Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8950 total)
29 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,381 Year: 22,417/19,786 Month: 980/1,834 Week: 50/430 Day: 5/45 Hour: 0/1


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?
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2461 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 1 of 120 (523233)
09-09-2009 1:15 AM


So recently I was told by a creationist as a rebuttal to the various and often fatal heat related arguments against YEC that the Earth was not molten, and that it was "void and empty."

Now, I'm going to assume that was true. How, outside of magic, did the iron core of the planet get there and how did the mantle become molten if during the creation of the planet, Earth wasn't molten at all, but "void and empty?"

What geological principle or phenomena could explain this?


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by anglagard, posted 09-09-2009 8:05 AM obvious Child has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Databed, posted 09-10-2009 10:50 AM obvious Child has responded
 Message 43 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-12-2009 4:38 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 2 of 120 (523253)
09-09-2009 7:23 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2203
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 3 of 120 (523265)
09-09-2009 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by obvious Child
09-09-2009 1:15 AM


It's more about the parent physics, than about the daughter, geology.

In one word, it is gravity, In one phrase, light things float, heavy things sink.

A hollow earth contradicts everything known or ever observed about gravity, therefore every appeal to a hollow earth is an appeal to magic.

As to present knowledge, it is essentially known that the outer core is liquid is due to the actions of pressure waves relative to shear waves. Liquids do not transmit shear waves. That is why an earthquake on the opposite side of the earth shows a giant hole when the profile of such an upset is compared through several geographically distant geophysical stations.

As to the inner core being solid, this is due to the observed reflection of pressure waves going from solid to liquid, to solid under all experimental conditions, therefore it is presumed that the same attributes of sound waves act the same in the deep earth as it acts everywhere else.

There you go, either physics or what Holden Caufield referred to as 'phonies.'


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 1:15 AM obvious Child has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 12:09 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 4 of 120 (523304)
09-09-2009 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by anglagard
09-09-2009 8:05 AM


Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
anglagard writes:

A hollow earth contradicts everything known or ever observed about gravity, therefore every appeal to a hollow earth is an appeal to magic.

Just to correct your assumption right up front, a hollow earth was never suggested or implied by the person making the original claim raised here by obvious child, from another forum. And I know this because I AM THAT PERSON. My point was simply this. Evolutionists attempt to entrap creationists by asking us to explain questions which are based upon assumptions that evolutionists take for granted. one current example for the sake of this debate is that "the Earth is old". Thus, how do we explain the original question of a molten Earth since it would be impossible for the earth to have cooled to the degree that it is in only 10,000 years which YECers accept as a true age of the earth since the bible implies it according to the genealogical record. Keep in mind though that nowhere does the bible specifically state an actual age of the earth itself. It actually only speaks to the age of humanity since our CREATION by God along with all other life on Earth.

The fact is that my mental image of the Genesis account as a committed christian and a literal believer of the bible is that the Earth was already here in an empty and void state which the spirit of God was roaming on the first day of creation just as the Genesis account says. That would explain why it appears so old, because it was an old dead rock spiraling through the emptiness of eternity before God breathed the breath of life into it in the way described in Genesis chapter 1.

In fact, in the other forums thread which this thread starter is basing this question upon, the question of a molten core was never raised with me or discussed by me. It was raised by him and him alone as an after thought in response to my argument, but was never an aspect of the question posed to me as the other forums responder who's argument he is basing this thread on. The question posed was in regard to the molten earth with its super heated atmosphere which existed this alleged 4.5 billion years ago which cannot be proven or supported by any testable or verifiable experiments, with controls in any lab on earth. Neither can any evolutionist tell me what chemicals existed this alleged 4.5 BILLION years ago or what processes make up the very assumed foundational claims upon which the modern theory of evolution is based.

These questions are the crux of the debate on the other forum which this very dishonest poster, IMHO has corrupted and started this bogus offshoot of because like every other evolutionist on the other forum, he cannot get over the hurdle that everything evolutionists claim to be solid science regarding the theory of evolution is in fact built upon a fallacious foundation of unprovable assumptions. So there ya go. Now you have the actual opinion of the actual poster and the reasons why he rejects what I consider to be your secular humanist religion which is referred to as biological evolution which is in my opinion the ultimate appeal to magic since you cannot explain how life allegedly spontaneously appeared from a puddle of primordial ooze some 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO. And while I'm at it, consider this my introductory post to this forum since it is also my first one.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.

