center of the earth

quote:

---

Well everything was created by Odin, Vili, and Ve

---

Yes, I know, and grandma bacteria, from which life sprung, and the little speck sized 'quark gluon hot soup'. And this is science, all else is tales. I think we pretty well all know that line. However it was created, or supposedly fluked into existance, is not our focus at the moment. We are seeing if a created model of a cooler interior could fit the evidence or not.
How could a speck sized, entire universe containing, (with billions of galaxies)-little soup come to be? Some say a magical quantum fluxuation, presto! 'We don't know, it is beyond us, long as God wasn't involved, we'll call it sacred knowledge'. Then, to turn around and insinuate creation is a stretch! I think it would take nerve of hell, really. So, If you prefer thinking a magical quark ferry popped out a diamond for a core fine. Be it as it may, does it fit our observations, and evidence or not? Does a cooler earth contradict the evidence, just in it's very concept, regardless of fitting the evidence or not?

quote:

---

Could you explain this better please. What reference?

---

The frame of reference of accepting we are here, and the world has already been created. (regardless of how, or by Who, or lack of Who!)

quote:

---

The evidence does not support a diamond core

---

Great. Then I'll drop it fast as you can say 'I guess it must've been this other material, resulting in the same end-a cooler interior'. By the way,how does it not fit, would you say?

---

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.

There you go again with the cooler interior.You still haven't answered the question about why you think the interior isn't hot. Actually you haven't really answered any other questions either, but everything stems from that one.If you don't have a plausible argument for that then you can't move on to the rest.By the way, there isn't a 'magical quark ferry' - you can walk across the bridge from one quark to the next. Just watch out for what lives under the bridge...

---

Confused ? You will be...

There is no evidence to support what you're proposing. No you propose a theory its your duty to provide substantiating evidence. What evidence do you have of a) a cool core and b) a core composed of something other than what the current model proposes?I suggest you go and read AdminNosey's posts #160 and #164. Especially this from #164.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-28-2005 02:07 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

You still haven't answered the question about why you think the interior isn't hot

---

I know the architect, and it doesn't sound like His work, for one thing. I know the creation time frame, and the hot stuff, and it's resultant conclusions don't fit the bill, as I see it. It all sounds like a fitting of evidence to fit old age theories, at least to me. I see no reason to assume it is hot, other than common misconceptions, but maybe someone has some reason it must be hot? Not, 'Gee, it's hot in the mineshaft, or we think magma came from deep in the mantle...etc. What do we know? So far we have a few things to work with. Heat, come on now, why do you personally think it must be hot? Not just, 'gee, it must be, everybody says so, and it's been assumed for so long'! The flood events caused a lot of heat, so we have some surficial heat, yes. Why in creation would we assume it any further, except to justify desired 'age'? You tell me. Some have raised a few points, rotation, and such, but havn't delivered any goods, so far.

You have a 24 hour suspension.

I see AdminNosy just gave you a 24 hour suspension, maybe you can answer this when that expires.After reading your post I think your reason for saying the core isn't hot can be summed up as :

• I believe the Bible is literally true
• From the Bible I can work out the age of the earth
• This age is 6000 years (or 10000 - some value which is small compared to geological time)
• From the Bible I know the centre of the earth is not hot

If I am correct - or even in the right ballpark - then I think there is little point in continuing. You have a religious belief (which is fine) but you have no science to show us.

---

Confused ? You will be...

Interesting. So now a person who believes in God, and creation ("creation-evolution forum") is not allowed to proceed on the assumption of a created earth! So all creation people out there, remember, here, evolution must be accepted as a premise! Some debate! Nothing but a forum for God slamming, and trying to destroy faith!Thanks for making that obvious, Ned. You are a bully. Emphasis on the bull. In a fair fight, you would be a joke.

Have you actually read this thread ? I must conclude from those comments that you have not.For about 150 posts we have asked for evidence to back any of the assumptions that he has made (such as the centre of the earth being cool, it containing a giant diamond etc). None has been forthcoming - not a single piece. How long do you think that should go on?Of course a creationist can believe that the earth was created by God but THIS forum "geology and the great flood" is intended to consider SCIENTIFIC evidence for a flood.We have a number of forums such as "is it science" to discuss the idea that god took a direct hand in any flood.

The problem with cosmo wasn't that he believes in god or a created earth - it was that despite repeated requests he hadn't provided a single shred of evidence after 160+ posts.The Forum Rules (which we all agreed to when we registered) say :

4. Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions. Because it is often not possible to tell which points will prove controversial, it is acceptable to wait until a point is challenged before supporting it.

All cosmo has to do is abide by this. I think you'll find that apart from off-topic digressions the issues on this thread have been about geology, not evolution. They aren't the same thing you know.

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

ever tried to get a cat to look where you are pointing?

---

Hmm. I must remember to point that out to any Buddhists who give me that thing about pointing at the moon.

{{where .... ??}} oh sorry

the point is that before you consider talking more about your model you have to show that it is capable of being at least consistent with the known observations.this means you must have a {density\shell} distribution of matter that matches the total mass of the earth and the total rotational momentum of the earth.as noted before these things are sensitive to their distribution from the center at different powers of that distance, so matching them to the known values will require a thorough definition of density by depth.which of course should also be consistent with your model.then we can talk about what in your model creates different predictions than the standard model and see if we can test for these differencesthat is the scientific logical approach

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Of course anyone is allowed to proceed from any assumptions ... but if they are posting in a science forum, "proceeding" means "presenting and discussing the evidence". Cosmo chose not to proceed in the fashion required by the forum rules to which we al agreed.

There's liquid down there, under tremendous pressure (because it's holding up all of the Earth that's above it). No matter what the liquid is (and there's plenty of reasons why it's iron), it's hot. Basic thermodynamics and phase diagrams.

Perhaps cosmo is unaware that temperature increases with the increase of pressure? Most of us take granted for knowing this simple fact, but maybe cosmo is not aware of this. This would explain the difficulty in communication.

---

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.