|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
For all the blather that has happened, NOBODY has done much of anything to answer the topic title question. I can blather, too, though I'm sort of short-winded. But the following won't be blather: Some 4,570 million years ago or so, the early sun had a disk-shaped nebula of dust and gas. The gas was largely hydrogen, helium, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few inert gases. The dust was largely oxides and silicates of metals: calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, manganese, etc. Iron was pretty prominent because it's the ultimate "ash" of a supernova - iron-56 is at the bottom of the energy well of all atomic nuclei. As the sun started really heating up, most of the dust and gas got blown off into space. A good fraction of the dust, though, suffered from "static cling" and stuck together into BB to marble-sized grains. These collided gently under gravitational forces until there were a BUNCH of objects about the size of present-day asteroids -100 to 1000 km across or so. These got hot as they did so from kinetic energy being converted to heat and from the heat of radioactive decay of aluminum-26 and the like. The molten iron (and other, less abundant heavies) drained to the middle of these planetesimals. The planetesimals collided until they built up planet-sized bodies, which were essentially molten due to all the kinetic energy that went into their formation. Iron and other heavyweight stuff drained to the centers; a slag of silicates and oxides floated to the exteriors. We know this partly because the inner planets have densities of about 5.5 g/cc. The (silicate) rocks up on top have densities below 4. Something in the middle obviously is denser than 5.5, and iron is 1) nearly 8 g/cc and 2) abundant enough in stardust to be that material. We know that last bit because we have the meteorites and the dust from space missiond to analyze to show it. Edited by Coragyps, : tpyos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1347 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Coragyps writes: I can blather, too, though I'm sort of short-winded. But the following won't be blather: Some 4,570 million years ago or so, the early sun had a disk-shaped nebula of dust and gas. The gas was largely hydrogen, helium, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and a few inert gases. The dust was largely oxides and silicates of metals: calcium, magnesium, aluminum, iron, manganese, etc. Iron was pretty prominent because it's the ultimate "ash" of a supernova - iron-56 is at the bottom of the energy well of all atomic nuclei. As the sun started really heating up, most of the dust and gas got blown off into space. A good fraction of the dust, though, suffered from "static cling" and stuck together into BB to marble-sized grains. These collided gently under gravitational forces until there were a BUNCH of objects about the size of present-day asteroids -100 to 1000 km across or so. These got hot as they did so from kinetic energy being converted to heat and from the heat of radioactive decay of aluminum-26 and the like. The molten iron (and other, less abundant heavies) drained to the middle of these planetesimals. The planetesimals collided until they built up planet-sized bodies, which were essentially molten due to all the kinetic energy that went into their formation. Iron and other heavyweight stuff drained to the centers; a slag of silicates and oxides floated to the exteriors. We know this partly because the inner planets have densities of about 5.5 g/cc. The (silicate) rocks up on top have densities below 4. Something in the middle obviously is denser than 5.5, and iron is 1) nearly 8 g/cc and 2) abundant enough in stardust to be that material. We know that last bit because we have the meteorites and the dust from space missiond to analyze to show it. 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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
AND COULDN'T BE INTERPRETED ANY OTHER WAY I believe it was suggested that you could offer alternative interpretations. If not it might be a good idea. The "interpretations" game is played often by creationists who then never offer any consist interpretations that actually explain and include all the evidence. Good luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
WHEN NOTHING YOU ARE SAYING CAN BE ABSOLUTELY PROVEN AT ALL. Are you aware of anything at all outside of mathematics that can be "absolutely proven?" I'm not. And there's no need to shout. "The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1347 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
NosyNed writes: I believe it was suggested that you could offer alternative interpretations. If not it might be a good idea. The "interpretations" game is played often by creationists who then never offer any consist interpretations that actually explain and include all the evidence. Good luck. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2096 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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...
