be burned (surface) with fire, but we also see, soon after that, the holy city of God coming from space (above) -and landing right here!!! The past and future states seem to be the same. We are the odd man out, in the present.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel." .

The word cannot be limited to the little area you seem to wish.

That is Biblical usage. If you don't like it, blame the Author.

Man cannot serve two masters, he will cling to the one or the other. Isn't it about time you decided who you believe??

I can believe God or I can believe you. Not much of a choice, really.

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

If man was created to die, eating the fruit would be no big deal. The same tree that God had to guard that could give eternal life was in the same garden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Do you have some indication that they never ate it????

God says in Genesis that if one eats from the tree of life, one lives forever. Adam didn't. Again, I can believe God or I can believe you.

Genesis 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(Man's alteration of God's word follows)
moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die."

Sorry, I think it's particularly insulting to God to change His word in scripture. It's an awful blasphemy. Note that the person who committed this blasphemy specifically denies God's assertion that Adam will die that very day.

Imagination is not a useful tool for understanding Scripture.

Barbarian on the sudden movement of continents:
And the friction engendered would have boiled the oceans. And, of course, a rapid continental separation isn't Scriptural, either. You're just making stuff up to fill in the holes in your story.

ONLY if the state of the universe were the same as now, and you have absolutely no proof of that.

Your imaginary universe has no relevance to the real one. And yes, we can indeed read the evidence in rocks to show that it happened very slowly. Eight grade science students can analyze it and show how long it took.

I say it was different, because of the record of the bible.

You don't like the testimony of the Bible, so you adjusted it to make it more acceptable to you.

Another instance of a planetary movement of water and land is right in creation week. The land was separated from the water. Only about 3 days later, animals were created to live on the earth! This tells us that a property of matter, or rock at the time seems to be that it cooled fast, and/or did not get as hot.

Christians nearly 2000 years ago, commented that it was absurd to read Genesis as a literal history, because a literal reading produced logical contradictions.

Likewise in the future, the whole earth will be burned (surface) with fire, but we also see, soon after that, the holy city of God coming from space (above) -and landing right here!!! The past and future states seem to be the same. We are the odd man out, in the present.

Ah, more imagination. But you're still stuck in the real universe. Sorry about that.

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
But remember "earth" means "the area" as in "eretz Israel", "the land of Israel." .

"Definition
ground, land

1. ground (as general, tilled, yielding sustenance)
2. piece of ground, a specific plot of land
3. earth substance (for building or constructing)
4. ground as earth's visible surface
5. land, territory, country
6. whole inhabited earth
7. city in Naphtali "

I can believe God or I can believe you. Not much of a choice, really.

Any time now would be good, sounds so far like all you have is doubts.

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Dying, you will die. Not, all of a sudden, boom dead.
" Thou shalt surely die.
moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die."
http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view. ... =17#Ge2_17
Quote:
If man was created to die, eating the fruit would be no big deal. The same tree that God had to guard that could give eternal life was in the same garden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Do you have some indication that they never ate it????


God says in Genesis that if one eats from the tree of life, one lives forever. Adam didn't. Again, I can believe God or I can believe you.

Genesis 2:17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

(Man's alteration of God's word follows)
moth tamuth; Literally, a death thou shalt die; or, dying thou shalt die. Thou shalt not only die spiritually, by losing the life of God, but from that moment thou shalt become mortal, and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die."

Sorry, I think it's particularly insulting to God to change His word in scripture. It's an awful blasphemy. Note that the person who committed this blasphemy specifically denies God's assertion that Adam will die that very day.

They were right, Adam lived on. His body at least. So did his spirit! We have a spirit now, don't we? Adam must've had one as well.

Imagination is not a useful tool for understanding Scripture.

Neither is small mindedness or pigheaded stubbornness and short sighted dogmatism.

Barbarian on the sudden movement of continents:
And the friction engendered would have boiled the oceans. And, of course, a rapid continental separation isn't Scriptural, either. You're just making stuff up to fill in the holes in your story.

Of course a dividing of the continents is a common interpretation for the dividing in the days of Peleg. I already pointed out that former state matter could not have had the heat that present state matter generates. Maybe Barbarian should listen for a change, rather than narrating what he is doing, and ignoring everything else almost.

Your imaginary universe has no relevance to the real one. And yes, we can indeed read the evidence in rocks to show that it happened very slowly. Eight grade science students can analyze it and show how long it took.

Not any more, you are busted. The present is real, but not the only reality of the future or past. Stick to science and stop preaching, and ,making stuff up.

You don't like the testimony of the Bible, so you adjusted it to make it more acceptable to you.

