YEC is physically impossible

[partinobodycular]

Anything is possible with God.

This would of course include the possibility that I'm God.

 

[Astrid]

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. 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.

There is zero science in your
so-called omnipotent god.

My statement does not address
whether there is such a "god".

It merely says that, as with reports
of live dinosaurs in the Congo, gold books
telling of Jesus' adventures in America, or
anvient civilization on Mars, there is zero (0)
data of any sort to indicate their excidtence.

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

Youve offered no data, only your
(very ) ill informed opinions.

Science deals with data. This is a science
thread. If youve no data its best for you to leave.

 

[Astrid]

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

And did not. For example, no god
or amything else did a world wide flood.
Or make Mt Everest out of platinum.

Could have, but didnt.

 

[Chesterton]

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

Maybe, maybe not. But "some insight" is just that, it may not be complete knowledge.

 

[dlamberth]

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

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.

 

[Chesterton]

There is zero science in your
so-called omnipotent god.

My statement does not address
whether there is such a "god".

It merely says that, as with reports
of live dinosaurs in the Congo, gold books
telling of Jesus' adventures in America, or
anvient civilization on Mars, there is zero (0)
data of any sort to indicate their excidtence.

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

Youve offered no data, only your
(very ) ill informed opinions.

Science deals with data. This is a science
thread. If youve no data its best for you to leave.

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying this is a science thread about God, but God has nothing to do with science. Make up your mind.

 

[dlamberth]

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

Only if we imagine it so.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

Your point?

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe, maybe not. But "some insight" is just that, it may not be complete knowledge.

That's true. Science does not pretend to offer complete knowledge.

 

[Halbhh]

For example, no god or amything else did a world wide flood.

One should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.

Nature itself already flooded the entire Earth...in effect. As it went from liquid lava more or less to at one point being a Ocean World, we have physical evidence that strongly suggests.

Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust

The Earth of 3.2 billion years ago was a "water world" of submerged continents, geologists say, after analyzing oxygen isotope data from ancient ocean crust now exposed on land in Australia. The…

new.nsf.gov

The first evidence was found in 2017, and since then more groups have found additional evidence to extend the evidence for this conclusion.

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.

 

[Astrid]

Maybe, maybe not. But "some insight" is just that, it may not be complete knowledge.

Complete knowledge is an impossible
standard.


Youd be quite annoyed if your home surveillanve
video recording, burglar confession, your testimony, that of 20 witnesses etc was thrown out because its not
" complete knowledge".

 

[Astrid]

That's true. Science does not pretend to offer complete knowledge.

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

 

[Astrid]

Your point?

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

 

[Astrid]

Only if we imagine it so.

Prease exprain

 

[Astrid]

You're contradicting yourself. You're saying this is a science thread about God, but God has nothing to do with science. Make up your mind.

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

 

[Hans Blaster]

One should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.

Nature itself already flooded the entire Earth...in effect. As it went from liquid lava more or less to at one point being a Ocean World, we have physical evidence that strongly suggests.

Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust

The Earth of 3.2 billion years ago was a "water world" of submerged continents, geologists say, after analyzing oxygen isotope data from ancient ocean crust now exposed on land in Australia. The…

new.nsf.gov

The first evidence was found in 2017, and since then more groups have found additional evidence to extend the evidence for this conclusion.

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.

3.2 billion years ago was long before any humans (unless you are trying to claim that Noah and Adam were both single-celled organisms, but I sure ain't making that claim). Do you even have a scientific claim of a world-wide flood during the age of mammals (last ~300 million years) let alone humans? If not, what is the point of mentioning a world-wide ocean state (not a flood) before multicellularity evolved?

 

[sfs]

I'm not sure what people are arguing about. No evidence of any kind can address the hypothesis that God miraculously did X and then miraculously removed all evidence of X. Evidence can address the claim that the world looks like X happened. Most YEC claims, especially those from professional creationists, are in the latter category.

 

[Astrid]

One should be cautious about the over-the-top type statements.

Nature itself already flooded the entire Earth...in effect. As it went from liquid lava more or less to at one point being a Ocean World, we have physical evidence that strongly suggests.

Scientists determine early Earth was a ‘water world’ by studying exposed ocean crust

The Earth of 3.2 billion years ago was a "water world" of submerged continents, geologists say, after analyzing oxygen isotope data from ancient ocean crust now exposed on land in Australia. The…

new.nsf.gov

The first evidence was found in 2017, and since then more groups have found additional evidence to extend the evidence for this conclusion.

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.

You are good with the science of 3.2 billion y.a. flood
but reject the no-biblical-flood science?

 

[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."