7th grade questions

[ribozyme]

There was light, though. Plants need light, but it doesn’t have to be sunlight.

Well, I don’t know where the light came from if I did not come from a nuclear reactor such as the sun… but it is correct to say that photosynthesis evolved after the formation of the sun. The solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and if I am not mistaken, photosynthesis is at leat 3.5 billion years old, and life formed about 3.8 billion years ago.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, I don’t know where the light came from if I did not come from a nuclear reactor such as the sun… but it is correct to say that photosynthesis evolved after the formation of the sun. The solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and if I am not mistaken, photosynthesis is at leat 3.5 billion years old, and life formed about 3.8 billion years ago.

How does anybody know stuff like that? Did they find a document with the date on it that says,

"DATE: January 3, 3.5 Billion BC

Dear Diary;

Hey, some plants came into existence today. That’s cool - maybe we’ll finally get something to eat around here. We measured the rings on the Sun yesterday morning, and it’s about 1 billion years old. Happy Birthday, Sun."

 

[ribozyme]

How does anybody know stuff like that? Did they find a document with the date on it that says,

"DATE: January 3, 3.5 Billion BC

Dear Diary;

Hey, some plants came into existence today. That’s cool - maybe we’ll finally get something to eat around here. We measured the rings on the Sun yesterday morning, and it’s about 1 billion years old. Happy Birthday, Sun."

Fossil evidence: astrobio.net/news/article1985.html.

So are you challenging the foundations of geology and paleontology with that post? Are you questioning the veracity of radiometric dating, which is based on sound science?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Well, I don’t know where the light came from.

There is a book the Catholic Church uses which explains it, they probably will let you borrow it

if I did not come from a nuclear reactor such as the sun… .

In Texas lightening comes from the sky, but we have yet to place a nuclear reactor there either.

      but it is correct to say that photosynthesis evolved after the formation of the sun. The solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago, and if I am not mistaken, photosynthesis is at least 3.5 billion years old, and life formed about 3.8 billion years ago.

Really, and conscious developed where and when? Why did the “great density” change from a “great density” to an unstable mass that exploded. By the way(BTW) did they ever develop a science model that proved a bee could fly? for years that was an embarrassment because our scientific belief was the bee had no chance at flight.

Hey we are having a little fun with you, but please do not get upset. I would love to be younger, and I am not alone so we envy you somewhat

 

[ribozyme]

There is a book the Catholic Church uses which explains it, they probably will let you borrow it

In Texas lightening comes from the sky, but we have yet to place a nuclear reactor there either.

Hey we are having a little fun with you, but please do not get upset. I would love to be younger, and I am not alone so we envy you somewhat

I am not answering anything regarding consciousness, or the physics of bee’s flight as it has little to do with the accuracy of the Genesis account.

Ask yourself this, do you think the light from lightening could provide the energy to support a biosphere? Have you really thought it through when you replied with that glib response. Does lightening generate enough electromagnetic radiation?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not answering anything regarding consciousness, or the physics of bee’s flight as it has little to do with the accuracy of the Genesis account.

Sorry to see you feel this way. When an evolutionist does answer these questions it will go a long way toward accepting more of their theories

Ask yourself this, do you think the light from lightening could provide the energy to support a biosphere?

Yes light is measured in angstroms so the light from the sun may well produce a wider range of angstroms. We know the light from lightening produces the wavelengths of angstroms that are needed. We know the lightening produces enough heat to kill animals and plants. Not that I am limited here, what ever happened is fine by me even if I do not know what it is

Have you really thought it through when you replied with that glib response.

Interesting, Yes I did think it through, that is why I have those questions

Does lightening generate enough electromagnetic radiation?

Is an angstrom by another name still a wavelength, I would think so, but I am not a physicist either

Evolution is a fine theory and I am not against it. I am not against you either. But Evolution it is not the answer to all questions

 

[ribozyme]

Sorry to see you feel this way. When an evolutionist does answer these questions it will go a long way toward accepting more of their theories

Yes light is measured in angstroms so the light from the sun may well produce a wider range of angstroms. We know the light from lightening produces the wavelengths of angstroms that are needed. We know the lightening produces enough heat to kill animals and plants. Not that I am limited here, what ever happened is fine by me even if I do not know what it is

Interesting, Yes I did think it through, that is why I have those questions

Is an angstrom by another name still a wavelength, I would think so, but I am not a physicist either

Evolution is a fine theory and I am not against it. I am not against you either. But Evolution it is not the answer to all questions

The wavelengths of light are usually measured in nanometers and it spans (the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is able to be discernable by our eyes) 400-700 nanometers.

