Has anyone ever made this argument to YECers?

[euphgeek]

I was thinking about how young earth creationists think that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and I had a thought: If the Earth really is only 6,000 years old wouldn't the planet just be a big ball of molten lava? Doesn't that take millions of years to cool down?

 

OK, so maybe they have an explanation. Maybe the YECers will say that the planet cooled down quickly. But if that were the case, what stopped it from cooling down to the point that the planet would become one big ball of ice?

 

So the way I see it is either A) The planet Earth is a big ball of lava, The planet Earth is a big ball of ice, or C) The planet Earth is billions of years old. There is no D), no "none of the above". I believe this would be game, set and match in the debate between a young Earth and an old Earth.

 

What do you think?

[Stormwarden]

Hate to tell you, but YECers aren't known to follow logic.

[woodsmoke]

They'd just respond with the timeless fundie comeback.

 

"Godidit."

[euphgeek]

I realize that, but some YECers (Hovind, AiG) might try to make a scientific explanation. I'm just wondering if for one, my initial assumption is correct, and two, if anyone has used the argument and if there was any answer other than "godidit".

[MQTA]

http://www.christianforums.com/t218-young-...=2#post19104270

 

We'll see if of the YECs answer

[euphgeek]

They seem to be ignoring it...

 

Thanks for posting it there, though.

[MQTA]

Yep, totally ignored. Oh well

[Mr. Neil]

I was thinking about how young earth creationists think that the Earth is only 6,000 years old and I had a thought:  If the Earth really is only 6,000 years old wouldn't the planet just be a big ball of molten lava?  Doesn't that take millions of years to cool down?

You are essentially correct, but creationists don't believe in planetary developement anyway. As far as they're concerned, God made the Earth as a livable planet and then began peppering it with life.

 

Don't worry, though. There are plenty of embarrassing facts about Earth that creationists cannot account for. Take impact craters, for example. There is nowhere in the Bible that can account for a single impact crater. The Chicxulub impact should have been traumatic enough to have been recorded into human history, even if not necessarily the Bible, and yet the archeaology is astonishingly silent.

 

For the sake of contrast, the large object that fell from the sky and set the Tunguska forest ablaze in 1908 put enough soot and ash into the atmosphere to be seen around the world, never even hit the surface. It exploded in the atmosphere and left no crater at all. In Europe, the cloud of debris was so thick that it was actually able to reflect the sun's light, and thus you could read books by it at night. There was no place on Earth untouched by this event.

 

Yet we are to believe that a large rock struck the Yucatan, and in six thousand years, nobody noticed.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

You are essentially correct, but creationists don't believe in planetary developement anyway.  As far as they're concerned, God made the Earth as a livable planet and then began peppering it with life.

 

Don't worry, though.  There are plenty of embarrassing facts about Earth that creationists cannot account for.  Take impact craters, for example.  There is nowhere in the Bible that can account for a single impact crater.  The Chicxulub impact should have been traumatic enough to have been recorded into human history, even if not necessarily the Bible, and yet the archeaology is astonishingly silent.

 

For the sake of contrast, the large object that fell from the sky and set the Tunguska forest ablaze in 1908 put enough soot and ash into the atmosphere to be seen around the world, never even hit the surface.  It exploded in the atmosphere and left no crater at all.  In Europe, the cloud of debris was so thick that it was actually able to reflect the sun's light, and thus you could read books by it at night.  There was no place on Earth untouched by this event.

 

Yet we are to believe that a large rock struck the Yucatan, and in six thousand years, nobody noticed.

 

 

But, Neil, you forget....they were probably too busy floating around in the Ark during that time. God cleverly forsaw the asteroid and flooded the planet to lighten the blow.

 

Either that, or they'll argue that the time frame is wrong and that the strike is clearly the Creation in simpler terms for any idiot to understand. There was no big rock. Just God At Work.

[Mr. Neil]

There's always an ad hoc excuse. Nothing they say surprises me anymore.

[Gnosis of Disbelief]

There's always an ad hoc excuse.  Nothing they say surprises me anymore.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yep, they're making up their religion as they go. As long as they

can concoct an explanation that reconciles scientific facts with the

bible, that's good enough for them.

[Kuroikaze]

One of the biggest problems I've noticed about Young Earth "Theory" is explaining stars.

 

Scientists have come to the conclusion that stars are just other suns only billions of light years away. I have yet to see a YEC deny this, though I suppose some of them might still subscribe to Tolemy's view of small lights fixed in a firmament just beyond the planets, but those people are so far gone there is no point it talking to them. So inorder to see the light from a Sun that is 100 billion light years away then that sun must have *gasp* been around for 100 billion years, otherwise the light would not have reached us yet. No matter how you slice it if the universe was only 6,000 years old we would not have more that 6 or 7 stars in our entire sky. The light from the rest would still be on its way here.

