center of the earth

I like lurking on this discussion but......could people use paragraphs!!!!

I thought the tactic on this thread was pretty clear - he's trying to get to the point where you are unable to answer one of his questions, then he will dismiss everything that has been said so far as rubbish. He will then proclaim victory.You don't really think he is ever going to say "yep - I see now that Walt's theory about the flood is wrong?"He has too much emotional investment to do that.

quote:

---

From a biblical standpoint, the earth is eternal, after all, which tends to lead me in the direction of the spiritual forces, and component, when we think of everlasting! After all, physical things are not forever. The upper portion of the earth, we know will pass away, because it is said it will be burned (surface), and totally remade into a paradise. This is why I look at the surface part as different than the interior.

---

The faith forums are that way.....If you want to believe that, good luck to you. It had nothing at all to do with science and had no place in this discussion.

I've called you on this once before - if you wish to discuss the evidence for spirits - start a thread, don't be dodger.

Do you actually bother read the links you provide? large elements of that not setting off warning bells in your head?Have you really learnt nothing about the evaluation of sources since you have been here?

Now THIS is trolling.Maybe the centre of the earth is made of plastic and Ron Wyatt is hiding out there waiting for the second coming?I really can't understand how someone can be exposed to some of the concepts that people have be good enough to outline on here and still want to sit in the dark - I just don't understand this type of behaviour at all. It makes me feel depressed about the state of the world.(but thanks for providing a textbook example of how wanting to believe something can overcome reason).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 26 January 2005 05:54 AM

quote:

---

What does that book of lies have to do with anything? Havent you read the Good News of the Cowpatty? That we have all been redeemed by the multiple stomachs of the Cosmic Heifer?

​

Show your light to the unbelievers, oh gloriour heifer.

---

Why do you persist in this nonsense you mangy Dog? Clearly Mighty Ra is the reason that the centre of the earth is the earth is actually a second sun. Unlike some religions we Raists don't need science - it's all done by magic!You may scoff but if man tries to enter the earth then he will find...........continue this nonsense for another 300 posts... and so onThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 27 January 2005 05:16 AM

This is interesting - if you are not the author - just say no, that doesn't identify you does it?

But we can throw any whacko theory and not support it with evidence? or actually answer any of the questions put to us? That's ok as long as it is connected to the centre of the earth.I therefore submit my idea that the centre of the earth is a giant sponge cake.

Have you actually read this thread ? I must conclude from those comments that you have not.For about 150 posts we have asked for evidence to back any of the assumptions that he has made (such as the centre of the earth being cool, it containing a giant diamond etc). None has been forthcoming - not a single piece. How long do you think that should go on?Of course a creationist can believe that the earth was created by God but THIS forum "geology and the great flood" is intended to consider SCIENTIFIC evidence for a flood.We have a number of forums such as "is it science" to discuss the idea that god took a direct hand in any flood.

quote:

---

Excuse me? My assertion is only this. I'd like to check the evidence that the interior must be hot, and that a cooler scenario could not be possible. As I have already said, I simply picked some materials, for examples, so we could look at whether or not anything else could fit the bill. I have no assertions that it is a diamond, or gold or water.

---

Really?

quote:

---

All the evidence that is for the old model, now simply entered as evidence for the new, and proper model. The only exception being, old age asumptions such as metals, over billions of years settling down, etc. not applicable in the least! Bouncing seismic waves, and satelite fly by readings now simply to be read in their proper light. Why, are you suggesting something doesn't fit? Can't pass through a liquid, fine, no need to look the the old model. Simply a better fit of the evidence, no lack of any. The beauty is that it also fits with the bible.
  —msg 114

---

This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30 January 2005 17:01 AM

How can you have a model if you don't make any assumption or supply any evidence?

quote:

---

OK, so we have an wonderful, amazing, and dense earth here, more so than any other planet in the system. Indeed, we are special here, in that!
At it's heart, a diamond, I would like to propose, covered by a layer of water. We can build it up from here, obeying all laws as good citizens now. So, before moving on further, would someone happen to have a reason, I need to modify my beautiful young earth model here?
  —msg 91

---

Can I suggest that when we get to the magic number of 300 posts that unless Cosmos can supply some rational reason for us to carry this mess forward (in the form of a decent OP? that we wrap it up?

I'm confused - you told ned that you had not proposed anything but were just putting things "out there"?Now you are saying people are helping you to refine a model?Which is it?I tend to lurk on scientific threads where my knowledge is limited. However no special expertise is needed to comment on your shifting and changing use of terminology and where you stand.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30 January 2005 18:30 AM

I wondered about this before - "simple" is refering to moving on from ideas that i'm sure that Cosmo proposed.