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

Just to correct your assumption right up front, a hollow earth was never suggested or implied by the person making the original claim raised here by obvious child, from another forum. And I know this because I AM THAT PERSON. My point was simply this. Evolutionists attempt to entrap creationists by asking us to explain questions which are based upon assumptions that evolutionists take for granted. one current example for the sake of this debate is that "the Earth is old". Thus, how do we explain the original question of a molten Earth since it would be impossible for the earth to have cooled to the degree that it is in only 10,000 years which YECers accept as a true age of the earth since the bible implies it according to the genealogical record. Keep in mind though that nowhere does the bible specifically state an actual age of the earth itself. It actually only speaks to the age of humanity since our CREATION by God along with all other life on Earth.The fact is that my mental image of the Genesis account as a committed christian and a literal believer of the bible is that the Earth was already here in an empty and void state which the spirit of God was roaming on the first day of creation just as the Genesis account says. That would explain why it appears so old, because it was an old dead rock spiraling through the emptiness of eternity before God breathed the breath of life into it in the way described in Genesis chapter 1.In fact, in the other forums thread which this thread starter is basing this question upon, the question of a molten core was never raised with me or discussed by me. It was raised by him and him alone as an after thought in response to my argument, but was never an aspect of the question posed to me as the other forums responder who's argument he is basing this thread on. The question posed was in regard to the molten earth with its super heated atmosphere which existed this alleged 4.5 billion years ago which cannot be proven or supported by any testable or verifiable experiments, with controls in any lab on earth. Neither can any evolutionist tell me what chemicals existed this alleged 4.5 BILLION years ago or what processes make up the very assumed foundational claims upon which the modern theory of evolution is based.These questions are the crux of the debate on the other forum which this very dishonest poster, IMHO has corrupted and started this bogus offshoot of because like every other evolutionist on the other forum, he cannot get over the hurdle that everything evolutionists claim to be solid science regarding the theory of evolution is in fact built upon a fallacious foundation of unprovable assumptions. So there ya go. Now you have the actual opinion of the actual poster and the reasons why he rejects what I consider to be your secular humanist religion which is referred to as biological evolution which is in my opinion the ultimate appeal to magic since you cannot explain how life allegedly spontaneously appeared from a puddle of primordial ooze some 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO. And while I'm at it, consider this my introductory post to this forum since it is also my first one. Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Hi Percy, then why did anglagard interpret the obvious childs post to be saying that I believed the Earth to be hollow? Also, how can he be saying the same thing as I when I have plainly said that in our original debate, the subject of the earths molten CORE was never even discussed? No Percy, I have a specific and direct knowledge of everything that has been written in a 500+ post debate on the other forum, so I understand perfectly what is fallacious about the premise of this thread question. Precisely, which isn't to say that it didn't exist when He breathed life into it, only that it was formless and void of life in regards to how we know it to exist today. By this I mean that He didn't say that He spoke the existence of the planet into existence at that time. Only that He took a formless mass of matter which was void of life and shaped it into the organized sphere which currently exists in an organized universe leading to a larger eternity. This may be what child is asking here and now; but what I am saying is that his question which he frames is claimed by him to be based on what "I", a creationist on another forum allegedly argued but has nothing to do with what was actually discussed by me on that other forum in reality. The question I responded to was about a 4.5 BILLION year old molten planet with a super heated atmosphere and how it could have cooled in only 10,000 years according to the creationist perspective? The point being that it is impossible for the earth to cool from that suggested primordial temperature so Creationism fails. My answer was that since when must creationism accept the standard talking points of evolutionary theory and just accept that the Earth was in fact as evolutionists take for granted in their view as you make me explain my world view from the perspective of what you accept in your world view. See my point?It is a fallacy of reason to expect me to justify my world view based on the assumptions your world view makes. Not true at all, there exists a great deal of observable evidence from quantum mechanics to cosmology and geology regarding our Earth, Solar System and Universe, but what separates creationists from evolutionists in a nutshell is the application of this evidence in the way we interpret it. You see, I don't deny the evidence which exists. I just interpret it from another perspective rather than a strictly natural one. It is my strong opinion that your beliefs system requires much more blind faith than mine does, and yours requires true magic where as my supernatural source remains consistent in my modern day world view since I have a personal supernatural relationship with my God through Jesus Christ, my Lord as we speak. In other words, I have first hand evidence that my God is real, alive and well, and personally involved and active in every aspect of His creation today, justas He was on the first day of Creation. You have no such first hand evidence for evolution which remains unprovable and untestable in the laboratory. I see, so am I to understand that the way you avoid pitting evolution theory against creationism on a deeper level is by compartmentalizing debates as an insulator against ever being forced to confront the weaknesses in applying geology or the other sciences to this false and pseudo science which evolution claims to represent? If debates aren't allowed to expand in the inevitable direction which proves or disproves evolution vs creationism, then what is the point? I mean, is not the name of the site Creation Versus Evolution?Also, you should be aware that the 500+ post debate on the other forum was all about the validity and provability of evolution from the point of view of how life spontaneously appeared on earth 4.5 billion years ago. So obvious child had to have expected this thread to go in that direction also. Just so you know...

