How does one determine, using the scientific method, that the earth is billions of years old?

[Right Divider]

Right Divider, I want to commend you on both your science and your theology. You took modern science (Edwin Hubble 1920) which shows the universe is expanding and you melded it with scriptures showing that God stretches out the heavens. I.e. you let scientific truth add to Biblical truth. Sometimes biblical truth adds to scientific truth. But I bet not a single church father before the modern era suggested the universe was expanding based on the Bible. True science is a source of truth just as true theology is a source of truth. When these two witness together as with the heavens expanding, then in the mouth of two witnesses truth is established.

The idea that the "universe is expanding" and God stretching out the heavens are not the same thing.

 

[iouae]

Yes, it is.

The explicitly Biblical evidence for the Flood: Rainbows

We are told in Scripture that rainbows first appeared after the Flood. We are not told in Scripture that it ever rained before the Flood. Flood deniers teach that in order for there not to have been rainbows, there could not have been rain: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Global_flood#Rainbow

theologyonline.com

Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

You don't need rain, you just need a mist and with the sun behind your back you can see a rainbow.

 

[Stripe]

Gen 2:6
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

You don't need rain, you just need a mist and with the sun behind your back you can see a rainbow.
View attachment 4624

God's promise to never again destroy the world in a flood came with the sign of the rainbow "in the clouds."

 

[Clete]

Science has a lot to say to verify that God stretches out the heavens. It is seen in the red shift or Doppler effect and is a well known phenomenon that the more distant a galaxy, the more red shifted its light.

The red shift = distance theory is actually still just that, a theory. There are several anomalous red shifts that would seem to suggest that it isn't as iron clad an idea as you would like to think it is.

Light which has travelled longer has more time to be stretched out or made redder.

What?

No, I am not talking about the expansion of the universe. I'm talking about God stretching out the universe as part of the creation process in a manner that would allow us to see distant objects without the need to wait for the light to travel whatever the current distance is.

Again, this proves that the universe is very old, since light even from Andromeda 2.5 million light years away is hardly red shifted, but light from Hubble's Deep Field which peers right back 13.5 billion years is very red shifted. This is very well known science and I don't think any serious astronomers can explain this with a universe 6000 years old.

It isn't proof. It's a widely held position, yes, but that isn't the same thing and the current theory ignores, by design, several anomalous redshift measurements that would not be possible if current cosmological theories are correct.

By, "anomalous redshifts" I mean redshift measurements that have been taken of two clearly connected and interacting bodies that have wildly different redshift values that would put one of the objects thousands of light years away from the object that it is very clearly interacting with.

