Re: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all of Orion's belt?

First, you are not thinking in terms of what is revealed. There was no
room on the ark for more than a single pair per genus, and the vessel was
described as larger than later successful vessels. As to T-rex on the
ark, you are not taking seriously the creation science claim that
dinosaurs were on the ark. If their bones were deposited in Cretaceous
strata, they perished during the flood, not before. So, if a pair of all
living creatures were on the ark, they had to be present. As for God
being able to save T-rex or any of the other monstrous creatures whose
bones we have found, all it takes is a miracle. They could have been fed
miraculously, or miraculously been able to do without food, or
miraculously miniaturized so as to need little food, etc. But miracles
are not part of science. So this is again evidence that you are not
thinking like a creation scientist. Of course, there is that problem in
RATE of the rapid decay during the second creation day and year of the
flood, producing temperatures that would vaporize everything, against the
cited evidence that the temperature did not rise to boiling.

With this I recall one of my professors favorite misquotation of Emerson,
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 09:10:26 -0800 "Dehler, Bernie"
<bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> DF Siemens said:
> " Two T-rex were on the ark. After the flood, since there were only
> two individuals of each genus or family on the ark, there weren't
> enough prey to support the giant carnivores, who soon starved."
>
> Well then, would that make God stupid for commanding that only two
> be put on the ark- or for not specifying to bring enough prey? Why
> transport T-Rex's in the ark if they were going to just die anyway?
>
> " The problem that gave rise to your question is that you were not
> thinking like a creation scientist."
>
> We'll see about that. Why didn't God know how to save the T-Rex's?
>
> ...Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 7:26 PM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all
> of Orion's belt?
>
> Bernie,
> There's a very simple explanation relative to T-rex ;-) Two T-rex
> were
> on the ark. After the flood, since there were only two individuals
> of
> each genus or family on the ark, there weren't enough prey to
> support the
> giant carnivores, who soon starved. The smaller carnivores were able
> to
> find enough prey, although it meant that some of the creatures that
> had
> gone through the flood on the ark did not survive to reproduce. You
> will
> note that I am using the advanced version of the ark's capacity. The
> older version that claimed enough room for a pair of every species
> did
> not take into account the space needed for food and possibly water
> for
> that many creatures.
>
> A more difficult problem is how the eucalyptus-eating koalas were
> able to
> get from Ararat to Australia. Unless a string of eucalyptus trees
> were
> miraculously planted the length of the route, they'd have starved on
> Ararat. The only solution I can think of is that koalas, opossums,
> and
> her creatures with restricted ranges were miraculously transported to
> the appropriate places.
>
> The problem that gave rise to your question is that you were not
> thinking
> like a creation scientist.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:40:05 -0800 "Dehler, Bernie"
> <bernie.dehler@intel.com> writes:
> > I think YEC's ultimately give-up on science. How can you trust
> your
> > senses when you see a full-grown male, but he is really only 1 day
>
> > old (if you met Adam the day he was made)?
> >
> > Trees also bore fruit on day 1 (they did not take years to reach
> > maturity). How many rings do you think those trees had? And I'd
> > think they would need rings in order to be viable- but each ring
> > would indicate a year of life. T-Rex was also a vegetarian,
> because
> > there was no death before the fall.
> >
> > But I never understood why T-Rex didn't get on the ark, or if he
> > did, why he didn't survive afterwards. If other vicious animals
> > could be saved (lions, bears, alligators, etc.), why not T-Rex?
> >
> > By the way, I'm trying to set-up a mini-debate (YEC-OEC-TE) in the
>
> > Portland Oregon area, and I'm having difficulty getting a YEC
> > representative- anyone have any references or contacts for a YEC
> > promoter?
> >
> > ...Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Clounch [mailto:david.clounch@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 1:20 PM
> > To: Dehler, Bernie
> > Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see
> all
> > of Orion's belt?
> >
> > Bernie,
> > I think you are correct. The most consistent word I get from YEC's
>
> > is
> > the light was made "in transit".
> >
> > Its problematical. An implication is light from an object
> > supposedly 10,000 LY away, all such light received up until now
> > didnt actually originate from the object - instead it is light
> that
> > was made in transit. Only after the 10,000 year point in time
> > from the creation would actual light originating at the actual
> > object
> > reach us.
> >
> > This is riddled with phenomenological problems. Given that E&M
> > interaction the the way we know of any object's existence we would
> > have no way of knowing if distant objects really exist.
> >
> > For example, an object 2,000,000 LY away is essentially
> undetectable
> > because we would never see light from that object.
> > The object might not even exist. And we would never know if it was
> > really there. It would be impossible to know. It would be as if
> the
> > entire universe had a radius of what? 6000 light years? I call
> > this
> > the "Stars are painted on the sky" theory.
> > Who could believe in such a thing?
> >
> > Just as bad are the theological problems introduced by a fake
> > universe. It sort of dings the truthfulness of the creator.
