YEC is physically impossible

[AV1611VET]

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.

What "heat problem"?

To whom is it a "problem"?

Creationists?

I doubt it.

 

[Occams Barber]

What "heat problem"?

To whom is it a "problem"?

Creationists?

I doubt it.

Do yourself a favour - read the OP.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

Do yourself a favour - read the OP.

May I draw your attention to the video, labeled:

Young Earth Creationism is Physically Impossible: The HEAT Problem

 

[Occams Barber]

May I draw your attention to the video, labeled:

Young Earth Creationism is Physically Impossible: The HEAT Problem

The OP text also includes a little summary of the heat problem.

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?

OB

 

[Chesterton]

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'm happy you found some great new information in the video, but I'm pretty sure you didn't find any "problem" for an omnipotent God.

And I remember talk.origins. I used to believe in macro-evolution, and that site was one of the first times I discovered the arguments for it were weak.

 

[BCP1928]

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?

It's a bazaar trick. I've seen it done in North Africa and very convincing it is too. Is that what Aaron did? Does that make it less of a miracle? Or was it divine providence that Aaron knew the trick and could use it effectively when he needed to?

But why would a scientist bother to disprove it? There isn't any scientific evidence that it happened at all.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm happy you found some great new information in the video, but I'm pretty sure you didn't find any "problem" for an omnipotent God.

I think my problems aren't with believed images of a omnipotent God. But there seems to be way more hocus-pocus involved in order to make things line up with said beliefs. That's where I have problems.

 

[BCP1928]

I think my problems aren't with believed images of a omnipotent God. But there seems to be way more hocus-pocus involved in order to make things line up with said beliefs. That's where I have problems.

Talk about the existence of God is always a red herring in these discussions. It's about the Bible, first last and always.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a bazaar trick.

It got bizarrer too, didn't it?

Exodus 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

I've seen it done in North Africa and very convincing it is too.

I have a feeling the reason it was so "convincing" is because they left part of the "trick" out.

The part where the rods got swallowed.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think my problems aren't with believed images of a omnipotent God. But there seems to be way more hocus-pocus involved in order to make things line up with said beliefs. That's where I have problems.

Methinks your problems manifest themselves in your word choices.

 

[BCP1928]

It got bizarrer too, didn't it?

Exodus 7:12 For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.



I have a feeling the reason it was so "convincing" is because they left part of the "trick" out.

The part where the rods got swallowed.

Don't know about that part--a street magician in a souk is not likely to allow his snakes to eat each other, they're too expensive The magicians are not, after all, trying to replicate Aaron's performance. Or it could have been a literary embellishment by the author. Or the whole thing could have been a miracle. The point is, that there is no scientific evidence that any of it happened at all. Nothing for science to take a position on, one way or the other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know about that part--a street magician in a souk is not likely to allow his snakes to eat each other, they're too expensive.

Are you kidding?

If he could do that, he'd probably get ten times what he gets now!

The magicians are not, after all, trying to replicate Aaron's performance.

They know better, don't they?

Or it could have been a literary embellishment by the author.

Here we go with this again.

Or the whole thing could have been a miracle.

Now you're talking!

The point is, that there is no scientific evidence that any of it happened at all.

Nothing for science to take a position on, one way or the other.

I'd say science is SOL* then -- as usual.

* Short On Luck

 

[Roderick Spode]

Don't know about that part--a street magician in a souk is not likely to allow his snakes to eat each other, they're too expensive The magicians are not, after all, trying to replicate Aaron's performance. Or it could have been a literary embellishment by the author. Or the whole thing could have been a miracle. The point is, that there is no scientific evidence that any of it happened at all. Nothing for science to take a position on, one way or the other.

At times there are examples of natural extensions to a miracle.