Redshifts and the Hubble Law​

A Summary of Halton Arp’s Ideas by Paul Ballard​

In 1924 Edwin Hubble demonstrated that the small hazy patches of light we see in the sky are “enormous islands of billions of stars.” Examination with large telescopes revealed that the fainter and smaller a galaxy appeared, the higher, in general, was its redshift.
‘Redshift’ describes the characteristic lines in the spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium and other elements which appear at longer (redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. The simple explanation attributes this effect to the recession velocity of the emitting source – like the falling pitch of a receding train whistle, the Doppler effect. It was therefore concluded that the fainter and smaller the galaxy, the more distant it is, and the faster it is moving away from us. This velocity interpretation of the redshift – the apparent brightness relation – forms the standard interpretation of the Hubble Law.
Einstein wrote equations at about this time that attempted to describe the behaviour of the entire universe, the totality of existence. His equations pointed to its probable instability. Gravitation was either strong enough to be in the process of contracting the universe, or too weak to prevent its expansion. Extrapolating these velocities back to the origin of time gave rise to the concept of the universe being created in a primeval explosion – the Big Bang cosmology.
According to Halton Arp, observations began to accumulate from 1966 that could not be accounted for by this conventional explanation of the redshift effect. Some extra-galactic objects had to have redshifts which were not caused by a recesson velocity.
At the very least, it seemed that some modification had to be made to the theory, but some influential specialists reacted very strongly to these anomalous observations. It was said they “violated the known laws of physics” and must therefore be wrong; that is to say, a useful hypothesis had been enshrined in dogma. Arp states that the dogmatists attitude was akin to saying ‘At this moment in history we know all the important aspects of nature we shall ever know.’
The first challenge to the conventional theory came with the advent of radio astronomy and the discovery of quasars (quasi-stellar objects). It was no longer possible to view galaxies just as relatively quiescent aggregates of stars, gas and dust, all swirling in ordered rotation. Some are ripped asunder by huge explosions while others have nuclei that vary strongly in brightness and intermittently eject quantities of matter into space. The first quasar was discovered by Allan Sandage and Thomas Matthews, an optical and a radio astronomer working in collaboration, in 1963. Then, to great surprise, Martin Schmidt found that the initially puzzling lines were those of familiar elements but shifted far to the right. Why, when the highest redshifted galaxies had a maximum redshift of 20 to 40 percent of the velocity of light, did these stellar-looking objects suddenly appear with redshifts of 80 to 90 percent? It was conjectured that some other mechanism was responsible. For example, redshifting could be caused by a very strong gravitational field. However, such explanations were quickly discarded; it was decided that quasars were the most luminous objects in the universe and that they were seen at such great distances that the expansion of the universe was giving them the largest possible recession velocity.
Difficulties in this explanation were encountered almost immediately. Firstly, how could an object be so luminous? So much energy had never been encountered in previously observed galaxies. In some quasars the calculated density of charged particles was so high that there would be a problem of actually getting the photons, by which we see them, out of their interior. Very accurate positional measurements by radio telescopes (using very long baseline interferometry) revealed the astounding fact that some quasars appeared to be expanding at up to ten times the speed of light. This was in complete violation of the accepted laws of Einsteinian physics, in particular, that the speed of light is a physical constant that cannot be exceeded. Rather than regard these quasars as being at lesser distances so as to give them quite modest expansion velocities, conventional theorists attempted to incorporate the redshift effect into their existing beliefs. They attempted to explain these anomalies as an illusion caused by very exceptional conditions, such as ejection of matter towards the observer at nearly the speed of light. They ignored the direct evidence that these quasars were interacting with galaxies which were at a known and much nearer distance to us.
As observations of quasars accummulated it became apparent that anomalies existed between their brightness and their distribution. One would expect quasars to be evenly distributed in the universe, but a disproportionate number appeared to be near its observable limit. These quasars are also brighter than expected. This gave rise to another bizarre explanation: it was suggested that as we looked out in space, and therefore back in time, we encountered a higher and higher density of quasars until suddenly, at a certain point, they ceased to exist!
The orthodox view is that quasars are just abnormal (e.g. superluminous) galaxies and that they can only have a redshift caused by velocity. Arp drew attention to quasars interlinking with galaxies. But a large body of opinion now holds that galaxies can violate the redshift distance-relation. It is the most peculiar galaxies, those most like quasars, which offer the most compelling evidence for non-velocity redshift.
This has two consequences, first it enormously strengthens the case that the redshift-distance law can be broken. It only requires one demonstrably inconsistent quasar or galaxy to establish that an additional cause of redshift – other than recession velocity – must be in operation. Because of the connection of quasars with galaxies, there are now several cases of observations that another origin of redshift exists.
Secondly, it means that the mechanism for causing this non-velocity shift must be capable of operating on an entire conglomeration of stars, gas and dust. This is much more difficult than finding a mechanism which operates on the more compact and mysterious quasars.