> >
> > Obviously the "light made in transit" model is too simple to be
> of
> > any use. Gerald Schroeder wrote a book suggesting time dilation
> is
> > the better answer.
> >
> > -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Dehler, Bernie
> > <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:
> > > My opinion, being formerly friendly to the YEC position and
> > talking to YEC's, is that a YEC dismisses this problem with the
> > "appearance of age" answer. For example, as soon as Adam is made,
>
> > he appears to be fully mature- not at all like 1 day old. It is
> the
> > same exact thing with the stars- of course the light from them
> would
> > be here and it would look ancient, just as exactly in the Adam
> case.
> > This is why science will always be frustrated. "What you see is
> > NOT what you get."
> > >
> > > My stumper for them- a supernova explosion is observed in which
> it
> > is located millions of light-years away. It is not simply an
> issue
> > of starlight anymore- it is an issue of events (did they really
> > happen or not). Did that explosion really happen? If so, the
> light
> > from it would need that time to get here. If the explosion didn't
>
> > really happen, then God is "showing us a movie" of something that
> > never really happened.
> > >
> > > ...Bernie
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Iain Strachan
> > > Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:58 AM
> > > To: asa@calvin.edu
> > > Subject: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all
> of
> > Orion's belt?
> > >
> > > The distant starlight problem has often been used as a way of
> > > challenging the YEC viewpoint, but I'm wondering if the problem
> > has
> > > ever been addressed as to what happens to nearby stars as well.
>
> > This
> > > idea arose from a conversation I had with a YEC colleague who
> > asked me
> > > to explain all about the age of the universe. I explained about
>
> > the
> > > distant starlight problem; how, for example, multiple
> independent
> > > techniques could confirm the distance to our nearest galactic
> > > neighbour (Andromeda) as 2.2 million light years, and that when
> we
> > > observe things happening in Andromeda ( e.g. variable stars, or
> > > supernovae) we are witnessing events that happened over 2
> million
> > > years ago). I then pointed out that as the Bible says the stars
>
> > were
> > > created on the fourth day that this could therefore not be
> > interpreted
> > > literally.
> > >
> > > His response was not to question the science that gave the 2.2 m
>
> > LY
> > > distance to Andromeda, (and he agreed that speed of light decay
> > > sounded like bad science). He suggested instead that the
> > statement
> > > that God created the stars on the fourth day was only referring
> to
> > the
> > > stars near the earth, and not to the distant ones. I then
> > suggested
> > > that this mean that he was not interpreting the Bible literally;
> > > Genesis 1:1 says God created the heavens and the earth in the
> > > beginning, not just the bit of the heavens that was close to the
> > > earth. He then said he'd go off and take advice from other
> > > creationists on dating!
> > >
> > > However, it occurred to me that even nearby stars being created
> on
> > the
> > > fourth day doesn't solve the problem (though it doesn't prove
> the
> > > universe is > 6000 years old). If one sticks to a "literal" (in
>
> > the
> > > YEC sense) view of creation (stars on Day 4, man on Day 6), and
> > with
> > > the YEC view that it was Adam who was created on Day 6, that
> this
> > > raises all sorts of starnge observations for Adam right at the
> > start.
> > > The logical conclusion of all this, and the finite speed of
> light
> > > would be that when Adam looked up at the night sky on Day 6, all
>
> > he
> > > could see would be the planets and the moon.
> > >
> > > Light from the nearest star in the Northern Hemisphere would not
>
> > reach
> > > the earth for six years, and even then it would be a feeble
> start,
> > as
> > > the nearest star in Northern Hemisphere is from the tiny
> red-dwarf
> > > Barnard's star which is not visible to the human eye. The first
> > > clearly visible star (Sirius) would pop into the sky in around
> > 3995
> > > BC, or 8.7 years after creation.
> > >
> > > The Pleiades (mentioned in Job 38:31) would not have appeared
> till
> > > just under half way into Adam's lifetime (440 light years).
> > Orion's
> > > belt (also mentioned in Job 38:31) would never be completely
> > visible
> > > to Adam, as the distances are 900, 1300, and 800 light years;
> > hence
> > > Adam never got to see the middle star ( epsilon Orionis, or
> > Alnilam),
> > > and only the other two stars when he was well advanced in years.
> > >
> > > All of this is a logical consequence of a completely literal
> > > interpretation of the Biblical text, and the assumption that
> Adam
> > > really did live 930 years.
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if this would be a way of providing a gentle
> > challenge
> > > to YEC friends; I am sure most people of the YEC persuasion
> would
> > like
> > > to believe that Adam could see all the stars on Day 6.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts as to whether it has been looked at in this way?
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------
> > > Non timeo sed caveo
> > >
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> > >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> ____________________________________________________________
> Find credit card services here. Complete financial solutions.
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/BLSrjpTFGcmXpMYYREu5xDnNnmGqY
nP7FaMCKzxY5UUbJeKMkGVPZybhpfx/
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Feb 23 13:52:02 2009