YEC is physically impossible

[sjastro]

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?

A PhD student has done her homework on the question and the answer it is impossible which starts from the 9 minute mark of the video.

 

[Estrid]

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?

A PhD student has done her homework on the question and the answer it is impossible which starts from the 9 minute mark of the

SFM[/MEDIA]​

The creationist argument(s) as in this case generally
come down to SEDI- same evidence, different
interpretation.

Complete with the implausible implied claim
that they actually know the evidence, and
the absurdity that all they must do is have an
"Interpretation" to give it equal, actually greater
validity than any them scientists might have.

 

[d taylor]

-​

Sure and walking on water is physically impossible too, and resurrection from death is physically impossible.

 

[dlamberth]

I was aware of 2 super continents, but not 7 as she says in the video.

 

[Occams Barber]

I was aware of 2 super continents, but not 7 as she says in the video.

Here's a list of 11 super continents. I think it depends on how you define "continent".

For instance: there are between 4 and 7 modern continents depending on definition.​

• Pangaea
• Gondwana And Laurasia
• Pannotia
• Rodinia
• Columbia (Nuna)
• Atlantica
• Arctica
• Kenorland
• Ur
• Vaalbara

What Were the Ancient Supercontinents?

Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras, approximately 336 million years ago.

www.worldatlas.com

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

-​

Sure and walking on water is physically impossible too, and resurrection from death is physically impossible.

Miracles really come in handy as alternative, unarguable explanations.

When in doubt - insert a miracle.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's a list of 11 super continents. I think it depends on how you define "continent".

Looks to me like scientists don't know what to do with God's creation.

What's that saying?

Too man cookii spoil the broth?

 

[AV1611VET]

When in doubt - insert a miracle.

In Jesus' time, the miracles came first, then the doubt.

In today's academic times, the doubt comes first.*

* Automatic by default.

 

[Chesterton]

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

 

[Estrid]

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

The word is "disprove".
And disproving a literal reading of
the flood account isnt exactly difficult.

This is a science debate thread, so unless
you have something factual to offer plz depart.

 

[Halbhh]

And disproving a literal reading of
the flood account isnt exactly difficult.

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."

 

[AV1611VET]

The word is "disprove".

Which comes first in the academic world?

The desire to deny? or the desire to disprove?

Which one does academia put into your heart first?

And disproving a literal reading of the flood account isn't exactly difficult.

Get to it then.

Years and years of debating something that isn't exactly difficult to disprove is getting old.

This is a science debate thread,

Get to it then.

... so unless you have something factual to offer plz depart.

Would you know it, if he did offer something factual?

 

[Chesterton]

The word is "disprove".
And disproving a literal reading of
the flood account isnt exactly difficult.

Yeah it's not difficult, it's impossible.

This is a science debate thread, so unless
you have something factual to offer plz depart.

I disagree that this is a science thread, and I did offer something factual IMO - the video is stupid. Science attempting to tell us what an omnipotent God can or can't do is stupid. It's like saying a software engineer can't put a flying horse character into his video game because horses don't have wings. Or, I remember the Monty Python's Flying Circus TV show, where there might be a skit set in ancient Rome, then later there'd be a skit set in a modern London business office, and the ancient Roman characters would burst into the modern day office. When you're in control of matter and space and time, nothing is impossible.

 

[Lost4words]

Anything is possible with God.

 

[Halbhh]

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?

A PhD student has done her homework on the question and the answer it is impossible which starts from the 9 minute mark of the video.

I'd add that in addition to YEC clearly not fitting what we can observe about Earth's age, that additionally the YEC theory has the added effect of helping to prevent people from even benefiting from the beautiful and uplifting wording of Genesis 1, and the important and deep parable meanings in Genesis 2 and 3, because YEC distracts and diverts (even blocks some) people from simply reading and listening to the chapters.

It's like a group of people argued that a certain Poem was about the moon being just a flat circular disk or such (shaped sorta like a frisbee), and then people argued over that endlessly, so that they never really read to enjoy the Poem.

So, YEC is a kind of anti-Genesis thing, in effect.

 

[AV1611VET]

When you're in control of matter and space and time, nothing is impossible.

Excellent point!

 

[dlamberth]

Anything is possible with God.

Even as a lover of God, I do not believe this is true.

 

[dlamberth]

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."

I tend to believe that your in a minority with what you presented. Though it does sound reasonable to me.

 

[trophy33]

Even as a lover of God, I do not believe this is true.

I agree, for example logical contradictions.

 

[BCP1928]

Yeah it's not difficult, it's impossible.

I disagree that this is a science thread, and I did offer something factual IMO - the video is stupid. Science attempting to tell us what an omnipotent God can or can't do is stupid.

But science can indeed give us some insight as to what an omnipotent God did do.