Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,583 Year: 2,840/9,624 Month: 685/1,588 Week: 91/229 Day: 2/61 Hour: 2/0


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?
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 91 of 120 (524253)
09-15-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Percy
09-15-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
percy writes:
Taz was being satiric and should have included a smiley. He knows the Earth is actually hollow.
SSHHH!!! you're not supposed to tell them about the huge hollow-earth conspiracy within the ancient and noble league of illuminati scientist-overlords!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 10:16 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by AdminModulous, posted 09-15-2009 1:17 PM greyseal has not replied

  
AdminModulous
Administrator
Posts: 897
Joined: 03-02-2006


Message 92 of 120 (524270)
09-15-2009 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by greyseal
09-15-2009 10:59 AM


New subtitle
This subtitle was introduced in message 4. It has been dragged kicking and screaming all along. Can we try a new one or two to see us through to the end (or even better a few dozen new ones!)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:59 AM greyseal has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 93 of 120 (524347)
09-16-2009 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
09-15-2009 8:31 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Percy writes:
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?
sorry, back in msg 64 i gave an explaination of the first and 2nd verse, but from there it went a bit off topic with regard to interpretation where i used 'day' as an example.
In msg 64, I said that vs 1 is referring to the beginning of the universe which included the earth.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Verse 2 describes something different though, it describes God working on the earth...one of the planets in the universe that was already created...
"Now the earth was formless and waste and Gods spirit was moving to and fro over the waters"
Vs 2 doesnt say that God created the earth because the earth had already been created along with the rest of the universe at some point in the past.
Percy writes:
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?
to be fair, genesis 1:1 does describe accurate information. It describes a universe that had a beginning. Why is it unscientific to say that the universe had a beginning?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 09-15-2009 8:31 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2009 8:28 AM Peg has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22359
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 94 of 120 (524366)
09-16-2009 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Peg
09-16-2009 4:30 AM


Genesis 1:1-2
Peg writes:
sorry, back in msg 64 i gave an explaination of the first and 2nd verse, but from there it went a bit off topic with regard to interpretation where i used 'day' as an example.
In msg 64, I said that vs 1 is referring to the beginning of the universe which included the earth.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"
Verse 2 describes something different though, it describes God working on the earth...one of the planets in the universe that was already created...
"Now the earth was formless and waste and Gods spirit was moving to and fro over the waters"
Vs 2 doesnt say that God created the earth because the earth had already been created along with the rest of the universe at some point in the past.
This begins as if you intended to explain how the definition of day is relevant to verses 1 and 2, but you never explain it. Message 64 isn't about days, either.
Percy writes:
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?
to be fair, genesis 1:1 does describe accurate information. It describes a universe that had a beginning. Why is it unscientific to say that the universe had a beginning?
Peg, we're talking about your claimed gap of billions of years between verses 1 and 2 and how this rather odd interpretation wasn't made until science discovered how ancient the Earth and universe are. And ultimately we're seeking how this is consistent with what we know about the Earth's interior.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Peg, posted 09-16-2009 4:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 11:40 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 09-17-2009 7:25 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 95 of 120 (524417)
09-16-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-16-2009 8:28 AM


Re: Ancient Universe
Hi Percy,
Percy writes:
Peg, we're talking about your claimed gap of billions of years between verses 1 and 2 and how this rather odd interpretation wasn't made until science discovered how ancient the Earth and universe are. And ultimately we're seeking how this is consistent with what we know about the Earth's interior.
You keep making the assertion that the gap theory was not taught until we found out by science that the universe was old.
You gave me a good article to read but you did not answer my question as to when science found out the earth was old.
Rahvin pointed out an article on the age of the earth.
But I would like your answers before I comment further so let me ask them again.
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 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2009 8:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by JonF, posted 09-16-2009 2:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 96 of 120 (524438)
09-16-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ICANT
09-16-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Ancient Universe
Scientists knew the Earth was far older than 6,000 years in the early 1700's. The first recorded attempt to measure the age scientifically was in 1748, based on changes in sea level, and the result was "greater than 2 billion". Many methods were used over the next 150 years or so before the discovery of radioactivity, and the results varied extremely widely, but all the results were much more than 6,000 years.
Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth
Early Attempts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 11:40 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 4:58 PM JonF has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 97 of 120 (524495)
09-17-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
09-16-2009 8:28 AM


