Asteroid Strike

[dad]

Seems pretty pointless to bring them onto the ark if they were just going to die when it was all over....

Since dinos may have evolved/adapted from birds and reptiles or whatever, they would not be created kinds, so not on the ark.

 

[dad]

1. Even the coolest stars (M-type giants and supergiants) emit enough blue and violet light to produce rainbows. The luminosity, temperature and spectral energy distribution of a star depend on its mass; any main-sequence star with the same mass as the Sun will emit what we call white light, that is light with the same spectral energy distribution as the Sun. Our eyes have evolved to be sensitive to the same range of wavelengths as those in sunlight, so we are bound to see sunlight as white light. View attachment 257952
2. In that case, all the laws of nature would have been different and we should have more serious things to worry about than a world-wide Flood.
3. There are fossil raindrop impressions in rocks dating back to 2.7 billion years old (late Archaean time). See Raindrop impressions - Wikipedia, Fossil raindrop impressions reveal Earth's early atmosphere - TGDaily and Robert Metz (1981), 'Why not raindrop impressions?', Journal of Sedimentary Research, 51(1), 265-268. View attachment 257953

Actually, one of the things needed for luminosity is time.

"Luminosity
Total amount of energy emitted by an object per unit time"

-wiki

The main sequence emissions also depend on age..or time.

" main sequence at a position determined primarily by its mass, but also based upon its chemical composition and age.." wiki

The ages of stars are unknown, and purely theory as we do not observe things that involve billions of years.

There is also the issue that science assumes that the luminosity of the sun exactly represents what we see in deep space. In other words if we see a similar spectrum or luminosity in deep space, to that which we see from the sun, assumptions are made about mass etc etc.

 

[SelfSim]

... The ages of stars are unknown, ...

They are unknown to you because you have twisted and distorted beliefs about time ...
You are not qualified to speak about how science views any of its objective realities.

 

[Astrophile]

The main sequence emissions also depend on age..or time.

" main sequence at a position determined primarily by its mass, but also based upon its chemical composition and age.." wiki

'Determined primarily by its mass'. A one solar mass star is going to be a G-type star, with approximately the same spectral energy distribution as the Sun, so long as it remains on the main-sequence; it is not going to become a K or M-type red dwarf or a B-type star. When the star exhausts hydrogen in its core it will leave the main-sequence and will become a red giant; it will not become a main-sequence star of a different spectral type.

Also, as I have already explained, even the coolest stars emit light over the whole visible spectrum, so that when this light is refracted and dispersed by raindrops it will produce a rainbow, with the same colours as the rainbows we are familiar with.

 

[dad]

They are unknown to you because you have twisted and distorted beliefs about time ...
You are not qualified to speak about how science views any of its objective realities.

They are unknown because the nature of time in far space is not known. Your idea of twisting beliefs about time is anything that does not blindly accept your statements of faith about what time is like out in the unknown far universe. In other words 'accept my godless religion or you are twisting'. Gong!

 

[dad]

'Determined primarily by its mass'. A one solar mass star is going to be a G-type star, with approximately the same spectral energy distribution as the Sun,

We do not know that energy here does equal energy somewhere else. You cannot merely take fishbowl realities and what the spectra of the sun looks like and apply that to every little star in the universe. 'Gee, if the spectra of the poor little star is like that we see from the sun, that star must be of similar mass'!

so long as it remains on the main-sequence; it is not going to become a K or M-type red dwarf or a B-type star.

Looking the same does not mean much actually. You just believed that to get that look stuff had to be sun sized and exist in space and time as we know it here in the fishbowl.

When the star exhausts hydrogen in its core it will leave the main-sequence and will become a red giant; it will not become a main-sequence star of a different spectral type.

False prophesy. The stars were created more or less as they are according to the bible and the timeframe we see there. Your religion has no basis in fact.

Also, as I have already explained, even the coolest stars emit light over the whole visible spectrum, so that when this light is refracted and dispersed by raindrops it will produce a rainbow, with the same colours as the rainbows we are familiar with.

Having light coming in to this fishbowl look like a rainbow to us here does not mean what you think. It may mean that light here simply behaves a certain way here, and take a certain amount of time to do so here!

 

[SelfSim]

They are unknown because the nature of time in far space is not known.

.. by you ...

Science, on the other hand, is fine when it comes to understanding (thus knowing) time for its purposes.. (as has been explained to you more times than can be counted ...).

Your idea of twisting beliefs about time is anything that does not blindly accept your statements of faith about what time is like out in the unknown far universe.

Time is what human minds bring to science's both local and remote observations.

In other words 'accept my godless religion or you are twisting'. Gong!

Science's objective testing, as specified in what defines science itself, (the well-documented scientific method), clearly distinguishes science from religion .. Religion has a belief basis and acts upon that, whereas science doesn't. 'Belief' here is defined as being: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason'. Science does not act on untestable things merely held as 'being true' .. it bypasses such things and proceeds with its business of testing.

 

[dad]

.. by you ...

Science, on the other hand, is fine when it comes to understanding (thus knowing) time for its purposes.. (as has been explained to you more times than can be counted ...).

