|
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? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
As you are new here, you should read the rules before posting again;
Forum Guidelines Edited by Admin, : Replace link to the forum guidelines with the [fg] dBCode.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
I'm somewhat confused. Archangel does not explicitly state if he rejects the notion that the iron core and mantle are molten. His argument is pretty much irrelevant as the age of the Earth is irrelevant as to whether or not at bare minimum the mantle is currently molten. Furthermore, any views on evolution itself are again irrelevant as the point in time when evolution starts to work is well beyond the time frame in which this discussion is revolving around. Archangel's argument seems to be a distraction by attacking evolution rather than actually addressing the issue here which is a clear violation of the forum rules.
The question again is how did an "void and empty" & "old dead rock" turn molten? I fail to see how the age of the Earth or evolution actually matter in that question. Talking about them and rejecting them does not affect the question. Even if evolution did not occur and the Earth was really 6,000 years old, how did a dead old rock that was void and empty gain several thousand degrees of heat within its core?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
(1) I am on topic.
(2) I wanna know everything you said about me on another forum. (3) I just thought I threw this one out there since both you and I know the "you can't know for sure since no one has been there" argument is bound to show up in a topic like this.
OC writes:
As Archangel already pointed out, the Earth was just a hunk of rock floating through nothingness long before G-D breathed life upon it. This would explain the apparent old age of the Earth. Even if we remove the issue of the iron core, how did a dead empty rock ball turn molten under the crust? But more importantly, we should look at other angles. The Sun, Moon, and other planets were placed around Earth. Their gravitational influences, over time, began to have adverse effects on the Earth's geology. Anyone with the most basic knowledge in physics knows that gravitational bodies exert gravitational tidal waves on each other. But just in case we have people that don't know what I'm talking about, let me briefly explain. When we have two massive bodies in close range with each other, they attract each other based on the inverse squared law. Distance being the key in the equation. Say we have objects A and B. The side of object A that faces object B is obviously a lot closer to object B than the side of object A that faces away from object B. The gravitational influence of object B on the far side of object A is considerably less than the gravitational influence of object B on the near side of object A. Therefore, we end up with what we call the tidal wave effect. Object A's shape is slightly altered to more like a pumpkin shape as one side is pulled toward object B with a stronger gravitational magnitude than the other side. This is why we have tides on Earth and Enceladus is considerably warmer than what it should be that far out. Going back to Earth, after G-D put the planetary bodies around Earth, their gravitational effects started to work on the Earth. The Earth began to be geologically active. One of these effects is the heat generated by friction as one side of the Earth is pulled toward the Moon a lot stronger than the other side. Try to beat that explanation!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
1) It wasn't to you
2) I quoted your "If God made man from dirt..." joke. It got a round of laughs on another forum and I did cite you when I made the joke. Archangel then proceeded to argue I screwed up the grammar (not you) despite my linking to your post. Things didn't go well for him after that. 3) Thanks As usual, you come up with amusing explanations. We are getting off topic though. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
If you haven't noticed, I'm trying hard to support your claims. Consider me a friend in a sea of hostile, baby eating evilutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4143 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Got it. Planetary Partial Self Combustion. That would explain how a dead ball of rock suddenly gained several thousand degrees in its core.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Going back to Earth, after G-D put the planetary bodies around Earth, their gravitational effects started to work on the Earth. The Earth began to be geologically active. One of these effects is the heat generated by friction as one side of the Earth is pulled toward the Moon a lot stronger than the other side. Try to beat that explanation! The Earth displays millions of years of readily observable geological activity, reaching back to the point where geological processes would have recycled any older features. The lower limit for the age of the geologically and biologically active Earth using only observations like seasonally-deposited strata and the age of fossils found in rocks is in the tens to hundreds of millions of years range...orders of magnitude greater than the thousands to tens of thousands of years estimated by your scenario. Further, gravitational heating requires some pretty hefty tidal forces to be