Yeah, so what? I just came here to point out that the premise of this threads question is nothing like the question I was asked or responded to from Dp on the other forum. And to ask if anyone can answer for the inconsistencies evo represents which I pointed out above. That issue has been answered by narrowly defining a thread so much that the ultimate purpose for the forum existing becomes lost in the minutia. So if the debates are so narrowly defined here that I can't take them to the next level by exposing the inconsistencies, the assumptions and the unproven conclusions which evo represents, then there is nothing here for me anyway because whether we're debating geology, cosmology or quantum mechanics, the purpose of both sides is to prove or disprove the cult of evolution.This ought to at least put your constant accusations that I am somehow afraid to debate here to bed anyway. Oh, and while I have you here, you're still on ignore at the other forum, so place me there also so we can coexist in peace.

Hi Taz, I'm proud to make your acquaintance. Your reputation precedes you at another forum where obvious child has mentioned you. 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. In a 500+ post debate between me and 6 or 7 evolutionists on another thread, I have been repeatedly accused of being too ignorant to understand issues they are unable to prove I'm wrong in questioning them about. So I'f I'm too ignorant to understand the questions I'm asking, what does that say about those who can't answer them with real and absolute proof? If evolution is a valid science, of course, which it isn't.

How many times must it be said before you will get it child? God did it!!! And it wasn't magic, it was supernatural.

Hi Rahvin, I realize we can't discuss my perspective here in depth since it will take us too far off the subject of geology. But let's suffice it to say that it is you who is ignoring the scientific method as a believer in evolution. And it's also why I reject all of your modern conclusions for evolution. Here's what I mean; unless you can prove the foundation upon which the modern theory rests is solid and proven to be true, then there is no way to rely on the conclusions which evolution assumes to be true.All of the examples you post are nothing more than interpretations which are arrived at based on the assumption that life spontaneously arose from that primordial ooze around 3.5 billion years ago, allowing 1 billion years for the earth to allegedly cool down to allow for that to occur from the original age of the guestimated 4.5 billion year old age which evolutionists promote.Regarding radiometric dating: The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
TurnPike Web Hosting Services and E-Commerce Solutions by Crystal LustThe bottom line is though, that evolution cannot be relied on to be factual in any way until its foundation which is the basis upon which all the following facts rely is proven soundly to be factual. And I especially find your examples of Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī of the 11th century CE and 18th century British naturalist William Smith's hypothesis to be curious as if their opinions based on interpretations of observations in nature would impress or sway me at all. Do you think that because I trust Gods word, a source you consider to be ancient myth, that I would then respect sources from antiquity that you offer which defend your position, just because they're origin is old?So Here is my contention with your so called science, you can place all of the faith you want to in red shift, the speed of light and the consistency of gravity. But can you prove for me what impact the absorption spectrum or angular momentum has on the speed of light or the different cosmological observations we use to measure the relevant properties as we guestimate the age of the Earth and the Universe? Tell me this in absolute terms and with unquestioning assurance if you can Rahvin, what if our understanding of "cosmic background radiation" is just plain wrong based on assumptions which have no as of yet dreamed of basis in fact for us at this time? What impact would that one erroneous conclusion have on the whole science of cosmology considering the number of equations which are based on that one law being correct if it isn't? What impact could that error have on the age of the universe or the earth? Now consider cosmic strings, critical density, dark matter and what impact these few theories would have on just the doppler effect which is used to measure the frequency of a wave (light, sound, etc.) due to the relative motion of the source or receiver. On things moving toward you having their wavelengths shortened (blueshift). And things moving away have their emitted wavelengths lengthened (redshift). Isn't this theory relied upon for how we have dated the universe and the Earth? If the theories which affect it are incorrect, then by what standard do we rely on any of the interpretations we make?Just look at this glossary of laws for cosmology and astronomy and tell me that everyone of them is being applied perfectly correctly and in their proper context under every and all circumstances. Now misinterpret or misapply a few of them and then assure for me that we are getting solid and true outcomes. The fact is, you can't. This is why I say it requires as much faith for you to accept evo as it takes for me to accept creation. AMAZING SPACEHere is page one only of these laws, now you tell me that they are all interpreted and applied perfectly under all conditions so that they always lead to the correct outcome. But like you say, this is far afield of geology alone so I will abandon this thread so as not to derail it. {There seems to be many themes happening here, most to all of which seem to have no direct connection to this topic's theme. If you do find something on topic here, reply away. If you don't, then don't reply to this message. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Moderation message in red.