[MQTA]

and each and every one of them thar suns can have 1 or more planets capable of supporting life as we know it, or some other version

[spamandham]

For someone sufficiently clever, there are no natural observations that can be made that eliminate the possibility that the earth is not 6000 years old supported by acts of magic as necessary to obscure this fact.

 

YEC is just an advanced form of apologetics, where the purpose is not to find truth, but to allow for the possibility of a preconceived notion of truth.

 

You can make their arguments look stupid to any rational observer, but you can't change their minds with evidence no matter how damning it may be.

[texmex2003]

You forget, God made everything with the appearence of age. He only made the stars look like they were millions of light years away. Or else this is the little part of creation that God allowed Satan to participate in to fool us. You know like all them there dinosour bones.

[MQTA]

when all the stars' lights start disappearing from our view, what are we going to start thinking then?

[Ouroboros]

You forget, God made everything with the appearence of age.  He only made the stars look like they were millions of light years away. Or else this is the little part of creation that God allowed Satan to participate in to fool us. You know like all them there dinosour bones.

Yeah.

 

Isn't it amazing that people think it's easier for God to create the universe in ONE frigging day, with 7x10^22 stars, and every ray of light and radiation and heat from this vast sized universe, (guessing 1x10^10^10 rays/sec x 6000 and more years = infantasismical many), than it would for God to create a Big Bang and let the time resolve the rays. Which way would a reasonable, logical and rational being choose?

 

God only needed on day for that, but he needed a day for creating a little amount of few trillions of animals. I mean trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions and............... of stars and rays in one day, and only one trillion animals? He could have created the whole planet and all life and humans in 0.00001 seconds, compared to the enormous universe.

 

It would be like I need only one day to build a city, and then I need one whole day to drive in one nail?

 

The Genesis and Creation story shows the lack of knowledge of the size of the universe the author had. If he had known how big the universe was, he would have said something like "God created the universe the first month, and then he created all animals and humans and life in one second." That would have proven knowledge at least.

[spamandham]

The Genesis and Creation story shows the lack of knowledge of the size of the universe the author had.

 

Or does it? Is it even a story about creation at all, or is it symbolic for the loss of innocence each of us experiences?

 

I used to think it was just primitive man's attempt to explain our existence, but now I'm starting to wonder if the whole book originally had nothing to do with that at all.

[Ouroboros]

Or does it?  Is it even a story about creation at all, or is it symbolic for the loss of innocence each of us experiences? 

I can agree to that. It's only when you take the Genesis story literary you start having problems, but if you read it as a story to explain the feeling of loss and the rough experience of growing up, it makes more sense. It's a story about how we leave the blissfull state of ignorance in our childhood (except for some that have had a really bad childhood), into the difficult adulthood with all it's responsibilities and all the knowledge of right and wrong. We leave the secure haven of carefree life, and enter the life of work, sweat and hard soil.

 

I used to think it was just primitive man's attempt to explain our existence, but now I'm starting to wonder if the whole book originally had nothing to do with that at all.

It doesn't. I don't see the Bible as a literal book in any sense, but it is an attempt of giving an experience of the transcendence and the sublime. (I'm starting to sound like Amanda... ) In other words, a mythology, with a lot of the "Hero's Journey" in it. To give humans the sense of connection to something higher than themselves. Maybe it be a God or just a higher self.

 

The Bible wasn't intented to be read by layman or to be interpreted literary, since the Catholic Church made the canon to support their tradition, and not the other way around. Religion came first, then the canon. (Even though the books existed before the orthodoxy, they were selected based on the dogma. The religion was not based on the books.) The Bible was intended to be interpreted and explained by the clerics, and people would find guidance from the cleric's teachings, and not the actual words in the Bible. The text in the story was not important, but the contents behind it.

 

Am I too confusing here? Getting too late, I might be rambling inconsistent blabber right now, and I wouldn't know...

[Huntsvil]

Am I too confusing here? Getting too late, I might be rambling inconsistent blabber right now, and I wouldn't know...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually Hans, you are making perfect since. In fact , you sound like you are passing into the postchristian realm of thoughts on God and the Bible. I for one do not believe in the literal interpretation of scripture. It is far beyond that. God has been put into this tiny box that is often described in the forum here, where He can be easily dealt with.

I am sorry, does that change my description? I am quite new to this form of comunication thru the net. I hate this getting old stuff about life, lol.

[quicksand]

You forget, God made everything with the appearence of age.  He only made the stars look like they were millions of light years away. Or else this is the little part of creation that God allowed Satan to participate in to fool us. You know like all them there dinosour bones.

Well, one "escape-clause" YECer's make frequently is that all that water made everything look old anyway. My YEC pastor said that during my re-indoctration. Pffftt.

 

That explaination begs the question.