Creationists, consider . . . .

AV1611VET · Nov 11, 2008

[serious];49377260 said:
The same thing happens to light. If it's stretched, the wavelength gets longer. if light is traveling through 6000 light years of space and that space is stretched out to 13 billion light years, then the wavelength gets stretched 2 million times it's original length.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but red light is just so many Angstrom units in length. What if in the beginning, before the stretch, the units were 1/2,000,000th that length? Or would that put it within the range of Planck's length? (And even if it does, even you guys recognize that the entire universe was within that unit of distance, do you not?)

[serious] · Nov 11, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but red light is just so many Angstrom units in length. What if in the beginning, before the stretch, the units were 1/2,000,000th that length? Or would that put it within the range of Planck's length? (And even if it does, even you guys recognize that the entire universe was within that unit of distance, do you not?)

If we are talking about light from stars, we are talking about at least scales that would allow for stars. Also, please note that if the stretching occurred earlier, the redshift will be greater. If it just happened today, we would be talking about all visible light being shifted into radio waves. if we are talking about it happening day 1, we are talking on the order of trillions of times the original wavelengths. Also, you would have to have a reason that the pre and post stretch light wavelengths just happened to match up else you run into the same "dishonest God" problem.

[serious] · Nov 11, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but red light is just so many Angstrom units in length. What if in the beginning, before the stretch, the units were 1/2,000,000th that length? Or would that put it within the range of Planck's length? (And even if it does, even you guys recognize that the entire universe was within that unit of distance, do you not?)

If we are talking about light from stars, we are talking about at least scales that would allow for stars. Also, please note that if the stretching occurred earlier, the redshift will be greater. If it just happened today, we would be talking about all visible light being shifted into radio waves. if we are talking about it happening day 1, we are talking on the order of trillions of times the original wavelengths. Also, you would have to have a reason that the pre and post stretch light wavelengths just happened to match up else you run into the same "dishonest God" problem.

sbvera13 · Nov 12, 2008

Pete Harcoff said:
Question is: Can you find a living species that is also represented in the fossil record as the same species?

I believe crocodiles, possums, and sharks are good candidates.

Anyone confirm?

tanzanos · Nov 12, 2008

The only science creationists believe in is CARTOON PHYSICS

RobertByers · Nov 12, 2008

Washington said:
. . . .

Then consider this, from the same source:

(I recognize that the numbers given for possible extant species is subject to debate: some authorities have posited anywhere from 3.5 million to 30 million species, but for my proposes I think the 4.5 million is a reasonable figure. )

Now, consider that you (creationists) claim all species living today (4.5 million) survived the great flood---speciation being an untenable notion--- and that all 250,000 fossilized species arose out of the great flood

Furthermore, consider the fact that there is not, to my knowledge, a single living species today that shows up in the fossil record. All fossils are of species no longer alive.

So the question is, just how did this very peculiar selection take place? How did the flood manage to select and only fossilize examples of those species that would not survive the flood?

Why would 250,000 species be completely wiped off the earth and leave a record of their former existence, while not one specimen of those who made it through the flood be fossilized? 250,000 species and not a single one of a contemporary species.

The Edward's wolf (Canis edwardii) lived in the very same habitat as the gray wolf (Canis lupus), yet only the Edwards wolf was fossilized. Alligator olseni once lived in Florida, the same place Alligator mississippiensis lives, yet only A. olseni was fossilized and not a single fossil of A. mississippiensis has turned up. Bison priscus is well known by its fossilized remains but not a single fossil of Bison bonasus the European bison, which lives in the very same area, was fossilized. The list could go on and on: not one species living today ever had a relative of the same species turn up in the fossil record.

So is this the way god's the plan went? "Any of you guys who want to survive my up-coming flooding don't plan on leaving behind any fossil traces of your species, but those of you who want to be remembered in rock don't count on surviving the Big-Wet-One."

