Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: "Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 07:34:36 GMT
In message <87slt8fdts.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Perhaps they are. But I bet that if you (for instance)
> ask them "do you believe in evolution?" they will take you
> to be talking about biological evolution, not about (for
> instance) the idea that the earth got how it is by a
> gradual process.
Which is why, in my original post, I included a note to indicate the sense
in which I was using the term "evolution". Perhaps, in order to satisfy the
pedants, I should have put the note in an attractive shade of puce?
> "Very much"? I doubt this. Consider: if Harrison's right then
> the earth was as cold 200Ma after its formation as it was formerly
> thought to have been 500Ma after its formation. So the new predicted
> temperature for the earth now would be more or less the old predicted
> temperature for the earth 300Ma in the future. Now, yet again, I'm
> not an expert on this stuff, but I don't think that's a very big
> change.
It's not as simple as you make out. If the earth cooled down that much
faster, then there must be some mechanism for that cooling and unless you
are going to postulate that this unknown mechanism cut out abruptly after
200Ma (to use your abbreviation) then the earth would have continued to cool
at this much faster rate. That is why I say that the earth today would be
very much cooler than it is now - either that or very much more radioactive
than it is believed to be.
Note what I said below.
> > Have we got the rate of cooling wrong? If we have, then either we are far
> > more ignorant about the size and composition of the earth than we thought we
> > were or there is something fundamentally wrong about our understanding of
> > fundamental physical processes (and I'm sure that you, like me, would be
> > most reluctant to adopt that idea!)
> It leaves another possibility: Harrison could be wrong. His
> conclusions are based on a pretty small sample, and at least
> one eminent palaeogeologist (Balz Kamber) seems to think it's
> likely that H. is wrong.
Of course it is possible that Harrison is wrong - but even if he is, just
remember that he is an evolutionist, not a creationist. If an evolutionist
can look at the evidence and reach conclusions that are at variance with the
accepted dogma, why can't a creationist? Or are you wanting to claim that
Harrison isn't really a scientist?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premiere archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Nick Milton
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- References:
- Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K . Down
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: Hades - or Eden?
- From: Gareth McCaughan
- Hades - or Eden?
- Prev by Date: Re: Evolutionists in disarray
- Next by Date: Re: Limbo consigned to history books
- Previous by thread: Re: Hades - or Eden?
- Next by thread: Re: Hades - or Eden?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading