The Fickle Science Fiction that Passes for Science...

[Guest kingdombrat]

2 minutes ago, teddyv said:

In a sense we can see what happens over billions of years because we can observe the universe. Physical characteristics of the universe happening here on and around earth certainly appear to be behaving in the distant past.

OK, and by that same thought we can say through the 4.5 Billions years Earth has existed it has went through literally hundreds of transformations where it heated up and froze.   And since we believe this, why do we now believe in [Climate Control] when this is just a past pattern we have assumed to take place concerning the Planet Earth?

 

If this heating up or freezing is a natural occurrence, why would Science make a big deal about [Climate Control] when their observations state it just happens [Naturally] and (nothing) we can do about it?

[The Barbarian]

On 10/19/2020 at 6:56 PM, Dennis1209 said:

All the star light had to have reached earth instantly when God created everything with the appearance of maturity.

There are some major theological problems with that.   We see distant supernovae on a regular basis.   They are often millons of light years away or more.    In that case, your belief would mean God was showing us evidence for a star that never existed.   Since God is truthful, that cannot be.

Gerald Aardsma has a "virtual history" doctrine that addresses some (but not all) of those problems.   You might want to take a look at that.

On 10/19/2020 at 6:56 PM, Dennis1209 said:

I suspect a creationist physicist and mathematician could calculate how much fuel a star has, how much it burns; and calculate it's impossible for a star to burn millions or billions of years.

It doesn't burn.   It shines because of thermonuclear reactions in the star that fuse lighter elements into heavier ones and release energy thereby.    A star the size of the Sun would burn up the fusible elements in about 9 billion years.

 

Edited December 4, 2020 by The Barbarian

[teddyv]

5 hours ago, kingdombrat said:

OK, and by that same thought we can say through the 4.5 Billions years Earth has existed it has went through literally hundreds of transformations where it heated up and froze.   And since we believe this, why do we now believe in [Climate Control] when this is just a past pattern we have assumed to take place concerning the Planet Earth?

 

If this heating up or freezing is a natural occurrence, why would Science make a big deal about [Climate Control] when their observations state it just happens [Naturally] and (nothing) we can do about it?

Yes, the earth has gone through some wild swings in climate over the millions of years. The reason for the big deal now is because human civilization has thrived through only the last 6000-8000 years of history in which the climate was relatively stable (yes there were some warmer and cooler periods). We have built cities along coastlines based on that stable climate, so changes to it can have a pretty significant impact. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently higher than at any time in the history of humankind. 

There are all sorts of feedback mechanisms that appear to exasperate the whole system as well.

Humans can and will adapt, but many other species may not be able to adapt as quickly and so there could be a significant loss of biodiversity attached to that. And biodiversity is pretty critical to long-term health of the earth.

[Diaste]

On 12/2/2020 at 6:12 AM, The Barbarian said:

Roll a die ten times.   Each time you get 1-3, put a "0" on a list.   Each time you get 4-6, put a 1.   You'll probably get something like 50% 0, and 50% 1.    But it's not very sure that you will. 

Then do it 100 times.    Look at your results then.   Then 1000 times.   Then 10,000 times, if you have the patience.   Graph the results by order of magnitude.

Now consider Avogadro's number. It's the number of atoms in one gram-molecular weight of an element.   That is,

6.02214076×10²³

You could never roll a die that many times, but look at your curve and get some appreciation for how very precise the answer would be by extrapolating the curve out by 18 orders of magnitude.

Yes. The problem here is you can observe the results of the die and cannot observe the vast time periods, effects or results. Many factors could warp, interrupt, impede or even cancel what is thought to be consist steady processes over billions of years. 

Sorry, it's just not real world.

I don't think it possible anyone construes yom in Gen 1 as 'age' when yom is quantified in Gen as 'boqer' and 'ereb'; which are sunrise and sunset respectively. 

'Yom' can be a great many time spans and it depends on the context. No context in Gen 1 suggests 'age'; conversely the text is specific in the time span, sunrise to sunset.

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Yes. The problem here is you can observe the results of the die and cannot observe the vast time periods, effects or results.

Mathematically, it's a certain as anything in this world.   The law of large numbers allows you to make your predictions as certain as you would like.    Just get a large enough sample.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

Many factors could warp, interrupt, impede or even cancel what is thought to be consist steady processes over billions of years. 

Show us what factors on Earth  affected the decay rate of uranium or thorium decay, and your evidence for that.    This is the real world, not some "maybe if."    Show us the evidence.

2 hours ago, Diaste said:

I don't think it possible anyone construes yom in Gen 1 as 'age' when yom is quantified in Gen as 'boqer' and 'ereb'; which are sunrise and sunset respectively. 

Since it would have been impossible to have a sunrise or sunset before there was a sun to have them, the text itself says that it's not a literal history.

And the "yom" don't mean "ages"; they are categories of creation, as Christians realized over 1500 years ago.

 

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by The Barbarian