YEC formulas?

[philadiddle]

I've seen a lot of arguments over the years for YEC pertaining to physics. Things like "the earth's rotation is slowing down", "the moon is drifting farther away", "the sun is loosing mass and would effect the earth too much", "galaxies wind themselves up to fast" etc.

i'm wondering if any of these arguments have any kind of fomulas. are they all just cleverly worded hypothosis? or do they have some substance?

just a note, a physicist that works in the observatory near where i live (okanagan, bc, canada) said that none of the above would limit the age of the earth. this is his job, to monitor these kinds of things.

 

[Crusadar]

i'm wondering if any of these arguments have any kind of fomulas. are they all just cleverly worded hypothosis? or do they have some substance?

I'm not too familiar with such arguments for earth's rotation slowing down or anything of that nature. But from the area of information theory and its application (my area of interest) - there is a basic formula that anyone can understand in the difference between creationism and evolution.

Time + matter + energy+ chance (i.e. natural selection, chemical affinity, self ordering tendencies etc.)* = machines (biological or otherwise)

*By chance creationists mean no intelligent guidance whatsoever.

Now lets look at the creationist formula for puposeful machines:

Time + matter + energy + information (i.e. programs, codes, written instruction) = machines

The question is which formula can be empiricaly tested and confirmed?

 

[shernren]

Since man, even with the input of information, cannot yet create life (which is the issue here - not just machines, but self-replicating machines capable of variation across reproductive generations), the creationist formula cannot be empirically tested and confirmed either, if you think that the evolutionist formula cannot be empirically tested and confirmed either.

 

[gluadys]

But from the area of information theory and its application (my area of interest) - there is a basic formula that anyone can understand in the difference between creationism and evolution.

Time + matter + energy+ chance (i.e. natural selection, chemical affinity, self ordering tendencies etc.)* = machines (biological or otherwise)

*By chance creationists mean no intelligent guidance whatsoever.

In other words, you, a creationist, define evolution to exclude God, and then reject evolution because it allegedly excludes God. But it only excludes God because you define it as a chance process and define chance as a process without any intelligent guidance.

Evolution is not a chance process in the first place. And scientific definitions of evolution and other natural processes are neutral on the question of intelligent guidance.

How would one discern intelligent guidance from the study of the process alone? I know ID claims to be able to discern design, but they have signally failed to do so except when the design is known to have come from a human mind.

Is there any formula for identifying design? For example, is there any way a geneticist could determine whether an insertion into a DNA sequence came about through pure chance or through the providential decision of an intelligent designer?

If not, the definition of "chance" as something that occurs "without any intellectual guidance" is meaningless. You cannot actually provide evidence that any process in nature occurs without intelligent guidance.

 

[California Tim]

I've seen a lot of arguments over the years for YEC pertaining to physics. Things like "the earth's rotation is slowing down", "the moon is drifting farther away", "the sun is loosing mass and would effect the earth too much", "galaxies wind themselves up to fast" etc.

i'm wondering if any of these arguments have any kind of fomulas. are they all just cleverly worded hypothosis? or do they have some substance?

just a note, a physicist that works in the observatory near where i live (okanagan, bc, canada) said that none of the above would limit the age of the earth. this is his job, to monitor these kinds of things.

Let me throw you a monkey wrench: Let's take the end of this earth into consideration. Specifically as prophesied here:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Pe 3:10-13)​

Can you show me a "formula" to prove when this will happen just as it is written? Of course not ... and we even have the advantage of knowing ahead of time that it will eventually happen. Or is it possible, just possible that a supernatural influence will prematurely end this universe completely out of context with these formulas based on conformity that you now espouse to deny the possiblity of a YEC? Isn't it just possible, the same supernatural force that will end this earth, maybe even the universe as we know it, also created it in an instant to glorify Himself?

 

[philadiddle]

Let me throw you a monkey wrench: Let's take the end of this earth into consideration. Specifically as prophesied here:

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. (2 Pe 3:10-13)​

Can you show me a "formula" to prove when this will happen just as it is written? Of course not ... and we even have the advantage of knowing ahead of time that it will eventually happen. Or is it possible, just possible that a supernatural influence will prematurely end this universe completely out of context with these formulas based on conformity that you now espouse to deny the possiblity of a YEC? Isn't it just possible, the same supernatural force that will end this earth, maybe even the universe as we know it, also created it in an instant to glorify Himself?

you don't understand what i'm asking do you? there are arguments from YECs that use physics. these arguments are calculable. i'm looking for the formulas to back up these arguments. pls don't tell me your one of those "i'm gonna change the subject cause i don't have an answer" kind of guys

 

[shernren]

you don't understand what i'm asking do you? there are arguments from YECs that use physics. these arguments are calculable. i'm looking for the formulas to back up these arguments. pls don't tell me your one of those "i'm gonna change the subject cause i don't have an answer" kind of guys.

I think the best place for you to go would be ICR. (Google it.) Most of us here, one side or the other, are "lay experts" who might not be 100% aware of the inside-outs of how creationists go about saying what they say.

 

[California Tim]

you don't understand what i'm asking do you? there are arguments from YECs that use physics. these arguments are calculable. i'm looking for the formulas to back up these arguments. pls don't tell me your one of those "i'm gonna change the subject cause i don't have an answer" kind of guys

I sure do understand and you know as well as I do the answer to your question. The formulas you seek presuppose a principle of conformity and thus are inadequate to explain any possibility of a supernatural event. Furthermore, without allowing for a supernatural intervention in time past, there is not an adequate method of demonstrating to your satisfaction the possibility that the elements assembled in support of your calculations and presumed constant could be so far off so as to render a false reading and ultimately and an entirely ridiculous concept of age. Trying to convince an evolutionist of a supernatural aspect in creation would be akin to trying to convince a 1st century archer the concept of rifle ballistics without including gunpowder because he refuses to believe it exists.