Interpretations​

Arp gives many examples of non-velocity redshift. He then attempts to integrate his observations into the body of existing scientific knowledge, following the Brownian principle of induction of general laws as far as possible. If a scientist only reasons deductively from known laws he will never discover anything new, argues Arp. He suggests that not knowing a thing is wrong may be more important than knowing a hundred things are right.
Central to Arp’s disagreement with accepted theory is the fact that redshifts of extragalactic objects are not caused by velocity alone. There are numerous examples of this in quasars with redshifts approaching the velocity of light, of peculiar galaxies with redshifts from 1,000 to 30,000 km/sec and in more normal, companion galaxies in the range of a few hundred km/sec.
The evidence clearly indicates that quasars have been ejected from active galaxy nuclei along with radio waves and x-rays. In view of the popularity of the notion of gravitational lensing Arp suggests instead that some gravitationally compact bodies are being ejected and that these ejected bodies are simply gravitationally amplifying objects in the far background which have a redshift caused by a recession velocity. This idea seems attractive, but does not explain galaxies with inconsistent redshifts. These galaxies seem to be interacting with much lower redshift galaxies so they must both be at the same distance from us.
Arp postulates that the strong gravitional fields of large masses within individual quasars and discrepant galaxies account for large redshifts, but points out that even for typical quasars like ZC48, nebulosity around the nucleus is measured at about the same redshift as the nucleus. There is no redshift gradient and no apparent internal gravitational field.
There have been many variations of ‘tired light’ theories put forward. The basic idea is that light from extragalactic objects travels a long way through space before reaching us. In that journey, if anything interacts with the photon or if its energy decays with the passage of time, it will arrive with a smaller energy than it started with, i.e. it will be redshifted. The main difficulty with this model is that to rob a photon of some of its energy it must be jostled or perturbed, at least slightly. This means that its flight path is slightly deviated and the image of the emitting object becomes fuzzy. However, there is no evidence for this and high redshift objects appear as clear and sharp as low redshift objects.
Whether gravitational fields result in collisions or perturbations which detract energy from photons or not, Arp postulates a “screen” between us and the object which removes, in discrete amounts, energy from the photons coming towards us. This leads to a model of shells of matter around redshifted objects, but he considers this a very artificial model.
What can be the cause of light from one object being redshifted relative to another, in the many cases of high redshift or otherwise peculiar galaxies interacting with normal, low redshift galaxies? The stars, gas and dust in one object emit light redshifted relative to the other with which it interacts.
This means that, for example, an atom of hydrogen in a high redshifted object, which makes a given transition from one energy state to the other, must emit or absorb a photon of lesser energy than the same atom would in a lower redshifted one. What determines the transition energy between the two atomic states? One factor is the relative charge between the electron and the nucleus. The other factor is the mass of the electron making the transition between two possible orbital states. Measurements of quasar spectra appear to rule out the possibility that the electric charges are different. This leaves only the mass of the electron.
Arp poses the question: Is the mass of the high redshifted object less than that of the low redshifted object?

Here's one example of the sort of anomalous redshift I'm talking about...



The Z values are the redshift values. Z=0 equals present time thus the smaller the number the closer the object (in theory). In short the redshift values, which are not in dispute, range in the image from .029 (aprox 400,000 ly) all the way to .391 (4.37 million ly) which is obviously a gigantic difference in terms of the theoetical distances they represent! In fact, it is an impossible difference if one assumes the redshift is generated principly by the expansion of the universe. And, if the expansion of the universe is not the principle cause of redshift then all bets are off on how far away these object are and, in fact, there may actually be no way for us to know how far away they are.

Again, science and the Bible sing from the same hymn sheet id we accept that Gen 1:1 is chronological. In the beginning God did create the heaven and the earth. Then earth became without form and void due to a mass extinction 6000 years ago. Then God renewed the earth in 6 days. This is all still chronological in Genesis 1. God clears the atmosphere of earth and light from the sun penetrates through to where the spirit of God is hovering, over the face (surface) of the deep (sea). So sunlight penetrates through to the surface of earth. I have never heard a satisfactory explanation of what this light is which God created on Day 1, or what purpose it served. But if one takes it that God is thinning the "nuclear winter" like atmosphere so that sunlight can appear, then this makes perfect sense scientifically and theologically.

No, it makes no sense at all. The CLEAR and unambiguous teaching of not only Genesis 1-3 but also other passages like those in Exodus is that God created everything that exists in six days - period. The above quoted paragraph is only such much theological hoop jumping that has as its foundational premise the idea that modern atheistic science has cosmology correct and so we have to find some sort of way to make the bible fit "the facts".

 

[iouae]

The red shift = distance theory is actually still just that, a theory. There are several anomalous red shifts that would seem to suggest that it isn't as iron clad an idea as you would like to think it is.


What?

