Interesting paradox

[Right Divider]

The flood was caused by mankind's sin and yet God (in His judgment of that sin) used the events of the flood to create the greatest sources of energy (the so-called "fossil fuels") that allowed mankind to create today's civilizations.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The flood was caused by mankind's sin and yet God (in His judgment of that sin) used the events of the flood to create the greatest sources of energy (the so-called "fossil fuels") that allowed mankind to create today's civilizations.

1) Why is that a paradox?

2) I'm sure man is creative enough to have been able to create a similar level of civilization to today's even without fossil fuels, and if the men of today weren't so wicked, I'm sure we'd have no problem moving away from fossil fuels to renewable resources, and have near true dominion over creation as God instructed. Instead, we have to deal with bickering over whether men can get pregnant, whether it's a baby in the womb, and trying to fund socialist programs to keep people happy. Forget humanity going to space, we can't even live on earth peacefully.

 

[Right Divider]

1) Why is that a paradox?

Because in His judgment, He gave something very valuable.

2) I'm sure man is creative enough to have been able to create a similar level of civilization to today's even without fossil fuels, and if the men of today weren't so wicked, I'm sure we'd have no problem moving away from fossil fuels to renewable resources, and have near true dominion over creation as God instructed. Instead, we have to deal with bickering over whether men can get pregnant, whether it's a baby in the womb, and trying to fund socialist programs to keep people happy. Forget humanity going to space, we can't even live on earth peacefully.

Please describe the use of these power sources (green) without the power sources created during the flood (coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear).

We are no where near able to use "green energy" (wind and solar in particular) in a similar way to our use coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear.

 

[Jefferson]

The flood was caused by mankind's sin and yet God (in His judgment of that sin) used the events of the flood to create the greatest sources of energy (the so-called "fossil fuels") that allowed mankind to create today's civilizations.

Not wanting to open a can of worms right now but I don't think oil comes from ancient fossils. Fossils are a diminishing resource. That narrative justifies a higher price for oil. Who does that narrative benefit?

 

[Right Divider]

Not wanting to open a can of worms right now but I don't think oil comes from ancient fossils.

I wonder about that too, but I think that it does.

Fossils are a diminishing resource.

True and yet more is discovered all the time. There is no doubt that there is some finite limit.

That narrative justifies a higher price for oil.

How so?

Who does that narrative benefit?

I don't know where you're going with this, but it's not really on the topic.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Because in His judgment, He gave something very valuable.

Fair. It DOES show that God is merciful! But a paradox is something

Please describe the use of these power sources (green) without the power sources created during the flood (coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear).

Well, solar panels are typically made using coal, but they don't have to be. Not as efficient, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the fact that theyr'e not as common, and thus not as much research has been done to make them more cost-effective.

Wind farms and hydro-power would probably be more common.

"Substitute Natural Gas" can be made using biofuels, which , in which case it's called "bio-SNG."

As for nuclear power, I'm sure someone would have figured out eventually that elements can be combined to form larger elements, and that such elements are naturally radioactive, and so instead of using radioactive materials from the earth caused by the flood, if there had been no flood, such materials could likely be made artificially, and given enough time, cost-effectively.

If man had never fallen, it's likely that we wouldn't have needed such power sources, instead relying on God for our needs, but even so, men would not have gotten dumber as time went on, https://kgov.com/genius.

God created man to be intelligent and creative.

Those are two very powerful tools to have when tackling a problem.

We are no where near able to use "green energy" (wind and solar in particular) in a similar way to our use coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear.

Agreed, but like I said above, I wouldn't chalk that one up to it being impossible to use "green energy" sources as efficiently, just that we CURRENTLY are not able to, due the reasons I gave earlier.

To the extent that man is wicked and in rebellion against God is the extent that man is hindered from reaching his true potential.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How so?

Supply and demand. Simple as that.

Supply goes up, demand goes down, price goes down.

Supply goes down, demand goes up, price goes up.

... Usually...

 

[Derf]

Fair. It DOES show that God is merciful! But a paradox is something



Well, solar panels are typically made using coal, but they don't have to be. Not as efficient, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the fact that theyr'e not as common, and thus not as much research has been done to make them more cost-effective.

Wind farms and hydro-power would probably be more common.

"Substitute Natural Gas" can be made using biofuels, which , in which case it's called "bio-SNG."

As for nuclear power, I'm sure someone would have figured out eventually that elements can be combined to form larger elements, and that such elements are naturally radioactive, and so instead of using radioactive materials from the earth caused by the flood, if there had been no flood, such materials could likely be made artificially, and given enough time, cost-effectively.

