Hollow Earth Expedition?

That's right, I am unwilling to tell what you can discover yourself, it will be your privilege and your reward.
I'll tell you later.

Edited by Colbard, : No reason given.

Good on you. The evidence is not just in scientific circles, sometimes it's on the edge a little, that does not mean that we have to accept everything that comes our way, but leave that door slightly open.

That's right, I am unwilling to tell what you can discover yourself, it will be your privilege and your reward. I'll tell you later.

Don't bother.

Colbard writes: Good on you. The evidence is not just in scientific circles, sometimes it's on the edge a little, that does not mean that we have to accept everything that comes our way, but leave that door slightly open.

Maybe I was unclear. I follow the scientific evidence where it leads. Everything you've said in this thread seems anathema to science, and to have you endorse something I say only tells me that I must have misspoke.

--Percy

I am not splitting hairs; I am saying that your posts show a total lack of any science knowledge or of what is written in the Bible stories.

If you have evidence to support any of your nonsense posts, then present it.

No, I don't have any evidence for you.

It's safe to come to a thread and not post any ideas isn't it?
It's much easier to come empty handed and have a go at whatever someone else is saying. You hang around places where you disagree with whatever, just looking for conflict? What for?

Put it this way, if man discovers what is in the earth, then the Bible is wrong. All you have to do to prove it wrong is dig!

Digging is not necessary. We take pictures of the interior of the Earth. It's called seismic tomography, and it works just like a CAT scan except it uses earthquake waves instead of X-rays.

from Motion history of tectonic plates unravelled :

"Seismic tomography image of the tectonic plate subduction under the Aegean region between Greece and Turkey. In good approximation a tomogram represents an indirect measure of the temperature of the mantle. The temperature of the cold (blue) plate differs by several hundreds of degrees with that of the more warm (red) regions. The prominent blue zone reflects the subducted “Tethys Ocean” Plate which is here still connected to the African continent. The deepest portions were still the surface some 180 million years ago. Source: M.Amaru & W. Spakman, Utrecht University"

The bottom of the image is about 210 km (130 miles) below the surface, and any empty space would be obvious.

From Depth Extent of the Lau Back-Arc Spreading Center and Its Relation to Subduction Processes (free registration required) one of my favorites::

"East-west vertical cross section of a P wave velocity image from 0- to 700-km depth along the line AB (1220-km length) in Fig. 3A. Red and blue colors denote slow and fast velocities, respectively. Solid triangles denote active volcanoes. CLSC denotes the location of the Central Lau Spreading Center and ELSC denotes the location of the Eastern Lau Spreading Center. Earthquakes within a 40-km width from the cross section are shown as white circles. The velocity perturbation scale is shown at the bottom."

Clearly shows a subducting slab. The bottom of this one is 700 km (435 miles down).

We also learn about the interior of the Earth from the ways earthquake waves are refracted and modified as they pass through the earth, especially the boundaries between zones. When earthquake waves pass through the Earth and encounter a boundary between different materials, some of the wave is reflected back and some is transmitted through (and in some circumstances the nature of one or both of the two waves is changed). By seeing where waves are or are not received, and by measuring their nature, and timing how long they take to arrive, we can map and have mapped all the interfaces in the Earth and the density of the parts of the Earth. From Earthquakes, Seismology and Plate Tectonics here's a picture of most of the ways waves travel from an earthquake at F:

If there ware a solid-gas or liquid-gas boundary inside the Earth, we would know it.

FYI that's how one provides references and discussion. Not "Goolge it".

By the way, if the information is only in the Bible, and there is no scientific evidence for it, does that make it wrong?

If that's all we know about something, it's not necessarily wrong but it's not scientific evidence. If we know much more than that we can make a determination. E.g we know that all evidence we would expect to see from a global fludde does not exist, and we have lots of evidence that no such fludde ever happened, so we conclude that in that case the Bible is wrong. It might be allegory or hyperbole or something, but it's not a factual account of an event that happened as described.

I'll be glad to provide references and discussion of that in an appropriate thread. but you better come prepared to discuss the science.

Colbard writes: It's safe to come to a thread and not post any ideas isn't it? It's much easier to come empty handed and have a go at whatever someone else is saying.

That's how science works. It isn't just throwing out ideas; it's about testing ideas. It's more useful to ask what's wrong with an idea than to just say, "Look at all the ideas!"

Colbard writes: You hang around places where you disagree with whatever, just looking for conflict?[

I'd say that the one who'd trying to overthrow well-tested ideas is the one who's "looking for conflict".

You are very kind and informative.
Love the old English sounding "fludde" !

I did not think that a different view would cause such a kerfuffle.
I don't feel threatened by another person's view because I can have my own, and I expect others to be the same.
But I guess you must have your reasons for coming in by numbers and jumping on someone who has an opinion that disagrees with common thinking.
The things I have posted cannot be found in creation websites.

I expect that if I have discovered something, that it can be verified by scientific data, such as provided by the previous post, but I may not go along with the conclusions from that data. For eg, the layer under the crust can have the properties of magma, without it being magma.

Colbard writes: I did not think that a different view would cause such a kerfuffle

It's not so much the views you hold but the method you apply to arrive at them and then preferring to keep believing them when they are shown to be wrong. We're not good at doing irrational here.

You are very kind and informative. Love the old English sounding "fludde" !

No reaction to the demolishment of your claims.

I expect that if I have discovered something, that it can be verified by scientific data, such as provided by the previous post, but I may not go along with the conclusions from that data. For eg, the layer under the crust can have the properties of magma, without it being magma.

It's a solid. Not a gaseous empty space. Oh, and it's not magma.

I politely pointed out why your opinion is wrong. Do you still hold that opinion, and why?

{eta} You must not have any experience with discussion boards. What you've seen is not a "kerfluffle" or any kind of angry response.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Colbard writes: It's safe to come to a thread and not post any ideas isn't it?

No. You just seem unable to recognize or interpret what I've posted, what anyone's posted. You haven't posted a coherent response yet to any of it. You began by name-dropping references to vague and unscientific Bible passages, and now you're wondering why everyone's criticizing your vague, amorphous and uninformed ideas.

Tell me what's wrong with my car. You don't get to see it or know anything about it, but I want you to tell me what's wrong with my car. You can't do it, right?

Now tell me something true about the geology of the Earth without knowing anything about geology whatsoever. You shouldn't be able to do that either, right? So why are you trying to do that?

--Percy