Simple classic creationist answers and a few of my own.

first we say that all creatures were destroyed on the dry land and in the waters save those on the ark and those God preserved himself in the water.
so we want to find zillions of destroyed species.
Species don't matter. its kinds that matter.
The kinds did survive the flood.
now there was a great change in the fauna/flora ratio.
I see this as coming from the clean/unclean ratio difference of life taken on the ark. likewise in the sea.
Soon after the ark many creatures, especially unclean, died out and the clean dominated to this day.
To this creationist the fossil record is a fantastic witness to the biblical story.
The destruction and remains of creatures in their prime of life, no fossils are of old or sick creatures, by a great disaster.
A change in fauna/flora so great that they invent ideas of meteorites causing great death to explain it.
This great change suggested by the fauna ratio on the ark with the unclean dinos etc given the heave ho for a better clean dominance.
Creationism only adapts to new info but evolution is forced to wiggle out.

Pete Harcoff · Nov 12, 2008

RobertByers said:
Species don't matter. its kinds that matter.

Actually species do matter. The question was simple: Why are there no fossilized species (assuming the majority of the fossil record is from the flood) of existing living species?

You didn't really answer that question.

Washington · Nov 12, 2008

RobertByers said:
Species don't matter. its kinds that matter.

And in as much as the many posts presented on CF have failed to pin down what the term "kind" means, it remains useless, and therefore can't matter. Meaningless terms are useless terms.

now there was a great change in the fauna/flora ratio.

Oh, really? And just what are these ratios and where do you come by them?

Creationism only adapts to new info but evolution is forced to wiggle out.

Oops! I just about blew the coffee I was drinking out my nose when I read this. Please give warning when you're about to say stuff like this.

Simple classic creationist answers and a few of my own.

And no more persuasive now than before.

And as Pete Harcoff rightly notes, "Actually species do matter," because that's what I asked about.

RobertByers · Nov 14, 2008

Pete Harcoff said:
Actually species do matter. The question was simple: Why are there no fossilized species (assuming the majority of the fossil record is from the flood) of existing living species?

You didn't really answer that question.

Don't want to find existing species in the flood rocks.
The species today are adaptations from the kinds that were preserved on the ark or by god in the water.
Some species today are very look alike to their ancesters back then. living fossils etc yet only a small number of kinds were kept on the Ark.
We don't know of coarse what kinds were and so one must figure it out. For example i see bears and dogs and others as one kind. No dogs on the ark or bears but something else from whence they quickly diverged.
Of coarse I also see marsupials as just placentals with pouches.
The fossil record is in fact a great friend to the creationist in making the claim of a great extinction suddenly and a fauna/flora change in the world from redistribution of flora by seeds and by the clean/unclean ratio on the ark.

AV1611VET · Nov 14, 2008

Washington said:
And in as much as the many posts presented on CF have failed to pin down what the term "kind" means, it remains useless, and therefore can't matter. Meaningless terms are useless terms.

That's too bad --- back in the days when scientists wrote their software and chose to consciously leave Biblical terminology out of the picture --- that was okay; but now it's coming back to haunt them - (at least in conversation). They might be big shots in the lab, but in a sanctuary, it's a different story.

FishFace · Nov 17, 2008

Amusing to see that AV is still repeating the same old embedded-age story. I guess he hasn't justified his definition, still?

AV1611VET · Nov 17, 2008

FishFace said:
Amusing to see that AV is still repeating the same old embedded-age story.

Yup --- no one has voted me off the island like they did Pluto.

juvenissun · Nov 17, 2008

Athrond said:
folowup question:

and how come the fossilised animals are not sorted from light to heavy?*

* you know, in this volatile flood "large and heavy" would settle at the bottom first, and the light and small would settle ontop of this.