 

[philadiddle]

I sure do understand and you know as well as I do the answer to your question. The formulas you seek presuppose a principle of conformity and thus are inadequate to explain any possibility of a supernatural event.

???? are u serious? wow, you actually don't know what i'm asking. (or you're just a troll) i'm not looking for forumlas to prove a supernatural event. i'm looking for formulas that show the decreasing rotation of the earth over time and how that cintrifical force would affect the past state of the earth, thus concluding whether or not an earth billions of years old is possible or not. it's physics i'm after. u have no idea how to interpret a question.

Furthermore, without allowing for a supernatural intervention in time past, there is not an adequate method of demonstrating to your satisfaction the possibility that the elements assembled in support of your calculations and presumed constant could be so far off so as to render a false reading and ultimately and an entirely ridiculous concept of age. Trying to convince an evolutionist of a supernatural aspect in creation would be akin to trying to convince a 1st century archer the concept of rifle ballistics without including gunpowder because he refuses to believe it exists.

why are u now talking about my calculations that prove an old earth? i'm asking for the calculations that YECs use to prove a young earth. it's just physics.

 

[California Tim]

???? are u serious? wow, you actually don't know what i'm asking. (or you're just a troll) i'm not looking for forumlas to prove a supernatural event. i'm looking for formulas that show the decreasing rotation of the earth over time and how that cintrifical force would affect the past state of the earth, thus concluding whether or not an earth billions of years old is possible or not. it's physics i'm after. u have no idea how to interpret a question.

No, I am not a troll and frankly have no idea why it's so hard for you to grasp this concept. The average YEC'ist like myself will accept that the earth as we know it was created within a six day period. No matter how you slice it, that is a supernatural event - well outside the known physical limitations of existing formula and science. Any formula constructed today is founded in the principles of conformity - assuming that what we see in experiment represents principles that have never changed (ie radioactive decay rates, rotational or orbital decay etc.) and thus is incapable of representing, let alone proving a supernatural event as its source. I had assumed you knew at least this much about our position on the creation account. So your question represents either ignorance or mockery, attempting to back a YEC'ist into a corner using a backdoor technique - having him deny the creation week was a supernatural event by having him try to prove it as though a "natural" event.

 

[philadiddle]

No, I am not a troll and frankly have no idea why it's so hard for you to grasp this concept. The average YEC'ist like myself will accept that the earth as we know it was created within a six day period. No matter how you slice it, that is a supernatural event - well outside the known physical limitations of existing formula and science. Any formula constructed today is founded in the principles of conformity - assuming that what we see in experiment represents principles that have never changed (ie radioactive decay rates, rotational or orbital decay etc.) and thus is incapable of representing, let alone proving a supernatural event as its source. I had assumed you knew at least this much about our position on the creation account. So your question represents either ignorance or mockery, attempting to back a YEC'ist into a corner using a backdoor technique - having him deny the creation week was a supernatural event by having him try to prove it as though a "natural" event.

***, you really don't understand what i'm saying. i'm not asking for a formula that proves any kind of supernatural event. of course that's rediculous. read this link:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=63
in part III: "Kelvin's First Physical Argument Against the Vast Earth-Age" he discusses that the earths changed rotation would have made the diameter of the equator too wide, and the molten state would have hardened to make the continents much higher then they currently are. this is a YEC argument that is based purely on physics and geology. it is not based on the supernatural at all. you do understand the argument don't u? i'm looking for the formulas that lead to that diagnosis. i've only ever seen the arguments, but not the science to them.

p.s. if you say anything else about not being able to prove the supernatural with physics you will be ignored, it's off topic.

 

[California Tim]

***, you really don't understand what i'm saying. i'm not asking for a formula that proves any kind of supernatural event.

Man, this is hopeless. You won't admit that a 6 day creation period is supernatural? No formula is going to prove it ever happened naturally. Just ignore me and I'll ignore this thread. It's a classic bait and switch tactic anyway. Beware any YEC'ist out there who falls for this one. Peace out.

 

[shernren]

Man, this is hopeless. You won't admit that a 6 day creation period is supernatural? No formula is going to prove it ever happened naturally. Just ignore me and I'll ignore this thread. It's a classic bait and switch tactic anyway. Beware any YEC'ist out there who falls for this one. Peace out.

I don't think this counts as "switching and baiting" at all. It's more like ... he's not addressing your creationist worldview. You see, there's the YEC view:

God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago

and there's the creation science view, which is a prominent subset of YECism:

God created the world in 6 days 6,000 years ago, and this can be proven scientifically.

Organizations like AiG and ICR are pushing this particular view of creationism. Now, from the comments I see you making here, what I gather is that your beliefs are leaning more towards YECism, but not towards creation science / "scientific creationism" - in other words, that God did create young and fast, but that there is no way to show this scientifically. Well, that just means that you will have to answer philadiddle:

"Nope, I don't have any formulae"

and be done with this thread. His question does not speak to your creationist viewpoint at all. That is why he seems to you to be using improper "switch and bait" tactics, when in fact he has not. He is speaking more to scientific creationists with his questions here and on the "any scientific evidence" post.