Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten?

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. 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.

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?

SSHHH!!! you're not supposed to tell them about the huge hollow-earth conspiracy within the ancient and noble league of illuminati scientist-overlords!

you betcha. The bible isn't about all of creation - really it isn't.it doesn't really talk about HOW god made everything. It doesn't really talk about why. It doesn't mention Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Pluto, Ceres, Anteres, Globular Cluster M-1 or anything other than earth. And "earth" with a small "e" at that.What the bible IS about is humans and god's plan for humans (and how we should execute that plan).I don't find it at all weird to say that god, if he were so enlightened as to choose the big bang to create everything and take 13.5 billion years to get to the good parts, would skip all of that when writing about the most important piece in his creation, Man.Why do you?And please, if you're going to say "yeah! a day isn't always a day! but it is this time!" then don't bother. Pointing out that I might be right and then just insisting that your interpretation is the only valid one is vapid at best.

right, so can we just skip all the BS and get to the part where you say "godidit"?It'd really save a lot of time and electrons.Since the bible doesn't say the core is molten, you have two options1) believe steadfastly that it ISN'T because god didn't say it was (which is likely to be earth-shattering for you when you realise that the earth isn't flat, either, and we can prove that too)or2) see it as "something god did for a reason that isn't explicitly in the bible".Perhaps he made it hot so hell could be situated conveniently close to the life we know - more of a punishment that way for the damned.

Sure you can!You just say this: "the bible was written in a poetic manner, and genesis I and II are not meant as exact literal accounts, but as poetic, descriptive accounts."easy!The fact that YOU don't like it and don't agree doesn't make your view any less or more correct, UNLESS you can back it up - do you have explicit reason to doubt that it's not a literal account?Does anyone who should actually be in a position to know proclaim "the days in Genesis I and II were actual real light-dark periods of 24 hours"?

Did I say that was MY personal religious belief? No, I did not. I just said that it doesn't appear as if there is any real solid reason to suppose that genesis I and II MUST be taken as literal.Neither did I say that the bible is ALWAYS poetic and never attempts to be factual - don't over-read context where it was not meant, I didn't think you'd be that silly.I was talking specifically about Genesis I and II, and you haven't refuted my claim that it is possible, and in the light of new information quite probable.Opinion pieces, even by great scholars, remain opinion pieces. The bible isn't science, it's literature.I'm just using the same evidence and coming to a different conclusion! Arphy, I'm not the one demanding that evolution be overturned because it is not mentioned explicitly in the bible.I'm not the one demanding that paleontology and archaeology be thrown out because of one interpretation of the facts in the bible.I'm not the one claiming that the bible is the one true source of all information about the universe.When you start telling me that my interpretation of a work copied, copied again, translated, retranslated, collected together, re-interpreted and otherwise generally mucked about with is less valid than yours because you say so, well, what have you got left to stand on?Edited by greyseal, : No reason given.