Edited by Archangel, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by anglagard, posted 09-09-2009 8:05 AM anglagard has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 09-09-2009 12:59 PM Archangel has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19121
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 5 of 120 (523311)
09-09-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Archangel
09-09-2009 12:09 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Hi, Archangel, welcome aboard!

Actually, what you describe is pretty much what I thought Obvious Child was saying.

Archangel writes:

The fact is that my mental image of the Genesis account as a committed christian and a literal believer of the bible is that the Earth was already here in an empty and void state which the spirit of God was roaming on the first day of creation just as the Genesis account says.

Actually, the Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth, at which point the Earth was formless and void.

That would explain why it appears so old, because it was an old dead rock spiraling through the emptiness of eternity before God breathed the breath of life into it in the way described in Genesis chapter 1.

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.

The question posed was in regard to the molten earth with its super heated atmosphere which existed this alleged 4.5 billion years ago which cannot be proven or supported by any testable or verifiable experiments, with controls in any lab on earth.

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.

Now you have the actual opinion of the actual poster and the reasons why he rejects what I consider to be your secular humanist religion which is referred to as biological evolution which is in my opinion the ultimate appeal to magic since you cannot explain how life allegedly spontaneously appeared from a puddle of primordial ooze some 4.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 12:09 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 3:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 7 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 4:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 6 of 120 (523332)
09-09-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
09-09-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Percy writes:

Hi, Archangel, welcome aboard!
Actually, what you describe is pretty much what I thought Obvious Child was saying.

Hi Percy, then why did anglagard interpret the obvious childs post to be saying that I believed the Earth to be hollow? Also, how can he be saying the same thing as I when I have plainly said that in our original debate, the subject of the earths molten CORE was never even discussed? No Percy, I have a specific and direct knowledge of everything that has been written in a 500+ post debate on the other forum, so I understand perfectly what is fallacious about the premise of this thread question.

Actually, the Bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth, at which point the Earth was formless and void.

Precisely, which isn't to say that it didn't exist when He breathed life into it, only that it was formless and void of life in regards to how we know it to exist today. By this I mean that He didn't say that He spoke the existence of the planet into existence at that time. Only that He took a formless mass of matter which was void of life and shaped it into the organized sphere which currently exists in an organized universe leading to a larger eternity.

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 may be what child is asking here and now; but what I am saying is that his question which he frames is claimed by him to be based on what "I", a creationist on another forum allegedly argued but has nothing to do with what was actually discussed by me on that other forum in reality. The question I responded to was about a 4.5 BILLION year old molten planet with a super heated atmosphere and how it could have cooled in only 10,000 years according to the creationist perspective? The point being that it is impossible for the earth to cool from that suggested primordial temperature so Creationism fails. My answer was that since when must creationism accept the standard talking points of evolutionary theory and just accept that the Earth was in fact as evolutionists take for granted in their view as you make me explain my world view from the perspective of what you accept in your world view. See my point?

It is a fallacy of reason to expect me to justify my world view based on the assumptions your world view makes.

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.

Not true at all, there exists a great deal of observable evidence from quantum mechanics to cosmology and geology regarding our Earth, Solar System and Universe, but what separates creationists from evolutionists in a nutshell is the application of this evidence in the way we interpret it. You see, I don't deny the evidence which exists. I just interpret it from another perspective rather than a strictly natural one. It is my strong opinion that your beliefs system requires much more blind faith than mine does, and yours requires true magic where as my supernatural source remains consistent in my modern day world view since I have a personal supernatural relationship with my God through Jesus Christ, my Lord as we speak. In other words, I have first hand evidence that my God is real, alive and well, and personally involved and active in every aspect of His creation today, justas He was on the first day of Creation. You have no such first hand evidence for evolution which remains unprovable and untestable in the laboratory.

