Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A combination of heat input from the Sun and radioactive materials within the Earth come together to make for an equilibrium temperature in the right range.
You got it. But your questions are to be dealt with in other considerations.
At least, we recognized that there IS enough water to do the global flood. You want me to dealt with one issue. I did.
1. Smaller bodies tend to cool more rapidly than larger bodies (because they don't get to as high of temperatures as larger bodies during formation).Apply what you said to the moon. See what could happen. You may increase the amount of heat proportionally according to the bigger volume of the earth.
Do a simple comparision, Thaumaturgy:
Genesis 1:
Science:
- The order of creation.
- No suffering or death.
- The Godhead speaking.
Now tell me that that second list is not hostile to the first one.
- The order of the creation is wrong.
- Survival of the Fittest.
- God does not exist.
This is a pretty good argument for how science shows this:Where does science say god doesn't exists?
See avvet it's pretty clear that your argument is flawed when you have to lie about others positions.
This is a pretty good argument for how science shows this:
http://machineslikeus.com/scientific-proof-of-gods-non-existence
Of course, to be pedantic, the actual "proof" is that it is highly, highly unlikely that anything like a god exists. So unlikely that we can bet our lives on it without worry.
Right, but simple probabilistic arguments demonstrate that if there is no evidence whatsoever for any specific positive statement (e.g. a god exists), direct or indirect, then it is highly, highly unlikely that that positive statement is true.That's a key difference. There is a big gulf between making the claim "X does not exist" and the claim "There is no evidence that X exists". One can never support a "universal negative". Perhaps God is behind the sofa and when you checked there he moved over behind the book case. One cannot claim something doesn't exist unless one is capable of seeing all space and all time simultaneously.
BUT, indeed, the type of atheism I cleave to is that since I fail to find evidence for God's existence I fail to "reject the null hypothesis of 'there is no God'".
So, in effect, I do what you are saying and live my life with the concept that God doesn't exist. But, in point of fact, I do not say that. I merely say that I fail to see evidence sufficient for me to reject the null hypothesis.
(I know this is "hyper-pedantic" but a subtlety of some importance in science and logic.)
So why doesn't the sun work the same on the moon? Because of no water there. Right? There is not much water in the air of the earth either.
So, how does the earth keep herself warm globally? The air. Right?
So, what was the air like at the beginning of the earth?
/thread
No, because the moon doesn't have enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. CO2 and Methane are much stronger greenhouse gases than water vapor.
How many more question do you have?
It's not my "next challenge". It's why your claim that the average elevation has anything at all to say about the possibility of a global flood is nonsense. The fundamental reason why we have continental shelves and ocean beds is because the stuff that makes up the ocean beds is denser than the stuff that makes up the continental shelves. This is why the continental shelves float higher on the magma. As long as this is the case, it is simply impossible for the entire Earth to flood.So, is the composition of earth's crust your next challenge? And you think that it has to be pretty uniform in order to ... (what?)
My goodness, are you a student of ChordatesLegacy? I haven't seen this type of post since he was gone.
Not really, but CL did provide lots of info with nice pictures and I've decided to do the same. It seems that most of the creationist posters here do not care whether you explain things to them simply or incredibly detailed. I know their are some lurkers on here who are really interested in things of this nature and want answers.
Yeah. What you (and CL) did is good for information, but is not good for argument.
It's not my "next challenge". It's why your claim that the average elevation has anything at all to say about the possibility of a global flood is nonsense. The fundamental reason why we have continental shelves and ocean beds is because the stuff that makes up the ocean beds is denser than the stuff that makes up the continental shelves. This is why the continental shelves float higher on the magma. As long as this is the case, it is simply impossible for the entire Earth to flood.
So, at a bare minimum, your absurd hypothesis that the average elevation of the Earth's crust is able to explain why there's enough water for a flood would require that the distribution of density on the Earth's crust was completely different than it is today. How is that even remotely possible?
No, there isn't, because the crust isn't uniform enough for the existing water to cover the entire surface.My first argument dealt with the claim that there is not enough water to do the global flood. Now we know there IS enough water.
According to what current understanding? From where do we know this? What is the time scale you're talking about? What was the process that caused this increase from 0% to its current 30% land coverage?Regard to this problem (only), you need to know the "continent" on the earth is not always this much as it is today. According to the current understanding, it increased from 0% to the current 30%. So you can figure out the rest of the detail according to your understanding about the continent and the ocean.
Yeah. What you (and CL) did is good for information, but is not good for argument.
Indeed. And evidence should win arguments everywhere, else how can we possibly hope to arrive at the truth?Sorry about that but in debates about science slick rhetoric and quick wit does not "prove" your point. To back up my points I use evidence. Could I have simplyfied my point? Yes I could have but then I would not have been able to fully explain the facts. Evidence wins the argument in science.
We're already there ---Indeed. And evidence should win arguments everywhere, else how can we possibly hope to arrive at the truth?
--- catch up, please.John 14:6 said:Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?