YEC is physically impossible

[Hans Blaster]

-
​

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.

How condescending to refer to Erika as "some little girl". She is a graduate student in anthropology studying ancient apes.

Her video is about a couple of claims that some YECers make about how the "flood" could work mechanically and how the Earth can appear as it does no if things formed rapidly in a brief, global flood. There are at least 3 "heat" problems that arise from YECist attempts to "explain" away things recorded in the rocks.

Claim 1: radioactive decays were accelerated so that rocks look much older (millions of years) than they really are (3-6 thousand years). Heat problem #1: radioactive decays would release so much heat that the surface of the Earth would melt.

Claim 2: continents moved into place rapidly during flood/post-flood period. Heat problem #2: friction between moving plates and mantle *also* releases enormous amount of heat.

Claim 3: sedimentary rock formations formed during settling out of sediments during flood. Heat problem #3: heat released by the formation of rock from sediments is also large.

(I don't remember if the last two are quite as large as the first one, but they are not insignificant.)

You can always invoke miraculous construction of rocks with embedded radioisotopes and layers of sedimentary rock with out any "problems", but that's not what the YECers do. Instead they try to invent science that "works" but clearly doesn't.

 

[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.

Is this the plant you want me to believe that the "second son of a Pharaoh, who was subjected to intensive training in military staff work and underwent a harsh desert survival course" encountered?

Then wrote this about it?

Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

So little flicks of flame pop up here and there around that plant and quickly go out, and this desert-trained military staff educatee wonders why this "great sight" didn't fully burn up?

I have a feeling there's much more to this story than you think there is.

 

[BCP1928]

Is this the plant you want me to believe that the "second son of a Pharaoh, who was subjected to intensive training in military staff work and underwent a harsh desert survival course" encountered?

Then wrote this about it?

Exodus 3:1 Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his father in law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to Horeb.
2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.
3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.

So little flicks of flame pop up here and there around that plant and quickly go out, and this desert-trained military staff educatee wonders why this "great sight" didn't fully burn up?

I have a feeling there's much more to this story than you think there is.

What do I think there is?

 

[AV1611VET]

How condescending to refer to Erika as "some little girl".

Ya ... good point.

Some little girl wouldn't say Ken Ham built a "big *** boat in the middle of Kentucky."

She is a graduate student in anthropology studying ancient apes.

That explains her word choice.

 

[sjastro]

Here is the science behind this thread.
The earth generates heat of which about 50% is radiogenic heat caused mainly by the radioactive decay of ²³²Th, ²³⁸U, ⁴⁰K and ²³⁵U.

The total radiogenic heat changes exponentially with time.

The geothermal gradient is based on the Earth’s age of 4.54 billion years.
The present total heat production based on the decay of ²³²Th, ²³⁸U, ⁴⁰K and ²³⁵U is 3.27 +2.91 +1.08 +0.125 = 7.39 x 10⁻¹² W kg⁻¹.
The total mass of the Earth’s crust and mantle is 4.0 x 10²⁴ kg.
The heat flow out from the Earth due to radioactive decay is 7.39 x 10⁻¹² W kg⁻¹ .4.0 x 10²⁴ kg = 2.96 x 10¹³ W.

To calculate the geothermal gradient, divide the heat flow value by surface area of the earth and the average thermal conductivity of rock ≈ 3.00 W/m ⁰C.

Geothermal gradient = 2.96 x 10¹³ W /(5.1 x 10¹⁴ m²/3.00 W/m ⁰C) = 19⁰ C/km.

The temperature therefore increases 19⁰ C per kilometre depth.

Next is the geothermal gradient for a 6000 year old Earth.
Since the radiogenic heat changes exponentially, we can use the following equation for the heat production rate H.

Hₚ = Hₙ.exp(λ(t-t₀))

Hₚ is the heat rate production in the past, Hₙ is the heat rate production now, λ is the decay constant and (t-t₀) is the time interval of interest in this case 6000 years.
To calculate the decay constant we need to select a “realistic” half life t₀․₅ to ensure radioactive elements are no older than 6000 years.
In this case select t₀․₅ = 500 years from which λ can be calculated according to the equation λ = ln(2) / t₀․₅ = 0.69/500 = 1.38 x 10⁻³.

Hₙ = 7.39 x 10⁻¹² W kg⁻¹ which was determined previously hence,

Hₚ = 7.39 x 10⁻¹² W kg⁻¹. exp(1.38 x 10⁻³.6000) = 2.91 x 10⁻⁸ W kg⁻¹.

The total heat flow out for the 6000 year old earth which is

2.91 x 10⁻⁸ W kg⁻¹.4.0 x 10²⁴ kg = 1.16 x 10¹⁷ W.

Geothermal gradient = 1.16 x 10¹⁷ W/( 5.1 x 10¹⁴ m²/3.00 W/m ⁰C) ≈ 75,800 ⁰ C/km.

Things are relatively cool for a 4.5 billion year old Earth where the geothermal gradient is 19⁰ C/km compared to a 6000 year old Earth where the gradient is 75,800 ⁰ C/km and Earth is a molten rock.
Note again this only takes into consideration radiogenic heat and not heat generated from other sources.

