Re: Young Earth Creationist Arguments. Do they realize how they look?


"alextangent" <blog@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c4886728-e3e9-464f-8053-d404c00e1ac4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 14, 3:33 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"alextangent" <b...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:194299c8-8f87-41f4-a977-30039102280c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 12, 5:57 am, "Suzanne" <shil...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"TomS" <TomS_mem...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:251961487.00001fa1.045.0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "On Sun, 10
May
2009 00:19:00 -0500, in article
<bstNl.22033$as4.13...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Suzanne stated..."

they don't understand that the speed of an energy as it
travels, also has a further speed of vibration, aside from
the speed at which that energy travels. By "speed of
vibration," I am meaning frequency, which many will
understand.

Please, please, please. What in your god's name is in that head of
yours? This is so wrong, it's not even wrong.

Yes it is this way, it is exactly this way. An EMR has
a travel speed as well as a frequency. They each travel
at the speed of light, but their frequency sets them
apart from one another.

No it's not. What you wrote is complete nonsense.

Yes it is and you are showing that you did not
understand what had been said, or that you have
not studied the electromagnetic radiations in a
very adequate manner if you think they do not have
the speed of light or different frequencies by with
each group can be identified. You might look up an
the EMR Spectrum to see this.


You snipped this bit;

<quote>
I personally believe that the light that was created first
in day one was referring to all of the electromagnetic
radiation spectrum of energy, which formerly was all
collectively called light, before some started
differentiating between visible light and invisible light,
and by invisible light, I am not meaning only infrared
and ultraviolet, but all the other forms of energies that
are invisible, such as gamma rays, XRays, cosmic rays,
even radio waves.
</quote>

It's nonsense. Who "started differentiating between visible light
and
invisible light"? Or "which formerly was all collectively called
light"; by whom was it called light? Cosmic rays aren't
electromagnetic radiation. Frequency isn't a "speed of vibration".

NASA still calls this the
"Electromagnetic Radiation of Light Spectrum"
But some educators in Physics have dropped the
word "light" from the title that it formerly was
known by.

The words "speed of vibration" came from an explanation
from me about the movement/wavelengths of the various
forms of energy within the speed at which they travel, and
by which they are identified. What I am trying to illustrate
is that each form of energy within the spectrum is as a
vibrating guitar string someone has plucked in a car that
is also traveling down a highway at something like a
forward speed of 60 mph. Cosmic rays, XRays, Gamma
Rays, Radio waves, microwaves. These are all forms of
light energy. Hertz proved what Maxwell predicted, that
radio waves from outer space travel at the speed of light as
well.

It formerly was taught that the rays menitoned above
and also including infrared color and ultraviolet color
were forms of invisible light as opposed to the
color spectrum which can be seen. Many physicists
still do call infrared and ultraviolet forms of
invisible light, when they are talking about colors.
But someone somewhere stop printing in texts that
the rays mentioned above are also invisible forms of
light. Light because they travel at the speed of light.
Roentgen, a German physicist proved that XRays
are a form of light also. They used to be called
Roentgen Rays.

Here are some exampes:
"Eventually, X-rays were found to be another form of light."
"Light can take on many forms. Radio waves, microwaves,
infrared, visible, ultraviolet, X-ray and gamma radiation are
all different forms of light."
"the energy of the photon tells what kind of light it is. Radio
waves are compose of low energy photons."
These excerpts come from "Chandra Observatory" page:
entitled "X-rays Another Form of Light."
http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_astro/xrays.html


The idea of life descending from parent lifeforms
is not dealing with creation. Creation gives the
idea that life began suddenly and all over the place
in many forms, not just from one cell that started it
all. The Creation account deals with the world as
God created it in perfection and how it worked
when he created it, with the seed of each thing
within itself and after its "kind." But the Bible also
tells that when man fell, so did everything else. For

Get some basic education. Being a touchy feely fundie with only
one
book for reference might make you feel good; it's making me feel
physically sick realising that boneheads like you sit on
education
boards, have access to children, and want to teach them this
kind of
rot.

Your understanding of science is so poor, even eight year olds
can
refute these points. "Hey, Suzanne, why does a lion have teeth
for
eating meat then? Did God retrofit them with dentures in Chapter
6?"

The question that had been asked, began with
"Tell us where the Bible..." so the mention of the
Bible, was necessary in order to answer what had
been asked. Your comments sound unintelligent,
and you appear to feel real power with that little
mouse in your hand.

You are a snipping liar. This is what you replied;

I am not a "snipping liar" I was quoting what was in
the post previously. Which said as I quoted it "Tell
us where the Bible..." and I was supplying that I had
answere about what was in the Bible since the
question was "Where in the Bible..." You are
quoting a further explanation about the Bible and
what is in it.

