Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 76 of 120 (524037)
09-14-2009 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Peg
09-14-2009 8:19 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Peg writes:
you have to take into consideration that genesis was written about 4.000 years ago...and moses used a word that indicated long lengths of time, but modern translators were limited in their understanding of hebrew
So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture?
Percy writes:
How did the Earth end up with a molten outer core and a solid but even hotter inner core?
i wouldnt even like to speculate
And yet it's the subject of this thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 4:30 AM Percy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4432 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 77 of 120 (524044)
09-14-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Peg
09-14-2009 8:19 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Oh Dear.
Message 57
Just how long ago the universe was created is not stated in the Bible.
"And he answering said to them, ‘Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them," Mt 19:4
please note "the beginning". Also Mr 10:6 "but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;" i.e. the beginning and the creation of Adam and Eve are around the same time period.
These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material, but with the arranging and preparing of it for habitation.
What basis do have for saying this? None.
Message 63
Peg, you didn't answer coragyps' question at all. Mainly because there is no logical way of doing it.
It was an existing planet along with all the other planets in the universe
What the...??? Again, what is your basis for this? None.
Message 64
The verses in genesis are very specific and they are refering to two different times.
Again, completly baseless.
Message 70
And science has also added to an improved understanding...many people who study the bible have taken on board that the earth was not made in 6 literal days and they fully accept science in this regard. The improved understanding of hebrew reinforces it and vice versa.
I don't care if people take on board what evolutionists tell them to believe, it is not scriptural.
Message 72
On the first day diffused light evidently shone through the cloud cover, but the sources of that light could not have been seen by an earthly observer. Now, on this fourth day, things apparently changed and the cloud cover dispersed to allow the sun and moon to become visible from an earthly perspective
The hebrew doesn't give this perspective at all. Again you are just letting your imagination go wild as you try to fit the bible into what evolutionist tell you that you should believe.
Please read percy's messages 73 and 74. In fact read, them a number of times. Maybe 10 times might be sufficient (let's hope so).
Message 75
moses used a word that indicated long lengths of time, but modern translators were limited in their understanding of hebrew
His words indicate nothing of the sort.
so its only reasonable to conclude that it is the same in the genesis account.
What the...??? You forgot that one meaning of the word yohm is also an ordinary day. In fact everywhere that the word yohm is used in context of evening and morning it always means an ordinary day.
Please stop thinking that you are somehow super enlightend above the countless numbers of christians and followers of the one true God before we were all "enlightend" with evolution and an old earth.
Now I've missed out on valuable sleeping time just because you decide to post baseless compromises. I'm going to bed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Peg, posted 09-14-2009 8:19 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 4:58 AM Arphy has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 78 of 120 (524050)
09-14-2009 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Percy
09-14-2009 7:37 AM


Re: old universe
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
Gap theory is just a reactive post facto reinterpretation of the Bible in light of modern scientific discoveries, and your other arguments are just more examples of the same thing being performed on other ancient texts.
You sound just like YEC'S.
So when did science find out the earth was old?
The scientific discoveries that Chambers was reacting too.
Science was introduced to the school system in the U S in 1894.
In 1949 having never been exposed to any science classes other than what I saw on the farm and found in Genesis I concluded the earth and universe was very old. I knew from Bible study that the earth revolved on it's axis and that it was round.
We had no electricity, thus no TV to learn from.
So why do you assume Thomas Chambers in 1804 was reacting to information that was not available until 1905 in the U S?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 7:37 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 9:40 AM ICANT has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 120 (524056)
09-14-2009 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ICANT
09-14-2009 9:23 AM


Re: old universe
ICANT writes:
So when did science find out the earth was old?
Buffon and Hutton began presenting evidence for an ancient Earth in the latter half of the 18th century. Check out the Wikipedia article on Gap creationism:
Wikipedia writes:
Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow.
This supports the thesis that gap creationism was a reaction to scientific developments and was not an interpretation that followed naturally from the Biblical text.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 9:23 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 11:41 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 120 (524082)
09-14-2009 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
09-14-2009 9:40 AM


Re: old universe
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
This supports the thesis that gap creationism was a reaction to scientific developments and was not an interpretation that followed naturally from the Biblical text.
So the article cited supports your point of view,
While ignoring all the evidence that the teaching of an old earth had been held by many since the time of Aristotle.
You did not answer my question, "So when did science find out the earth was old"?
When was the first rock dated older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
What method was used to date that rock older than 10,000 years?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 9:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Rahvin, posted 09-14-2009 12:57 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 81 of 120 (524095)
09-14-2009 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Archangel
09-12-2009 9:52 PM


Re: Interpretations
How is that evidence of anything?? Have you read the book of Genesis in the original Hebrew? What kind of evidence do you have that can be tested that the book of Genesis is literal, and not figurative?
Have you read the Jewish commentaries on Bereshit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Archangel, posted 09-12-2009 9:52 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 82 of 120 (524096)
09-14-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by ICANT
09-14-2009 11:41 AM