No, I am not talking about the expansion of the universe. I'm talking about God stretching out the universe as part of the creation process in a manner that would allow us to see distant objects without the need to wait for the light to travel whatever the current distance is.


It isn't proof. It's a widely held position, yes, but that isn't the same thing and the current theory ignores, by design, several anomalous redshift measurements that would not be possible if current cosmological theories are correct.

By, "anomalous redshifts" I mean redshift measurements that have been taken of two clearly connected and interacting bodies that have wildly different redshift values that would put one of the objects thousands of light years away from the object that it is very clearly interacting with.


Here's one example of the sort of anomalous redshift I'm talking about...

View attachment 4625

The Z values are the redshift values. Z=0 equals present time thus the smaller the number the closer the object (in theory). In short the redshift values, which are not in dispute, range in the image from .029 (aprox 400,000 ly) all the way to .391 (4.37 million ly) which is obviously a gigantic difference in terms of the theoetical distances they represent! In fact, it is an impossible difference if one assumes the redshift is generated principly by the expansion of the universe. And, if the expansion of the universe is not the principle cause of redshift then all bets are off on how far away these object are and, in fact, there may actually be no way for us to know how far away they are.


No, it makes no sense at all. The CLEAR and unambiguous teaching of not only Genesis 1-3 but also other passages like those in Exodus is that God created everything that exists in six days - period. The above quoted paragraph is only such much theological hoop jumping that has as its foundational premise the idea that modern atheistic science has cosmology correct and so we have to find some sort of way to make the bible fit "the facts".

If all the objects were stationary relative to one another, they would have the same Z value. But because they are moving, some towards earth (decreasing the Z value) and away from earth (increasing the Z value) that is why the Z value alone cannot be used to determine distance. But the average Z values could give an average distance if they all are not moving towards or away from earth.

 

[iouae]

God's promise to never again destroy the world in a flood came with the sign of the rainbow "in the clouds."

When Christians today see a rainbow anywhere (except while the kids are playing under the lawn sprinkler) they are reminded of God's promise. You are the first one I know who only accepts a bow in the cloud. Do you accept one in the sky such as the one below?

 

[iouae]

So just as on Day 4 God appoints the heavenly bodies for signs and holy day seasons, likewise on Day 7 God appoints the 7th day to be a Sabbath for man to rest. It is not as if there had not been sun, moon, stars and days when Neanderthals and Homo habilis lived previously on earth, it's just that God never intended Neanderthals or Homo habilis to be saved, so they did not need signs and seasons or a relationship with God which required rest and communication with God once a week.

And we see the same pattern after the flood when God appoints the rainbow (which had existed on earth for millions of years), to be a specific sign that there would be no more worldwide flood. There had been dozens of worldwide floods before Noah's deluge, each extinction event bringing an epoch to an end and fossilising organisms. At the end of Christ's millennium, earth will be purged with a lake of fire and after this, there will be no more mass extinction events. But at Christ's return, there will be another mass extinction before the Millennium, with localised flooding such as when the meteorite Wormwood crashes into the sea, creating a tsunami.

We know rainbows existed pre-flood because there is no evidence that the laws of science (and its refraction which produces a rainbow) changed after the flood. White light consisted of the 7 colours of the rainbow before the flood, and white light still consists of the 7 colours, and wherever there are water droplets in mist, cloud, waterfalls, garden sprinklers, there will be a rainbow.

 

[Idolater]

So just as on Day 4 God appoints the heavenly bodies for signs and holy day seasons, likewise on Day 7 God appoints the 7th day to be a Sabbath for man to rest. It is not as if there had not been sun, moon, stars and days when Neanderthals and Homo habilis lived previously on earth, it's just that God never intended Neanderthals or Homo habilis to be saved, so they did not need signs and seasons or a relationship with God which required rest and communication with God once a week.

They didn't have the Word. The Logos. They didn't speak, or reason.

We can train primates to use language, but they never then use language voluntarily with their own kind. They never try to spread language. It isn't in them, this is a categorical difference, between creatures with reason, and without reason; with language, and without; with the Logos, and without. Between man and beast. All men have the Logos, in the sense that we are created in the image of God (the Logos is God).

