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

Michael,
Shame! You're fibbing. None of the ziggurats have been found with
dinosaur bones at the top, and T rex was not a pterosaur.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:48:46 -0000 "Michael Roberts"
<michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk> writes:
> The T Rexs went up the tower of Babel and didnt come down again:)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dehler, Bernie" <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 9:29 PM
> Subject: RE: [asa] Near Starlight Problem; Adam would never see all
> of
> Orion's belt?
>
>
> D.F. said:
> " As to T-rex on the ark, you are not taking seriously the creation
> science
> claim that dinosaurs were on the ark."
>
> I am- and I wondered why they died after their voyage. If there was
> not
> enough food for them, then why put them on the ship and care for
> them for a
> year on the ship if they were just going to perish anyway? The
> reason for
> putting the animals on the ship was to save them. So why weren't
> the
> T-Rex's saved? If God miraculously fed them after the flood, then
> why did
> they die out?
>
> D.F. said:
> " So this is again evidence that you are not thinking like a
> creation
> scientist. "
>
> You see, I am thinking of a YEC- that's why I can't figure out why
> the
> T-Rex's died after God said he would save them and even put them on
> the ark
> to try to save them. You did not explain what killed T-Rex just a
> few
> thousand years ago.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. [mailto:dfsiemensjr@juno.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 10:30 AM
> To: Dehler, Bernie
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: 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.
>
>
>
>
> 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 22:02:46 2009