YEC is physically impossible

[Halbhh]

... what is the point of mentioning a world-wide ocean state (not a flood) before multicellularity evolved?

I removed the superfluous part of asking me about a claim I did not and would not ever make. So, why waste time on a straw man etc.

I left the one substantial question from your post though above -- and it's about what I directly answered in that same post, so I'll just copy it here again. I'll add italics.

"Of course, that has little or nothing to do with the Flood Story we were discussing, but what I'm trying to point out is one needs to be pretty cautious about just asserting conclusions that are too broad."

That's the challenge I suggest to anyone: stop making overly broad conclusions.

 

[Halbhh]

but reject the no-biblical-flood science?

Perhaps you didn't see my other post to you, or perhaps didn't read it through? Just in case, here it is again:

While as I've said many times and maybe even to you also, the Flood story is a parable, and also isn't likely to even be in story form about a flood around the entire Earth as we know it, but instead as Noah knew it....
In the story, the waters cover all mountains "under the heavens" -- that is as far as the eye can see from Noah's perspective. Like a large flood. Probably even more intense than the one that happened to Pakistan a few years back, where most of the nation flooded. So, what people might call a "1,000 year" flood or a "5,000 year" flood, meaning most floods are far smaller. (though physically it's also possible the the commonplace event in Earth's history of comet impact in deep ocean could if at a shallow enough angle and an ice comet simply just vaporize a vast amount of ocean water, leading to weeks of world-wide rain, so one can imagine one of those floods at some level could happen, and it's only just normal event in Earth's history, etc....)

In the story, the flood covered the 'mountains' (really mounts, or hills basically) in the area Noah knew, so that all the local hills Noah knew (as I'd call them having been to a place with real mountains like Colorado) were covered. The tallest mountains Noah knew about, but what I'd call sizable hills.

Basically Noah would have looked out in all directions trying to see land if he's on a boat in a flood....

It'd be like....imagine if you were in the middle of Lake Michigan: you'd see only water in all directions from the top of a large boat. You could float in circles for months if the winds were right, and you'd only see water (if you survived). But that's all pretty unimportant.

The story is a parable -- that's why it's in the text. (the text has very strong parable elements included in it)

Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."

 

[SelfSim]

Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."

Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?

 

[SelfSim]

Since the story is a parable, if someone misses the parable side of the story, they have literally missed most of the meaning, so I've then tried to help people by telling them, "If you miss the parable side of the story, you've missed about 99% of the meaning."

Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?

I mean, you should be more concerned with the process of land emergence than the process of flooding(?)

 

[Halbhh]

Well if you want to talk about meanings, please tell us how your usage of the term 'flood' can possibly apply to a >3.2 billion year old already water-world?

I'd not call a water world a 'flood'. A flood is an event of relatively quick onset (days or weeks) which then recedes over some reasonably short time frame, days to weeks, or sometimes even months, but not vast time frames (such as in the water world condition which seems it was more like on the 10^8 to 10^9 years time scale).

 

[Roderick Spode]

I've decided to post this thread in the Physical and Life Science forum instead of the Creationism and Evolution forum as it deals with debunking YEC when it presents itself as a "science" (creation science) rather than a purely literal interpretation of the Bible.

A typical YEC argument is radiometric dating can't be trusted as the decay rates may have been much faster in the past before setting down to the rates we observe today.
Even if this was true radioactive decay being an exothermic process produces heat irrespective of the decay rate which raises the question how was all this heat spanning Earth's history dissipated in the YEC time frame?

Miracles really come in handy as alternative, unarguable explanations.

When in doubt - insert a miracle.

OB

Scientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?

The problem is that we apply this principle that with human endeavor, there's limitless possibilities. For some reason with God, all of a sudden there's restrictions and impossibilities.

 

[SelfSim]

Scientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?

'Life' is almost always defined by evidence of a series of biophysical processes.
Biophysical processes also gives 'maturity' its meaning.
Maturity thus, by necessity, implies the existence of prior (temporal) process flows.
Something 'developed in a mature state', yet again, implies evidence of prior process flows.

The problem is that we apply this principle that with human endeavor, there's limitless possibilities. For some reason with God, all of a sudden there's restrictions and impossibilities.

No ..
In scientific human endeavour, inferences of objective existence are contextual, and subject to change with new evidence.
There's you constraints on 'possibilities', in a nutshell, right there.

 

[Halbhh]

I mean, you should be more concerned with the process of land emergence than the process of flooding(?)