And we see the same pattern after the flood when God appoints the rainbow (which had existed on earth for millions of years

No proof of that. All you've shown is a single verse with the word rendered into English as, in your translation (there are dozens if not hundreds of English translations of that underlying Hebrew word (Genesis written in Hebrew)), "mist," so first we have to establish that this Hebrew word without question or disputation unequivocally means something like "obviously visible water mist" or if simply water vapor (which is not visible, this is the vapor that comes off of food you leave out on the counter and that dries out, it emits water vapor but we wouldn't call it a visible water mist). If it can mean invisible water vapor then your whole argument collapses, because you only have that single premise. Like, "It's called 'mist'" is your whole argument. What if the right English translation is more accurately "invisible water vapor?"----then you're ... well your argument is over.

), to be a specific sign that there would be no more worldwide flood.

If the one world ocean is the scientific result of the Flood, and before the global ocean, there was no rain, but invisible water vapor was emitted from the ground (which would be true if the Earth's crust was permeable to water vapor, but impermeable to liquid water, and if the world's one ocean's water was back then, antediluvian, trapped under the Earth's crust basically, which is basically the Hydroplate Theory as far as I understand it), this water vapor would cause continual dew to form on everything. Very little vapor would make it very far up in the sky so the sky was usually always 100% blue. Maybe wisps of clouds here and there.

Also, note the theological significance of Jesus in John chapter six, being compared with manna, which accumulated like dew, silently, invisible, but yet surely.

There had been dozens of worldwide floods before Noah's deluge

Every single Flood-denier admits there were multiple catastrophic floods, just not one big gigantic global Flood. Curiouser and curiouser.

, each extinction event

Why does it have to be different events? Why couldn't such a global catastrophe produce, idk, tsunami waves, which were each very categorically dissimilar, although they were all water? This tsunami had a high concentration of T. rex cadavers, this tsunami was more mammalian, why can't we just have had multiple gigantic tsunamis of Flood water, since the water's release wouldn't be expected to release literally all at once? It would be expected that such an event might take hours, weeks, maybe a month to totally unravel. The Bible says the water didn't recede for like 150 days, although it only "rained" for 40. It might have just taken 40 days for all the HPT's underground water chambers to burst, all over the globe. It could be that the relatively uniform and huge Pacific Ocean abyssal plain merely indicates that most of the bursting was occurring on the other side of the planet at the time of the Flood. iow perhaps the abyssal plain is the remnants of our lost world, the surface of the whole Earth at the time being habitable, meaning that we lost like 69% of our land during the Flood.

The abyssal plans might just be the Earth's surface from where the bursting tsunami's weren't happening. Instead, this portion of the Earth's surface just slowly sank underwater, like a sinking ship. As the shell of water which previously supported it, rushed out from under it, out of massive fractures in the Earth's crust, thousands of miles away. Each time another fracture broke, another brand new and categorically dissimilar tsunami was unleashed upon the whole globe.

This is just possible. But that would cause a lot of cadavers, is the point, that type of catastrophe, where the Earth loses 69% of its land to the seas, all at once, all in 150 days, it would produce a lot of cadavers.

bringing an epoch to an end and fossilising organisms. At the end of Christ's millennium, earth will be purged with a lake of fire and after this, there will be no more mass extinction events. But at Christ's return, there will be another mass extinction before the Millennium, with localised flooding such as when the meteorite Wormwood crashes into the sea, creating a tsunami.

We know rainbows existed pre-flood because there is no evidence that the laws of science (and its refraction which produces a rainbow) changed after the flood. White light consisted of the 7 colours of the rainbow before the flood, and white light still consists of the 7 colours, and wherever there are water droplets in mist, cloud, waterfalls, garden sprinklers, there will be a rainbow.

Supra.

 

[Stripe]

When Christians today see a rainbow anywhere (except while the kids are playing under the lawn sprinkler) they are reminded of God's promise. You are the first one I know who only accepts a bow in the cloud. Do you accept one in the sky such as the one below?View attachment 4630

What do you mean "accept"?

The Bible says that the sign of God's promise was the rainbow "in the clouds."

