YEC is physically impossible

[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.

 

[Chesterton]

That you have a opinions.
And seem to think they are facts.

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?

Its not about "god". Its about yec.
Im not the confused one who blundered
into the wrong room.

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.

 

[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..

 

[Roderick Spode]

'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.

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.

I think you're missing the point, unless you can provide a list of absolute, unquestionable impossibilities that humans will never have the ability to achieve. And why they would be impossible.

The concept of creating something mature is not an unreasonable one if there's a purpose. Creating 2 humans in a mature state served a specific purpose. When the Japanese create a robot to greet people at a convention in the image of an adult human, it serves a purpose. It doesn't need to be created as an infant with a mechanized growing process.

Same concept with lab grown neurons.

Northwestern University-led scientists have created the first highly mature neurons from human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs), a feat that opens new opportunities for medical research and potential transplantation therapies for neurodegenerative diseases and traumatic injuries, published in Cell Stem Cell.

“When you have an iPSC that you manage to turn into a neuron, it’s going to be a young neuron,” said Stupp, co-corresponding author of the study. “But, in order for it to be useful in a therapeutic sense, you need a mature neuron. Otherwise, it is like asking a baby to carry out a function that requires an adult human being. We have confirmed that neurons coated with our nanofibers achieve more maturity than other methods, and mature neurons are better able to establish the synaptic connections that are fundamental to neuronal function.”

Mature ‘Lab Grown’ Neurons Hold Promise for Neurodegenerative Disease - News Center

Northwestern scientists have created the first highly mature neurons from human induced pluripotent stem cells, a feat that opens new opportunities for medical research and potential transplantation therapies for neurodegenerative diseases.

news.feinberg.northwestern.edu

Now just because we don't know the processes in how God would have created a mature earth and 2 humans is not a valid argument against unless one claims they have all the answers to all mysteries.