Sure, it's somewhat more interesting to imagine land emerging from the water world condition than theories about a big ancient flood in a modern human time frame of oral history (i.e. <20,000 years)

For instance, this theory of a regional flood was only mildly interesting to me, but someone else might like to know about it:

Evidence for a Flood

Sediment layers suggest that 7,500 years ago Mediterranean water roared into the Black Sea

www.smithsonianmag.com

It had some interesting bits, sure:
At the very bottom of the cores, dozens of feet below the present seafloor, they found layered mud typical of river deltas.

Carbon-dating of shells in this mud indicates that it was laid down between 18,000 and 8,600 years ago. This data showed that an area of the Black Sea about the size of Florida might have been much like the lower Mississippi Delta today — rich farmland with an abundant supply of fresh water.

 

[sjastro]

That video is almost as stupid as Aron Ra trying to use science to deny Noah's flood.

It is equally stupid to comment on a video you either completely misunderstood or didn't bother to look at in its entirety.
Perhaps you missed the part where "creation scientists" by their own admission were unable to explain the heat energy problem while their own pseudoscience theories about the flood, Catastrophic Plate Tectonics and Hydroplate Theory rather than solving the problem only added to it.

The thread like the video is about addressing the case when creationists try to use science and not simply a literal interpretation of the Bible as a support for YEC.

 

[AV1611VET]

So your claim about " god" and his behaviour have nothing whatever to do with fact, or science.

Because of "God and His behavior," it's AD 2024 now.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's true only if one believes in a Roman/Greek Pagan type of deity standing at the ready to hocus-pocus things at their desire.

God's existence isn't dependent on your belief.

 

[AV1611VET]

Complete knowledge is an impossible standard.

I know.

We have to deal with academia's sub-standard explanations daily.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have theists who claim to know more than every scientist on earth.

You also have a-theists who looked forward to science giving them the mind of God.

Stephen Hawking was the most influential know-it-all. In his 1988 mega-bestseller A Brief History of Time, Hawking predicted that physicists would soon find an “ultimate theory” that would explain how our cosmos came into being. He compared this achievement to knowing “the mind of God.” This statement was ironic. Hawking, an atheist, wanted science to eliminate the need for a divine creator.

SOURCE

Isaiah 14:14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

 

[AV1611VET]

No evidence of any kind can address the hypothesis that God miraculously did X and then miraculously removed all evidence of X.

I guess they're SOL* then, aren't they?

* Short On Luck

 

[SelfSim]

God's existence isn't dependent on your belief.

The existence of any god is.

 

[AV1611VET]

God's existence isn't dependent on your [dlamberth] belief.

The existence of any god is.

Or yours either.

 

[Estrid]

If you'd actually listened to the video in the OP, you'd know the science lady I disagree with also admits she's just giving her opinion. So she and I have opinions but you are the Anointed One who has the Facts engraved in stone tablets on a mountain somewhere?

So young earth creationism is a secular idea? An atheistic idea? A Buddhist idea? I think you're the one who should depart the thread until you watch the video and know what's being discussed.

Best take your own advice about where
the clueless should go.
Unless you can demonstrate
you know better than @sjastro
does, what his thread is about.

 

[sfs]

I guess they're SOL* then, aren't they?

Sure. Especially if they've adopted that hypothesis based on what the Bible says, since they have no way of knowing for sure what it says. Maybe God miraculously changes the words between the page and their eyes. Once you've decided to reject the evidence of your sense, you've rejected the possibility of knowledge and you cease to have anything of value to contribute to discussions.

 

[Estrid]

Scientists have been contemplating creating life, and some claim to have even developed a blue print in creating a universe with life in a lab. I don't think they've put any strict parameters on how it would be done, if it would absolutely require a type of primordial soup/evolution scenario, or even if lab universe/life absolutely could not be developed in a mature state?

The problem is that we apply this principle that with human endeavor, there's limitless possibilities. For some reason with God, all of a sudden there's restrictions and impossibilities.

Ive seen wild stretches trying to concoct
hypocrisy for a "win" but thats the champ so
far.

Sure. Especially if they've adopted that hypothesis based on what the Bible says, since they have no way of knowing for sure what it says. Maybe God miraculously changes the words between the page and their eyes. Once you've decided to reject the evidence of your sense, you've rejected the possibility of knowledge and you cease to have anything of value to contribute to discussions.

Thats why I dont try.

 

[dlamberth]

God's existence isn't dependent on your belief.

It's the nature of God that I pointed towards, not His existence..