|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Evolution is the result of a conglomeration of many scientific specialties, so I find it difficult to compartmentalize it. It's as simple as that.
With so many different fields of study supporting the theory of evolution, and its many concomitant findings, how is it that you so easily dismiss it? Could it be based on purely religious grounds? That is, non-scientific grounds? Won't you stay and debate the issue here? We could have some real fun with this! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
If you do not wish to discuss the subject, do not post. And everyone is free to read your posts on that forum. Why you would want them to is another story though ...
Furthermore, you again are not doing your research. After the software upgrade here, the report button went away. The only way to report is by posting in the report thread. Tell me, do you see any of my posts there? Your dislike of me does not substitute for a valid argument to support your beliefs. I am still waiting for an answer other than "Goddidit." Furthermore, As I have pointed out (and as others have done as well), evolution is really quite irrelevant to the subject here. Since you accept a 6,000 year old planet, how did a dead old rock suddenly gain thousands of degrees of heat? Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Not a bad idea, but you run into several problems, namely the overall one of relying upon sciences that are rejected by YEC.
Note that YEC rejects radiometric dating, how can they justify their argument upon radioactive decay which they reject as a constant? If we have no idea about radioactive decay rates, it is effectively impossible to calculate heat. I do agree as others have pointed out, the sole real argument given is "Goddidit" and that obviously is not science nor should be considered science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1383 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Coyote writes: Won't you stay and debate the issue here? We could have some real fun with this!
I would gladly stay and debate it here, but if we stray from the subject of geology, we are derailing the thread. And this thread starter wont cooperate with an open discussion which spans various scientific specialties where I am involved. This thread has already received one warning not to stray from the subject of geology. We need a thread in an open forum where a general debate can take place without breaking the forum rules. Just so you know, I would gladly participate in such a debate on such a forum, if it exists here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2131 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You are free to propose your own topic, and make it as narrow as you wish.
The rules are designed to prevent thread drift, or as its sometimes known, the Gish Gallop. And they apply to all. So if you are chafed by this thread, please start another. One of my particular fields is radiocarbon dating, so if you want to learn about that either post to an existing thread, of which there are several, or if you think you have a new approach start your own thread. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
We have provision for 1 on 1 great debates. It is possible for the participants to decide themselves where the topic goes. It is also possible for others to be invited if the 2 agree. Otherwise others are not allowed to post.
I am curious as to why you think it is a difficulty to be focused as to topic. While every subject is interconnected it is clearly possible to focus on one thing at a time and, generally, that produces a clearer discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1383 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Thanks for the advice adminNosy and Coyote. A one on one debate isn't necessary since I don't know the members here good enough to challenge someone. And to answer your question, I find it difficult to prevent the topic of evolution from, shall we say evolving into for example, cosmology, biology, quantum mechanics geology and even what evolutionists like to delineate as abiogenesis, because these studies in science all play a major role in the validation of evolution.