It doesn't really matter to me where people see a rainbow and remember scripture.

 

[JudgeRightly]

When Christians today see a rainbow anywhere (except while the kids are playing under the lawn sprinkler) they are reminded of God's promise. You are the first one I know who only accepts a bow in the cloud. Do you accept one in the sky such as the one below?View attachment 4630

What do you mean "accept"?

The Bible says that the sign of God's promise was the rainbow "in the clouds."

It doesn't really matter to me where people see a rainbow and remember scripture.

And God said: “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations:I set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth.It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.”And God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is on the earth.” - Genesis 9:12-17 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis9:12-17&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

Neanderthals . . . Neanderthals

They didn't have the Word. The Logos. They didn't speak, or reason.

We can train primates to use language, . . . Between man and beast. All men have the Logos, in the sense that we are created in the image of God (the Logos is God).

Why do you both assume that "neandertals" were anything other than humans?

Comparing them to "beasts" is inhumane.

They were HUMANS. Ancient humans, sure, but humans nonetheless. Not a cross between human and beast. Not beasts. HUMANS!

The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever! | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Idolater]

Why do you both assume that "neandertals" were anything other than humans?

Comparing them to "beasts" is inhumane.

They were HUMANS. Ancient humans, sure, but humans nonetheless. Not a cross between human and beast. Not beasts. HUMANS!

The Most Informative Neanderthal Show Ever! | KGOV.com

kgov.com

What's the advantage to that view? What does it explain better than just thinking of them as categorically non-human?

 

[Stripe]

What's the advantage to that view? What does it explain better than just thinking of them as categorically non-human?

Genetically, neanderthals are humans. Modern humans closer to neanderthals than chimps are to other chimps.

Read Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo.

 

[iouae]

No proof of that. All you've shown is a single verse with the word rendered into English as, in your translation (there are dozens if not hundreds of English translations of that underlying Hebrew word (Genesis written in Hebrew)), "mist," so first we have to establish that this Hebrew word without question or disputation unequivocally means something like "obviously visible water mist" or if simply water vapor (which is not visible, this is the vapor that comes off of food you leave out on the counter and that dries out, it emits water vapor but we wouldn't call it a visible water mist). If it can mean invisible water vapor then your whole argument collapses, because you only have that single premise. Like, "It's called 'mist'" is your whole argument. What if the right English translation is more accurately "invisible water vapor?"----then you're ... well your argument is over.



Supra.

Invisible water vapour cannot water plants. Only when it becomes visible can plants take it up. So we know it was not invisible.

You said " What if the right English translation is more accurately "invisible water vapor?"----then you're ... well your argument is over." By the same token, since invisible water vapour cannot water plants, then I presume my argument is sound.

 

[iouae]

Genetically, neanderthals are humans. Modern humans closer to neanderthals than chimps are to other chimps.

Read Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo.

Neanderthal genes are found in Caucasian Homo sapiens in small percentage. Neanderthals are stronger and bigger brained than Homo sapiens and some speculate that the two species were contemporaneous. I believe God, the Great scientist was trying out all the different Homo species before 6000 years ago, and considered Neanderthals too smart and independent that He dumbed them down a bit to make Homo sapiens more dependent on Him, then wiped out all Homos, and 6000 years ago began with just Homo sapiens, created on Friday or Day 6 of creation week in the form of Adam and Eve. To these Homos God for the first time in earth's long history, offered salvation through the Tree of Life.

 

[Clete]

If all the objects were stationary relative to one another, they would have the same Z value. But because they are moving, some towards earth (decreasing the Z value) and away from earth (increasing the Z value) that is why the Z value alone cannot be used to determine distance. But the average Z values could give an average distance if they all are not moving towards or away from earth.

Come on! Give me a break, will ya?
There is no amount of relative motion that can create the differences in Z values within what is essentially same celestial object!

There is a .0362 difference between two of the Z values in that image I posted. That's a difference of something like 500,000 light years! That's FIVE TIMES the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy and more than double the width of the Andromeda Galaxy! There isn't ANY amount of relative motion that could throw off the distance measurement by that much!

