Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[CabinetMaker]

Dear Cabinetmaker,

I may indeed have misunderstood what you initially said about flashing to steam. But let me present (one more time) your exact words that first caught my attention:



You talk about heating water to above boiling and having it under pressure, and then you say “, those water molecules will instantly flash to steam”. Can you point out any words in your statement that would lead one to understand “those water molecules” refers to just a subset of the water molecules that were heated? It is your sloppiness in your phrasing that caused the issue.

But more significantly, I have encouraged you to show that you actually have an accurate understanding of what you term “Simple physics. Basic Thermodynamics.” But you get defensive and make grandiose claims that you took classes in this stuff, and worked problems like this, yet when I repeatedly ask you to actually show the math on a pretty simple problem, over and over you respond with nothing more than assertions and bluster. Maybe that is how you got through your thermo classes – when the test question asked “How many joules of energy”, you respond with an essay about the assumptions involved in the question, and the need to focus on some extreme pressures and temperatures rather than on what the question said.

I have come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a well-meaning old-earther who has found it sufficient to try to bluff your way out of proving your competence. Either that, or … maybe you are an old-earther in the same sense that Benedict Arnold was an American patriot.

I fully expect that when we get down in the trenches of battle, and I see you declare that you are going to blast Walt Brown, you grab a bazooka and hoist it to your shoulder, then I am gonna yell “Stop, you don’t know what you’re doing.”. You will smirk and say you know all about bazookas, and you will say, “See when I pull this trigger, a blast of fire will come out this tube and scare the bejeebers outta Walt. And I will respond by explaining that blast of fire is from the back end of the missile in the tube, meaning the missile is going to come out at me, not Walt. My sincere recommendation is you be forbidden from wielding any weapon more lethal than a butter knife.

And, by the way – as per that 300 F pressure cooker - the one with the new sign on the lid saying “New Rugby & Only Rugby Equipment Inside – Free” - only about 9% of the water will flash to steam.

But thanks for playing, anyway.

I can't help but notice that you have still not addressed the actual conditions that have been postulated. Why?

Nearly 1 pound of water flashes to steam. Since you are abviously an expert, please explain to us what that looks like. Does it all happen at the surface? Does it happen at the bottom? Through out the liquid?

 

[redfern]

I can't help but notice that you have still not addressed the actual conditions that have been postulated. Why?

I have answered that several times already. if you didn't listen before, I am not interested in repeating what you have already ignored.

Since you are abviously an expert,

I am not an expert, and have made no claim to be. As you yourself made clear, thermodynamics problems like the one you refused to solve are commonly solved in classes. That says a lot about how competent you seem to be in the subject.

please explain to us what that looks like. Does it all happen at the surface? Does it happen at the bottom? Through out the liquid?

In my first post to you I spoke a bit about this. No need for me to repeat what you can go back and read for yourself.


Judging by this post from you, you seem to have nothing of substance to offer, so you are pretty much just whimpering. if you have something to say that is pertinent, then please feel free, but otherwise I see no need to respond to you.

 

[Stripe]

I see no need to respond to you.

Umm, don't look now, but...

:chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

Here is an article that looks at the claims of the hydroplate model proposed by Walt Brown and what we actually see in the world around us. I doubt Walt's work and believe the Earth is quite old because what we see and measure does not align with Walt's model. Of particular interest to @redfen, you might take a look at the section titled Earth Boiled, Steamed and Roasted.

Walt's model in interesting but it is based on so many unfounded assumptions that it stretches credulity to the breaking point.

Read the article or don't, but it does answer the question asked in the title for this thread: Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism? Yes.

 

[Stripe]

Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism? Yes.

That is what scientists do: They test ideas. :up:

The proper scientific approach to Dr Brown's ideas is to doubt their veracity and look for evidence to overturn them.

However, you are solely interested in making sure they never get seriously looked at.

If you cared about a sensible discussion, you would read your link and present a couple of objections.

Instead, you consistently get nothing right.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

That is what scientists do: They test ideas. :up:

The proper scientific approach to Dr Brown's ideas is to doubt their veracity and look for evidence to overturn them.

However, you are solely interested in making sure they never get seriously looked at.

If you cared about a sensible discussion, you would read your link and present a couple of objections.

Instead, you consistently get nothing right.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

You didn't even click on the link, did you. If you had bothered to open the link and read the article you would see that scientists have indeed tested Walt's ideas. They have done calculations based on actual observed data (evidence) and compared with what Walt predicted. Walt's ideas did not fair well.