Never has it been explained how we know time is the same in deep space. Knowing how time exists here in the fishbowl and how much time is involved in various things here is not knowing time! That is knowing how time workks in the fishbowl. Big difference.

Time is what human minds bring to science's both local and remote observations.

Sorry, your notion that time is some mental construct is foolishness. If no one was able to construct ideas about what time was, yet would time exist. You think a tree would no longer take a certain time to grow if your brain ceased to function?

Science's objective testing, as specified in what defines science itself, (the well-documented scientific method), clearly distinguishes science from religion

The scientific method is based on belief when it comes to all creation and evolution issues.

.. Religion has a belief basis and acts upon that, whereas science doesn't.

Science does nothing BUT believe when it comes to origin issues actually.

'Belief' here is defined as being: 'Any notion held as being true for any reason'. Science does not act on untestable things merely held as 'being true' .. it bypasses such things and proceeds with its business of testing.

Why kid yourself?? You can't test the nature of Noah's day or the future, or what time and space are like in deep space etc. What utter nonsense and delusion.

 

[SelfSim]

Never has it been explained how we know time is the same in deep space.

Untrue.

Knowing how time exists here in the fishbowl and how much time is involved in various things here is not knowing time! That is knowing how time workks in the fishbowl. Big difference.

Explain the difference.

Sorry, your notion that time is some mental construct is foolishness.

I have objective evidence from objective testing .. You have zip.

If no one was able to construct ideas about what time was, yet would time exist.

How would you know?

You think a tree would no longer take a certain time to grow if your brain ceased to function?

You misconceive .. yet again. I have only ever said that human minds conceive time .. not just the singular instance of just my brain (mind). Get it right if you're trying to criticize, for goodness sake!..

The pertinent question is: 'You think a tree would no longer take a certain time to grow if no human mind ever existed?'

To which I have 4 answers:
(1) How could I 'think' that, if my mind wasn't there to think that?
(2) The question is meaningless in the first place (because it takes a human mind to comprehend its meaning and they were zapped out of existence in the rephrased question);
(3) Your question is a hypothetical .. which took your mind to come up with .. (So how is that a test of the mind independence of time which your 'argument' seeks to establish?)
(4) In the scenario where minds other than mine are permittted .. (as per your original question), I can unequivocally say that: Of course those other humans remaining would think that a tree normally takes time to grow .. because that's what they understand the words 'tree', 'time', 'grow' and 'think' to mean ... and it took their minds to do that!

The scientific method is based on belief when it comes to all creation and evolution issues.

Wrong.

Science does nothing BUT believe when it comes to origin issues actually.

Wrong. Science speculates, hypothesises (testable), tests, records results and then scientists draw conclusions on those results. No beliefs are necessary. There are no truths required .. that's what religions do.

Why kid yourself?? You can't test the nature of Noah's day or the future, or what time and space are like in deep space etc. What utter nonsense and delusion.

You really don't understand what an inference is .. do you?

You, on the other hand, draw conclusions from sheer, unadulterated, abject, ignorance of science, logic, religion and philosophy.

 

[dad]

Untrue.Explain the difference.I have objective evidence from objective testing .. You have zip.How would you know?You misconceive .. yet again. I have only ever said that human minds conceive time .. not just the singular instance of just my brain (mind). Get it right if you're trying to criticize, for goodness sake!..

Not sure what you are talking about. Obviously you have no such evidence that time exists the same in far space as we know it here.

The pertinent question is: 'You think a tree would no longer take a certain time to grow if no human mind ever existed?'

Yes. It could not probably die simply because you were not there to grace it with your presence.

To which I have 4 answers:
(1) How could I 'think' that, if my mind wasn't there to think that?

More importantly, who really cares? I doubt the tree would become suicidal if your mind was not near it.

(2) The question is meaningless in the first place (because it takes a human mind to comprehend its meaning and they were zapped out of existence in the rephrased question);

I suggest a monkey and a squire and a bird could comprehend that tree just fine, thank you very much. What, if we took a picture of it, it would fade away if your mind was not there to look at it?

(3) Your question is a hypothetical .. which took your mind to come up with .. (So how is that a test of the mind independence of time which your 'argument' seeks to establish?)

Nothing wrong with using the mind God gave us.

(4) In the scenario where minds other than mine are permittted .. (as per your original question), I can unequivocally say that: Of course those other humans remaining would think that a tree normally takes time to grow .. because that's what they understand the words 'tree', 'time', 'grow' and 'think' to mean ... and it took their minds to do that!

The tree uses water and sunlight and etc in growing. The time that takes is up to nature. Trees do not really take less or more time to grow just because humans with minds walk the planet.

Wrong. Science speculates, hypothesises (testable), tests, records results and then scientists draw conclusions on those results. No beliefs are necessary. There are no truths required .. that's what religions do.

Then show us the test for what time is like exactly in unknown deep apace, and what forces and laws existed in nature in the days of the first life on earth? Don't talk the talk, let's see the walk.

You really don't understand what an inference is .. do you?

What are you inferring?

You, on the other hand, draw conclusions from sheer, unadulterated, abject, ignorance of science, logic, religion and philosophy.

Slanderous guesswork with no basis in fact. It is not ignorance of demon science that causes me to deeply disrespect it.