exerted on the Earth...and we can readily observe that the Sun's effect on the tides is minimal, and the Moon is not causing any sort of geological activity as it orbits the Earth. We have observed cases of tidal heating in the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and it looks nothing like what we observe with Earth. Finally, your scenario requires the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies to magically "Poof!" into existence. This contradicts current models of stellar and planetary formation, which are devised by dating the ages of meteorites, observing other stars and nebulae and planets, and other methods. What is you evidence supporting the sudden appearance of the Sun and all other celestial bodies 6-10,000 years ago, as opposed to their continued existence for billions of years? How do you avoid violating the conservation of mass/energy? By what mechanism does the sudden appearance occur? What testable predictions does your model make, so that we can test your accuracy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1385 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Rahvin writes: It sounds to me like you're applying religious apologetics rather than the scientific method - rather than following evidence (and only objective, observable evidence) to form logically consistent and parsimonious models that explain the observable data with testable predictions, you're starting from a given conclusion and attempting to justify it through the "interpretation" of evidence. I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Hi Rahvin, I realize we can't discuss my perspective here in depth since it will take us too far off the subject of geology. But let's suffice it to say that it is you who is ignoring the scientific method as a believer in evolution. And it's also why I reject all of your modern conclusions for evolution. Here's what I mean; unless you can prove the foundation upon which the modern theory rests is solid and proven to be true, then there is no way to rely on the conclusions which evolution assumes to be true. All of the examples you post are nothing more than interpretations which are arrived at based on the assumption that life spontaneously arose from that primordial ooze around 3.5 billion years ago, allowing 1 billion years for the earth to allegedly cool down to allow for that to occur from the original age of the guestimated 4.5 billion year old age which evolutionists promote. Regarding radiometric dating: The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal Lust The bottom line is though, that evolution cannot be relied on to be factual in any way until its foundation which is the basis upon which all the following facts rely is proven soundly to be factual. And I especially find your examples of Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī of the 11th century CE and 18th century British naturalist William Smith's hypothesis to be curious as if their opinions based on interpretations of observations in nature would impress or sway me at all. Do you think that because I trust Gods word, a source you consider to be ancient myth, that I would then respect sources from antiquity that you offer which defend your position, just because they're origin is old? So Here is my contention with your so called science, you can place all of the faith you want to in red shift, the speed of light and the consistency of gravity. But can you prove for me what impact the absorption spectrum or angular momentum has on the speed of light or the different cosmological observations we use to measure the relevant properties as we guestimate the age of the Earth and the Universe? Tell me this in absolute terms and with unquestioning assurance if you can Rahvin, what if our understanding of "cosmic background radiation" is just plain wrong based on assumptions which have no as of yet dreamed of basis in fact for us at this time? What impact would that one erroneous conclusion have on the whole science of cosmology considering the number of equations which are based on that one law being correct if it isn't? What impact could that error have on the age of the universe or the earth? Now consider cosmic strings, critical density, dark matter and what impact these few theories would have on just the doppler effect which is used to measure the frequency of a wave (light, sound, etc.) due to the relative motion of the source or receiver. On things moving toward you having their wavelengths shortened (blueshift). And things moving away have their emitted wavelengths lengthened (redshift). Isn't this theory relied upon for how we have dated the universe and the Earth? If the theories which affect it are incorrect, then by what standard do we rely on any of the interpretations we make? Just look at this glossary of laws for cosmology and astronomy and tell me that everyone of them is being applied perfectly correctly and in their proper context under every and all circumstances. Now misinterpret or misapply a few of them and then assure for me that we are getting solid and true outcomes. The fact is, you can't. This is why I say it requires as much faith for you to accept evo as it takes for me to accept creation. AMAZING SPACE Here is page one only of these laws, now you tell me that they are all interpreted and applied perfectly under all conditions so that they always lead to the correct outcome.