Eve eating a fruit, and gaining a form of spiritual enlightenment is considered supernatural (or miraculous/miracle), and thus written off as myth, or merely symbolic. However, Native American tribes had ingested certain vegetation that gave them spiritual enlightenment (although generally deceptive). There are scientific explanations for the hallucinations from Peyote that might be an extension to a miraculous enlightenment obtained from the fruit Eve ingested.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

At best I'd be mildly impressed, but I would never, ever call such a being a god. Nor would I blindly put my faith in it. In fact I'd put my faith and reverence in nature long before I'd put my faith in a god. For nature can't lie. It can't misjudge. It doesn't seek admiration, or glorification, or servitude. It simply does that which is in its nature to do, and all that it expects, is for me to do the same. What greater faith can there be than that?

Believing that there's a God behind the curtain pulling the strings doesn't make it more impressive, it makes it less so, for then the suffering always comes accompanied by a question... why?

 

[dlamberth]

Talk about the existence of God is always a red herring in these discussions. It's about the Bible, first last and always.

I understand. For myself, it's about the Earth and what she is showing us. The Earth, as Created by God's own hand is straight up and can not lie any more than God can lie. So what am I to believe? I have zero confidence in the creation stores of an ancient middle-eastern tribe of desert nomads and complete trust in the Earth's story that's coming to light.

 

[BCP1928]

At times there are examples of natural extensions to a miracle.

Eve eating a fruit, and gaining a form of spiritual enlightenment is considered supernatural (or miraculous/miracle), and thus written off as myth, or merely symbolic. However, Native American tribes had ingested certain vegetation that gave them spiritual enlightenment (although generally deceptive). There are scientific explanations for the hallucinations from Peyote that might be an extension to a miraculous enlightenment obtained from the fruit Eve ingested.

There is a bush which grows in the Negev, dictamnus albus, whose leaves exude volatile oils which can burn off without harming the plant. Also in the region there are limestone springs which crust over and stop flowing, If you strike at the crust with a stick, the crust will break open and the pent-up water will come rushing out.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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 was commenting about things that are still in your post.

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.

I'd say your post was more of a dry sponge than a strawman, but sponges hadn't evolved yet by 3.2 Gya.

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.

There is no scientific evidence of a global ocean in any recent epoch (whether it be last million years or 100 million years), not to mention any rapid covering of the land (a flood).

 

[AV1611VET]

There is a bush which grows in the Negev, dictamnus albus, whose leaves exude volatile oils which can burn off without harming the plant.

Do voices come from them?

Exodus 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

Also in the region there are limestone springs which crust over and stop flowing, If you strike at the crust with a stick, the crust will break open and the pent-up water will come rushing out.

And provide enough water for two million people, as well as their flocks and herds?

Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?

Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.

Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.

 

[BCP1928]

Do voices come from them?

Ask Moses. Is it not a miracle if the bush was just a striking natural phenomenon which God choose to dramatize his remarks to Moses?

And provide enough water for two million people, as well as their flocks and herds?

Don't know, wasn't there. But was it a miracle? What was the miracle? Moses was raised as the second son of a Pharaoh. As such, he would have been subjected to intensive training in military staff work, learning how to move and supply large groups of people. He then underwent a harsh desert survival course (including the water trick). So, when it was time to lead his people out of Egypt and through the desert, he knew how to do it. The right man at the right time, trained to do the job. How did that chance to happen? To my mind, that was the miracle.

 

[Roderick Spode]

There is a bush which grows in the Negev, dictamnus albus, whose leaves exude volatile oils which can burn off without harming the plant. Also in the region there are limestone springs which crust over and stop flowing, If you strike at the crust with a stick, the crust will break open and the pent-up water will come rushing out.

Yes, there are natural phenomena that at times may act as a precursor to a miracle, or show that the concept of the miracle is not out of the question. Transporting animals by ship to other parts of the world is not miraculous as it's done all the time. So it's not inconceivable that after the flood, animals were transported by ship to places they would not have been able to get to. The miraculous parts might be animals coming to the ark, remaining tame in the ark, etc.

And there were/are times where God would have simply spoken a miracle into existence without any need for any natural build up. The miracle of water into wine, the fish and loaves, might be examples.