I interpreted it in a believing spirit, leaving God real and true, and met all the evidence we do have, including the spiritual.

Quote:
Another instance of a planetary movement of water and land is right in creation week. The land was separated from the water. Only about 3 days later, animals were created to live on the earth! This tells us that a property of matter, or rock at the time seems to be that it cooled fast, and/or did not get as hot.


Christians nearly 2000 years ago, commented that it was absurd to read Genesis as a literal history, because a literal reading produced logical contradictions.

Jesus talked of the flood, and time of the garden. Other Christians in the NT believed also, and spoke of the same. Whoever you are referring to can go fly a kite. They are overruled.

Quote:
Likewise in the future, the whole earth will be burned (surface) with fire, but we also see, soon after that, the holy city of God coming from space (above) -and landing right here!!! The past and future states seem to be the same. We are the odd man out, in the present.


Ah, more imagination. But you're still stuck in the real universe. Sorry about that.

The city is imagination now?? Or the fire that burns the earth as the bible says??? Or...???

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

Dying, you will die. Not, all of a sudden, boom dead.

God puts a limit on it, though. In that day. He says that Adam will die that day.

I see your website, but I can believe God or your website. Same result, um?

The same tree that God had to guard that could give eternal life was in the same garden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Do you have some indication that they never ate it????

God's testimony. He says that if Adam were to have eaten from that tree, he would live forever. So we know he didn't.

Again, I can believe God or I can believe you.

Barbarian on changing scripture:
Sorry, I think it's particularly insulting to God to change His word in scripture. It's an awful blasphemy. Note that the person who committed this blasphemy specifically denies God's assertion that Adam will die that very day.

They were right, Adam lived on. His body at least.

So God was referring to something else. Adam died a spiritual death. This is the death Jesus overcame. If it was a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically.

Barbarian observes:
Imagination is not a useful tool for understanding Scripture.

Neither is small mindedness or pigheaded stubbornness and short sighted dogmatism.

I was trying to be polite. You're pretty stubborn and dogmatic about your additions to His word, but I'll refrain from calling names.

Barbarian on the sudden movement of continents:
And the friction engendered would have boiled the oceans. And, of course, a rapid continental separation isn't Scriptural, either. You're just making stuff up to fill in the holes in your story.

Of course a dividing of the continents is a common interpretation for the dividing in the days of Peleg. I already pointed out that former state matter could not have had the heat that present state matter generates.

Fantasy again? Show me scripturally.

Maybe Barbarian should listen for a change, rather than narrating what he is doing, and ignoring everything else almost.

Barbarian is amused, but listening.

Barbarian observes:
Your imaginary universe has no relevance to the real one. And yes, we can indeed read the evidence in rocks to show that it happened very slowly. Eight grade science students can analyze it and show how long it took.

Not any more, you are busted.

Yep. We can show from evidence that remains from that time. Would you like to learn how? It's still going on, BTW, and we can measure that, too.

The present is real, but not the only reality of the future or past. Stick to science and stop preaching, and ,making stuff up.

I don't think denial will help you, dad. But learning about it, might.

Barbarian observes:
You don't like the testimony of the Bible, so you adjusted it to make it more acceptable to you.

I interpreted it in a believing spirit,

There is a difference between faith in God's word, and making up your own stories. You haven't grasped the difference.

Barbarian observes:
Christians nearly 2000 years ago, commented that it was absurd to read Genesis as a literal history, because a literal reading produced logical contradictions.

Jesus talked of the flood, and time of the garden.

How does Jesus citing an allegory, turn it to a literal history?

Reality is perhaps less interesting than fantasy, but it will help you get to God. Your imagination won't.

 

[Solo]

What brought death into the world?

 

[dad]

Barbarian observes:
That's not scriptural, either. God doesn't say he will start to die. God says he will die that day. He did, too. But not physically. Physically, he lived for many years after. But Adam was never immortal. You made that up, to make scripture more acceptable to you.

The promise was given before the world began. Focus.

God puts a limit on it, though. In that day. He says that Adam will die that day.

I see your website, but I can believe God or your website. Same result, um?

No. The context is that he will start to die in that day. The proof is that he still lived many centuries. Do you believe that he did live that long??

Quote:
The same tree that God had to guard that could give eternal life was in the same garden before they ate the forbidden fruit. Do you have some indication that they never ate it????


God's testimony. He says that if Adam were to have eaten from that tree, he would live forever. So we know he didn't.

Nonsense! We don't know if the tree first gave him eternal life, or whether he was created with it. He lost that eternal life when he ate the fruit, however, and the tree could have reversed the effect. My opinion is that the tree may have helped some animals to live forever. I do not believe we needed it. But who knows? In heaven it is there again, and we have a right to it, so maybe it is needed, but I think it is an open question. Maybe we mainly use it to make animals we like live forever, as well as to somehow heal folks outside the city. etc.

