Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,387 Year: 3,644/9,624 Month: 515/974 Week: 128/276 Day: 2/23 Hour: 0/0


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?
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 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 replied

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 18 of 120 (523365)
09-09-2009 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by obvious Child
09-09-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
(1) I am on topic.
(2) I wanna know everything you said about me on another forum.
(3) I just thought I threw this one out there since both you and I know the "you can't know for sure since no one has been there" argument is bound to show up in a topic like this.
OC writes:
Even if we remove the issue of the iron core, how did a dead empty rock ball turn molten under the crust?
As Archangel already pointed out, the Earth was just a hunk of rock floating through nothingness long before G-D breathed life upon it. This would explain the apparent old age of the Earth.
But more importantly, we should look at other angles. The Sun, Moon, and other planets were placed around Earth. Their gravitational influences, over time, began to have adverse effects on the Earth's geology. Anyone with the most basic knowledge in physics knows that gravitational bodies exert gravitational tidal waves on each other. But just in case we have people that don't know what I'm talking about, let me briefly explain.
When we have two massive bodies in close range with each other, they attract each other based on the inverse squared law. Distance being the key in the equation. Say we have objects A and B. The side of object A that faces object B is obviously a lot closer to object B than the side of object A that faces away from object B. The gravitational influence of object B on the far side of object A is considerably less than the gravitational influence of object B on the near side of object A. Therefore, we end up with what we call the tidal wave effect. Object A's shape is slightly altered to more like a pumpkin shape as one side is pulled toward object B with a stronger gravitational magnitude than the other side.
This is why we have tides on Earth and Enceladus is considerably warmer than what it should be that far out.
Going back to Earth, after G-D put the planetary bodies around Earth, their gravitational effects started to work on the Earth. The Earth began to be geologically active. One of these effects is the heat generated by friction as one side of the Earth is pulled toward the Moon a lot stronger than the other side.
Try to beat that explanation!

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 7:12 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 21 by obvious Child, posted 09-09-2009 7:19 PM Taz has not replied
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 7:40 PM Taz has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 120 (523368)
09-09-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Archangel
09-09-2009 6:02 PM


Re: Since I'm the guy being discussed, here's my 2 cents...
If you haven't noticed, I'm trying hard to support your claims. Consider me a friend in a sea of hostile, baby eating evilutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Archangel, posted 09-09-2009 6:02 PM Archangel has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 24 of 120 (523397)
09-09-2009 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Rahvin
09-09-2009 7:40 PM


Re: Please Stay On Topic
Damn it, I was hoping nobody would think of the counter arguments that I came up with while conjuring up my support for creationism.
Rahvin writes:
The Earth displays millions of years of readily observable geological activity, reaching back to the point where geological processes would have recycled any older features. The lower limit for the age of the geologically and biologically active Earth using only observations like seasonally-deposited strata and the age of fossils found in rocks is in the tens to hundreds of millions of years range...orders of magnitude greater than the thousands to tens of thousands of years estimated by your scenario.
Again, you weren't there. Geologists weren't there. All of these hundreds of millions of years of ranges were simply fabricated to support an atheistic worldview.
Further, gravitational heating requires some pretty hefty tidal forces to be exerted on the Earth...and we can readily observe that the Sun's effect on the tides is minimal, and the Moon is not causing any sort of geological activity as it orbits the Earth. We have observed cases of tidal heating in the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and it looks nothing like what we observe with Earth.
Of course it's nothing like what we observe with Earth, and that's because they're not Earth. What a silly thing to say. You silly you.
Finally, your scenario requires the Sun, Moon, and other celestial bodies to magically "Poof!" into existence. This contradicts current models of stellar and planetary formation, which are devised by dating the ages of meteorites, observing other stars and nebulae and planets, and other methods. What is you evidence supporting the sudden appearance of the Sun and all other celestial bodies 6-10,000 years ago, as opposed to their continued existence for billions of years? How do you avoid violating the conservation of mass/energy? By what mechanism does the sudden appearance occur? What testable predictions does your model make, so that we can test your accuracy?
Give me a break here. You know how hard it is to defend a position you know to be false? It's like writing a fictional novel, which I tried a couple years ago and failed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Rahvin, posted 09-09-2009 7:40 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3312 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 45 of 120 (523805)
09-12-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by obvious Child
09-12-2009 5:04 PM


Re: Nobody has answered the topic title question
Nobody has been to the center of the Earth to definitely say there's an iron core there. Asking this question is like asking where did I get my million dollar from and how did the million dollar end up in my pocket? Try to answer that question when I don't actually have a million dollar.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by obvious Child, posted 09-12-2009 5:04 PM obvious Child has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024