The wavelengths of light could be measured in angstroms, as an angstrom is one tenth of a nanometer. But we could use that justification to measure the wavelengths of light using micrometers, millimeters, meters, kilometers, etc. But it is convenient to use nanometers.

It is not quality I am looking for, it is quanitity. Does lightning generate enough light to support all life on Earth, not the right type of electromagnetic radiation? Lightning is instantaneous, while the sun is able to emit light throughout an entire day.

But regarding your objection " Is an angstrom by another name still a wavelength, I would think so, but I am not a physicist either," electromagnetic radiation shorter than what we can discern in the visual spectrum is ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays in decreasing order in wavelength. Of course, exposing plants to that high energy radiation would do little to benefit the plants as certain photosynthetic pigments only absorb specific wavelengths of light.

Evolution does not answer all the questions, of course. I will not expect to find in a peer-reviewed journal on evolutionary biology details about how to purify silicon to make a computer chip.

 

[zian]

Even Bigger/ major problems for Radiometric Clocks
Problems galore for radiometric dating all because of numerous assumptions and speculations too numerous to count for both clocks and evolution. No comparison to speed of light, or chemical properties

icr.org/rate/

… etc etc from Post #34

.
Many of the “findings” of the RATE studies, escpecially those of Humphreys, have been thoroughly critiqued by geologist (and former Christian fundamentalist) Dr. Kevin Henke. See
talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

as well as the prior essay from Henke in response to Humphreys,
talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

Run through the copious links and discussion. You don’t need to agree with Henke’s decision about Christianity (I do not) to see that he points out numerous problems with Humphreys scientific work, rendering the conclusions drawn on his analysis to be dubious.

 

[mlchance]

One should not rely on dogma to arrive at truth… we should indeed use our senses and reason.

Those sound a lot like dogmatic statements to me. Yet more scientism rearing its ugly head.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The wavelengths of light are usually measured in nanometers and it spans (the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that is able to be discernable by our eyes) 400-700 nanometers.

The wavelengths of light could be measured in angstroms, as an angstrom is one tenth of a nanometer. But we could use that justification to measure the wavelengths of light using micrometers, millimeters, meters, kilometers, etc. But it is convenient to use nanometers.

It is not quality I am looking for, it is quanitity. Does lightning generate enough light to support all life on Earth, not the right type of electromagnetic radiation? Lightning is instantaneous, while the sun is able to emit light throughout an entire day.

But regarding your objection " Is an angstrom by another name still a wavelength, I would think so, but I am not a physicist either," electromagnetic radiation shorter than what we can discern in the visual spectrum is ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays in decreasing order in wavelength. Of course, exposing plants to that high energy radiation would do little to benefit the plants as certain photosynthetic pigments only absorb specific wavelengths of light.

Evolution does not answer all the questions, of course. I will not expect to find in a peer-reviewed journal on evolutionary biology details about how to purify silicon to make a computer chip.

And the relevance of this is what?

You implied light could not exist in the absence of the sun; lighting was used as an example of a common light source. Fire could have been chosen just as easily but neither is needed. Light is excited photon passing off energy. The idea that light is different is only relative at the wavelength level. So you want to use a nanometer in place of an Angstrom, alright use a Nano. It has no scientific difference so why toss it out like that? Same for non visible light? As for sustainable lightening, would that not be perilously close to what we call a light bulb? Can plants be grown under artificial light, Yes and you do not need deity help to do that

I hope it was Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) that would be cool do and web search on that use the image selection

 

[axolotl]

By the way(BTW) did they ever develop a science model that proved a bee could fly? for years that was an embarrassment because our scientific belief was the bee had no chance at flight.

groups.google.com/group/alt.folklore.urban/browse_thread/thread/a0a6be377750533d/93360937d87cd3af?lnk=st&q=&rnum=5&hl=en#93360937d87cd3af

 

[Texas_Roofer]

thanks

Is It Possible For A bumble Bee To Fly?

doesgodexist.org/NovDec99/IsItPossibleForABumbleBeeToFly.html

 

[ribozyme]

And the relevance of this is what?

You implied light could not exist in the absence of the sun; lighting was used as an example of a common light source. Fire could have been chosen just as easily but neither is needed. Light is excited photon passing off energy. The idea that light is different is only relative at the wavelength level. So you want to use a nanometer in place of an Angstrom, alright use a Nano. It has no scientific difference so why toss it out like that? Same for non visible light? As for sustainable lightening, would that not be perilously close to what we call a light bulb? Can plants be grown under artificial light, Yes and you do not need deity help to do that

I hope it was Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) that would be cool do and web search on that use the image selection

No, you did not answer my objection regarding the QUANITITY of light. Is there another light source that is able to support a biosphere that is not the sun? BTW, where did the fuel for the fire come from??

