Re: And another problem for evolution
- From: unrestrained_hand@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 07:23:40 -0800 (PST)
On Jan 28, 7:04 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 5:14 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Caranx latus wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:39 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Neptune radiates 2.6 times as much heat as it absorbs from the sun.
In fact, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune give off more energy than
they receive from the sun.
See NASA for
These planets should be cooled down by now if the solor system is
as old as claimed.
Again with the incomplete arguments?
Read it and weep.
It almost does make me weep. You trot out arguments that you clearly
don't understand and can't possibly begin to defend. If the argument
is worth making, then it is worth being understood. If you must make
the argument, then you owe it to yourself as a matter of respect to
understand what that argument is all about.
And yet here you are responding to it.
Because you know that we truly do not know the age of the earth.
The radiometric dating of rocks.
The presence of plutonic intrusions within the column, which take far
more than 4,000 years to solidify.
Thousands of feet of chalk deposits and evaporite sequences.
Metamorphic rocks (some forms of metamorphism require long periods at
The succession in the fossil record.
Cyclothems (the repetitive and cyclic depositions of marine and
The dating of the lower layers of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice
Heat given off by the nuclear processes inside, heat given off by gas
Evidence by craters on the moon, Mars, etc. (They become less common
over time, and on planets with weathering, they fade over time.)
These all match the same time frame, they all give testable
predictions. *Not speculation.
It was Creationist geologists in the early nineteenth century who
determined that the Earth must be many thousands of times older than a
literalist reading of the bible indicates. A few minutes of reading a
pop science book in the library, or googling keywords and reading the
*science* sites would answer this.
Once again, you reinforce the hypothesis that Creationists are
dishonest and incompetent.
It is just a speculation.
Making simple statements which are easily refuted only reveal your
simple-minded determination to remain ignorant.
Appearances can be decieving.
Evidences can be decieving.
You have no idea why those planets are still hot. Science guesses why.
That's true. It may also be that computers do not actually work; the
displays on your monitor are accidents, and they are random bits of
sparkle happening for unknown reasons. Pure coincidence. But only a
fool or a madman would actually think that. The odds that random
misunderstandings of non-functioning technology would produce emails,
web pages, etc. that are also exactly what the sender intended cannot
be reasonably construed as co-incidence. Altho a liar *can claim this,
even if he doesn't believe it.
None of these reasons for knowing the age of the Earth are "guesses",
as you so quaintly put it. They are the conclusions to be expected by
educated people working their whole lives in various fields of
cosmology, physics, chemistry, geology, and such. It is not a co-
incidence that all of these match.
You seem to be claiming that the creator god is a trickster god. Why
would he make it look as though the universe is older than it "really"
Here's my simple question, which you have so far been too cowardly to
even acknowledge, let alone answer:
how do you tell the difference between divine revelation, and insanity
or self deception?
- Prev by Date: Re: Sir David Attenborough gets hate mail
- Next by Date: Re: Lenny comes up with a real argument - - finally
- Previous by thread: Re: And another problem for evolution
- Next by thread: Re: And another problem for evolution