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

I see, so am I to understand that the way you avoid pitting evolution theory against creationism on a deeper level is by compartmentalizing debates as an insulator against ever being forced to confront the weaknesses in applying geology or the other sciences to this false and pseudo science which evolution claims to represent? If debates aren't allowed to expand in the inevitable direction which proves or disproves evolution vs creationism, then what is the point? I mean, is not the name of the site Creation Versus Evolution?

Also, you should be aware that the 500+ post debate on the other forum was all about the validity and provability of evolution from the point of view of how life spontaneously appeared on earth 4.5 billion years ago. So obvious child had to have expected this thread to go in that direction also. Just so you know...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 09-09-2009 12:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 4:29 PM Archangel has responded
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 6:37 PM Archangel has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2461 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 7 of 120 (523348)
09-09-2009 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
09-09-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
quote:
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.

Thank you Percy, that is exactly what I was asking. I was specifically told by Archangel that the Earth was not molten nor a fireball and that it was "void and empty." That of course raises a large number of questions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 09-09-2009 12:59 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2461 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 8 of 120 (523349)
09-09-2009 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Archangel
09-09-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
You're going to get banned if you keep that line of argumentation up.

And this place keeps arguments compartmentalized because it keeps the thread on topic. No shotgun method for you!

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 3:13 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-09-2009 4:47 PM obvious Child has responded
 Message 11 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 5:48 PM obvious Child has responded
 Message 56 by Peg, posted 09-13-2009 8:51 AM obvious Child has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1637 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 120 (523351)
09-09-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by obvious Child
09-09-2009 4:29 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
OC 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?


Nobody has ever gone that deep into the Earth, so no one can know what's actually down there. Iron core and mantle are just guesses, speculations at best, to support an unproven old earth theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 4:29 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 5:06 PM Taz has responded
 Message 12 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 6:02 PM Taz has responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2461 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 10 of 120 (523352)
09-09-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
09-09-2009 4:47 PM


Please Stay On Topic
But as anglagard has discussed not to mention our knowledge of physics and geology, the core is highly certain to be molten. Also, I do believe you are incorrect about the mantle as we know first hand that it is molten. Volcanoes anyone? Furthermore, ground penetrating radar has returned images of the mantle and magma chambers showing behavior of the material very unlike solid rock. So unless there's another property of rock that is neither solid (and cold) or liquid (and molten) hit me.

Even if we remove the issue of the iron core, how did a dead empty rock ball turn molten under the crust?

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-09-2009 4:47 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 6:07 PM obvious Child has responded
 Message 18 by Taz, posted 09-09-2009 7:07 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 11 of 120 (523355)
09-09-2009 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by obvious Child
09-09-2009 4:29 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
obvious child writes:

You're going to get banned if you keep that line of argumentation up.

Yeah, so what? I just came here to point out that the premise of this threads question is nothing like the question I was asked or responded to from Dp on the other forum. And to ask if anyone can answer for the inconsistencies evo represents which I pointed out above. That issue has been answered by narrowly defining a thread so much that the ultimate purpose for the forum existing becomes lost in the minutia. So if the debates are so narrowly defined here that I can't take them to the next level by exposing the inconsistencies, the assumptions and the unproven conclusions which evo represents, then there is nothing here for me anyway because whether we're debating geology, cosmology or quantum mechanics, the purpose of both sides is to prove or disprove the cult of evolution.

This ought to at least put your constant accusations that I am somehow afraid to debate here to bed anyway. Oh, and while I have you here, you're still on ignore at the other forum, so place me there also so we can coexist in peace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 4:29 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 6:20 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 12 of 120 (523356)
09-09-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Taz
09-09-2009 4:47 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Taz writes:

Nobody has ever gone that deep into the Earth, so no one can know what's actually down there. Iron core and mantle are just guesses, speculations at best, to support an unproven old earth theory.

