Do I detect a slight hint of irony there? 
1 Like
You dodged again.
Or your reading comprehension isn’t up to middle school level!
Try again: you plainly state a premise that is obviously false on the basis of threads you have participated in–
His assertion that “they are hundreds of millions of years old” has nothing to do with any “premise of old age earth”, and you’ve read enough of his posts to know that. So what are the options – You have a selective memory? You filter everything through a bias that doesn’t allow you to see things that don’t fit?
Pretty much everyone here but two of you understands this thing called “science” and knows how it works. It is evident that you do not, but that is not an excuse for lying about another participant in the thread.
1 Like
The dominant process for minerals locking in the prevailing magnetic fields is solidifying from molten state. As Timothy has pointed out
which, aside from the nautical challenge of sailing on steam, entails that there would be no solidifying at all happening during the flood, so the sea floor magnetic record we have should not exist under what passes for the flood model. So much for less inconsistency.
No. Now that you mention it, scripture does not speak of rapid plate movements at all.
3 Likes
Exactly. That is why so many people nowadays believe in crazy stuff like atoms. It’s so bad there are even papers on subatomic particles. It’s like a cult.
1 Like
Heh.
But the premise is flawed: papers published but then discredited raise flags when cited by others. One geology professor deliberately gave us an assignment to write a paper (in form suitable for publication) where the topic would inevitably lead us to a pair of papers that had been discredited: if we were quote-mining, we would fall into the trap, but if we were actually checking out our sources we’d be fine – and that was the point of the assignment! Anything at least not obviously ridiculous was enough to pass muster for content of that paper, but falling into the quote-mining trap got at best a D.
Two of us were alert enough to catch the attractive citations, note them, and then use several other papers to show why they were bad options – only two A grades awarded. And that is what is supposed to happen when a “black is white” paper gets cited in future work: it’s noted as something that was proposed but should now be disregarded.
I have to wonder just how many real scientific papers Adam has actually read since it’s extremely common to cite previous work only to negate them.
2 Likes
again you go back to the same dogma over and over again…that uniformitarianism states that scientifically, the flood is an impossibility. So in response to that i ask you, is the entire biblical idea of God miraculously creating a universe and this world scientific? So where does that leave origins now? Are we really going back to Aristotle’s spontaneous generation theory here? Spontaneous generation from what? Louis Pasteur would roll over in his grave!
I do wish more people would figure out that Petuch and Ward (among others) are less reliable than many other authors. At least, I think so. Ward is the one who told my grandfather “I don’t make mistakes”, which is a great attitude for increasing their frequency.
1 Like
Basic thermodynamics and physics states that the flood as conceived of by modern “flood geology” cannot have happened.
The only inputs required for the calculation I did are:
- Earth’s surface area (I’m unaware of any claims that that changed a lot during the flood).
- The average density of earth’s crust (If there are any pre-flood rocks, then this has definitely not changed enough to meaningfully affect the result).
- Earth’s surface gravity (No record of Noah feeling much heavier or much lighter afterwards, and it seems an odd thing to change).
- The distance that the plates moved (required under a compress-plate-tectonics-into-the-flood model).
- The coefficient of friction at plate boundaries (it’s directly measured today, and would require massive differences in crustal composition or fundamental constants the change much).
- Conservation of energy.
- Basic unit conversions.
- Planck’s Law (which is derived from basic observed properties of photons, and if those change, then atoms cease to exist, and we have a whole new issue at hand).
It is something that science cannot address by science’s very nature. Whereas flood geopseudology is actively and vehemently negated by science.
2 Likes
Not unlike responses (or lack of) to girdled rocks, including the expertise of one M. Oard, serving as a more than untrustworthy consultant.
And including things about the consistency of radioactive nuclide decay rates. Shocking!
And there you go again, uniformly accusing scientists of not believing in anything catastrophic, scientists who pretty much universally believe in Chicxulub and many in Theia!
It gets tricky deciding whether a certain set of papers are lame or whether it’s the guy(s) who wrote them. It also gets tricky when after several years of certain papers being regarded as bogus it turns out the guy was right (I’m thinking of a paper on “galloping glaciers” that got laughed at until some bold grad students actually went under a glacier to plant sensors to see what was really happening).
1 Like
Modern “flood geology” has demonstrated that the flood as conceived of by modern “flood geology” cannot have happened (now where’s the link to that paper . . . must not have bookmarked it).
It never ceases to amaze me how many people don’t realize that it’s not all that hard to pull out a scientific calculator, look up some figures from a handbook (of chemistry and physics), and run the math.
But logic can address it: “creating a universe and this world” was done with just a few rational commands that had sensible results, whereas “flood geology” requires a whole series of miracles to overrule the very laws God established for the universe.
2 Likes
Such consistency is what one would expect from a God Who can be counted on to follow His own rules.
“Flood geology” requires so many miracles to keep the Earth in existence through it all, it would seem simpler for God to have provided Noah with an air-tight cover for the ark so it could survive in vacuum while God just replaced the Earth with an identical one except with all the ‘bad people’ removed. Tidier, too; no billions of corpses and all the disease that would result.
