Does God Exist?

[Indeependent]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

You're not going to like this answer: This seems to admit to an expanding universe: "stretching out the heavens".

You're not going to like this answer: Stretching something doesn't make it grow.
Take a folder table cloth and stretch it...you're not making it grow.

I don't like your answer since it is, by definition, incorrect:
stretch
verb
1. (of something soft or elastic) be made or be capable of being made longer or wider without tearing or breaking.

"without tearing or breaking"

Has the universe been torn or broken? What's your point?

Step back...
What your point?
You defined stretch incorrectly, so the ball is still on your side of the net.

What is your 'correct' definition of stretching?

Did you ever make a bed or a table or pull up your socks?
Do you stretch the truth, or do you break the truth.

 

[alang1216]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

 

[Newtonian]

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also THE CHEMICAL REACTION PRODUCT PROPORTIONS are listed.

https://www.krusch.com/books/evolution/Mystery_of_Lifes_Origin.pdf

The quote from Thaxton's (et al) reference for the article upon which the chart in fig. 3-2 (which is not the page containing the list) notes unidentified electric discharge synthesis experiments produced 11 amino acids of which 4 are found in proteins. 3 problems with this statement:

1. The actual 11 amino acids produced are not listed, nor are the 4 proteinous/biologic amino acids listed.

2. The chemical reaction product proportions of these 11 amino acids are not stated.

3. While some of the other products are stated ("Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea") the specific Hydroxxy acids and simple aliphatic acids ARE NOT STATED nor are the PRODUCT PROPORTIONS stated.

More recent unidentified synthesis experiments are referred to but the number of experiments, the environment they simulated in each of these unnumbered experiments are not stated, and no relative chemical reaction product proportions are stated. All that is stated about perhaps 20 (or 10, or 100, etc.) experiments is this:

"... 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids."

Which amino acids in what product proportions? But at least the ratio of 10 out of 33 amino acids being proteinous is comparable to the chart in fig. 3-2 for the top 10 amino acids produced - the chart has 3 out of 10 being proteinous - that is a similar ratio to 10 out of 33.

So, if someone is willing to spend $40 and post the full content of Miller's article - I am interested. But having studied Thaxton's book I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the chart.

Bottom line - most references to these type of experiments fail to list the chemical reaction products nor the proportions in which they are produced. Those references are basically useless which is why I am not linking to them. I will continue to look for that type of link - but you could also try since you posted you want a reliable source linked to.

 

[alang1216]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

 

[Hollie]

Wow. Methinks thou doest protest too much. I don't know anything about all the chemistry involved, but I'd rather believe in chemistry than in some supernatural being.

Sure, creation science is about chemistry, too. This chemistry doesn't reflect the volcanic gases that were present in the primordial atmosphere, i.e. Miller-Urey was rigged.

You can try it for yourself online here -- Miller-Urey Experiment.

I figured it out. Can you?

I bet you a cyber beer you will cause it to explode .

If you're going to post a link to Miller-Urey, you might consider posting a link to a reliable source.

Have $40 to spend? This is the article cited by Thaxton et al in figure 3-2, page 23, of the free access book I linked to - but only one page is provided free (you need to pay 39.99 to view the entire article):

The atmosphere of the primitive Earth and the prebiotic synthesis of amino acids - Discover Life

The atmosphere of the Earth at the time of its formation is now generally believed to have been reducing, an idea proposed by Oparin and extensively discussed by Urey. This atmosphere would have contained CH4, N2 with traces of NH3, water and hydrogen. Only traces of NH3 would have been present...

link.springer.com

Of course, this does not happen to be the page where the specific amino acids produced by Miller-Urey are listed by S. Miller, with the chemical reaction product proportions. The page provided does contain some useful information about amino acids produced by others in similar type synthesis experiments - but the product proportions are not provided. A couple of excerpts from the page:

"The first prebiotic electric discharge synthesis of amino acids showed that surprisingly high yields of amino acids were synthesized. Eleven amino acids were identified, four of which occur in proteins. Hydroxy acids, simple aliphatic acids and urea were also identified. These experiments have been repeated recently, and 33 amino acids were identified, ten of which occur in proteins, including all of the hydrophobic amino acids. "

While helpful, this is relatively useless since the chemical reaction products are not listed with the actual proportions produced. The advantage of the chart Thaxton provides in figure 3-2 page 23 of the following link is that not only is a complete list of amino acids produced provided, but also

Not really interested in spending $40 to read a predefined conclusion from a hack working for the Disco’tute.