Your "evidence" is actually religious belief masquerading as evidence (see tagline). Your arguments are nothing more than religious apologetics. And this is the science forum; religious belief and apologetics by themselves are insufficient. You need to include evidence to support any such beliefs, or perhaps you should take your arguments to a more appropriate forum. There are many such on this website. Or as Ned suggests, perhaps you could offer us an overview of your interpretation--explaining all relevant scientific evidence. But remember, not all interpretations are equal. You should admit that, knowing that there are some 4,000 world religions with perhaps 40,000 subdivisions or sects. Surely you don't consider all 40,000 interpretations equally valid? So if you are presenting an interpretation purporting to be science, remember that, unlike religion, it will be subjected to testing against empirical evidence. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4106 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Indeed. I, as others, have pointed out that evolution is really quite irrelevant here. Even operating on a 6,000 year old Earth, there is still no geological phenomena that can explain how the Earth, which was described as "an old dead rock" and as "formless" as well as "empty and void" managed to gain so much heat. Archangel's constant tangents to evolution and the age of the Earth are really just cop outs to defend his initial claims.
Even if we adopt a 6,000 year perspective as truthful, there is still no reasonable argument to reconcile Biblical claims with reality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4106 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Magic is not a valid argument in science. Please produce a viable, logical, evidence based argument to reconcile how a dead old rock gained thousands of degrees of temperature or stop posting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
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... You have no verifiable evidence at all. However your view is consistent and not something that can be argued with at all. God magicked everything anytime anything needed doing. It can not, as you say be proven, nor can it be disproven. Since this is a totally unscientific viewpoint most here won't bother arguing with you about it. It is not part of the creationist movement that is trying to tamper with education by pretending to be scientific so it isn't a worry to anyone here. It also tells us something about the god which you speak of. His name is Loki. He is the trickster god which choose to use his magic to make everything that we can test and reason about make it appear as if the Earth is old and that life changed over time. He wrote a story in Genesis. He also wrote a story in rock. The two stories disagree in almost all ways and you say that the one written in stone is a lie. I'm sure he laughs and laughs at the most colossal practical joke there is -- the whole universe. If this is the interpretation you choose then you are welcome to it. It is, as noted, not something that can be proven to be wrong. Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22359 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
I don't see why anyone here should have any problem with your religious beliefs, as long as you don't advocate teaching them in science class.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
obvious Child writes: Please keep on topic. You and the Bible argue the Earth was not molten. Therefore how did the iron core and mantle which we can measure the temperatures of become molten? can you provide verses in the bible which state that the earth was not molten??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4919 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Rahvin writes: What is you evidence supporting the sudden appearance of the Sun and all other celestial bodies 6-10,000 years ago, as opposed to their continued existence for billions of years? How do you avoid violating the conservation of mass/energy? By what mechanism does the sudden appearance occur? What testable predictions does your model make, so that we can test your accuracy? The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Ge 1:1)This could easily be understood that the earth was in existence with the rest of the universe, the sun the moon the stars etc. Just how long ago the universe was created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for anyone to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. According to the bible it was created by God along with the rest of the heavens/universe. As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Peg - there is no such verse, as there is no verse saying the moon is not made of Marmite. But Genesis 1:9 does have the dry land all stirred up among the waters (the waters below the firmament, now), so I don't think the land could have been much hotter than boiling. Certainly not molten.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 725 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
This could easily be understood that the earth was in existence with the rest of the universe, the sun the moon the stars etc. "Easily" if you don't read on to verse 16-17 where the Sun and Moon and stars were created and stck onto the firmament on Day #4. It's your book, Peg - read it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archangel Member (Idle past 1347 days) Posts: 134 Joined: |
Peg writes: The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Ge 1:1)This could easily be understood that the earth was in existence with the rest of the universe, the sun the moon the stars etc. Just how long ago the universe was created is not stated in the Bible. Therefore, there is no basis for anyone to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. According to the bible it was created by God along with the rest of the heavens/universe. As to time, the Scriptures are more definite about the six creative days of the Genesis account. 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. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024