From: Michael Roberts (michael.andrea.r@ukonline.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 08:36:01 EDT
George
Dont spoil the YECs fun, they love to invent miracles.
But there is a dark side, they make God thoroughly capricious and unworthy
of worship.
Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Cc: "allenroy" <allenroy@peoplepc.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 1:14 PM
Subject: YEC miracles (Was Re: RATE)
> 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 - 10:54:46 EDT