Accelerating Universe A model for the universe in which a repulsive force counteracts the attractive force of gravity, driving all the matter in the universe apart at speeds that increase with time. Recent observations of distant supernova explosions suggest that we may live in an accelerating universe. Big BangA broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. The theory says that the observable universe started roughly 13.7 billion years ago from an extremely dense and incredibly hot initial state. Closed UniverseA geometric model of the universe in which the overall structure of the universe closes upon itself like the surface of a sphere. The rules of geometry in a closed universe are like those that would apply on the surface of a sphere. Cosmic Microwave BackgroundRadiative energy filling the universe that is believed to be the radiation remaining from the Big Bang. It is sometimes called the primal glow. This radiation is strongest in the microwave part of the spectrum but has also been detected at radio and infrared wavelengths. The intensity of the cosmic microwave background from every part of the sky is almost exactly the same. Cosmological PrincipleThis principle states that the distribution of matter across very large distances is the same everywhere in the universe and that the universe looks the same in all directions. According to this principle, our view of the universe is like the view from a boat on an ocean, which is essentially the same for any other person on any other boat on any other ocean. Measurements of matter and energy in the universe on the largest observable scales support the cosmological principle. CosmologyThe investigation of the origin, structure, and development of the universe, including how energy, forces, and matter interact on a cosmic scale. Critical DensityThe minimum average density that matter in the universe would need in order for its gravitational pull to slow the universe’s expansion to a halt. Dark MatterMatter that is too dim to be detected by telescopes. Astronomers infer its existence by measuring its gravitational influence. Dark matter makes up most of the total mass of the universe. Flat UniverseA geometric model of the universe in which the laws of geometry are like those that would apply on a flat surface such as a table top. Grand Unified Theory (GUT)A theory stating that that strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetic forces are varying aspects of the same fundamental force. Hubble’s LawMathematically expresses the idea that the recessional velocities of faraway galaxies are directly proportional to their distance from us. Hubble’s Law describes the relationship of velocity and distance by the equation V=Ho * d, where V is the object’s recessional velocity, d is the distance to the object, and Ho is the Hubble constant. Essentially, the more distant two galaxies are from each other, the faster they are traveling away from each other. American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered this relationship in 1929 when he observed that galaxies and clusters of galaxies were generally moving away from each other. Hubble Constant (Ho)A number that expresses the rate at which the universe expands with time. Ho appears to be between 60 and 75 kilometers per second per megaparsec. Open UniverseA geometrical model of the universe in which the overall structure of the universe extends infinitely in all directions. The rules of geometry in an open universe are like those that would apply on a saddle-shaped surface. Primordial NucleosynthesisElement building that occurred in the early universe when the nuclei of primordial matter collided and fused with one another. Most of the helium in the universe was created by this process. But like you say, this is far afield of geology alone so I will abandon this thread so as not to derail it.
{There seems to be many themes happening here, most to all of which seem to have no direct connection to this topic's theme. If you do find something on topic here, reply away. If you don't, then don't reply to this message. - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Moderation message in red.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3319 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Damn it, I was hoping nobody would think of the counter arguments that I came up with while conjuring up my support for creationism.
Rahvin writes:
Again, you weren't there. Geologists weren't there. All of these hundreds of millions of years of ranges were simply fabricated to support an atheistic worldview.
The Earth displays millions of years of readily observable geological activity, reaching back to the point where geological processes would have recycled any older features. The lower limit for the age of the geologically and biologically active Earth using only observations like seasonally-deposited strata and the age of fossils found in rocks is in the tens to hundreds of millions of years range...orders of magnitude greater than the thousands to tens of thousands of years estimated by your scenario. Further, gravitational heating requires some pretty hefty tidal forces to be exerted on the Earth...and we can readily observe that the Sun's effect on the tides is minimal, and the Moon is not causing any sort of geological activity as it orbits the Earth. We have observed cases of tidal heating in the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and it looks nothing like what we observe with Earth.
Of course it's nothing like what we observe with Earth, and that's because they're not Earth. What a silly thing to say. You silly you.
Finally, your scenario requires the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies to magically "Poof!" into existence. This contradicts current models of stellar and planetary formation, which are devised by dating the ages of meteorites, observing other stars and nebulae and planets, and other methods. What is you evidence supporting the sudden appearance of the Sun and all other celestial bodies 6-10,000 years ago, as opposed to their continued existence for billions of years? How do you avoid violating the conservation of mass/energy? By what mechanism does the sudden appearance occur? What testable predictions does your model make, so that we can test your accuracy?