Thanks for the info Percy. I'll peruse the other forums and post accordingly. I can see that obvious child would rather report my response to rahvin than debate the points I make here which he can't answer. At least he's consistent in whatever forum which he resides.

You needn't state the obvious with me Rahvin. The fact is that you strayed from the thread topic too, in your post which I responded to. Evolution is the result of a conglomeration of many scientific specialties, so I find it difficult to compartmentalize it. It's as simple as that. This statement is utterly ridiculous as you seem to be saying that if the earth were proven to be 6000 years old, the process of evolution which led from single cell life to we human beings could have occurred in only 6,000 years. When the fact is that the reason the age of the universe and the earth has continually been pushed back since Darwin, is because they needed to allow for more time in order for their theory to remain rational since all of their cosmological results showed that more time was required than the estimated age of the universe at the time. I'm actually shocked to hear this criticism Rahvin, since the theory of evolution is absolutely based on a culmination of the results from many different scientific endeavors which contribute to it. This is why I find it rather limiting to disallow the introduction of different types of science specialties in order to show the inconsistency between one specialty and another. I apologize for misspeaking. When I went to copy this quote to respond because I didn't understand why you were defending against something I never implied and taking that statement personally, and then I saw that I did refer to you by name, I was shocked since I meant to say only that he reported my post to a moderator, not to you. That was a complete error on my part since the moderator who commented on my post signed his name and it wasn't you. His note was very acceptable to me in spite of the intent and complaint of the reporter of the post.Let me give you an example of the juvenile posters I am up against at this other forum obvious child trolls at. He ran back to the thread which by the way, proves my assertion that this threads premise has no bearing with the original thread premise he started there as that one deals with a molten earth question, but this one deals with the molten core of the earth, so my original complaint is proven. And he posts the link to this thread and starts asserting how I am getting my butt kicked over here. So the evolutionists over there are now having a private party assuming things which haven't happened at all to this point.Mark my words, the obvious child will immediately report this post in an attempt to get the link deleted so you people here can't see his true juvenile character as expressed so shamelessly on the other forum. Those people don't debate issues, they attack opponents whom they can't defeat in honest debate.4forums.com is for sale | HugeDomainsFrom here on though, we must meet on topic appropriate threads. This is just feeding the childs desire to get me banned. You will see on the posted link that he asserts that I am about to be banned from ANOTHER FORUM, when he has no knowledge of me ever being banned from any forum. Those are the types of assumptions he makes in debate which make it impossible to reason with him. Thanks Rahvin, and see you on the flip side.

I would gladly stay and debate it here, but if we stray from the subject of geology, we are derailing the thread. And this thread starter wont cooperate with an open discussion which spans various scientific specialties where I am involved. This thread has already received one warning not to stray from the subject of geology. We need a thread in an open forum where a general debate can take place without breaking the forum rules. Just so you know, I would gladly participate in such a debate on such a forum, if it exists here.

