YEC is physically impossible

[Astrid]

It's the nature of God that I pointed towards, not His existence..

On what do you base your beliefs re nature of god?

 

[Astrid]

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.

Can you absolutely say there is a god if you dont have all
the answers to all the mysteries?

 

[Chesterton]

I guess they're SOL* then, aren't they?

* Short On Luck

Woah, you scared me there for a second! Glad you included that asterisk.

P.S. I just noticed you went back to your old custom title. For about a year I was worried you'd gone soft on us.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

I'd be willing to meet you halfway and say fair enough. If it's only the science being criticized, I'm all for separating bad science from good science. But the problem is this: "creation" as understood by Christians is a miraculous event regardless of how or when it occurred. You know the story in Exodus where Aaron throws his staff down in front of Pharaoh and it turns into a snake? Would you bother going to hear a scientist lecture on how inanimate objects can't instantly turn into living creatures? You can believe or disbelieve the story, but going to hear a scientist disprove it would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you absolutely say there is a god if you dont have all the answers to all the mysteries?

Yes.

 

[AV1611VET]

Woah, you scared me there for a second! Glad you included that asterisk.

P.S. I just noticed you went back to your old custom title. For about a year I was worried you'd gone soft on us.

... LOL ...I'm glad someone noticed.

I didn't want to make a big deal about going back to it.

I think I got ticked at someone and decided to just go back.

 

[dlamberth]

On what do you base your beliefs re nature of god?

Other than pointing towards the gnostics, (Not Christian gnostics) I think this is not the place to go into my spiritual back ground.

 

[dlamberth]

Can you absolutely say there is a god if you dont have all
the answers to all the mysteries?

Yes.
But I'm quite sure not like you may think.

 

[Roderick Spode]

Can you absolutely say there is a god if you dont have all
the answers to all the mysteries?

I certainly don't have the answer to all life's mysteries.

Can I absolutely say there is a God?

Judging from my initial experience, and on going experience with God and His presence, I would say the chances of God not existing is so extremely low, there's no reason to consider otherwise.

There's always a possibility that any of us are a part of an alien experiment, and nothing we see/experience actually exists. The same way you're not going to decide not to go to work because your place of work may not exist, or not celebrate a loved one's birthday because they may not exist applies to my belief in God. The idea is so extremely remote, I choose to operate under the premises that God exists, just like my place of work exists, family members exist, etc.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

Hmmm you’d think that God being knowledgeable enough to create the world would know this and you’d think that Him being powerful enough to create the universe that He would be able to overcome such a trivial obstacle as heat dispersion. I mean after all we are talking about a being that can create entire galaxies simply by speaking them into existence.

 

[d taylor]

Miracles really come in handy as alternative, unarguable explanations.

When in doubt - insert a miracle.

OB

-
​

Better than relying on some little girl on youtube spouting nonsense. A God of creation who is above His creation and is able to control it and subdue it by doing the miraculous. Now that is something to place faith in.

 

[sjastro]

I'd be willing to meet you halfway and say fair enough. If it's only the science being criticized, I'm all for separating bad science from good science. But the problem is this: "creation" as understood by Christians is a miraculous event regardless of how or when it occurred. You know the story in Exodus where Aaron throws his staff down in front of Pharaoh and it turns into a snake? Would you bother going to hear a scientist lecture on how inanimate objects can't instantly turn into living creatures? You can believe or disbelieve the story, but going to hear a scientist disprove it would be kind of stupid, wouldn't it?

This may come as a surprise to you but in a bizarre way I have an admiration for these creation scientists for at least trying to use science to explain the flood despite it being pseudoscience nonsense and having the honesty of admitting YEC cannot explain the heat problem.
This is far more productive than the adversarial approach of science taking a hike, or my own personal experiences over the years at the hand of YECists of being labelled a satanist or crook for being a scientist, or my sister should burn in hell for being an atheist.

I have mentioned on numerous occasions science is unfalsifiable when it comes to God and neither the religious nor atheists can use science to support their POV.

 

[Astrid]

I certainly don't have the answer to all life's mysteries.

Can I absolutely say there is a God?

Judging from my initial experience, and on going experience with God and His presence, I would say the chances of God not existing is so extremely low, there's no reason to consider otherwise.

There's always a possibility that any of us are a part of an alien experiment, and nothing we see/experience actually exists. The same way you're not going to decide not to go to work because your place of work may not exist, or not celebrate a loved one's birthday because they may not exist applies to my belief in God. The idea is so extremely remote, I choose to operate under the premises that God exists, just like my place of work exists, family members exist, etc.

So impossinby high standards for
science to meet.

For existence of god- its just choice.
Theres a lot more probabilites than those
mentioned, but never mind.

 

[Astrid]

This may come as a surprise to you but in a bizarre way I have an admiration for these creation scientists for at least trying to use science to explain the flood despite it being pseudoscience nonsense and having the honesty of admitting YEC cannot explain the heat problem.
This is far more productive than the adversarial approach of science taking a hike, or my own personal experiences over the years at the hand of YECists of being labelled a satanist or crook for being a scientist, or my sister should burn in hell for being an atheist.

I have mentioned on numerous occasions science is unfalsifiable when it comes to God and neither the religious nor atheists can use science to support their POV.

About the existence of god(s).
Claims about the actions of gods are different.
Science is good at falsifying "Thor throws lightning"
or "flooded the world "

 

[AV1611VET]

So impossibly high standards for science to meet.

I hold science up to a Standard that no unbeliever can go.

For existence of god- its just choice.

As Joshua put it in his farewell speech ...

Joshua 24:15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

 

[AV1611VET]

About the existence of god(s).

Yes?

Claims about the actions of gods are different.

And?

Science is good at falsifying "Thor throws lightning"

Oh, really?

or "flooded the world"

Uh-huh.

And I'm Genghis Khan.

 

[dlamberth]

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

There's a lot of great new to me information in the video. The heat problem that she brought up was discussed many years ago in an older forum back in the 80s on usenet called talk.origins. So it was nice to see her bring it up again.

 

[AV1611VET]

There's a lot of great new to me information in the video. The heat problem that she brought up was discussed many years ago in an older forum back in the 80s on usenet called talk.origins. So it was nice to see her bring it up again.

I'd love to see her come here and bring it up.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

If you read the comments, the fourth one down says:

I'm reminded of an old cartoon I saw by Sydney Harris, where two scientists are at a blackboard with complicated-looking maths on either end, and the phrase "then a miracle happens" in the middle. The caption is: "I think you should be more explicit in step two." It's fairly easy to google it!

That is one of my favorite cartoons, and I wish I had it hanging on my wall.

 

[Astrid]

There's a lot of great new to me information in the video. The heat problem that she brought up was discussed many years ago in an older forum back in the 80s on usenet called talk.origins. So it was nice to see her bring it up again.

You are more polite than i am