Give me a break here. You know how hard it is to defend a position you know to be false? It's like writing a fictional novel, which I tried a couple years ago and failed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Hi Archangel,
If you want to discuss any of those off-topic topics, you should be able to find already-existing threads for many of them. Just peruse through the various Science Forums. If you can't find a thread for a particular topic you can propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics. I don't think any valid objections can be raised to the claim that "God did it," unless you're also claiming that this answer has scientific support. The science forums (this thread is in one of the science forums) are for discussing answers that have been uncovered using the scientific method to identify supporting scientific evidence. One of the science forums, Is It Science?, includes discussion of the nature of modern science. I know you feel wronged by Obvious Child, but EvC Forum tries very hard to keep discussion focused on the topic. You can ignore Obvious Child, or you and Obvious Child can try to hash out your differences in a Coffee House thread, but threads in the science forums should keep their focus pretty much on the topic. If you encounter problems in a discussion then report it at Report discussion problems here: No.2 and let moderators do their job. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1385 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Thanks for the info Percy. I'll peruse the other forums and post accordingly. I can see that obvious child would rather report my response to rahvin than debate the points I make here which he can't answer. At least he's consistent in whatever forum which he resides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Databed Junior Member (Idle past 5330 days) Posts: 7 From: Chattanooga, TN, USA Joined: |
Hi OC, I couldn't help but migrate over here as well.
I'm actually very new to this debate online, but I have had strong feelings about it since I was young when I realized that you can't rely on the mystical and supernatural to get the changes you wish to see in the world. So why should you use the mystical and supernatural to explain the world? I have been learning all fields of science, and even though this debate is getting old real fast since it seems some people just aren't rational and rely on tactics rather than information, I see value in continuing since I am all the time searching into unknown areas of science and philosophy and becoming more well-rounded in any debate. In response to your question about the heat contained in the Earth's core, there is actually a pseudo-reasonable response that a creationist could claim here. The heat that is left over from the accretion and frictional heat that resulted only accounts for a small portion of the heat inside the Earth (20%). The rest is radiogenic heat that is still being generated, thus balancing to some degree heat loss and heat generation. This is from the decay of radioactive isotopes. There is a problem with this however. Of course 6000 years is not enough time to generate this heat. Also, the science used to predict the heat that is generated by the radioactive decay is the very same science that tells the Earth is old through radiometric dating. Again, since a creationist's claim may be that we have this science wrong, they can simply twist this to say it produces more heat than we think and we have decay rates all wrong. If decay was much faster, dates would be placed older and more heat would be generated, thus explaining the hot core and a young Earth. However, it would also make nuclear power plants explode. This is of course absurd, since we have a firm understanding of the heat that is generated due to radioactive decay and utilize these principles in generating nuclear power. There are many uses of radiometric decay that rely on a firm prediction of decay rates besides power generation as well. As for the assertion that the Earth was obviously once entirely molten due to an exact composition such that heavier elements are closer to the center of the Earth, I think is all they have here is 'God did it.'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If you're going to be that wrong, you might want to adopt a less pompous style of writing. {Off-topic sniping hidden - Adminnemooseus} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic sniping hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4045 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Hi Archangel,
The topic in this thread is a little confused at this point, so I'm going to try to restrict my response only to what I think is relevant. I'd be happy to debate non-geological issues in a more appropriate thread.
But let's suffice it to say that it is you who is ignoring the scientific method as a believer in evolution. And it's also why I reject all of your modern conclusions for evolution. Geology has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which is the change in biological populations over generations. The Earth is not a biological population, and so the topics are wholly separated. Even if evolution were proven false tomorrow, current theories in geology, including the age estimates of teh Earth, would stand unchanged. Creationists often conflate unrelated scientific theories as part of some "evolutionist agenda;" I assure you that this is not how science works. No individual theory can directly contradict another theory (ie, if it were proven that teh Earth is in fact only 6000 years old, the Theory of Evolution would have to modify its predictions about the past), but science is not a proverbial house of cards (even if the Earth were conclusively proven to be only 6000 years old, the actual Theory of Evolution, which explains the change in biological populations over generations as being due to random mutation guided by natural selection, would not be affected).