Hi Taz, I'm proud to make your acquaintance. Your reputation precedes you at another forum where obvious child has mentioned you. It doesn't matter what issue is discussed, evolutionists assume they have evidence for what they want to believe happened, and every time we point out their fallacy, they tell us we are ignorant and just don't understand. In a 500+ post debate between me and 6 or 7 evolutionists on another thread, I have been repeatedly accused of being too ignorant to understand issues they are unable to prove I'm wrong in questioning them about. So I'f I'm too ignorant to understand the questions I'm asking, what does that say about those who can't answer them with real and absolute proof? If evolution is a valid science, of course, which it isn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Taz, posted 09-09-2009 4:47 PM Taz has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 09-09-2009 7:12 PM Archangel has not yet responded
 Message 88 by greyseal, posted 09-15-2009 10:07 AM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Archangel
Member (Idle past 1116 days)
Posts: 134
Joined: 09-09-2009


Message 13 of 120 (523357)
09-09-2009 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by obvious Child
09-09-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
obvious child writes:

Even if we remove the issue of the iron core, how did a dead empty rock ball turn molten under the crust?

How many times must it be said before you will get it child? God did it!!! And it wasn't magic, it was supernatural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 5:06 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 6:39 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2461 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 14 of 120 (523360)
09-09-2009 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Archangel
09-09-2009 5:48 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Sure you did.

Except that Percy has accurately described what the outcome of "void and empty" consists of and you have replied that the Earth was an "old dead rock."

The point of compartmentalization is to prevent the tactics that creationists use, namely constant argument changing to avoid backing up their claims. By focusing the discussions on individual topics, actual meaning and value can be derived. Tactics such as yours that deliberately change arguments every other post do not provide any meaning or value.

If you have no argument to support your claims that the Earth was an "old dead rock" and no mechanism other than magic for how the mantle and iron core became molten then stop posting as that is what this thread is about and let those who are willing to discuss this honestly post.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 5:48 PM Archangel has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 0 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 15 of 120 (523362)
09-09-2009 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Archangel
09-09-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
Hi Archangel. Welcome to the forum.

Not true at all, there exists a great deal of observable evidence from quantum mechanics to cosmology and geology regarding our Earth, Solar System and Universe, but what separates creationists from evolutionists in a nutshell is the application of this evidence in the way we interpret it. You see, I don't deny the evidence which exists. I just interpret it from another perspective rather than a strictly natural one.

Please explain.

It is my strong opinion that your beliefs system requires much more blind faith than mine does, and yours requires true magic

That's a curious position. Science, by its very nature, eschews faith, and does not deal in "magic." That which is understood is describes as accurately as possible given currently available evidence - and only evidence, with emphasis placed on objectivity and questioning existing belief structures. The highest awards in science come from proving an existing model to be wrong in whole or part. The processes of independant verification and peer review are specifically designed to eliminate the sorts of bias that are created by taking a "worldview" for granted. In science, everything is open for debate, and everything is tentative pending the addition of new evidence or a model that explains the evidence with more accurate predictive qualities than existing paradigms.

What "magic" is required in the standard model of a billions-of-years-old Earth?

where as my supernatural source remains consistent in my modern day world view since I have a personal supernatural relationship with my God through Jesus Christ, my Lord as we speak. In other words, I have first hand evidence that my God is real, alive and well, and personally involved and active in every aspect of His creation today, justas He was on the first day of Creation.

Two words: evidence, please?

This is the Science area of the forum. Faith is irrelevant here - you can believe whatever you wish, but your argumetns are unconvincing without the addition of evidence.

Furthermore, this is a massive tu quoque fallacy - you are accusing scientists of invoking magic and blind faith to justify your invocation of magic and reliance on faith. As such, your logic is unsound.

Do you have an evidence showing that your deity exists? If so, I;d love to hear it. I've never seen a series of objective facts that support the existence of a deity as the most likely and parsimonious solution.

I though that was what the whole "faith" thing was about - faith being the "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

You have no such first hand evidence for evolution which remains unprovable and untestable in the laboratory.

Quite to the contrary - evolution has been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory. In fact, the change in biological populations over generations is directly observed each and every year in Universities spanning the globe, through a variety of experiments understaken by undergraduate students.

New species have been directly observed to arise from pre-existing ancestor species. New features have been observed to form over generations, and thrive or die out according to natural selection.

But this is off-topic in a geology thread...and first-hand experience is not required in teh first place.

We don't require first-hand experience to determine the circumstances of a murder. Neither do we require first-hand experience to support evolution, or geology, or any of a variety of other fields.