Re: Genesis 1:1-2
Percy writes:
Peg, we're talking about your claimed gap of billions of years between verses 1 and 2 and how this rather odd interpretation wasn't made until science discovered how ancient the Earth and universe are. And ultimately we're seeking how this is consistent with what we know about the Earth's interior.
firstly, the bible does not mention the earths interior so how can we debate about something the bible does not speak of?
2ndly, i explained that it was with an improved understanding of the dead ancient hebrew language that enabled some scholars to understand that Yom does not have to mean 24 hours.
Religious people have read the bible in the language of its translation...for english we have a rendering that says 'day 1, day 2 etc' so its understandable why they considered the length of the day as they knew it. Unfortunately they didnt know the ancient hebrew language so they had nothing with which to compare it to.
I dont deny that science has helped to understand the bible, in fact I think i said so in an earlier post...but the bible isnt reliant on modern science to understand it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 09-16-2009 8:28 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 9:27 AM Peg has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 98 of 120 (524695)
09-18-2009 6:42 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
09-15-2009 4:58 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Response to your first point see reply to greyseal
These days have to do, not with the creation of earth’s matter or material
Man was definitely created last which is logical because man and animals need certain things to survive, yes?
So matter and material were created. What is the point you are trying to make.
along with all the other planets in the universe
That was the part that i had a problem with.
his word was 'Yohm'
a day is not a long period of time. Especially when compared to the billions of years that you believe in.
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.
Yip, and i never disagreed with this. However, I don't think there is any way that you can read day in Genesis 1 as in the days of Noah. a day’s journey means the distance traveled in a 24 hour day. We can measure distance in light-years. Does this mean we question the use of the word year? Do we question and so "oh look a year can be used to measure distance, therefore perhaps a year isn't actually 365.25 days long but perhaps millions and billions of days long." What? That is ridiculous.
Ezekiel 4:6:
Again does day mean anything other than a 24 hour day? Was ezekiel to lie on his side for millions of years? No, again the word day is just a normal day.

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 103 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 9:30 AM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 99 of 120 (524697)
09-18-2009 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by greyseal
09-15-2009 10:58 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Your with Peg on this one?
What you have written is refutation of Peg's arguments.
Quite literally, all of chapter 1 is "the beginning".
Exactly. In Peg's and your time scale a beginning can be 13.5 billion years (or whatever the figure is) old when compared to the remainder of history which is only about 6000 years old. This is just weird. So you are saying that Jesus is in effect saying "At the beginning, 13.5 billion years after the big bang....." What? that just makes no sense at all.
Again the word day does not always mean a 24 hour day. Hence why we read it in context to work out what the author means. The context clearly implies a normal day, hence why people throughout history have always understood it as such unless they want to push an agenda.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:58 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 9:21 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 102 by Peg, posted 09-18-2009 9:30 AM Arphy has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 100 of 120 (524727)
09-18-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
09-18-2009 6:57 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
arphy writes:
Your(sic) with Peg on this one?
you betcha.
arphy writes:
What you have written is refutation of Peg's arguments.
Quite literally, all of chapter 1 is "the beginning".
Exactly. In Peg's and your time scale a beginning can be 13.5 billion years (or whatever the figure is) old when compared to the remainder of history which is only about 6000 years old. This is just weird. So you are saying that Jesus is in effect saying "At the beginning, 13.5 billion years after the big bang....." What? that just makes no sense at all.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 6:57 AM Arphy has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 101 of 120 (524728)
09-18-2009 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Peg
09-17-2009 7:25 AM