I consider the claim that abiogenesis is a separate and distinct scientific study to be one of the most disingenuous claims in science. The fact is that evolution defends and insists that the age of the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old, and it accepts that life spontaneously appeared from the primordial ooze, yet when it is argued against by me, I am told that I am confusing sciences since that is an issue of abiogenesis rather than evolution. The need to de compartmentalize studies is a tactic used to prevent one from holding the evolutionists feet to the flame regarding the impossibility of it in reality while blending what is called abi and evo in discussions and studies all of the time as a normal practice. Here is an example of what I say and NASA just happens to be the culprit which make my point for me. Space Daily Reports: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-01g.html I have also been asked why, if I admit that other sciences support evolution, don't I accept that as strong evidence of its truth? And what kind of science do I trust. The answer is that I understand that many of the conclusions arrived at are based on assumptions made by assuming the very foundations of evolutionary theory are true in that life did spontaneously arise from a conglomeration of lifeless chemical interactions around 3.5 billion years ago in a puddle of primordial ooze on a cooling earth. From that spontaneous life came all other life to follow on earth from that original protein/enzyme to plants to insects and fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to us. Everything modern evo accepts as reality is based on this occurring initially more than 3 billion years ago. In closing, I will look at the other forums for the proper forum to place a general subject debate titled "the inconsistencies of evolution theory" with an opening post which explains my position today sometime. You must understand that I abhor what this threads starter represents as a debater and a member of any forum he participates in, and consider his style and character the bane of internet decorum and honesty which he lacks at every level of his participation in debates. So I have no desire to remain on any thread he started. One need only to click on this link HugeDomains.com which I posted above and see his juvenile and dishonest opinions in his posts as he attempts to demonize me with unsubstantiated insults and mockery on a thread I haven't written even one post on. Yet I am the exclusive subject of it. Thank you both, and Rahvin also, Archangel Edited by Archangel, : No reason given. Edited by Archangel, : To add content: Edited by Archangel, : Add link: Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The fact is that evolution defends and insists that the age of the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old, On one point I agree with you, if the age of the earth is wrong by a factor of 1,000,000 then evolutionary theory has a problem explaining what we see. One way to handle this "compartmentalization" would be for you to tackle the age of the earth issue first. A place to explore this might be:
Message 1 It is a bit over the usual 300 post limit but it's still open. The correlations there have never, ever, anywhere been answered. You can be the first.
and it accepts that life spontaneously appeared from the primordial ooze, This part is irrelevant. If life didn't arise spontaneously but was magicked up by a god, delivered by aliens or whatever evolution is exactly the same. Evolution talks about change in biological populations -- the theory doesn't give a rats ass where the populations came from. As has been pointed out to you, geology works just fine without evolution. (it uses index fossils but those are independently confirmed first and they are used just because they are convenient not because they are fundamental to geology). Cosmology works happily too. Nothing rests on an assumption about the way life arose other than that part of chemistry concerned with origins of life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22489 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.0 |
Archangel writes: One need only to click on this link 4forums.com is for sale | HugeDomains which I posted above and see his juvenile and dishonest opinions in his posts as he attempts to demonize me with unsubstantiated insults and mockery on a thread I haven't written even one post on. Just to repeat the information I was trying to get across before, members taking off-topic potshots at one another in discussion threads will draw the attention of moderators. If you're going to ignore Obvious Child then ignore him, at least it's not against the Forum Guidelines, e.g.:
Again, I understand you feel wronged by Obvious Child, but if you don't let the moderators handle such issues then pretty soon the moderators will be handling you. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1383 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Percy writes:
Good advice, I've made my point and will leave it alone now. Just to repeat the information I was trying to get across before, members taking off-topic potshots at one another in discussion threads will draw the attention of moderators. Thanks, Archangel
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Am I correct to assert that there is no mechanism other than Magic to answer this question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Databed Junior Member (Idle past 5328 days) Posts: 7 From: Chattanooga, TN, USA Joined: |
I think magic would do it, yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Now, I'm going to assume that was true. How, outside of magic, did the iron core of the planet get there and how did the mantle become molten if during the creation of the planet, Earth wasn't molten at all, but "void and empty?" The topic title question:
Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten? For all the blather that has happened, NOBODY has done much of anything to answer the topic title question. So, obvious Child, what is your answer to the topic title question? At least a basic outline of such probably should have been in message 1. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4141 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I wouldn't say nobody.
Anglagard did post an excellent reply as to how it doesn't make sense. And I don't have an answer other than such statements made by Creationists and Genesis don't make sense in the context of reality. I don't understand why I, as the asker of the question would provide a basic outline of an answer in message 1. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to message 3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3317 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Nobody has been to the center of the Earth to definitely say there's an iron core there. Asking this question is like asking where did I get my million dollar from and how did the million dollar end up in my pocket? Try to answer that question when I don't actually have a million dollar.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024