Re: old universe
You did not answer my question, "So when did science find out the earth was old"?
When was the first rock dated older than 6,000 to 10,000 years old?
What method was used to date that rock older than 10,000 years?
The first dating methods were simple extrapolations from obwservation: given an observed number of layers, how long would that number of layers have taken to form; given fossilized ocean creatures found in continental strata, how long would it have taken for the rock to be uplifted, etc.
From wiki:
quote:
Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī (11th century CE) discovered the existence of shells and fossils in regions that were once sea floor, but were later uplifted to become dry land, such as the Indian subcontinent. Based on this evidence, he realized that the Earth is constantly changing and proposed that the Earth had an age, but that its origin was too distant to measure.[13] The principle of superposition of strata was first proposed by Avicenna (11th century). He outlined the principle while discussing the origins of mountains in The Book of Healing in 1027.[14][15] Shen Kuo (11th century) also later recognized the concept of deep time.[16]
Nicolas Steno (17th century) was one of the first Western naturalists to appreciate the connection between fossil remains and strata.[12] His observations led him to formulate important stratigraphic concepts (i.e., the "law of superposition" and the "principle of original horizontality").[17] In the 1790s, the British naturalist William Smith hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.[18] William Smith's nephew and student, John Phillips, later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.[19]
Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 11:41 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 83 of 120 (524227)
09-15-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Percy
09-14-2009 8:56 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:
So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture?
not at all lol
many prefer to stay with their theology...but that doesnt help anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Percy, posted 09-14-2009 8:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 7:56 AM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 84 of 120 (524229)
09-15-2009 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Arphy
09-14-2009 9:17 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Arphy writes:
"And he answering said to them, ‘Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them," Mt 19:4
please note "the beginning". Also Mr 10:6 "but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;" i.e. the beginning and the creation of Adam and Eve are around the same time period.
this does not, and cannot mean adam and eve were created when the universe was created in the beginning
do you think they floated around in space while God got the earth ready?
Arphy writes:
What basis do have for saying this?
well considering each 'day' dealt with a different type of work being performed, it is perfectly logical to put it that way.
On day
1 Light; division between day and night Ge 1:3-5
2 Expanse, a division between waters
beneath the expanse and waters above it Ge 1:6-8
3 Dry land; vegetation Ge 1:9-13
4 Heavenly luminaries become discernible
from earth Ge 1:14-19
5 Aquatic souls and flying creatures Ge 1:20-23
6 Land animals; man Ge 1:24-31
Man was definitely created last which is logical because man and animals need certain things to survive, yes?
Arphy writes:
What the...??? Again, what is your basis for this?
Gen 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the Heaven and the Earth."
Notice how the earth was created along with the heavens?
Gen 1:2 "Now the earth proved to be formless and waste and there was darkness upon the surface..."
Notice how this verse is talking about an earth that is already existing...he described it as 'formless and waste and darkness upon its surface'
If something has a surface, then it must exist, yes?
Arphy writes:
His words indicate nothing of the sort.
his word was 'Yohm'
you can look it up in a hebrew dictionary yourself to find the meaning.
Arphy writes:
In fact everywhere that the word yohm is used in context of evening and morning it always means an ordinary day.
Sometimes the word day is used to indicate a measure of distance, as in the expressions a day’s journey and a sabbath day’s journey. as at Nu 11:31 & Ac 1:12
In prophecy a 'day' is at times used to stand for one year. have a look at Ezekiel 4:6: You must lie upon your right side in the second case, and you must carry the error of the house of Judah forty days. A day for a year, a day for a year, is what I have given you.
its also used with reference to a time period contemporaneous with a particular person, as for example, the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Lu 17:26-30; Isa 1:1.
so Yohm is used in many ways, not only to mean a 24 hour time period, although it can do, its not always used that way as the above scriptures show.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Arphy, posted 09-14-2009 9:17 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:58 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 98 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 6:42 AM Peg has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 85 of 120 (524232)
09-15-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Peg
09-15-2009 4:30 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Peg writes:
Percy writes:
So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture?
not at all lol
Yes, precisely. Modern scholarship has done nothing to reduce disagreement among Christians about interpretation of scripture. There's no agreement among Christians about a billions of years gap in time between verses 1 and 2. Christian scholarship has not established that beyond a doubt that's what the verses mean. That interpretation was not a result of scholarship, but a reaction to new developments within science. It developed out of a desire to reduce the degree of scriptural conflicts with fairly sound scientific theories.
If the Bible actually contained accurate scientific information then Christians should be telling us the scientific discoveries before scientists make them instead of after. It's always a case of, "Scientists made a new discovery recently? Well, the Bible already says that, we just hadn't gotten around to telling anyone." It's pretty transparent. If the Bible really contained so much scientific knowledge, then Bible colleges would be submitting all the landmark papers to the journal Nature.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 4:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 8:18 AM Percy has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4929 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 86 of 120 (524234)
09-15-2009 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
09-15-2009 7:56 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:
Christian scholarship has not established that beyond a doubt that's what the verses mean. That interpretation was not a result of scholarship, but a reaction to new developments within science.
i dont necessarily agree with that. It is well established among hebrew scholars that the word used can mean any length of time.
-----------------------------------------------
William Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies: A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration ... Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens.
A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) states: The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.Edited by P.Schaff, 1894.

