From: George Murphy (gmurphy@raex.com)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 08:14:26 EDT
Glenn Morton wrote:
.........................
> Allen asked:
>
> Is this at the 10^22 poise coefficient? I'm sure you know that Baumgardner
> proposes that the coefficient drops dramatically under special conditions.
> What are the calculations for lower coefficients that baumgardner proposes.
> [end allen reply
>
> Baumgardner's view is neither good science nor does it solve problems. Two
> examples. The approach in question creates bigger problems than it solves.
> To move the plates as they suggest requires the release of 10^28 joules of
> energy. (Steven A. Austin, D. Russell Humphreys, Larry Vardiman, John R.
> Baumgardner, Andrew A. Snelling and Kurt P. Wise, "Catastrophic Plate
> Tectonics: A Global Flood Model of Earth History," in Robert T. Walsh,
> editor, The Third International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh:
> Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 612)
>
> That much energy would vaporize the earth. Does Baumgardner have a means to
> cool the earth? No, he appeals to the miraculous.
>
> "These observations all point to the need to remove large amounts of heat
> from extensive bodies of rock in the earth in order to account for the
> geological change proposed for the Flood. It is the author's conclusion
> that this cannot happen within the framework of time?invariant physics."
> Baumgardner, 1986, p. 21.
>
> Since only god can change the constants, this is a miracle. There is
> nothing wrong with appealing to the miraculous, but why do it only on this?
> Why not simply say the flood was miraculous and quite trying to explain it?
> No one can prove you wrong if the global flood was a miracle.............................
This seems to be a characteristic of all these YEC scenarios. Humphreys'
cosmological model requires a miraculous change in the cosmological "constant" on "day
two" (_Starlight and Time, p.124). The RATE discussions of radioactive decay require a
miraculous change in decay rates at some point. Baumgardner requires a miraculous
removal of energy - or, if you prefer, a miraculous change in viscociety coefficient.
Glenn is right: Natural processes + miracle = miracle, and if you're going to
invoke miracle you might as well go all the way & drop the natural processes.
But I would argue that there _is_ something wrong with appealing to the
miraculous - which is _not_ the same thing as saying that miracles have never happened!
If there is no scriptural warrant for occurrence of a specific miracle (or for saying
that a particular event was a miracle), if it has no sign value (like the signs in
John's Gospel), and if it is postulated only to shore up a theory that collapses without
it, then we ought to be ultra-skeptical about claims for a miracle.
Again I note the well known Harris cartoon. Most scientists get the joke. YECs
apparently don't.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 06 2003 - 08:18:35 EDT