If relative motion was even remotely close to being able to explain these anomilies, Dr. Arp, a guy who spent his entire career as a professional astronomer, wouldn't have ever bothered to bring it up, never mind write a book about it and later end up having to move to Europe because of the hostility towards his ideas that came against him here in the "land of the free"!

What the redshift values prove is that there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of what can create redshift. It happens to be one of a whole list of things that prove the Big Bang Theory is false.

 

[Stripe]

Neanderthal genes are found in Caucasian Homo sapiens in small percentage. Neanderthals are stronger and bigger brained than Homo sapiens and some speculate that the two species were contemporaneous. I believe God, the Great scientist was trying out all the different Homo species before 6000 years ago, and considered Neanderthals too smart and independent that He dumbed them down a bit to make Homo sapiens more dependent on Him, then wiped out all Homos, and 6000 years ago began with just Homo sapiens, created on Friday or Day 6 of creation week in the form of Adam and Eve. To these Homos God for the first time in earth's long history, offered salvation through the Tree of Life.

What's your evidence for this belief?

 

[Clete]

Invisible water vapour cannot water plants. Only when it becomes visible can plants take it up. So we know it was not invisible.

You said " What if the right English translation is more accurately "invisible water vapor?"----then you're ... well your argument is over." By the same token, since invisible water vapour cannot water plants, then I presume my argument is sound.

This doesn't really effect your point because what you said is generally true but, just for the sake of accuracy, epiphytes (e.g. Orchids) and broyophytes (e.g. mosses) do actually absorb water (and other nutrients) from the air.

 

[iouae]

Come on! Give me a break, will ya?
There is no amount of relative motion that can create the differences in Z values within what is essentially same celestial object!

There is a .0362 difference between two of the Z values in that image I posted. That's a difference of something like 500,000 light years! That's FIVE TIMES the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy and more than double the width of the Andromeda Galaxy! There isn't ANY amount of relative motion that could throw off the distance measurement by that much!

If relative motion was even remotely close to being able to explain these anomilies, Dr. Arp, a guy who spent his entire career as a professional astronomer, wouldn't have ever bothered to bring it up, never mind write a book about it and later end up having to move to Europe because of the hostility towards his ideas that came against him here in the "land of the free"!

What the redshift values prove is that there is something fundamentally wrong with our understanding of what can create redshift. It happens to be one of a whole list of things that prove the Big Bang Theory is false.

In general all distant galaxies tend to be red shifted due to the expansion of time-space. But some galaxies like Andromeda are blue shifted because they are moving towards us faster than time-space is expanding. All Z values can be accounted for in this way by their relative motion with respect to earth, including the instance you cited.

 

[Clete]

So just as on Day 4 God appoints the heavenly bodies for signs and holy day seasons, likewise on Day 7 God appoints the 7th day to be a Sabbath for man to rest. It is not as if there had not been sun, moon, stars and days when Neanderthals and Homo habilis lived previously on earth, it's just that God never intended Neanderthals or Homo habilis to be saved, so they did not need signs and seasons or a relationship with God which required rest and communication with God once a week.

And we see the same pattern after the flood when God appoints the rainbow (which had existed on earth for millions of years), to be a specific sign that there would be no more worldwide flood. There had been dozens of worldwide floods before Noah's deluge, each extinction event bringing an epoch to an end and fossilising organisms. At the end of Christ's millennium, earth will be purged with a lake of fire and after this, there will be no more mass extinction events. But at Christ's return, there will be another mass extinction before the Millennium, with localised flooding such as when the meteorite Wormwood crashes into the sea, creating a tsunami.

We know rainbows existed pre-flood because there is no evidence that the laws of science (and its refraction which produces a rainbow) changed after the flood. White light consisted of the 7 colours of the rainbow before the flood, and white light still consists of the 7 colours, and wherever there are water droplets in mist, cloud, waterfalls, garden sprinklers, there will be a rainbow.

Did I understand this argument correctly?

You're saying that the refraction of light would have occurred before the flood and thus rainbows would have existed before the flood, therefore its reasonable to think that Neanderthals and Homo habilis lived on Earth before Genesis chapter one?

Or is it that you just brought up rainbows for no reason at all?