<quote>
The idea of life descending from parent lifeforms
is not dealing with creation. Creation gives the
idea that life began suddenly and all over the place
in many forms, not just from one cell that started it
all. The Creation account deals with the world as
God created it in perfection and how it worked
when he created it, with the seed of each thing
within itself and after its "kind." But the Bible also
tells that when man fell, so did everything else. For
example, when Adam was dealt the blow that he now
had to till the soil and that the very ground was cursed
so that it would bring forth thistles and weeds, he was
given this "for thy sake." He needed to learn some
things spiritually. Well, when he had to work so hard
in order to get from the ground sustainable nutrition,
the animals also suffered and had to go elsewhere for
their nutrition and so some became carniverous.
While truly an orange seed will produce an orange
tree, and an avacado seed will still produce an
avacado, the vegetation has weeds in it and strange
corruptions as well. So life as we know it on the
planet earth is not in the original perfect created
form. There is a statement that no one reading the
Bible would deny, and that is that "Even the creation
groans for redemption." The Millennial Kingdom that
will be set up upon the arrival of the return of the
Lord is that all things will be restored as they were
intended to be in the perfection of creation. So I don't
know how to answer your question except to say that
I believe what the Bible says, and I also see that things
did not unfold after the fall of man, the way they were
formerly intended to unfold. But I do think it would be
very good to come to an understanding of just exactly
what a "kind" is. I think there is a clue in the fact that
one definition for species does not qualify to be the
definition for all forms of life. Some do not fit the
definition, and there are more than several groups
that cannot comply with the usual definition of
species. Maybe that has some clue as to what a kind
is.
</quote>

Get a mouse yourself. Surfing is a little less taxing than
intelligent
typing. All you did was disengage your brain, don your Jeebus
googles
and pound the keyboard. Try answering the question, instead of
making
stuff up.

Your answer is hostile and you evidently did not
see some posts. I resupply one of the verses below,
and in greater detail.

Tell us where the Bible, *without imposing a personal
interpretation*
(so that means no "I beleieve that..." or "I think that...."), where
it says that "common descent is wrong", "species were created as
unchanging", "humans belong to a distinct kind from the rest of
life".

I have answered all of these questions. Adam was
created from some dust of the earth. Leviathan, was
created from his own dust, according to the Bible verse
that I had previously quoted about the leviathan,
especially v. 29:
Psalm 104:26-30:
26. "There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom
thou has made to play therein.
27. These wait all upon thee; that thou mayest give
them their meat in due season.
28. That thou givest them they gather: thou openest
thine hand, they are filled with good.
29. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest
away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and
thou renewest the face of the earth."
The literal translation from
Young's Literal Translation of v. 29 is:
"Thou hidest Thy face -- they are troubled, Thou gatherest
their spirit -- they expire, And unto their dust they turn
back."
Not only does this show that the dust of the earth
that man and animals come from as being a separate
creating event, but it also indicates that the life that
causes the being to become alive is because God
breathed into that being the breath of life, which is
a word also indicating a soul. Therefore it is
observable from scripture that man did not descend
from the same single cell that evolutionists say
amimals come from. These verses are compatible
with the individual creation of the animals of
Genesis 1 from the creation of man and woman.
Chapter 5 of Genesis also indicates the individual
creation of Adam.

The Bible also declares that Adam is the first man, and
that Christ is called the "last Adam:"
1 Corinthians 15:22:
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive."
1 Corinthians 15:45:
"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made
a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening
spirit."

Suzanne

.

Relevant Pages

  • QUEST FOR NEW PHYSICS OF CREATION
    ... Quest for new physics of creation ... The Sign of the Serpent: Key to Life Energy ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: mega mega mega SPOILER for season 6 opener
    ... place in the Universe makes us less conspicuous than the tiniest ... The distances between Stars make it almost inconceivable that we could ... travel to even the nearest Star. ... Einstein's famous equation tells us that energy an mass are ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Capacitance and mass
    ... Any terrain map is a map of height. ... information for bicycle travel. ... the time-energy eikonal is the one to focus on for bicycle travel. ... energy factor can be dropped out in preliminary analyses, ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: mega mega mega SPOILER for season 6 opener
    ... place in the Universe makes us less conspicuous than the tiniest ... The distances between Stars make it almost inconceivable that we could ... travel to even the nearest Star. ... Einstein's famous equation tells us that energy an mass are ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: mega mega mega SPOILER for season 6 opener
    ... place in the Universe makes us less conspicuous than the tiniest ... travel to even the nearest Star. ... Einstein's famous equation tells us that energy an mass are ... Be happy coz we all die - I'll be on my deadbed going god, ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)