|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Where did Earth's Iron core come from and how did the mantle become molten? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Archangel writes: One need only to click on this link 4forums.com is for sale | HugeDomains which I posted above and see his juvenile and dishonest opinions in his posts as he attempts to demonize me with unsubstantiated insults and mockery on a thread I haven't written even one post on. 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.:
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: Thomas Chalmers actually taught the gap theory to his church in 1804. 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. --Percy Edited by Percy, : "Chambers" => "Chalmers"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Peg writes: the word Yohm (day) was used in various ways, it could literally mean some time in the past such as 'in the day of Noah' who lived for much longer then 1 day. It can also mean several days such as 'the day of harvest' and the harvest spanned over a week in ancient Israel. 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?
And science has also added to an improved understanding...many people who study the bible have taken on board that the earth was not made in 6 literal days and they fully accept science in this regard. How enlightened. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Peg writes: you have to take into consideration that genesis was written about 4.000 years ago...and moses used a word that indicated long lengths of time, but modern translators were limited in their understanding of hebrew So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture?
Percy writes: How did the Earth end up with a molten outer core and a solid but even hotter inner core? i wouldnt even like to speculate And yet it's the subject of this thread. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
ICANT writes: So when did science find out the earth was old? 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:
Wikipedia writes: Gap creationism became increasingly attractive near the end of the eighteenth century and first half of the nineteenth century, because the newly established science of geology had determined that the Earth was far older than a literal interpretation of Genesis and the Bible-based Flood geology would allow. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Peg writes: Percy writes:
not at all lol So now that scholarship is so much more sophisticated, Christians are all in agreement about the interpretation of scripture? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Peg writes: i dont necessarily agree with that. It is well established among hebrew scholars that the word used [day] can mean any length of time. 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?
Peg writes: Percy writes: If the Bible actually contained accurate scientific information then Christians should be telling us the scientific discoveries before scientists make them instead of after. You're right, and it might be true if the Bible were a science book, but it's not and it doesn't claim to be. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
greyseal writes: Taz writes:
Taz, are you a geophysicist? No? Oh well then, before you say what is guess or wild speculation, go find out why scientists think they know first. 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. Taz was being satiric and should have included a smiley. He knows the Earth is actually hollow. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22503 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024