Photosynthetic pigments do not absorb all wavelengths of light, but they are able to absorb light within a specific range. This of course differs for every photosynthetic pigment (e.g. caroteinoids, chlorophill A, chlorophil B, etc.).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, you did not answer my objection regarding the QUANITITY of light. Is there another light source that is able to support a biosphere that is not the sun? BTW, where did the fuel for the fire come from??

Photosynthetic pigments do not absorb all wavelengths of light, but they are able to absorb light within a specific range. This of course differs for every photosynthetic pigment (e.g. caroteinoids, chlorophill A, chlorophil B, etc.).

And the relevance is what?

ribozyme energy is never created nor destroyed. Any “Light” you contribute to the sun is energy that was always present. So yes electric generated light could be used for ever and ever, and yes nuclear light can be created to do it ( Aurora Borealis ) but you are still missing it. It is not what I know. There are many sources, options, which I do not know.

By the way a fundamental of understanding of evolution is that photosynthesis developed to match available light not the other way around.

 

[ribozyme]

And the relevance is what?

ribozyme energy is never created nor destroyed. Any “Light” you contribute to the sun is energy that was always present. So yes electric generated light could be used for ever and ever, and yes nuclear light can be created to do it ( Aurora Borealis ) but you are still missing it. It is not what I know. There are many sources, options, which I do not know.

No, you still did not answer my objection. If there is no star (i.e. the sun) within a close proximity to our biosphere, could another energy source support the development of life on Earth?

But plants are specifically mentioned… so what source of light can support plants for the period of time between Day 3 and Day 4. So where is the light source to support autotrophs like plants?

 

[Nullasalus]

But plants are specifically mentioned… so what source of light can support plants for the period of time between Day 3 and Day 4. So where is the light source to support autotrophs like plants?

I could be utterly wrong here, but does fungus count as a plant? I remember reading in one of the theories about the origins of life on earth that the ‘first forms’ of life may have been subterrenean fungus close enough to the earth’s core to get warmth.

 

[ribozyme]

I could be utterly wrong here, but does fungus count as a plant? I remember reading in one of the theories about the origins of life on earth that the ‘first forms’ of life may have been subterrenean fungus close enough to the earth’s core to get warmth.

I never heard that hypothesis before about the origin of life.

No, fungi do not count as plants as they do not undergo photosynthesis. They are not autotrophs, but mostly saprotrophs.

 

[Nullasalus]

I never heard that hypothesis before about the origin of life.

No, fungi do not count as plants as they do not undergo photosynthesis. They are not autotrophs, but mostly saprotrophs.

From the wiki “origin of life” page:

*“Deep-hot biosphere” model of Gold

The discovery of nanobes (filamental structures smaller than bacteria containing DNA) in deep rocks, led to a controversial theory put forward by Thomas Gold in the 1990s that life first developed not on the surface of the Earth, but several kilometers below the surface. It is now known that microbial life is plentiful up to five kilometers below the earth’s surface in the form of archaea, which are generally considered to have originated either before or around the same time as eubacteria, most of which live on the surface including the oceans. It is claimed that discovery of microbial life below the surface of another body in our solar system would lend significant credence to this theory. He also noted that a trickle of food from a deep, unreachable, source promotes survival because life arising in a puddle of organic material is likely to consume all of its food and become extinct."*

Obviously it’s yet another stab in the dark - origin of life theories are tricky. But it puts an interesting spin on the ‘life before sun’ issue.

 

[francisca]

No, fungi do not count as plants as they do not undergo photosynthesis. They are not autotrophs, but mostly saprotrophs.

In that case, the most important question should be : where all the fungi came from.

Ribozyme, don’t be too serious. They are only 7 year olds.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, you still did not answer my objection. If there is no star (i.e. the sun) within a close proximity to our biosphere, could another energy source support the development of life on Earth?

But plants are specifically mentioned… so what source of light can support plants for the period of time between Day 3 and Day 4. So where is the light source to support autotrophs like plants?

Well to review posts # 44, #46, #50, or #54 and I’ll add something else for you

Let see we have options men know of that could work
Lightening.
Fire
Aurora Borealis (still my favorite)
Excited photons (any source)
Meteor read about Tunguska

Then we options men to not know of …