Not necessary. What you said is only true in clear, stagnant water.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Nov 18, 2008

Athrond said:
folowup question:

and how come the fossilised animals are not sorted from light to heavy?*

* you know, in this volatile flood "large and heavy" would settle at the bottom first, and the light and small would settle ontop of this.

juvenissun said:
Not necessary. What you said is only true in clear, stagnant water.

why? density and gravity operate in any substance, not just clear, stagnant water. if your claim is that these creatures were sorted by flood waters then their sorting should b indicative of such and it isnt.

MoonLancer · Nov 18, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Yup --- no one has voted me off the island like they did Pluto.

The choice was admit that hundreds of asteroids where planets, or Pluto was not. Please explain why you cannot accept this?

AV1611VET · Nov 18, 2008

MoonLancer said:
The choice was admit that hundreds of asteroids where planets, or Pluto was not. Please explain why you cannot accept this?

Maybe because I side with the scientists who also disagree?

Like I said, I find it coincidental that not one of you so-called "scientists" (not one) agreed with those scientists in the IAU that disagreed with the vote --- again: not a single one.

You'll gladly ask me questions about starlight, etc. when you think it pwns Creationism, but you're strangely quiet when it comes to having to take sides against those scientists who would disagree with you on the matter.

If you think they had no choice but to admit that hundreds of asteroids were planets, or Pluto was not --- go tell those in the IAU that disagree with you --- I'm really not interested, myself.

The fact of the matter is, you guys like to hang around in CF because here, you can sound like big-shot scientists; but when one actually shows up and goes tete-a-tete against one of you guys, like in "that other thread", you guys are strangely absent from contributing.

I don't hide behind a clipboard, so I'm not afraid to go anywhere and tell people like it is - (or should be).

Nathan Poe · Nov 18, 2008

AV1611VET said:
Maybe because I side with the scientists who also disagree?

Can you rationally explain why you disagree, or is this just a convenient rationalization for your knee-jerk "science can take a hike" mentality?

Like I said, I find it coincidental that not one of you so-called "scientists" (not one) agreed with those scientists in the IAU that disagreed with the vote --- again: not a single one.

Why should we? The IAU made a very convincing argument -- the dissenters did not.

Do you even know what those arguments were, AV?
Do you know what an argument is?

You'll gladly ask me questions about starlight, etc. when you think it pwns Creationism, but you're strangely quiet when it comes to having to take sides against those scientists who would disagree with you on the matter.

Why should we be compelled by such as you to take sides against people we agree with? Creationist doublethink?

If you think they had no choice but to admit that hundreds of asteroids were planets, or Pluto was not --- go tell those in the IAU that disagree with you --- I'm really not interested, myself.

Facts can always take a hike with you.

The fact of the matter is, you guys like to hang around in CF because here, you can sound like big-shot scientists; but when one actually shows up and goes tete-a-tete against one of you guys, like in "that other thread", you guys are strangely absent from contributing.

You do realize, AV, that tete means "head," so using that phrase means you've actually used your head in this matter -- which you clearly haven't.

The only reason you disagree is because scientists agree -- your choice is motivated by spite alone.

I don't hide behind a clipboard, so I'm not afraid to go anywhere and tell people like it is - (or should be).

But you're a failure at telling people why it "should be," aren't you?

AV1611VET · Jun 11, 2010

Nathan Poe said:
Why should we? The IAU made a very convincing argument -- the dissenters did not.

Do you even know what those arguments were, AV?

QV please: 32.

LifeToTheFullest! · Jun 11, 2010

AV1611VET said:
QV please: 32.

QV please: 33

Hespera · Jun 11, 2010

juvenissun said:
Not necessary. What you said is only true in clear, stagnant water.

THAT is why panning for gold is only successful in clear stagnant water!
Turns out running water does not sort out particles by density after all.

Quick inform those poor prospectors who are wasting their time.

Creationists, consider . . . .

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Senior Member

tanzanos

Guest

Regular Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Senior Veteran

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

... and God saw that it was good.

Scientist

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Similar threads