It goes without saying that Thaxton will find a conclusion consistent with the Politburo mouthpieces at the Disco’tute. Further, what you “quoted” is the usual creationist dogma that will attempt to vilify science. As none of the creationist ministrues do research, there is no indication that Thaxton did anything but present baseless opinion. Otherwise, please present the peer group he submitted his testing to.

For all your frantic cutting and pasting from creation websites, we're left with observing the stereotypical creationist agenda: vilify science using opinions from those with a singular agenda. I have to note that nothing claimed by Thaxton brings anyone closer to your evidence for your Gods.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Meaning...be specific.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

 

[Newtonian]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

 

[alang1216]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Meaning...be specific.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.

Astronomy 101:
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.

With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Meaning...be specific.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.

Astronomy 101:
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.

With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?

Wow! Cool ad hominem.

Don't take this the wrong way...You are hilarious in an innocuous sort of manner.

I knew you were desperately Googling for even one Red Drift article that would not have the word opinion or interpreted stamped all over it.
But you searched and couldn't.

As they say in China...
Try more harder.

 

[Newtonian]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

Me too - e.g. evolution theories. There are scientific facts involved with the red shift theory which, to me, makes it plausible/tenable/believable.

One thing for sure - we have a visibility horizon problem Light travels at light speed (186,000 miles per second) as, for example, a light year. When we look at Quasars 13 billion light years away we are looking at what they were 13 billion years ago - they may not even still exist!

Worse - if our universe did begin 13-14 billion years ago as many scientists believe, then we would not be able to see anything further than 14 billion light years away since if such things are that far away (and likely they are) we will not see them. E.g. another universe that was 15 billion light years from our point of observation we would not see for another billion years! Such a hypothetical universe could already be merging with our universe by now - but we wouldn't see this for likely billions of years!

 

[Indeependent]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

Of course humans knew the world was a globe.
Take a gander at
https://www.amazon.com/Schottenstei...edrin/dp/1578196302&tag=ff0d01-20?tag=usmb-20

There's several chapters discussing the entire solar system and to add a month to the calendar to ensure that Passover occurs at the start of the planting season.
Oh, gosh!

 

[alang1216]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

I didn't think it needed to be specified but:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.​

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

Me too - e.g. evolution theories. There are scientific facts involved with the red shift theory which, to me, makes it plausible/tenable/believable.

One thing for sure - we have a visibility horizon problem Light travels at light speed (186,000 miles per second) as, for example, a light year. When we look at Quasars 13 billion light years away we are looking at what they were 13 billion years ago - they may not even still exist!

Worse - if our universe did begin 13-14 billion years ago as many scientists believe, then we would not be able to see anything further than 14 billion light years away since if such things are that far away (and likely they are) we will not see them. E.g. another universe that was 15 billion light years from our point of observation we would not see for another billion years! Such a hypothetical universe could already be merging with our universe by now - but we wouldn't see this for likely billions of years!

Jews have no problem with the universe being billions of years old by any scientific measurement.
There was no sun until the 3rd occurence of Erev and Boker.

Theories are cool because they keep humans off the battlefield.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

I didn't think it needed to be specified but:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.​

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.

A theory is a theory, which is why it's called a theory.

How many scientific theories went down the toilet in the last 50 years?
Way too many.
If I were Hawkins, I could make up new shit every 6 months to retain my position.

 

[Hollie]

As I understand it, everywhere we look in the universe, the galaxies are moving away from us. If the universe is not expanding, how would you account for what we see?

You're not going to like this answer: "Covering yourself with light as with a garment, stretching out the heavens like a tent." Psalm 104:2

True - compare Isaiah 40:22,26 which not only refers to the expansion/stretching out of the heavens but also links the existence of stars (v.26) to God's power (Hebrew singular koach) and dynamic energy (Hebrew plural ohnim). It is therefore to be expected that plural forms of God's energy are involved with the expansion rate of our universe. Also, since God is invisible it comes as no surprise (to me) that 2 forms of energy involved, gravity and dark energy, are invisible.

Concerning 'tent' it should be noted that the tent of meeting/tabernacle in Scripture is geometrically described as a rectangular prism wherein only 2 dimensions of the relatively flat tent cloths are specified. This may be a hint to how the singularity at the so-called Big Bang was formed since the corner points of the intersection of these tentcloths have no dimensions (reminds me of a singularity).
Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

Also, these tentcloths were relatively flat which is a hint that our universe is 'flat' as many scientists are coming to believe. Quite in contrast with the earth being round (Hebrew chuwg in verse 22 = circle in 2 dimensions, sphere in 3 dimensions).