If man had never fallen, it's likely that we wouldn't have needed such power sources, instead relying on God for our needs, but even so, men would not have gotten dumber as time went on, https://kgov.com/genius.

God created man to be intelligent and creative.

Those are two very powerful tools to have when tackling a problem.



Agreed, but like I said above, I wouldn't chalk that one up to it being impossible to use "green energy" sources as efficiently, just that we CURRENTLY are not able to, due the reasons I gave earlier.

To the extent that man is wicked and in rebellion against God is the extent that man is hindered from reaching his true potential.

Agreed. We've created coal and oil in the laboratory...why couldn't they?

 

[Right Divider]

Well, solar panels are typically made using coal, but they don't have to be. Not as efficient, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the fact that theyr'e not as common, and thus not as much research has been done to make them more cost-effective.

Wind farms and hydro-power would probably be more common.

Most of the "green energy" sources have these same problems. They require vast fossil energy resources to create. They also have a problem in that they also require large pieces of land to produce small quantities of power.

"Substitute Natural Gas" can be made using biofuels, which , in which case it's called "bio-SNG."

Some bio-fuels also require diverting resources away from food production. Many also have a very negative environmental impact.

As for nuclear power, I'm sure someone would have figured out eventually that elements can be combined to form larger elements, and that such elements are naturally radioactive, and so instead of using radioactive materials from the earth caused by the flood, if there had been no flood, such materials could likely be made artificially, and given enough time, cost-effectively.

Perhaps, but that's science fiction at present.

If man had never fallen, it's likely that we wouldn't have needed such power sources, instead relying on God for our needs, but even so, men would not have gotten dumber as time went on, https://kgov.com/genius.

I won't disagree, but that's not really the point of this thread.

God created man to be intelligent and creative.

Those are two very powerful tools to have when tackling a problem.

No doubt.

Agreed, but like I said above, I wouldn't chalk that one up to it being impossible to use "green energy" sources as efficiently, just that we CURRENTLY are not able to, due the reasons I gave earlier.

To the extent that man is wicked and in rebellion against God is the extent that man is hindered from reaching his true potential.

Nonetheless, modern technological advancement would not have happened without the use of fossil fuels.

I would highly recommend this book (although I disagree with his belief in millions/billions of years): https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Case-f...6IjIuMzgifQ==&sprefix=alex+eps,aps,112&sr=8-3

 

[Right Divider]

Supply and demand. Simple as that.

Supply goes up, demand goes down, price goes down.

Supply goes down, demand goes up, price goes up.

... Usually...

There has always been a limited supply of fossil fuels. But, as you mentioned, man is creative about its extraction from the planet. So the usable quantities have actually been increasing for many years.

 

[ok doser]

There has always been a limited supply of fossil fuels.

That has always been the prevailing wisdom. I'm aware that as early as the 1970s some well-educated well respected people in the field have theorized a different source of oil and natural gas, a self replenishing self-generating source internal to the planet's core. These theories were never given a whole lot of respect or attention, but it's come to my attention that recently they have been.

See "abiogenic source of petroleum" or "inorganic theory of petroleum"

This is the first one I ran across that seems readable - https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=102438

 

[ok doser]

That has always been the prevailing wisdom. I'm aware that as early as the 1970s some well-educated well respected people in the field have theorized a different source of oil and natural gas, a self replenishing self-generating source internal to the planet's core. These theories were never given a whole lot of respect or attention, but it's come to my attention that recently they have been.

See "abiogenic source of petroleum" or "inorganic theory of petroleum"

This is the first one I ran across that seems readable - https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=102438

One potential consequence of these theories, if proven to be accurate, is that nothing we can do will stop the generation of methane (especially) from the interior of the planet out into our atmosphere. And methane has more than 80 times the greenhouse gas effect of carbon dioxide.

In other words we may see a future in which, if the abiogenic theory is proven correct, methane is pumped out of the planets interior and deliberately converted into carbon dioxide to mitigate the global warming effect

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think it's noteworthy to remember that warmer climates (obviously not too warm) are better for crop yields, generally speaking.

 

[Right Divider]

I think it's noteworthy to remember that warmer climates (obviously not too warm) are better for crop yields, generally speaking.

Warmer climates and more carbon dioxide.

 

[Idolater]

... the global warming effect

The what?

 

[ok doser]

The what?

See Doggerland

 

[Right Divider]

Agreed. We've created coal and oil in the laboratory...why couldn't they?

What powers the lab?

 

[Derf]

What powers the lab?

Right now? Or back then?

 

[Right Divider]

Right now? Or back then?

Back then... how could they get started with the process?

 

[Derf]

Back then... how could they get started with the process?

Wood.