All of the examples you post are nothing more than interpretations which are arrived at based on the assumption that life spontaneously arose from that primordial ooze around 3.5 billion years ago, allowing 1 billion years for the earth to allegedly cool down to allow for that to occur from the original age of the guestimated 4.5 billion year old age which evolutionists promote. Modern age estimates for the Earth are arrived at independently from any biological evidence. It quite literally has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution doesn't even include abiogenesis. You very much seem to be wrapping together lots of completely independent theories and claiming that they are all part of some "Evolutionist conspiracy." What science do you accept, Archangel?
Regarding radiometric dating: The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad". Radiometric dating is extremely well established in science, and its predictions where verifiable have proven to be extremelyaccurate. The "flaws" you point out (sample size issues for both the parent and product isotopes, contamination, etc) are corrected for by utilizing multiple completely different and independent radiometric dating techniques to date individual samples, while also dating multiple independent samples. This is like using a ruler, a meter stick, and a laser rangefinder to measure a given length, and then repeating the process on multiple samples. For all of the measurement methods to arrive at the same estimate over all of teh independent samples by chance or due to contamination or sample size issues defies probability. In short, we take great pains to correct for the very issues you bring up - as I mentioned in my previous post. Further, "inconsistencies" are typically the result of using the wrong dating method. Using a radioisotope with a halflife in the billions of years to date something known to be only a few centuries old simply won't work - there's a minimum and maximum range for every dating method. For example, carbon dating is useless for dating samples millions of years old; the halflife of the isotope involved is just too short. An analogy would be like using a ruler to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon. Creationist sources who attempt to "debunk" radiometric dating frequently attempt to date a sample known to be millions of years old using carbon dating, and claim victory when the sample dates to only a few tens of thousands of years. To put it bluntly, they're being either incredibly dishonest or downright stupid.
And I especially find your examples of Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī of the 11th century CE and 18th century British naturalist William Smith's hypothesis to be curious as if their opinions based on interpretations of observations in nature would impress or sway me at all. Do you think that because I trust Gods word, a source you consider to be ancient myth, that I would then respect sources from antiquity that you offer which defend your position, just because they're origin is old? The age of the estimates I gave was relevant only in that they predated Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and so absolutely cannot have been part of some evolutionist conspiracy to support the Theory of Evolution by proposing an old Earth. The old Earth model came long before evolution. What's more relevant is that those dating estimates didn't use radiometric dating - they used only directly observable evidence to arrive at lower limit estimates for the age of the Earth that are still orders of magnitude older than Creationists propose; further, since Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī's estimate used seashells, it constitutes readily observable evidence that life on Earth is millions of years old at the least. Even if you accept an old Earth as a "dead, void rock" until God "breathed life" into it a few thousand years ago, these estimates directly contradict your religious view. In short, a young Earth has been refuted by multiple independent avenues of evidence. Young life has similarly been refuted - neither position matches the observed evidence. The fact is, modern theories of geology have proven to be highly accurate. This is the ultimate test of any scientific theory, and is how we eliminate faith from the equation despite your false accusations. Theories are explanatory models that explain a set of observations; those models make predictions that can be tested for accuracy. We don't have faith, Archangel, that our current models are "true." We have objectively demonstrated that their predictions are highly accurate by all available methods of testing. This is incontrovertible. Further, all scientific theories are tentative such that they will be dropped like a dirty diaper if a more accurate model is presented, or new evidence arises that falsifies them. No faith is involved. Only evidence reigns supreme in science. So far, you've presented no model, no testable predictions. You've barely even clarified your view beyond "the Earth is old, but life is young according to the Bible." You've presented no evidence in favor of that view, instead choosing to try to falsify geological theories that have been tested extensively over the past several centuries and have been proven to be very accurate in their predictions. If you want to support the Biblical view, falsifying current models won't help you. This isn't a binary choice; if modern geology is wrong, the Bible doesn't magically become accurate. If you want to scientifically support the biblical model, provide evidence. Clearly explain your observations and your model of geology that explains them, including how old you think the Earth is, your explanation for the geological processes we observe today, etc. Make predictions based on that model, and then provide observations showing that those predictions are accurate, and that they are more accurate than current geological models. If you cannot present evidence, if you can do nothing but throw limp criticisms at currently accepted scientific models, then I'm afraid you'll be unable to convince anyone that your position is anything more than religious flimflam. I fear that the rest of your post runs far afield of geology and would be off-topic here. If you'd like to discuss cosmology, I;d be happy to do so in a more appropriate thread.