___________________________________________________________
the Hebrew language is what it is and it has been that way for a very long time. The problem is not with the language but with our own interpretations.
If they looked at the bible a bit more closely they would see that the answer is staring them in the face because at Gen 2:4 all six of those days are called ONE day.
Percy writes:
If the Bible actually contained accurate scientific information then Christians should be telling us the scientific discoveries before scientists make them instead of after.
your right, and it might be true if the bible was a science book, but its not and it doesnt claim to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 7:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 8:31 AM Peg has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 120 (524236)
09-15-2009 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Peg
09-15-2009 8:18 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Peg writes:
i dont necessarily agree with that. It is well established among hebrew scholars that the word used [day] can mean any length of time.
The word "day" doesn't appear anywhere in Gen 1:1-2. You're claiming a gap in time of billions of years between verses 1 and 2, remember?
Peg writes:
Percy writes:
If the Bible actually contained accurate scientific information then Christians should be telling us the scientific discoveries before scientists make them instead of after.
You're right, and it might be true if the Bible were a science book, but it's not and it doesn't claim to be.
Then why are you going to the trouble of arguing that Genesis 1:1-2 is telling us accurate scientific information about the origin of the Earth and universe?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 8:18 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 09-16-2009 4:30 AM Percy has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 88 of 120 (524245)
09-15-2009 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Archangel
09-09-2009 6:02 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Taz writes:
Nobody has ever gone that deep into the Earth, so no one can know what's actually down there. Iron core and mantle are just guesses, speculations at best, to support an unproven old earth theory.
Taz, are you a geophysicist? No? Oh well then, before you say what is guess or wild speculation, go find out why scientists think they know first.
archangel writes:
It doesn't matter what issue is discussed, evolutionists assume they have evidence for what they want to believe happened, and every time we point out their fallacy, they tell us we are ignorant and just don't understand.
Could it be that perhaps neither you nor your ego understand that "evolutionists" (though why biologists would be studying geophysics is beyond me) really DO have the answers? And that you're willingness to ignore the real and absolute proof they offer really DOES brand you as "too ignorant to understand the issues"?
It seems to me that everytime a IDiot or creotard goes off on a "wheres tha evidance ayt?" rant, they get schooled by an expert, which they then ignore or change the subject on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 6:02 PM Archangel has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 10:16 AM greyseal has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 89 of 120 (524246)
09-15-2009 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by greyseal
09-15-2009 10:07 AM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
greyseal writes:
Taz writes:
Nobody has ever gone that deep into the Earth, so no one can know what's actually down there. Iron core and mantle are just guesses, speculations at best, to support an unproven old earth theory.
Taz, are you a geophysicist? No? Oh well then, before you say what is guess or wild speculation, go find out why scientists think they know first.
Taz was being satiric and should have included a smiley. He knows the Earth is actually hollow.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:07 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:59 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 90 of 120 (524252)
09-15-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
09-15-2009 4:58 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
peg writes:
Arphy writes:
"And he answering said to them, ‘Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them," Mt 19:4
please note "the beginning". Also Mr 10:6 "but from the beginning of the creation, a male and a female God did make them;" i.e. the beginning and the creation of Adam and Eve are around the same time period.
this does not, and cannot mean adam and eve were created when the universe was created in the beginning
do you think they floated around in space while God got the earth ready?
I'm with Peg on this one - "in the beginning" needn't mean "the first thing of all things", it can mean "one of the first things".
If I woke up this morning, ate breakfast, drank coffee, got dressed and cleaned my teeth in that order it isn't wrong to say "I cleaned my teeth in the morning".
saying this:
quote:
"And he answering said to them, ‘Did ye not read, that He who made them, from the beginning a male and a female made them,"
has no impact on the actual order of Genesis. Quite literally, all of chapter 1 is "the beginning". All of Genesis is "the beginning".
I don't understand why you would disagree with that statement, except because agreeing to it would make your point invalid.
Peg is also right about the use of the word "day" - it does NOT always literally mean a day, and there is no reason why a "morning" or an "evening" or a "night" when used in poetic context must be a literal day.
When people are old, they are often said as being in their "twilight years". Does that mean it's perpetually twilight for them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 09-15-2009 4:58 AM Peg has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 6:57 AM greyseal has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024