.
oh, it's round ...

funny how the religionist are back to a universe (is) shaped like a tent that is flat but somehow a triangle for its beginning point as though fact when in fact no such idea could ever have been imagined during the time they are referencing.

- of course who wrote what they, newtonian are referencing were playing the same game then the same religionists are playing today.

using a fabricated book for their religion rather than facing the realities of true insubstation and the satisfactions associated with true discoveries than manufactured deceptions.

Your Bias is showing, Breezewood. No problem - just so you know I noticed.

I will stick with the scientific aspect of your post - claiming our universe is round. Earth is round - that is clearly stated in Isaiah 40:22 and you are right that no humans back then could have known this, That is evidence that while the writers were human, the Author was God.

But the illustration in the latter part of verse 22, after stating the expansion of our universe like a fine gauze (with its threads and filaments as in computer simulations of the actual appearance of our universe) gives the illustration of a tent. This hints at the possibility of a flat gauze-like universe since the sacred tent of meeting was a rectangular prism - but you claim our universe is round.

Why?

Lots of problems with the above.

What evidence can you present that the Gods wrote Isaiah? A magic pen writing on magic parchment.

Actually, the ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was among the first to propose the sphericity of the Earth in the 6th century BC, (<---- before the invention of Christianity), using among his proofs how the sail of a ship could be observed to disappear over the curvature of the Earth.

Plato also espoused a spherical Earth in the Phaedra, and his student Aristotle gave his reasoning in his book On the Heavens in 350 BC. His proof rested on the facts that persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands, that the shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round, and that since objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape. His demonstration was so compelling that a spherical Earth was the central assumption of all subsequent philosophers of the Classical era. He also used the curved phases of the moon to argue that the Moon must also be a sphere like the Earth.

In fact, the global nature of the earth was clearly demonstrated by Eratothenes 2,200 years ago (by comparing shadow lengths in Alexandria and Syene at high noon).

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

I didn't think it needed to be specified but:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.​

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.

"A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory."
That is one of your stupidest sentences ever.

Be rational, don't get desperate.

 

[Indeependent]

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Redshift - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I hate to be harsh, but the article itself claims it's all theory (opinion).
If I wanted an opinion, I have over 100 Rabbis in town with various PhDs in science who teach in every university in NY and NJ.

I admit my adrenal glands cannot tolerate when anyone calls a theory a fact.

I didn't think it needed to be specified but:

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Theories are formed from hypotheses that have been subjected repeatedly to tests of evidence which attempt to disprove or falsify them.​

A scientific theory is NOT an opinion. If you want to be rich and famous find a fact that disproves a scientific theory.

Here's the spiel...
I don't care if you are an atheist.
By the way, do never answered me about giving me your wasted connection to God; please give it to me.

What annoys is me is your "interpretations" of what a verse is saying when no debater would omit words from a sentence.

 

[Newtonian]

I

The universe reached the expansion point defined by The Creator and stopped.

Why doesn't it look like it stopped?

Tell us what that would look like.

No red shift.

Meaning...be specific.
Most age and vast space monitoring equipment has internal databases to report what is believed to be a measurable fact.
aka best guess based on someone's theory.

Astronomy 101:
The displacement of spectral lines toward longer wavelengths (the red end of the spectrum) in radiation from distant galaxies and celestial objects. This is interpreted as a Doppler shift that is proportional to the velocity of recession.

With the possible exception of our local group of galaxies, EVERY galaxy we see is moving away from us. Is there any other explanation other than the universe is expanding?

I agree with most of what you posted. However, I do not agree that only a small group of galaxies will end up receding from us. Have you taken into account the upcoming merger of Milky Way with Andromeda? Ofrthe fact that thousands of galaxies are heading towards the Great Attractor and also the massive Shapley Supercluster even further away? How could we be heading for the Shapley Supercluster if we are expanding away from it?

But, yes, this only involves many thousands of galaxies - nowhere near the billions of galaxies that are expanding away from the Shapley Supercluster (and us).

The Bible leaves open the question as to which stars (and by extension: which galaxies) will end up gravitationally bound or loosened - referring to this as 'cords' (an illustration of the reality)

Job 38:31-33
Can you tie the ropes of the Kiʹmah constellation*
Or untie the cords of the Keʹsil constellation?*+
32 Can you lead out a constellation* in its season
Or guide the Ash constellation* along with its sons?
33 Do you know the laws governing the heavens,+
Or can you impose their* authority on the earth?