So God was referring to something else. Adam died a spiritual death. This is the death Jesus overcame. If it was a physical death, He failed. We will all die physically.

If they died a spiritual death, what does that mean? The spirits of the old testament believers rose shortly after Jesus did! Do you think they were all dead spiritually?? Who was Jesus talking to then, if not Moses and Elijah! Sounds like they were anything but dead.

Fantasy again? Show me scripturally.

'In his days was the earth divided' (about Peleg) Many feel that included a continental division. You cannot omit that.

Barbarian is amused, but listening.

Alright, you keep us posted now.

Yep. We can show from evidence that remains from that time. Would you like to learn how? It's still going on, BTW, and we can measure that, too.

Dazzle us.

I don't think denial will help you, dad. But learning about it, might.

Learning about what?

There is a difference between faith in God's word, and making up your own stories. You haven't grasped the difference.

There are real and clear differences in the worlds of yesterday and tomorrow, in the bible, from today. I didn't make up those stories, I simply believed them. You should try it sometime.

How does Jesus citing an allegory, turn it to a literal history?

How does your not believing what Jesus said happened, like the flood washing them all away, make it false?? Jesus had the guts to believe what He said.

Reality is perhaps less interesting than fantasy, but it will help you get to God. Your imagination won't.

The day I need an apparent unbeliever in the truth of God's word to point my way to heaven, is the day hell freezes over.

 

[Barbarian]

The day I need an apparent unbeliever in the truth of God's word to point my way to heaven, is the day hell freezes over.

Given your lack of faith in God's Word, that seems exactly what you have done.

 

[dad]

Given your lack of faith in God's Word, that seems exactly what you have done.

Newsflash: believing it is not a lack of faith in it.

 

[papajoe]

If the red shift indicates expansion; then it's not too far fetched to expect that a blue shift would show reduction or shrinkage.
All the nearby galaxies are blue shifted. (In fact; the blue shift was discovered first). Science is looking for some sort of "Dark" mater or energy to explain the blue shift.
Accepting the concept of the universe currently shrinking would eliminate the need to look for an invisible undetectable something.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

If the red shift indicates expansion; then it's not too far fetched to expect that a blue shift would show reduction or shrinkage.
All the nearby galaxies are blue shifted. (In fact; the blue shift was discovered first). Science is looking for some sort of "Dark" mater or energy to explain the blue shift.
Accepting the concept of the universe currently shrinking would eliminate the need to look for an invisible undetectable something.

A number of the things mentioned there are inaccurate. Red shift indicates positive velocity, that is the distance between us and the object observed is becoming greater. Blue shift, conversely, indicates that the object observed is getting closer.

If you do a calculation of the observed expansion rate of free space and compare it to the affects of gravity, the divide between blue shifted local galaxies and red shifted far galaxies and CMB line up. That is, the distance at which the expansion of the universe has a greater influence than the affect of gravity between galaxies is the same as the distance at which you stop seeing blue shifted objects. Cosmologists and other astrophysicists are searching for Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain these affects.

The universe shrinking would adequately explain anything as most of it is red shifted. A great deal is red shifted to the point where the effective recession velocity is greater than the speed of light. This paradox is one of the major factors supporting the model that holds that the universe is expanding.

 

[papajoe]

The idea that the universe was once expanding and now is shrinking is a totally acceptable concept. The red shifted light is just old and reports from a time when the universe was expanding.
There is a another problem with depending on gravity to explain the expansion and contraction of the universe. Not only is it too weak but the effect cannot be due to gravity as a force. If gravity were a force it would require energy to cause things to overcome inertia and accelerate toward each other.

The problem with Science is that the basic premiss is amiss. What is there to support the idea that nothing can be created or destroyed?
Bible scripture states that “In the beginning God created ...†and then “... the elements will melt in the heat†(2Peter 3:12) and “ ... looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth ...†(2Peter3:13)
That things can be created and destroyed is believable because the signs and wonders (miracles) were witnessed by many people.
What I propose is neither science or religion, but a list of logic, or philosophy?

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Gravity isn't a force? Wow, so there is some other force that accelerates bodies toward each other? Can you explain...any celestial dynamics without it?

Gravity, I assert, with the backing of the physics community, is certainly strong enough to exert the necessary force on large multigalatic structures compared to the effective force of spatial expansion. Gravity may be the weakest of the four(three) forces, but in comparison to the 70km/s per megaparsec it is large on the range of several megaparsecs.