I have looked at Walt's ideas quite seriously. Based on what I learned in school, I found his ideas to be over contrived when compared with what science has discovered over the centuries. It is not me that is afraid of looking at Walt's ideas seriously, it is you who are afraid to look honestly at other scientists have said about Walt's work.

 

[Stripe]

You didn't even click on the link, did you.

Read it a few times over the years. Have you?

I have looked at Walt's ideas quite seriously.

Except you can never describe them with any accuracy.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[CabinetMaker]

Read it a few times over the years. Have you?

Yes. I found it to be quite interesting.

Except you can never describe them with any accuracy.

That is because they do not accurately line up with what we know about the physical sciences. I can use those sciences to make predictions about how things will work under specific conditions. THe math ALWAYS works. Until it is applied Walt's ideas.

 

[JudgeRightly]

In other news...

Scientists baffled after miners in Canada find dinosaur mummy (yes, mummy) while digging for oil.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/06/dinosaur-nodosaur-fossil-discovery/

https://shopjurassic.com/blogs/post/dinosaur-mummy

From the second link:

"The question of how the dinosaur could have remained so intact after it was unearthed still baffles scientists, although according to National Geographic, researchers are putting forth the theory that the creature may have been carried away to sea by a “flooded river” where it sank."

 

[JudgeRightly]

And here the best we YEC's were hoping for was original biological material. They just found a(n almost whole) DINOSAUR MUMMY!

 

[redfern]

RE: Walt Brown’s HPT Theory:

As far as I know, it's the ONLY theory that doesn't require miracles (aka supernatural intervention) to explain the global flood in Genesis 7. I assure you, it does follow the laws of physics. …

JR, I know you were thinking of the physics involved when you said no miracles needed, but I do see what looks to be supernatural intervention anyway. You are familiar with “Just-so stories” in which the situation is set up to almost require the conclusion to follow. Some “Just-so stories” can be pretty reasonable descriptions of a realistic situation. But this one … well … no. God creates a world, puts a neato garden in it, a young couple, etc. But in that world he plants what I will call a super-bomb. That bomb consists of a massive amount of water in chambers deep in the earth. The bomb is fairly innocuous at first, but as the population on the surface of the earth marries and fights and grows crops and all the things people are wont to do, this bomb is being primed. Tidal pumping.

Finally, a dude named Noah spends decades telling all his neighbors to shape up, but to no avail. Bomb getting more powerful. Finally Noah and his kids decimate the nearby forests getting ‘nuff wood to build the Queen Mary. Then Noah tells his kids to put the finishing touches on it, while he goes on animal collecting expeditions all over the world. Bomb almost ready to detonate, only a smidgeon of one snagged rock that is keep it from busting out in its full glory. Finally a worried Noah sees the last animal slithering up the gangplank – a daddy snail. He reaches out and plucks it up, tosses it over his shoulder into the cavernous ship behind him and slams the door shut. God, smiling from above in approval, reaches down, and tweaks that last rock out of the way. A super-gigaton subterranean detonation starts.

So, a couple thousand years of nature doing pretty much what nature does, but one crucial door shuts on one really special boat and moments later the most massive detonation ever starts – you don’t think that wasn’t supernatural intervention? Like --- the “Just so Story” of all time?

 

[Stripe]

:blabla:

You can mock the story all you want. It's the evidence we care about.

 

[redfern]

You can mock the story all you want. It's the evidence we care about.

I am looking into some "evidence" on the Walt Brown issue, but I want to see if it has already been hashed out first. If I conclude it is both significant and definitive, I will post it, and invite you to comment. Thanks

 

[Stripe]

I am looking into some "evidence" on the Walt Brown issue, but I want to see if it has already been hashed out first. If I conclude it is both significant and definitive, I will post it, and invite you to comment. Thanks

Apart from the discussion with Fred about the wording of Genesis 1, there have been precious few sensible discussions regarding HPT, so whichever area you feel comfortable with would likely be helpful.

Pick a substantial geological feature — volcanoes, earthquakes, plates, mountains, sedimentary layers, fossils, the Grand Canyon, asteroids, lakes — and describe its origin and we will show you how your idea is impossible and much better explained by our theory. :up:

 

[CabinetMaker]

HPT infers that comets did not exist before the great flood. What empirical evidence is there to support this?View attachment 26637

 

[redfern]

Let me step away from science momentarily and, with trepidation, step into that swamp called theology.

