YEC is physically impossible

[BCP1928]

C'mon now. You're a rational guy. You should know that just pretending you've never heard of New Jersey will not make New Jersey go away.

Too bad--it looked like an easy solution.

 

[Halbhh]

My point was fairly clear. Nothing about a ocean world billions of years ago has any bearing on the scientific evidence of a global flood in the time of us mammals and apes, so it is entirely irrelevant.

Here to avoid tilting at windmills yet again for another of my posts...try a different or better approach -->

Try to notice the context -- what was the post in response to precisely?

What was the post saying in response to what certain sentence? (you'd need to see that sentence then....)

The post isn't so tricky or hard to understand in context, if you merely just do the basic step of attempting to see the context.

 

[Hans Blaster]

C'mon now. You're a rational guy. You should know that just pretending you've never heard of New Jersey will not make New Jersey go away.

New Jersey is just not relevant to this thread whether it exists or not.

 

[SelfSim]

Here to avoid tilting at windmills yet again for another of my posts...try a different or better approach -->

Try to notice the context -- what was the post in response to precisely?

What was the post saying in response to what certain sentence? (you'd need to see that sentence then....)

The post isn't so tricky or hard to understand in context, if you merely just do the basic step of attempting to see the context.

Your conflated usage of the term 'flood' in the biblical context, with a pre-biotic water world, in order to highlight a supposedly overly broad statement, I also find, as being about as clear as mud. This is not the first time you've used flawed and confused analogies, which only end up appearing as an attempt to conceal an undistinguished tenet.

Scientific thinking seeks displays of the principles of an argument in the argument itself. Dismissals predicated by your use of 'of course ..' are insufficient, because the speaker's personal interpretations are irrelevant in the first place.

 

[AV1611VET]

New Jersey is just not relevant to this thread whether it exists or not.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you sure about that?

Yes. New Jersey is irrelevant to the flood story. You've got to cover more than just Joisey in water to get a global flood.

 

[Astrid]

New Jersey is just not relevant to this thread whether it exists or not.

Theres been no relevant reply to the op from
any creationist.

 

[sjastro]

-
​

Satan could not have said it better.

It takes one to know one.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Theres been no relevant reply to the op from
any creationist.

That is correct -- I checked. Not even from those who will deny they are creationists.

 

[d taylor]

Scientifically she is just an apprentice, but it doesn't take a seasoned expert to take down the pseudoscience YECers use to "scientifically" explain the unexplainable parts of the creation story. Nothing in her video has anything to do with her field at all. I still sense your condescension toward her.

-
​

I have no attitude toward her, just like i have no attitude to these young earth creationist. The only difference i see between the two, is one (the creationist) are in a better position to believe in Jesus for The Life of God, if they have already not done this. Where as i view this girl as one who as The Bible states, is condemned already, not because of any beliefs she holds. But because of a belief she has never been convinced to use.

As for me calling her a little girl at 59, that is what she is. So for someone who sees a video on youtube (for a few seconds) of a person i have never heard of before, as far as her age she could have been a 14, 15, 16 year old girl.

 

[Chesterton]

That is correct -- I checked. Not even from those who will deny they are creationists.

I don't necessarily identify as a creationist, but I feel I've given relevant replies in my posts #9, #13 and #64. If you'd like me to summarize those posts: the OP and its video are stupid.

 

[SelfSim]

Where as i view this girl as one who as The Bible states, is condemned already, not because of any beliefs she holds. But because of a belief she has never been convinced to use.

'Use'?
'Use' for what purpose?

As for me calling her a little girl at 59, that is what she is. So for someone who sees a video on youtube (for a few seconds) of a person i have never heard of before, as far as her age she could have been a 14, 15, 16 year old girl.

So what?
What she has to say, has exactly *zip* to do with your age!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't necessarily identify as a creationist, but I feel I've given relevant replies in my posts #9, #13 and #64.

I was thinking of at least one who has a history of denying he is a creationist, yet pushes creationsist claims all the time.

If you'd like me to summarize those posts: the OP and its video are stupid.

Well that was useful, or not. The notion of dealing with the "heat of creation/flood" might seem stupid but it only occurs because some would like to eat their cake and still have it. In this case, not denying the geochemistry of radioactive tracers, but "getting out' of the problem with accelerated decay. That acceleration of radioactive decay causes the heat problem Erika discusses in the opening video.

 

[Chesterton]

Well that was useful, or not. The notion of dealing with the "heat of creation/flood" might seem stupid but it only occurs because some would like to eat their cake and still have it. In this case, not denying the geochemistry of radioactive tracers, but "getting out' of the problem with accelerated decay. That acceleration of radioactive decay causes the heat problem Erika discusses in the opening video.

My goodness, I don't know how this is so hard to understand. I don't care to explain my position a third time.

 

[AV1611VET]

Theres been no relevant reply to the op from any creationist.

I thought you had me (and others) on IGNORE?

 

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

I have no attitude toward her, just like i have no attitude to these young earth creationist.

So you say. We'll see if that holds. (Spoiler, it doesn't.)

The only difference i see between the two, is one (the creationist) are in a better position to believe in Jesus for The Life of God, if they have already not done this. Where as i view this girl as one who as The Bible states, is condemned already, not because of any beliefs she holds. But because of a belief she has never been convinced to use.

From her other videos I know that she grew up in an evangelical household with lots of exposure to YEC. (Two burdens I never had to bear.) Her video isn't about beliefs or the bible, just the unphysical things YECers make the Earth do so that they can pretend the evidence in the rocks, physics, and their literalist interpretation of Genesis are compatible. (They aren't, and the "heat problem" is just one reason why not.) If you poke around on her channel you could find her arguing with presuppositionalists (a personal weakness she admits to) on livestreams.

As for me calling her a little girl at 59, that is what she is. So for someone who sees a video on youtube (for a few seconds) of a person i have never heard of before, as far as her age she could have been a 14, 15, 16 year old girl.

If you want to call her a young woman because you are an old, fine, but she is not a minor female (girl). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with higher education, but graduate students already have completed their 4-year college degrees and are typically in their twenties. (She's also married.)

 

[sjastro]

Using the maths in post #105, since there was supposedly a creation week and the Earth was created in one day I used the time interval of one day instead of 6000 years.
The geothermal gradient works out to being a whopping 27,200,000⁰ C/km.
This is no longer a case of a molten Earth but a vaporized one.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you want to call her a young woman because you are an old, fine, but she is not a minor female (girl). Perhaps you are unfamiliar with higher education, but graduate students already have completed their 4-year college degrees and are typically in their twenties. (She's also married.)

You kids stop this bickering -- right now!

 

[dlamberth]

Yes. New Jersey is irrelevant to the flood story. You've got to cover more than just Joisey in water to get a global flood.

I may be way off the mark here, but I seem to remember something about New Jersey that had some Biblical importance to AV. It's been a while, so I may be way off course.

 

[dlamberth]

-
​

I have no attitude toward her, just like i have no attitude to these young earth creationist. The only difference i see between the two, is one (the creationist) are in a better position to believe in Jesus for The Life of God, if they have already not done this. Where as i view this girl as one who as The Bible states, is condemned already, not because of any beliefs she holds. But because of a belief she has never been convinced to use.

As for me calling her a little girl at 59, that is what she is. So for someone who sees a video on youtube (for a few seconds) of a person i have never heard of before, as far as her age she could have been a 14, 15, 16 year old girl.

Here's a clear case of attacking the messenger and not the message.