I can see that obvious child would rather report my response to rahvin than debate the points I make here which he can't answer. Archangel, this statement is absurd. Obvious Child didn't "report" anything to me - I'm not someone to "report" things to in the first place. I'm no administrator, I'm just a guy who enjoys debating as a mental exercise. I saw this thread, and as you'll note I've basically ignored OC's opening post in this thread in favor of debating only your actual statements - I'd rather debate my opponents own stated position, rather than what someone else presents as my opponent's position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1385 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Rahvin writes: Geology has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, which is the change in biological populations over generations. The Earth is not a biological population, and so the topics are wholly separated. You needn't state the obvious with me Rahvin. The fact is that you strayed from the thread topic too, in your post which I responded to. 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.
No individual theory can directly contradict another theory (ie, if it were proven that teh Earth is in fact only 6000 years old, the Theory of Evolution would have to modify its predictions about the past), but science is not a proverbial house of cards (even if the Earth were conclusively proven to be only 6000 years old, the actual Theory of Evolution, which explains the change in biological populations over generations as being due to random mutation guided by natural selection, would not be affected). This statement is utterly ridiculous as you seem to be saying that if the earth were proven to be 6000 years old, the process of evolution which led from single cell life to we human beings could have occurred in only 6,000 years. When the fact is that the reason the age of the universe and the earth has continually been pushed back since Darwin, is because they needed to allow for more time in order for their theory to remain rational since all of their cosmological results showed that more time was required than the estimated age of the universe at the time.
You very much seem to be wrapping together lots of completely independent theories and claiming that they are all part of some "Evolutionist conspiracy." What science do you accept, Archangel? I'm actually shocked to hear this criticism Rahvin, since the theory of evolution is absolutely based on a culmination of the results from many different scientific endeavors which contribute to it. This is why I find it rather limiting to disallow the introduction of different types of science specialties in order to show the inconsistency between one specialty and another.
Archangel, this statement is absurd. Obvious Child didn't "report" anything to me - I'm not someone to "report" things to in the first place. I'm no administrator, I'm just a guy who enjoys debating as a mental exercise. I saw this thread, and as you'll note I've basically ignored OC's opening post in this thread in favor of debating only your actual statements - I'd rather debate my opponents own stated position, rather than what someone else presents as my opponent's position. I apologize for misspeaking. When I went to copy this quote to respond because I didn't understand why you were defending against something I never implied and taking that statement personally, and then I saw that I did refer to you by name, I was shocked since I meant to say only that he reported my post to a moderator, not to you. That was a complete error on my part since the moderator who commented on my post signed his name and it wasn't you. His note was very acceptable to me in spite of the intent and complaint of the reporter of the post. Let me give you an example of the juvenile posters I am up against at this other forum obvious child trolls at. He ran back to the thread which by the way, proves my assertion that this threads premise has no bearing with the original thread premise he started there as that one deals with a molten earth question, but this one deals with the molten core of the earth, so my original complaint is proven. And he posts the link to this thread and starts asserting how I am getting my butt kicked over here. So the evolutionists over there are now having a private party assuming things which haven't happened at all to this point. Mark my words, the obvious child will immediately report this post in an attempt to get the link deleted so you people here can't see his true juvenile character as expressed so shamelessly on the other forum. Those people don't debate issues, they attack opponents whom they can't defeat in honest debate. 4forums.com is for sale | HugeDomains From here on though, we must meet on topic appropriate threads. This is just feeding the childs desire to get me banned. You will see on the posted link that he asserts that I am about to be banned from ANOTHER FORUM, when he has no knowledge of me ever being banned from any forum. Those are the types of assumptions he makes in debate which make it impossible to reason with him. Thanks Rahvin, and see you on the flip side.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024