You said that the Earth got bigger because God spontaneously made the Earth's core less dense. That's invoking a miracle, i.e. a violation of natural law.Tobias_Marco wrote:<Actually the "growing Earth thing" is NOT a "violations of natural law", I found it in The Kingfisher Science Encyclopedia.>
What you found in the Kingfisher Encyclopedia is a few bits of data that you interpreted as saying the Earth is growing. One alternative explanation for that is what I replied the first time:
Your hypothesis requires extra matter or changes in density, and mine doesn't. Also, as far as I know (my knowledge of geology is pretty basic), your interpretation isn't shared by most scientists who are aware of the facts you quoted. That leads me to believe that you are misinterpreting the data, though I am open to being shown I'm wrong.Current wrote:...the conclusion I get is that tectonic plates shift around and aren't perfectly rigid.
I don't want more. I know how the relation between radius and circumference works, I'm not disputing that point at all. I just mentioned, in passing, that basic maths like that is better supported by equations than by authority (provided of course the person you're talking to can follow the math). It's a general point, not specific to the argument<As for showing the math, I did quote the book as saying how many inches the Earth is getting bigger per year.>
<What more do you want?>
Well, no. For one, Hawking is an atheist. I'm not sure what your point is.<Find, here it is, I am really Professor Stephen W. Hawking, I believe in the Bible, and I am trying to show you the truth in terms that you can understand.>
<You didn't buy that for a second, did you?>
Possibly, but that wasn't me. I did disagree with the use of math in at least two occasions that I recall, but I was rejecting the underlying assumptions, not the math itself.<I have read many topics even here on AFF where people have shown all the math and it gets tossed out because the person reading it didn't understand it.>
You haven't shown your work. On the Kingfisher point, you just stated your interpretation of the bits of data. On the Vos Savant point, you quoted someone who quoted someone else who had done the work.<What is the point of showing my work if you just toss it out anyway?>
No, I am saying that you are misunderstanding the book. It's your interpretation that is horse crap, to borrow your phrase.<This is a book that talks about how humans evolved from single celled life forms, and I am showing you that even it points to a creator and you are treating it like horse crap!>
I could say the exact same thing, and you'd be as sceptical of me as I am of you. I don't even think you're lying, just that you underestimate your ability to change your mind on this subject.<What you are really doing is discarding ANY source, no matter what it is because you are unwilling or unable to face that you could be wrong.>
<I AM WILLING TO BE WRONG!!!>
<I just have yet to see proof that I am.>
Here's a challenge, when is the last time you changed your mind about an important aspect of your worldview?