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

Hi, Archangel, welcome aboard!Actually, what you describe is pretty much what I thought Obvious Child was saying. Actually, the Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth, at which point the Earth was formless and void. How did an old, dead rock get a molten outer core and a solid (though even hotter but under greater pressure) inner core? This may be what Obvious Child was asking. This would be wrong. There exists a great deal of evidence for an ancient Earth, so the best you can do is state that you personally find the evidence insufficient or unconvincing. This is a geology thread. Life's beginnings can be discussed over at the Origin of Life forum, and evolution's scientific qualifications over at the Is It Science? forum.--Percy

Hi Archangel,If you want to discuss any of those off-topic topics, you should be able to find already-existing threads for many of them. Just peruse through the various Science Forums. If you can't find a thread for a particular topic you can propose new threads over at Proposed New Topics.I don't think any valid objections can be raised to the claim that "God did it," unless you're also claiming that this answer has scientific support. The science forums (this thread is in one of the science forums) are for discussing answers that have been uncovered using the scientific method to identify supporting scientific evidence. One of the science forums, Is It Science?, includes discussion of the nature of modern science.I know you feel wronged by Obvious Child, but EvC Forum tries very hard to keep discussion focused on the topic. You can ignore Obvious Child, or you and Obvious Child can try to hash out your differences in a Coffee House thread, but threads in the science forums should keep their focus pretty much on the topic. If you encounter problems in a discussion then report it at Report discussion problems here: No.2 and let moderators do their job.--Percy

Just to repeat the information I was trying to get across before, members taking off-topic potshots at one another in discussion threads will draw the attention of moderators. If you're going to ignore Obvious Child then ignore him, at least it's not against the Forum Guidelines, e.g.:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

Again, I understand you feel wronged by Obvious Child, but if you don't let the moderators handle such issues then pretty soon the moderators will be handling you.--Percy

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

If there's a way of parsing, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" to arrive at your and Peg's interpretation, I can't see it. How could God have created the heavens and the Earth if they already existed? How could they already exist before the beginning?--Percy

Oh, I see, you're referring to the creationist argument that there's a great span of time between verses 1 and 2. That's a pretty strained interpretation, isn't it? Isn't it really just a post facto reinterpretation of those verses in an attempt at reconciliation with the facts of modern cosmology, astronomy and geology? Can you point to anyone making such an interpretation before such information came to light during the 20th century?--Percy

Chalmers was reacting to recent discoveries in the field of geology, so let me make a minor change to my question:Can you point to anyone making such an interpretation before such information came to light in the time since the 19th century?Gap theory is just a reactive post facto reinterpretation of the Bible in light of modern scientific discoveries, and your other arguments are just more examples of the same thing being performed on other ancient texts.--PercyEdited by Percy, : "Chambers" => "Chalmers"

Almost anything written can be interpreted in various ways, but isn't it interesting that the interpretation of a gap didn't appear until it become necessary in order to reduce the number of conflicts with modern science.But Biblical interpretations are not the topic of this thread. But at least I now I understand what is being claimed, that there was an enormous gap in time after the creation of the earth and universe before the events beginning in verse 2 occur. This means that verse 2 is talking about a time 6,000 years ago, and it says the Earth is formless and void. This is still violently in conflict with modern science, but anyway, how did the Earth end up with a molten outer core and a solid but even hotter inner core? How enlightened.--Percy

So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture? And yet it's the subject of this thread.--Percy

Buffon and Hutton began presenting evidence for an ancient Earth in the latter half of the 18th century. Check out the Wikipedia article on Gap creationism: This supports the thesis that gap creationism was a reaction to scientific developments and was not an interpretation that followed naturally from the Biblical text.--Percy

Yes, precisely. Modern scholarship has done nothing to reduce disagreement among Christians about interpretation of scripture. There's no agreement among Christians about a billions of years gap in time between verses 1 and 2. Christian scholarship has not established that beyond a doubt that's what the verses mean. That interpretation was not a result of scholarship, but a reaction to new developments within science. It developed out of a desire to reduce the degree of scriptural conflicts with fairly sound scientific theories.If the Bible actually contained accurate scientific information then Christians should be telling us the scientific discoveries before scientists make them instead of after. It's always a case of, "Scientists made a new discovery recently? Well, the Bible already says that, we just hadn't gotten around to telling anyone." It's pretty transparent. If the Bible really contained so much scientific knowledge, then Bible colleges would be submitting all the landmark papers to the journal Nature.--Percy

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? 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?--Percy

Taz was being satiric and should have included a smiley. He knows the Earth is actually hollow. --Percy

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. 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

I can't be sure, but I think JonF's use of "Samizdat" may be a reference to Holocaust denial, and that he's in effect calling ICANT an irrational denialist. Of course, that doesn't promote productive debate either, but then, ICANT doesn't often leave people many productive alternatives. I get the feeling that ICANT's goal is to leave people in small murmuring groups all asking amongst themselves, "What the heck was he talking about? Does he even know himself?" If his responses draw quizzical looks he's happy.--Percy