Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,795 Year: 4,052/9,624 Month: 923/974 Week: 250/286 Day: 11/46 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 120 (523572)
09-11-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by Archangel
09-11-2009 8:37 AM


compartmentalization
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Archangel, posted 09-11-2009 8:37 AM Archangel has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 48 of 120 (523829)
09-12-2009 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Archangel
09-12-2009 8:56 PM


Interpretations
AND COULDN'T BE INTERPRETED ANY OTHER WAY
I believe it was suggested that you could offer alternative interpretations. If not it might be a good idea.
The "interpretations" game is played often by creationists who then never offer any consist interpretations that actually explain and include all the evidence.
Good luck.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 8:56 PM Archangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 9:52 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 52 by obvious Child, posted 09-12-2009 10:56 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 54 of 120 (523858)
09-13-2009 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Archangel
09-12-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Interpretations
My evidence is both consistent, self evident and rational. It is the first chapter of Genesis which clearly and unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all life upon it by the word of His mouth. It was a supernatural act and therefore cannot be proven according to human standards of science, nor does it need to be since we see the results of His spoken word in the very creation which you refuse to give Him credit for creating in love. Balls in your court now...
You have no verifiable evidence at all.
However your view is consistent and not something that can be argued with at all. God magicked everything anytime anything needed doing. It can not, as you say be proven, nor can it be disproven.
Since this is a totally unscientific viewpoint most here won't bother arguing with you about it. It is not part of the creationist movement that is trying to tamper with education by pretending to be scientific so it isn't a worry to anyone here.
It also tells us something about the god which you speak of. His name is Loki. He is the trickster god which choose to use his magic to make everything that we can test and reason about make it appear as if the Earth is old and that life changed over time.
He wrote a story in Genesis. He also wrote a story in rock. The two stories disagree in almost all ways and you say that the one written in stone is a lie. I'm sure he laughs and laughs at the most colossal practical joke there is -- the whole universe.
If this is the interpretation you choose then you are welcome to it. It is, as noted, not something that can be proven to be wrong.
Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 9:52 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024