What was there that I needed to respond to?
There was one question, albeit rhetorical, and the Small Big Universe piece was certainly open for discussion. Since there was nothing from you, it seems you ignored it or it was over your head.
I didn’t see how it applied to anything I’ve said.
That’s probably because it was talking about reality.
“Belief” is not the issue. Check the evidence.
No. Unless you consider observation merely an assumption.
I realize from my own history within the Young Earth Creationist community that this “merely an assumption” (or “just based on assumptions”) trope is standard issue—and I freely admit to having used and abused it myself for far too many years—but science is about evidence and what can survive peer-review.
I wouldn’t. Why? Because nobody has the time and resources to earn advanced degrees in every area of scientific investigation. Fortunately, we don’t have to. Thousands of scientists with such advanced degrees have carefully scrutinized the evidence, and peer-view is a very effective (though admittedly never 100% perfect because humans are involved) never-ending process. It produces well-examined conclusions which the rest of us can learn from. We trust that process in countless other areas of our lives. We look to trained professionals for our medical care, our cell and computer technologies, and many other fields because expertise wins out over an amateur dilettante. ( By “amateur dilettante”, I’m referring to myself when it comes to matters of geology, for example. My undergrad background in geology was very limited so I have no difficulty deferring to the textbooks and the academy’s consensus on such topics. Trusting the academy on matters of long-established consensus is not an argument from authority fallacy. It is a yielding to logic and the overwhelming evidence.
(Of course, the alternative usually involves assuming without evidence that there is a massive conspiracy of fraud within the entire science academy.)
6 Likes
Hi Paul,
I seem to have missed the passage(s) in Genesis 7 where the measurement of the waters’ turbidity was provided. Could you kindly quote the passage(s) I overlooked?
Thanks,
Chris
It’s not just the heat, but the process of plates sinking, melting back into magma, and new plate material (rising magma) cooling and spreading at incredible rates. It’s not a conveyor belt that you can crank up the rpms to make it go faster and faster.
3 Likes
Hi Paul,
Hope your day is going well, @PDPrice . I know that you’ve been responding to many, many interlocutors, so it is inevitable that you will let a few questions slip past you. If you could take a look at post #224 and post #225, I would be interested in hearing your views on the issues they raise.
Thanks!
Chris
It would not be Noah’s scalding steam bath. It would be Noah’s hotter than the sun’s surface scalding steam bath.
Not everything about the culture is preserved in Scripture, and unverifiable claims about what cultural beliefs would have caused the original readers to believe about the meaning of a given passage cannot rightly be used to overturn the grammatical meaning of the words on the page.
This gets in to a level of detail that I don’t have time to wade through at the moment, sorry about that. I’m not averse to the idea that bears diversify over time within their kind, even switching between omnivory, carnivory and vegetarianism over time. That is completely consistent with my worldview; that animals are not by necessity eaters of one particular kind of food, but can adapt to conditions over time. None of this would serve to disprove the concept that before the Fall, all animals were herbivores.
That is just extrapolation based upon highly limited information. As such it’s a very weak argument. I would never reject belief in the Flood on such a shaky basis, and certainly not when Scripture is as clear as it is on the matter, and not when we have so much evidence from fossils and geology that a global Flood did indeed occur.
It’s an extrapolation based on known physics. Of course, you can always invoke a miracle to cancel out the heat generation, but you can’t really deny the natural facts of the matter.
4 Likes
You can certainly deny that we have all the relevant information needed to consider the heat question. Nothing remotely like this has ever been observed.
It’s YEC that proposes rapid plate movement, it’s your information.
Fossils do not support a global flood. The fact that no dinosaur fossils are mixed with modern animals alone is enough to render the idea incredible. Geological evidence supports mainstream science.
4 Likes
Bears a built to adapt. We have been through several examples of many animals which cannot.
1 Like
That’s not true. There are plenty of creatures represented in the same layers as dinosaurs that are still around today. Coelocanths are just one example of many. Horseshoe crabs…
Sorry but the fossil coelocanths and horseshoe crab fossils found in Cretaceous and earlier strata aren’t the same species as extant ones. They’re in completely different families. Where are fossil of any extant species found with non-avian dinosaur fossils?
Do you even know what the term “family” means in taxonomy?
4 Likes
Please explain how the Flood created these geologic formations.
For someone who makes as many claims as you do you’re sure woefully short on scientific evidence and explanations. 
1 Like
How could you possibly claim to know? How are you defining ‘species’?