[_ Old Earth _] Fast cooling magma

[dad]

Matter in the past must have cooled fast. We see the seperation of waters from land in Gen 1. If this happened today we would be cooked. Just like if the continents seperated fast, it would now cause great heat. Therefore matter was different, and cooled fast in the past.

 

[moniker]

That's an interesting inversion of the scientific method, starting with the solution and twisting ideas or evidence in order to support it. Is there any evidence for this claim?

 

[reznwerks]

interesting

That's an interesting inversion of the scientific method, starting with the solution and twisting ideas or evidence in order to support it. Is there any evidence for this claim?

It might be interesting but it's nothing new. That is the normal process for those that promote the ID and YEC philosophy. As you so correctly deducted they start out with the facts and then desparately look for evidence to support it. When the evidence doesn't measure up then the evidence is at fault but the "facts" stand as stated.

 

[Guest]

Re: interesting

That's an interesting inversion of the scientific method, starting with the solution and twisting ideas or evidence in order to support it. Is there any evidence for this claim?

It might be interesting but it's nothing new. That is the normal process for those that promote the ID and YEC philosophy. As you so correctly deducted they start out with the facts and then desparately look for evidence to support it. When the evidence doesn't measure up then the evidence is at fault but the "facts" stand as stated.

In this case, . . . what he is saying is that the evidence isn't faulty, . . . . .but because the evidence is true, . . . . "well, then that just has to mean that the earth was different back then." It's a round about way of saying that the facts may be present, but I'll stick my head in this sand and sing happy songs. . . . . .Uh, . . No offense to anyone in particular. :wink:

 

[dad]

That's an interesting inversion of the scientific method, starting with the solution and twisting ideas or evidence in order to support it. Is there any evidence for this claim?

Is there any evidence against it?
Then there is the bible. There we do have support. If we stick to science we have no idea as to the state of matter and the universe back then. WE simply assume it was the same as now. Nothing more.

 

[dad]

Re: interesting

...
It might be interesting but it's nothing new. That is the normal process for those that promote the ID and YEC philosophy. As you so correctly deducted they start out with the facts and then desparately look for evidence to support it. When the evidence doesn't measure up then the evidence is at fault but the "facts" stand as stated.

There IS NO EVIDENCE that the past was the same, so you are talking through your hat there. Or do you think you have some evidence that the state of the universe had to be the same then? If not, you have less than nothing, and are in no position whatsoever to start second guessing the Almighty as to how He done it. If you do, for heaven's sake, out with it man. Really.

 

[moniker]

That's an interesting inversion of the scientific method, starting with the solution and twisting ideas or evidence in order to support it. Is there any evidence for this claim?

Is there any evidence against it?
Then there is the bible. There we do have support. If we stick to science we have no idea as to the state of matter and the universe back then. WE simply assume it was the same as now. Nothing more.

Most probably, yes. If there isn't then there is still, as always, Occam's Razor. However, I'm not a geologist and I haven't the time to search through various journals to falsify your claim when you have made less than no effort to prove it. Afterall, there is also no evidence against a large, invisible, monster composed of fettuccine producing all the landmasses on the earth and forming their current positioning from one very large, tree filled mountain. Should we, then, accept it as a plausible explanation for the world as we see it?

I am curious, though, why do you consider God to be so simple minded and lacking in foresight?

 

[dad]

Most probably, yes. If there isn't then there is still, as always, Occam's Razor. However, I'm not a geologist and I haven't the time to search through various journals to falsify your claim when you have made less than no effort to prove it. Afterall, there is also no evidence against a large, invisible, monster composed of fettuccine producing all the landmasses on the earth and forming their current positioning from one very large, tree filled mountain. Should we, then, accept it as a plausible explanation for the world as we see it?

I am curious, though, why do you consider God to be so simple minded and lacking in foresight?

He doesn't lack, no idea what you mean. You can check all the geology books in the world, and physics, and every other book on the planet and nowhere is there any falsification! The invisible monster, and your same past are both unsupportable dreams. You are in no position to throw stones at God's book here!

PS Occam was a Christan monk. He's would be with me here on this one against a misapplication of the intent of his words. Besides, us living in a temporary universe at the moment is the simplest explanation. No universe in a speckish little hot soup, no phantom first lifeform magically appearing, no bible as a pack of wild tales, etc etc.

 

[ArtGuy]

PS Occam was a Christan monk. He's would be with me here on this one against a misapplication of the intent of his words. Besides, us living in a temporary universe at the moment is the simplest explanation. No universe in a speckish little hot soup, no phantom first lifeform magically appearing, no bible as a pack of wild tales, etc etc.

Can you explain how all the laws of physics having to be changed is a simpler explanation than Genesis being a metaphorical work designed by God to communicate certain basic, philosophical truths?

 

[dad]

PS Occam was a Christan monk. He's would be with me here on this one against a misapplication of the intent of his words. Besides, us living in a temporary universe at the moment is the simplest explanation. No universe in a speckish little hot soup, no phantom first lifeform magically appearing, no bible as a pack of wild tales, etc etc.

Can you explain how all the laws of physics having to be changed is a simpler explanation than Genesis being a metaphorical work designed by God to communicate certain basic, philosophical truths?

They have to be changed again, the bible says. We are in a temporary state. If this was the original created eternal state, why would this be true!?

