Scientists do not disagree on water vapor being a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Yep, agree with that.
Presumably you typed that wrong and meant '..someone who
says that it was..'. Most definately not conjecture, with about 85% of the earth still being molten its not much of a leap of confidence to conclude that it must have ALL been molten at some point. Planet formation (rocky planets) all form this way, proto-planetary disc - accretion - larger rocky bodies collide - heat generates - continual bombardment results in a big molten ball which then becomes a planet. It starts to cool and crust forms on the outside as heat escapes, this is fundamental physics really. I can't think of any physical process that could create a molten body with a rocky crust such as the earth in any other way.
>>> How do you know it was molten. Scientists have not observed actual planetary formation so it is conjecture on their part.
I don't agree with this, it doesn't conform to any laws of physics. You present this as a theory so I would like to see the published papers to support it.
>>> Isotonic equilibrium is a basic to geology.
You are entitled to your belief. Plate tectonics, however, is measurable and well proven and is the mechanism that is STILL forming mountains. There are so many different fields of science that verify this, that I don't even think it's worth arguing about really.
>>> Show me a mountain formed in the past century or so by plate tectonics.
First you say that lighter fossils are on top of heavier fossils as part of your proof of the great flood. Next, I point out that whale fossils have been found on mountain tops. You then say this is quite possible. I'll leave this particular point now because I have a feeling that if I throw in some other observation of fossil distribution that appears to contradict, you will simply include it in your great flood idea.
>>> Fossils end up where they are due to the great amount of turbulence and mixing which occurred.
Theories come initially from someone observing a 'thing' or an 'event'. This person(s) then wants to describe how it came about so embarks on (often) very lengthy observations, measurements and experiments to formulate a way to describe the initial observation using existing laws of physics and the like. Eventually when he thinks he has gathered enough data he will present this hypothesis to the scientific community who will vet it and usually find any number of flaws. This person then goes away and repeats and refines experiments, takes more observations, spends many years to improve this hypothesis...but you get the idea here. Eventually, after many years of blood, sweat and tears the process MAY spit out a theory at the end. That is where theories come from.
>>> I understand how a theory is derived. How could a scientist conduct an experiment to prove their theory of how the earth was formed.
On the other hand, an analysis that comes from an interpretation of, say, Genesis does not go through such a rigorous process - at least as far as I know anyway. It appears to be a good idea that suits a group of people and so it becomes accepted (within that group). It is not offered out to the global population to scrutinise and question like theories are, it simply IS. If that is not a fair description then you are free to challenge it of course.
If you were to be
completely impartial of our argument, I think there would be few who would honestly say that a scientific theory is a less reliable process than an closed interpretation.
As I asked previously, I would genuinely be interested to know roughly how many interpretations of Genesis there are?
Agreed.[/quote]
....maybe not.