Thanks for the advice adminNosy and Coyote. A one on one debate isn't necessary since I don't know the members here good enough to challenge someone. And to answer your question, I find it difficult to prevent the topic of evolution from, shall we say evolving into for example, cosmology, biology, quantum mechanics geology and even what evolutionists like to delineate as abiogenesis, because these studies in science all play a major role in the validation of evolution.I consider the claim that abiogenesis is a separate and distinct scientific study to be one of the most disingenuous claims in science. The fact is that evolution defends and insists that the age of the earth is 4.5 BILLION years old, and it accepts that life spontaneously appeared from the primordial ooze, yet when it is argued against by me, I am told that I am confusing sciences since that is an issue of abiogenesis rather than evolution.The need to de compartmentalize studies is a tactic used to prevent one from holding the evolutionists feet to the flame regarding the impossibility of it in reality while blending what is called abi and evo in discussions and studies all of the time as a normal practice. Here is an example of what I say and NASA just happens to be the culprit which make my point for me. Space Daily Reports: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/early-earth-01g.htmlI have also been asked why, if I admit that other sciences support evolution, don't I accept that as strong evidence of its truth? And what kind of science do I trust. The answer is that I understand that many of the conclusions arrived at are based on assumptions made by assuming the very foundations of evolutionary theory are true in that life did spontaneously arise from a conglomeration of lifeless chemical interactions around 3.5 billion years ago in a puddle of primordial ooze on a cooling earth. From that spontaneous life came all other life to follow on earth from that original protein/enzyme to plants to insects and fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals to us. Everything modern evo accepts as reality is based on this occurring initially more than 3 billion years ago.In closing, I will look at the other forums for the proper forum to place a general subject debate titled "the inconsistencies of evolution theory" with an opening post which explains my position today sometime. You must understand that I abhor what this threads starter represents as a debater and a member of any forum he participates in, and consider his style and character the bane of internet decorum and honesty which he lacks at every level of his participation in debates. So I have no desire to remain on any thread he started. One need only to click on this link HugeDomains.com which I posted above and see his juvenile and dishonest opinions in his posts as he attempts to demonize me with unsubstantiated insults and mockery on a thread I haven't written even one post on. Yet I am the exclusive subject of it.Thank you both, and Rahvin also,ArchangelEdited by Archangel, : No reason given.Edited by Archangel, : To add content:Edited by Archangel, : Add link:Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Good advice, I've made my point and will leave it alone now.Thanks,Archangel

GREAT POST, AND A NICE STORY TOO. NOW JUST PROVE THAT ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVATIONS AND PREDICTIONS WHICH LEAD TO THESE RESULTS ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT, AND COULDN'T BE INTERPRETED ANY OTHER WAY AND I'M SOLD. BECAUSE REMEMBER MY EVOLUTIONIST FRIEND, IF JUST ONE DECIMAL POINT FROM JUST ONE EQUATION WHICH LED TO YOUR RESULTS IS OFF BY ONE DIGIT, THEN YOUR EQUATION WHICH IS BASED ON EVENTS OCCURRING 4570 MILLION YEARS AGO WILL BE OFF BY A FACTOR OF 10, AND THAT IS BEING CONSERVATIVE. SO ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE OF EVERY SINGLE ASSUMPTION THAT WAS MADE IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSIONS YOU HAVE COME TO? I'M JUST WONDERING IS ALL. I JUST MARVEL AT THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS CAN SPEAK IN SUCH ABSOLUTES WHEN NOTHING YOU ARE SAYING CAN BE ABSOLUTELY PROVEN AT ALL. IT TRULY BOGGLES THE MIND.Edited by Archangel, : FORGOT SOMETHING:

My evidence is both consistent, self evident and rational. It is the first chapter of Genesis which clearly and unequivocally states that God created the heavens and the earth and all life upon it by the word of His mouth. It was a supernatural act and therefore cannot be proven according to human standards of science, nor does it need to be since we see the results of His spoken word in the very creation which you refuse to give Him credit for creating in love. Balls in your court now...
Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible

This is a reasonable explanation which doesn't presume facts not in evidence as evolution does as a normal practice. I needed to comment on that and agree with Peg. But this is the last post I will write on this thread. Maybe she can defend the scriptural perspective from here on out.