Certainly you don't require first-hand experience to believe that Jesus died on teh cross, or that God created the world, do you? After all, you weren't there.

What we require is objective evidence, which exists all around us, both in and out of laboratories.

The age of teh Earth is very well established, and it has been generally accepted by scientists for hundreds of years - long before Darwin ever proposed the Theory of Evolution, I might add.

quote:
Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī (11th century CE) discovered the existence of shells and fossils in regions that were once sea floor, but were later uplifted to become dry land, such as the Indian subcontinent. Based on this evidence, he realized that the Earth is constantly changing and proposed that the Earth had an age, but that its origin was too distant to measure.[13] The principle of superposition of strata was first proposed by Avicenna (11th century).

All the way back in the 11th century, scientists were aware that the Earth (and life) was old.

Superposition of strata, simply, means that newer layers are deposited on top of older layers. THis led to a better estimate as to the age of teh Earth:

quote:
In the 1790s, the British naturalist William Smith hypothesized that if two layers of rock at widely differing locations contained similar fossils, then it was very plausible that the layers were the same age.[18] William Smith's nephew and student, John Phillips, later calculated by such means that Earth was about 96 million years old.

But these scientists were workign with very limited data, and were establishing only a lower limit (minimum value) for the age of the Earth.

Nowadays, we have radiometric dating...and the results are pretty conclusive.

The current lower limit estimate for the age of the Earth is a litle over 4.5 billion years. This was determined by measuring the radioisotopes and their decay products.

quote:
Nevertheless, ancient Archaean lead ores of galena have been used to date the formation of Earth as these represent the earliest formed lead-only minerals on the planet and record the earliest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet. These have returned age dates of 4.54 billion years with a precision of as little as 1% margin for error.

Radiometric dating is very well established, and incredibly accurate. This is partly due to the absolute consistency of radioactive decay (halflives do not change, period - if decay rates had been different in the past, well...suffice it to say we'd see some evidence of it. Or rather, we wouldn't because we wouldn't exist. But I digress). Radiometric dating also allows for self-verification - given decay rates of different isotopes in the same timespan, they can confirm each other somewhat like using a meter stick and a ruler to measure a 10cm length. If multiple isotopic dating methods arrive at similar estimates, they're pretty certain to have made an accurate estimate.

The following meteorites were used in dating the Earth:

quote:
1) St. Severin (ordinary chondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron - 4.543 +/- 0.019 GY b. Sm-Nd isochron - 4.55 +/- 0.33 GY c. Rb-Sr isochron - 4.51 +/- 0.15 GY d. Re-Os isochron - 4.68 +/- 0.15 GY

2) Juvinas (basaltic achondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.556 +/- 0.012 GY b. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.540 +/- 0.001 GY c. Sm-Nd isochron ..... 4.56 +/- 0.08 GY d. Rb-Sr isochron ..... 4.50 +/- 0.07 GY

3) Allende (carbonaceous chondrite) a. Pb-Pb isochron ..... 4.553 +/- 0.004 GY b. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.52 +/- 0.02 GY c. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.55 +/- 0.03 GY d. Ar-Ar age spectrum ..... 4.56 +/- 0.05 GY


As you can see, each meteorite was dated using several of their component minerals, each with different decay rates, to ensure the most accurate estimate possible and reduce any potential contamination. All of teh dates from all of the minerals in all of teh metorites arrived at an estimate around 4.5 billion years.

If you want to dispute the age of the Earth, you're going to have to start here: with the evidence. You claim not to ignore evidence, but rather to "reinterpret" it. How do you "interpret" obsevable facts like radiometric dating to support a younger Earth? How do you "interpret" the backward extrapolation of observed yearly cycles through geological strata that predict a very old Earth?

It sounds to me like you're applying religious apologetics rather than the scientific method - rather than following evidence (and only objective, observable evidence) to form logically consistent and parsimonious models that explain the observable data with testable predictions, you're starting from a given conclusion and attempting to justify it through the "interpretation" of evidence. I'd love for you to prove me wrong.

All references from from here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 3:13 PM Archangel has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 9:28 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019