 

[dad]

PS Occam was a Christan monk. He's would be with me here on this one against a misapplication of the intent of his words. Besides, us living in a temporary universe at the moment is the simplest explanation. No universe in a speckish little hot soup, no phantom first lifeform magically appearing, no bible as a pack of wild tales, etc etc.

Can you explain how all the laws of physics having to be changed is a simpler explanation than Genesis being a metaphorical work designed by God to communicate certain basic, philosophical truths?

They have to be changed again, the bible says. We are in a temporary state. If this was the original created eternal state, why would this be true!?

 

[Guest]

PS Occam was a Christan monk. He's would be with me here on this one against a misapplication of the intent of his words. Besides, us living in a temporary universe at the moment is the simplest explanation. No universe in a speckish little hot soup, no phantom first lifeform magically appearing, no bible as a pack of wild tales, etc etc.

Can you explain how all the laws of physics having to be changed is a simpler explanation than Genesis being a metaphorical work designed by God to communicate certain basic, philosophical truths?

They have to be changed again, the bible says. We are in a temporary state. If this was the original created eternal state, why would this be true!?

"...the bible says..." is not a sufficient answer to the question of which would be more true. A completely different Laws of Physics, . . . . or the first of Genesis being an analogy. It's obvious which one is the much more probable.

However, you have the right to have the belief you have. It doesn't make you any more righteous.

 

[dad]

"...the bible says..." is not a sufficient answer to the question of which would be more true. A completely different Laws of Physics, . . . . or the first of Genesis being an analogy. It's obvious which one is the much more probable.

No, not really. You say the bible is no authority on the matter, but you face a dilemma. You cannot evidence that the past was the same. All you offer is unbelief that it was not the same, and no proof it was! This does not put you in a position to tell us the bible is not better than your nothing. I'd say it is better than nothing.
If there is an after life, things will have to be different. The bible says they will, this whole heavens will pass away. No science can begin to oppose this. That is not just probable, but a certainty.

 

[Guest]

"...the bible says..." is not a sufficient answer to the question of which would be more true. A completely different Laws of Physics, . . . . or the first of Genesis being an analogy. It's obvious which one is the much more probable.

No, not really. You say the bible is no authority on the matter, but you face a dilemma. You cannot evidence that the past was the same. All you offer is unbelief that it was not the same, and no proof it was! This does not put you in a position to tell us the bible is not better than your nothing. I'd say it is better than nothing.
If there is an after life, things will have to be different. The bible says they will, this whole heavens will pass away. No science can begin to oppose this. That is not just probable, but a certainty.

Psalms 78:69
And he built his sanctuary like high [palaces], like the earth which he hath established for ever.

Psalms 104:5
[Who] laid the foundations of the earth, [that] it should not be removed for ever.

Ecclesiastes 1:4
[One] generation passeth away, and [another] generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

Contradictions?

Isaiah 51:6
Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.

Matthew 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

Mark 13:31
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Luke 21:33
Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, again, I comment. . . .which is more likely. The laws of physics were drastically changed because of "sin", . . . or Genesis is allegorical/a parable?

 

[dad]

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, again, I comment. . . .which is more likely. The laws of physics were drastically changed because of "sin", . . . or Genesis is allegorical/a parable?

No contradictions in the bible. The earth will pass away, the surface of the earth will be burned with fire. But the earth itself will not pass away. All we need is God's help and Spirit to interpret the bible.

 

[moniker]

Would you mind quoting the scripture where you are getting this idea from, your interpretation of what that scripture actually means, and a link to the search engine for geological papers that helped you reach your claim and any other research that helped you get to this conclusion?

Also:

You can check all the geology books in the world, and physics, and every other book on the planet and nowhere is there any falsification!

Would you mind listing some of the books that you read? I'm rather interested.

 

[dad]

Would you mind quoting the scripture where you are getting this idea from, your interpretation of what that scripture actually means, and a link to the search engine for geological papers that helped you reach your claim and any other research that helped you get to this conclusion?

In so many ways, the bible speaks of a past and a future that is very different from our present. There is a long list of differences. We also know that the present heavens will pass away as we know them, and an eternal new ones be revealed. Lifespans, plant groth rates, light, and many things are touched on. Jesus rose from the dead to get His new immortal body that was both physical and spiritual. We shall be like Him, and our whole universe will be forever, like the sun and stars as well.

Also:

You can check all the geology books in the world, and physics, and every other book on the planet and nowhere is there any falsification!

Would you mind listing some of the books that you read? I'm rather interested.[/quote]
Name any geology book you can think of, and it will not contain a falsification of the past as both spiritual and physical. They simply proceed as if it were always the same.

 

[moniker]

So, in other words, no, you wouldn't like to post them or answer my questions.

 

[dad]

So, in other words, no, you wouldn't like to post them or answer my questions.

About which books do not falsify a different past? All books on earth.
Or do you mean where the bible says it was and will be different?
Eternal life, long lifespans, water above the earth, massive water and land movements with heat that is little enough not to harm us, talking animals, plants the grow in a week (trees), a worldwide flood, spirits marrying women, all animals in one boat, heaven, the new heavens, and these ones passing away, trees that grow a different fruit every month, etc etc etc etc. What, you kidding?

 

[moniker]

So you don't have any specific scripture just a general feeling from your understanding of the early books of the Bible as a whole. You didn't use any articles or peer reviewed works of research, so no search engine(s), and you haven't read any geological books nor looked through them for falsification you simply made an assumption and are relying on others laziness to not disprove you. Gotcha.