6days said:

… The God of Scripture is perfect. There is no limit to his understanding, knowing the past and the future.

Scenario – God looks down and on TOL he sees another of the interminable arguments over how he created things. “Hmmm, 6days sez this … and I see Stripe mocking someone, and redfern, redfern, now what is he up to?” God takes a sneak peek a day or so into the future and watches me at the computer. “Aha, I see the way redfern is gonna start his next post to Stripe on TOL.” So God takes a godly pen, and a godly piece of parchment, and he records what I am going to say in my upcoming salutation to Stripe: “Dear Nutso Stripe …” .With my upcoming sarcastic greeting to Stripe now inalterably committed by God (in advance) to writing, God then gives that parchment to a modern-day version of Abraham, who promptly marches into my house without even knocking, and slaps the open parchment down on the desk next to me just as I logged onto TOL. A bit intimidated, since genuine prophets don’t visit me often, I read what God prophesied on the parchment: “Redfern will start his post with ‘Dear Nutso Stripe…’”. I timidly start typing, “Dear …” (I really want to say “Good Buddy Stripe”, but my fingers just won’t respond.) Maybe if I use more of the flavor I see in what God wrote: “Dear Goofy Stripe”? Nope, the keyboard acts as though it is disconnected, and nothing shows on my monitor. Finally in desperation, seeing I have no free will as to how I will word my post, I succeed only when I call Stripe a Nutso.

Free will – an illusion with an all-knowing god.

 

[Derf]

Let me step away from science momentarily and, with trepidation, step into that swamp called theology.

6days said:



Scenario – God looks down and on TOL he sees another of the interminable arguments over how he created things. “Hmmm, 6days sez this … and I see Stripe mocking someone, and redfern, redfern, now what is he up to?” God takes a sneak peek a day or so into the future and watches me at the computer. “Aha, I see the way redfern is gonna start his next post to Stripe on TOL.” So God takes a godly pen, and a godly piece of parchment, and he records what I am going to say in my upcoming salutation to Stripe: “Dear Nutso Stripe …” .With my upcoming sarcastic greeting to Stripe now inalterably committed by God (in advance) to writing, God then gives that parchment to a modern-day version of Abraham, who promptly marches into my house without even knocking, and slaps the open parchment down on the desk next to me just as I logged onto TOL. A bit intimidated, since genuine prophets don’t visit me often, I read what God prophesied on the parchment: “Redfern will start his post with ‘Dear Nutso Stripe…’”. I timidly start typing, “Dear …” (I really want to say “Good Buddy Stripe”, but my fingers just won’t respond.) Maybe if I use more of the flavor I see in what God wrote: “Dear Goofy Stripe”? Nope, the keyboard acts as though it is disconnected, and nothing shows on my monitor. Finally in desperation, seeing I have no free will as to how I will word my post, I succeed only when I call Stripe a Nutso.

Free will – an illusion with an all-knowing god.

Not sure I understand how God looks into the future to find out what you are going to type, then forces you to type it; nor why.

 

[redfern]

Not sure I understand how God looks into the future to find out what you are going to type, then forces you to type it; nor why.

If I don't type what God said I was going to, then god is the one who is in error. That OK with you?

 

[Derf]

If I don't type what God said I was going to, then god is the one who is in error. That OK with you?

I get that part. What I don't understand is why God would need to look into the future to tell you what to write, as if He's bound by what you were going to write. If that were true, then when He used a shepherd to give prophecy to Israel, He would only expect sheepish communication. But He gives the message, and the shepherd (or whoever) delivers it, perhaps with a southern drawl, and maybe with a shepherd's vocabulary, but the message is God's.

 

[redfern]

I get that part. What I don't understand is why God would need to look into the future to tell you what to write, as if He's bound by what you were going to write. If that were true, then when He used a shepherd to give prophecy to Israel, He would only expect sheepish communication. But He gives the message, and the shepherd (or whoever) delivers it, perhaps with a southern drawl, and maybe with a shepherd's vocabulary, but the message is God's.

I see you are more concerned with the details of the scenario than you are with the logical conundrum it illustrates. Feel free to recast the story in terms of some dramatic future ecclesiastical event in which god lets it be known in advance what will occur, but someone subverts that by doing something different than god said. If god ain’t so good at predicting what I am gonna write, then just maybe we all got a surprise coming when we find god also missed the call on who’s gonna win in the end. Maybe Satan wins after all.