Just for those who don’t recognize the second one–
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-finds-evidence-two-early-planets-collided-to-form-moon
2 Likes
Those particular ones (Petuch much more so) should have by now demonstrated to all that they do not do careful background research, selectively ignore publications, and do not give consistently helpful systematic descriptions (“It’s large” “Relative to what?”). Petuch, unfortunately, is a very prolific author, partly because of the deficient background research.
Good questions, Adam…at least what you started off with. Better to stick with the original topic/question —that is, what you started off with – than ramble on to the issues of whether salvation is scientific or philosophical…it is neither, likely, but that is another issue for another sort of post…and so on.
Thanks Adam. I don’t know why your post was flagged here—it may contain your usual misconceptions and misunderstandings, but it doesn’t seem to be particularly ungracious in any way. If you can understand where I’m coming from, that’s a big win. The whole point that I keep hammering home again and again and again is that besides the fact that science has rules, not sticking to the rules has consequences, and some of us have actually learned that the hard way. That’s why your cries of “secular science” aren’t getting any traction with science-educated Christians. It’s like referring to motorway speed limits and rules about not texting and driving as “secular motoring” to people who have been involved in a car accident.
Absolutely! This is what I keep saying—you need to get your facts straight about the mechanics of science before you start trying to address the philosophy of science. Philosophical discussions about Socrates and Plato are all very interesting when you’re at a dinner party in Islington or sipping port with academics in their ivory towers, but when your interest in science is primarily focused on Getting Things Done, they are totally irrelevant. If I were to start talking about Kantian viewpoints and what Schiller had to say on the subject when I was trying to fix a problem with one of our systems in production, my boss would rightly tell me to stop getting distracted and focus on the problem at hand.
I’m not denying that. On the contrary, I fully affirm it.
I’m not denying that either. Again, on the contrary, I fully affirm it.
I’m not claiming that salvation is scientific. And I am not claiming that science is the be-all and the end-all either. Nor am I under any illusions that science and scientists are infallible. And I fully agree that you don’t need science in order to find salvation.
But tying the salvation message to blatantly untrue claims about science will undermine its credibility. People don’t fall from young earthism into atheism because they were “deceived into thinking science must be authoritative over the Bible narrative.” They fall from young earthism into atheism because they discover that their pastors and youth leaders and those who had led them to salvation in the first place had been lying to them. And because they maybe haven’t encountered any Christians who are approaching these discussions honestly, and don’t know how to detach the salvation message from the demonstrably false claims that they have been fed, they have nothing to fall back on.
This is why the most important thing I have to say in these discussions is, you MUST make sure that your facts are straight. If you think that it’s only “secular science” that leads us to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old, I’m sorry, but you are simply not getting your facts straight.
Adam, I didn’t reach the conclusions about science that I have reached through academia. I reached those conclusions through the workplace. And in the workplace there very much is right and wrong. If you get science wrong in the workplace, things stop working. They break. In some cases, in ways that end up driving companies out of business or even killing people.
And no, YEC scientists don’t work with science at that level every day. Not when they’re trying to come up with arguments to support young earthism at any rate. The only young earthist scientists who do that every day are either working in areas that do not have anything to do with young earthism, or else using methods and approaches that clearly contradict young earthism when they do.
6 Likes
That’s a good analogy added to your repertoire, unless I’ve missed it previously (it’s still a good analogy either way! ; - ) .
(SDAs are abstainers, if I recall correctly. ; - )
And wow, especially your latter case in point!
Daily “like” limit still impeding, please accept a facsimile: 
1 Like
A couple of things. I think ‘Frank’ is disrespectful and cocky unless you really are on a first name basis with him. Does he even go by that, those of you who know him personally? (I wouldn’t be surprised if he did not.)
Also, science is not irrelevant to salvation if it is the means God used to influence the thinking and soften the hearts of people who came to him through it! Dr. Collins wants to bridge the gap only in the sense that he (and many here) want to show that good science is not antithetical to Christianity (and the reality of evolution is good science1). Your thinking is what is deeply flawed.
It’s cool that unbelievers have come to Jesus through appreciating evolution and the amazing and beautiful results of what God created through it.
Of course salvation is not scientific, but neither is the theology of our redemption mutually incompatible with science, as you paint it, repulsing people from the faith with the equivalence of flat earthism.
1 So are astronomy, cosmology, geology and several other fields of study that independently demonstrate the antiquity of the earth and cosmos.
1 Like
Yes, the Therac-25 case study is required reading for every student in every engineering course that’s worth its salt. It’s just one example of the kind of things that can happen if you make mistakes when dealing with the rules and mechanics of science, even inadvertently.
Then if you want to see what happens when you flagrantly disregard the rules and mechanics of science, look no further than Oceangate a couple of months ago.
5 Likes
(I wish I didn’t have a ‘like’ limit ; - )
With the Titan, the hubris also disregarded the wisdom of safety certifying agencies.
1 Like