Your philosophical disagreement with the Conservation of Energy fails on two counts. The first is that it is easy to see the Conservation in action in all systems, everywhere. The second is that it fails to posit how else we might understand things such that conservation is unnecessary.

Furthermore your theology is highly debatable. For instance, what if God created everything from Himself? It simply denotes that he creates, but a sculptor creates a sculpture without bringing stone from void. Melting is a transformation, not a destruction. And a new world could be recycled from the old. And before you say that an Atheist cannot debate theology, I hasten to point out that I approach the subject like I do comic books. I don't believe Superman exists, but I can discuss his abilities and motives seriously despite this. Besides, Golden Age Brahman could totally take down Yahweh.

 

[papajoe]

Gravity isn't a force? Wow, so there is some other force that accelerates bodies toward each other? Can you explain...any celestial dynamics without it?

Gravity, I assert, with the backing of the physics community, is certainly strong enough to exert the necessary force on large multigalatic structures compared to the effective force of spatial expansion. Gravity may be the weakest of the four(three) forces, but in comparison to the 70km/s per megaparsec it is large on the range of several megaparsecs.

Your philosophical disagreement with the Conservation of Energy fails on two counts. The first is that it is easy to see the Conservation in action in all systems, everywhere. The second is that it fails to posit how else we might understand things such that conservation is unnecessary.

Furthermore your theology is highly debatable. For instance, what if God created everything from Himself? It simply denotes that he creates, but a sculptor creates a sculpture without bringing stone from void. Melting is a transformation, not a destruction. And a new world could be recycled from the old. And before you say that an Atheist cannot debate theology, I hasten to point out that I approach the subject like I do comic books. I don't believe Superman exists, but I can discuss his abilities and motives seriously despite this. Besides, Golden Age Brahman could totally take down Yahweh.

Thank-you SyntaxVorlon for your expertise.
However, I believe that the laws of conservation fail to explain the Big Bang and Black holes. And as I have pointed out, it’s much too difficult to have gravity as the agent for the expansion and contraction of spacetime.
The concept (conservation) is old. Science has come a long way and it seems it’s becoming more and more difficult to maintain that concept.
I don’t know how God did it, just that it’s so doggone clever. To make something that is all inside without any outside!
The way I see it, is that if someone could have stood in the right place at the right time before there was God or creation, he could have seen the creation in this way:
Suddenly, God the Father, the holy Spirit and the Son (with the creation) would all appear at once together at the beginning of time.

As for gravity:
Hypothesis: Gravity as spacetime flux
Corollary: Time as the universal substance.

The anomaly of gravity is that two or more objects accelerate toward each other without overcoming inertia or any expenditure of energy.
The anomaly of the graviton is that it requires every atom to be touching gravitons from every other atom in the universe.
With the Planck volume as the smallest division of space, where does the additional material (Plank volumes) come from when spacetime expands? And, What happens to them when space contracts?
Since gravity propagates at Lightspeed, how can black holes have a gravitational field?

The core of these hypothesizes is based on an interpretation of what happens in the interference experiment when the electron strikes the target and it's properties change from "non-location" to those of "location".

New gravity hypothesis:
The effect of Gravity is that spacetime is decreasing between objects that are at rest in spacetime.

The effect of gravity is from the universal substance of quantom foam being absorbed into the mass of objects to maintain their duration every Planck second; creating a flow in spacetime toward the objects, reducing the distance between them. The absorption of spacetime is predicated on the concept that spacetime is a substance. The process of absorption is through spacetime strings in quantum foam that are adjacent to the strings in atoms.

The corollary hypothesis concerns time. Time must be converted into either mass, energy or Planck volume every Planck second.

Certainly; nothing can exist without occupying time whether it's the mass of an object, the pulse of an energy beam or even empty space. These hypothesizes suggest that the gravitational effect is instantaneous throughout the universe. Energy must also be subject to the gravitational effect, however for various reasons is virtually undetectable.
When a Planck second is not absorbed during the mass or energy exchange, then it must be expressed as a Planck volume, resulting in the expansion of the universe. The universe contracts when the rate of absorption is greater than the spacetime flow.

 

[dad]

If the red shift indicates expansion; then it's not too far fetched to expect that a blue shift would show reduction or shrinkage.
All the nearby galaxies are blue shifted. (In fact; the blue shift was discovered first). Science is looking for some sort of "Dark" mater or energy to explain the blue shift.
Accepting the concept of the universe currently shrinking would eliminate the need to look for an invisible undetectable something.

Ah, but it would still use only this present state we know. That means there would still be decay, and light, and gravity, and laws to contend with. How do you extend them into the future?? Why would heaven have to have these temporary universe laws??

If a universe state change affected light, why not have the effect of blue and red shift??