Re: Genesis 1:1-2
peg writes:
firstly, the bible does not mention the earths interior so how can we debate about something the bible does not speak of?
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 options
1) 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)
or
2) 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Peg, posted 09-17-2009 7:25 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4920 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 102 of 120 (524729)
09-18-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
09-18-2009 6:57 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Arphy writes:
Again the word day does not always mean a 24 hour day. Hence why we read it in context to work out what the author means. The context clearly implies a normal day
i dont think you've really done that with Genesis.
Genesis 2:4 calls all six creative days, one day..."This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that God made the earth and heaven"
not only does it say the six days were one day, but it also includes the creation of the heavens in that one day.
How can this mean a normal 24hour day? Its more speaking about an Era where many events can happen, but all are spoken of as one era.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 6:57 AM Arphy has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3852 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 103 of 120 (524730)
09-18-2009 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Arphy
09-18-2009 6:42 AM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
arphy writes:
However, I don't think there is any way that you can read day in Genesis 1 as in the days of Noah.
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"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 6:42 AM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Arphy, posted 09-18-2009 7:43 PM greyseal has replied

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


Message 104 of 120 (524788)
09-18-2009 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by JonF
09-16-2009 2:20 PM


Re: Ancient Universe
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
Scientists knew the Earth was far older than 6,000 years in the early 1700's.
Aristotle knew the universe was very old as he held it to be eternal some 300 years BC.
The earliest attempt to prove the age being longer that a few thousand year is a science fiction story written by De Maillet.
Which no one of the 1740's would have considered anything but science fiction.
The book you referenced states Voltaire went to considerable lengths to refute such heretical notions. From what I have been able to find out about Voltaire's worldview he would not have wasted his time, other than to maybe call it foolishness.
De Maillet used other than careful scientific reasoning to base his case on.
Newton did not put forth evidence for an old earth.
Buffon showed caculation based on the cooling of the earth held some promise as a method of determining the age of the planet. This took place sometime after 1749.
This was not explored in detail until 1862 by a professor at the University of Glasgow. Who became known as Lord Kelvin.
During the 1860's and onward Kelvin was involved in trying to determine the age of the earth.
"In spite of the questionable assumptions and the high degree of uncertainty in the data, Kelvin's caculations of the ages of the Sun and Earth were, at the time, considered highly authoritative. For three decades they stood as the best that physics could offer on the subject." page 38 your source.
Clarence King was the next big nme to come along.
King's paper (1893) was to advance Kelvin's method of determining the Earth's age.
Chamberlain attacked Kelvin's age of the Earth and Sun.
In 1903 Ernest Rutherford and Frederick Soddy determined the amount of heat generated by radioactive decay.
There was another attempt in the 1700's by Halley to date the earth using the salt content of water.
But Halley observed that the age of the Earth could not yet be caculated, because data was not available.
So my conclusions are:
In the 1700's there was not sufficient evidence from 2 men to cause religion a problem.
De Maillet's science fiction book would have been accepted as presetnted. Fiction.
Buffon's caculations showed promise of a way to date the earth.
These fellows probably got the same reaction to their beliefs and I do to mine. Are you out of your mind?
This was not explored until 1862 by Lord Kelvin.
Thomas Chalmers had taught as early as 1803 that Moses only dated the species not the earth. In 1804 He taught a gap between genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
Therefore the assertion that the gap theory was a knee jerk to science proving the earth to be old is false.
The gap was taught before the age of the earth was determined.
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 96 by JonF, posted 09-16-2009 2:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Perdition, posted 09-18-2009 5:24 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 107 by JonF, posted 09-18-2009 8:45 PM ICANT has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 105 of 120 (524791)
09-18-2009 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by ICANT
09-18-2009 4:58 PM


Re: Ancient Universe
Aristotle knew the universe was very old as he held it to be eternal some 300 years BC.
So, you're saying here, "Aristotle "knew" the earth was very old because he jumped to a conclusion and "believed" it was eternal for a philosophical reason."
He didn't "know" anything, he "believed" something. It turns out he was wrong on the length fo earth's existence, but correct, for incorrect reasons, that the earth is long.
I could have two friends and one says, "The next car that comes down the road will be red." The next one says "The next car that comes down the road will not be red." One of my friends will be right, but neither of them "knew" the correct answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 4:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024