 

[AV1611VET]

What do I think there is?

That it was a natural occurrence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Things are relatively cool for a 4.5 billion year old Earth where the geothermal gradient is 19⁰ C/km compared to 6000 year old Earth where the gradient is 75,800 ⁰ C/km where no life can survive.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ya ... good point.

Some little girl wouldn't say Ken Ham built a "big *** boat in the middle of Kentucky."



That explains her word choice.

She made a small error about Ken Ham. He didn't build a boat, he built a building that looks like a boat on one side. He should have started a boat-shaped seafood restaurant as it would be more useful and cause less poisoning of us gentle and modern apes.

 

[Astrid]

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.

Evolution is not something to " believe in"
Its something to understand.
Like calculus.


Substantive arguments against it are not weak,
they are non existant. Theres zero data.

Ask yourself- if ToE is wrong what reasonable explanation
is there for nobody being able to disprove it?

 

[d taylor]

How condescending to refer to Erika as "some little girl". She is a graduate student in anthropology studying ancient apes.

Her video is about a couple of claims that some YECers make about how the "flood" could work mechanically and how the Earth can appear as it does no if things formed rapidly in a brief, global flood. There are at least 3 "heat" problems that arise from YECist attempts to "explain" away things recorded in the rocks.

Claim 1: radioactive decays were accelerated so that rocks look much older (millions of years) than they really are (3-6 thousand years). Heat problem #1: radioactive decays would release so much heat that the surface of the Earth would melt.

Claim 2: continents moved into place rapidly during flood/post-flood period. Heat problem #2: friction between moving plates and mantle *also* releases enormous amount of heat.

Claim 3: sedimentary rock formations formed during settling out of sediments during flood. Heat problem #3: heat released by the formation of rock from sediments is also large.

(I don't remember if the last two are quite as large as the first one, but they are not insignificant.)

You can always invoke miraculous construction of rocks with embedded radioisotopes and layers of sedimentary rock with out any "problems", but that's not what the YECers do. Instead they try to invent science that "works" but clearly doesn't.

-
​

I am sure she is impressive in the science world and a hero to people who believe in sciences creation they have created, over the last 2000+ years.

 

[BCP1928]

That it was a natural occurrence.

No, I don't think that. I have no idea whether it was or not, I was just speculating on the nature of a miracle and whether it would have to be 100% supernatural.

 

[AV1611VET]

She made a small error about Ken Ham. He didn't build a boat, he built a building that looks like a boat on one side. He should have started a boat-shaped seafood restaurant as it would be more useful and cause less poisoning of us gentle and modern apes.

Here's a picture of Noah's Ark Restaurant in Teaneck, NJ:

Does New Jersey ring a bell?

 

[NxNW]

-​

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

We're in agreement on all that.

 

[Astrid]

We're in agreement on all that.

And physical possbility is the actual topic
of the thread.
That ,and the dishonest ways creation "scientists"
employ pseudoscience.

 

[d taylor]

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?

-
​

Satan could not have said it better.

 

[AV1611VET]

And physical possibility is the actual topic of the thread.

Then why is the thread titled physical "impossibility"?

And if YEC is physically impossible, then it's divinely possible, I take it?

 

[trophy33]

Then why is the thread titled physical "impossibility"?

And if YEC is physically impossible, then it's divinely possible, I take it?

Impossibility as such is not too relevant. As far as we know, the YEC is no less possible than the Big Bang.

However, the YEC is impossible as a hypothesis about what happened, because it would logically contradict the world we live in.

Yes, for example the resurrection of Jesus was "impossible", it was a miracle. But it does not contradict the flow of events of the history as we know it or the evidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Impossibility as such is not too relevant. As far as we know, the YEC is no less possible than the Big Bang.

However, the YEC is impossible as a hypothesis about what happened, because it would logically contradict the world we live in.

Yes, for example the resurrection of Jesus was "impossible", it was a miracle. But it does not contradict the flow of events of the history as we know it or the evidence.

Don't you think it's hubris for scientists to rewrite the history of the earth & universe to match their own standards, then claim that the history book they rewrote it from is bogus and/or flawed?

 

[Astrid]

-
​

Satan could not have said it better.

They tell us that "Satan" is sklllful
at quoting scripture.
And like any good con, knows just how
to use what people already choose to
believe, to lead them into his trap.

Like exploiting the silly notion that "I am too smart
to be scammed".

Not that Satan- type supernatural
intelligence is needed by the " creation
scientists" to defraud earnest but ignorant
Christians with their shabby lying pseudoscience.

Not when there's " itching ears" so ready to hear them.

 

[d taylor]

They tell us that "Satan" is sklllful
at quoting scripture.
And like any good con, knows just how
to use what people already choose to
believe, to lead them into his trap.

Like exploiting the silly notion that "I am too smart
to be scammed".

Not that Satan- type supernatural
intelligence is needed by the " creation
scientists" to defraud earnest but ignorant
Christians with their shabby lying pseudoscience.

Not when there's " itching ears" so ready to hear them.

-
​

Satan deceives with science, pseudoscience, religion, media, government/politics, sports, entertainment, beauty, etc.

How much has science contributed to your disbelief of The Biblical accounts.