Posted on 08/14/2017 9:04:24 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Edited on 08/15/2017 6:57:15 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
New geochemical research indicates that existing theories of the formation of the Earth may be mistaken. The results of experiments to show how zinc (Zn) relates to sulphur (S) under the conditions present at the time of the formation of the Earth more than 4 billion years ago, indicate that there is a substantial quantity of Zn in the Earth
(Excerpt) Read more at wattsupwiththat.com ...
There has to be advanced civilizations out there that can show us the video!
To me, it’s interesting, but not really relevant. A lot of scientific discoveries are like that.
If it would lead to new technologies in the future, then it would be relevant.
And they can’t figure out how super black holes were formed either - I’d guess that they provide a stability in the universe so God set the early “rules” to insure their formation at the right times and places to do what He needed to do to make the universe suitable for His children. Like building a 10 trillion room apartment structure to house on family comfortably.
Why can’t science threads coexist with creation threads? Even if we figure which molecules went where when, doesn’t mean God didn’t start the chain reaction. Doesn’t mean he did. I don’t how the heck anyone can prove the eistance/non-existence of God in a science lab. But that doesn’t mean faith and science can’t get along. Just render unto Caesar, scientifically speaking. :-)
ML/NJ
Since you bring it up, just how does “science” know the conditions that were present “at the time the earth was formed”?
Just what body of knowledge provided that mystical insights? Oh, wait, a myriad of assumptions, based on a theory that cannot be tested to derive at test methodology tat cannot be validated to explore an outcome that can never be repeated... Oh, that “science” err I mean “religious” belief.....
“Religion”- a method of assembling concepts together to arrive at complete end state, as compared to “analysis”- the breaking down of components to arrive at singleness.
Fact is, my religious belief that God Almighty formed the universe with simply His voice and will is just as complete as the opposing idea that “ it just had to come into existence” without regard to reason, per the chief priest of “science” Mssr Hawkings....
However, on the one hand, reason demands that there must be cause and effect- one cannot just enjoy an effect while ignoring the requirement for a cause- the universe itself cannot be both cause ( since it did not exist) and effect (now that it exists).
School kids know that Johnny had to throw the ball in order for Rex go fetch it..., and they cannot vote. Meanwhile adults reject that logic out of hand and they can vote!
Why can’t science threads coexist with creation threads?
If everything is random, there is no science. You cannot repeat an experiment. The goal of science is to discover the design.
When I can use this wondrous knowledge to get beer, sandwich supplies, and a hottie to put them together and administer a lapdance while serving it to me, please let me know.
Otherwise, meh.
Ain’t gonna happen. Religion only tells you what to do AFTER you are able to get the beer, sandwich, and hottie at the local tavern, and who (and why and when) you should consider sharing your bountiful gains with.
.
>> “I have no doubt how the Earth was formed.” <<
Exactly! - He told us what he did; he spoke it all into existence.
.
As a Lazamataz tagline from ages past said, "Proudly posting without reading the article since 1999."
.
Based on your comments, I’d say its unlikely that you even want to know the truth.
.
.
The spoken words of Yehova are the basic building block of the Earth.
No human has the capability to grasp how he created any “building block.”
We learn how to use what he gave us, but we are not capable of understanding the foundations. To imagine that we can is an absurd waste of our short available time.
.
.
Both statements are equally correct.
Failing to grasp that is dismally depressing.
.
.
>> “Back in the 1960`s we made zinc-sulfur rockets.” <<
And if we do it now, the JTTF will be on our case in a flash!
.
.
“Science threads” are an attempt to molest reality!
.
.
>> “Religion only tells you what to do AFTER you are able to get the beer, sandwich, and hottie at the local tavern” <<
No, actually “Religiion” only tells us what a handful of men have contorted the word of our creator to “tell” us.
.
I'm sure there's randomness (entropy?) present somewhere. To my mind, all that means is we don't know everything. Which is why we have science, eh? :-)
The goal of science is to discover the design.
I'll settle for proving hypotheses. The design thing puts me in mind of an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument :-)
You make religion look bad and turn people away from God.
They can if the militants on both sides back off.
I wholeheartedly believe in the truth of Scripture as preserved in the Bible by the Holy Spirit. As recorded, God (in His three persons) pre-existed matter which He created. Scripture clearly states that but doesn't go into much detail on how this was done.
It really doesn't bother me when science comes up with a finding that counters my creation beliefs. I don't feel an obligation to reconcile the two because scientific findings are in constant flux. What scientists believe today is likely to be challenged and overturned by future studies. I'm confident that ultimately science will find its way back to Scripture.
Science needs to back off the idea that because it can provide some naturalistic explanation for worldly phenomenon that a supernatural cause, such as God, is unnecessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.