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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

As you are new here, you should read the rules before posting again; Forum GuidelinesEdited by Admin, : Replace link to the forum guidelines with the [fg] dBCode.

I'm somewhat confused. Archangel does not explicitly state if he rejects the notion that the iron core and mantle are molten. His argument is pretty much irrelevant as the age of the Earth is irrelevant as to whether or not at bare minimum the mantle is currently molten. Furthermore, any views on evolution itself are again irrelevant as the point in time when evolution starts to work is well beyond the time frame in which this discussion is revolving around. Archangel's argument seems to be a distraction by attacking evolution rather than actually addressing the issue here which is a clear violation of the forum rules.The question again is how did an "void and empty" & "old dead rock" turn molten?I fail to see how the age of the Earth or evolution actually matter in that question. Talking about them and rejecting them does not affect the question. Even if evolution did not occur and the Earth was really 6,000 years old, how did a dead old rock that was void and empty gain several thousand degrees of heat within its core?

1) It wasn't to you2) I quoted your "If God made man from dirt..." joke. It got a round of laughs on another forum and I did cite you when I made the joke. Archangel then proceeded to argue I screwed up the grammar (not you) despite my linking to your post. Things didn't go well for him after that.3) ThanksAs usual, you come up with amusing explanations. We are getting off topic though. Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Got it. Planetary Partial Self Combustion. That would explain how a dead ball of rock suddenly gained several thousand degrees in its core.

If you do not wish to discuss the subject, do not post. And everyone is free to read your posts on that forum. Why you would want them to is another story though ...Furthermore, you again are not doing your research. After the software upgrade here, the report button went away. The only way to report is by posting in the report thread. Tell me, do you see any of my posts there?Your dislike of me does not substitute for a valid argument to support your beliefs.I am still waiting for an answer other than "Goddidit." Furthermore, As I have pointed out (and as others have done as well), evolution is really quite irrelevant to the subject here. Since you accept a 6,000 year old planet, how did a dead old rock suddenly gain thousands of degrees of heat? Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

Not a bad idea, but you run into several problems, namely the overall one of relying upon sciences that are rejected by YEC.Note that YEC rejects radiometric dating, how can they justify their argument upon radioactive decay which they reject as a constant? If we have no idea about radioactive decay rates, it is effectively impossible to calculate heat.I do agree as others have pointed out, the sole real argument given is "Goddidit" and that obviously is not science nor should be considered science.

Am I correct to assert that there is no mechanism other than Magic to answer this question?

I wouldn't say nobody.Anglagard did post an excellent reply as to how it doesn't make sense.And I don't have an answer other than such statements made by Creationists and Genesis don't make sense in the context of reality.I don't understand why I, as the asker of the question would provide a basic outline of an answer in message 1. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Add link to message 3.

Indeed. I, as others, have pointed out that evolution is really quite irrelevant here. Even operating on a 6,000 year old Earth, there is still no geological phenomena that can explain how the Earth, which was described as "an old dead rock" and as "formless" as well as "empty and void" managed to gain so much heat. Archangel's constant tangents to evolution and the age of the Earth are really just cop outs to defend his initial claims.Even if we adopt a 6,000 year perspective as truthful, there is still no reasonable argument to reconcile Biblical claims with reality.

Magic is not a valid argument in science. Please produce a viable, logical, evidence based argument to reconcile how a dead old rock gained thousands of degrees of temperature or stop posting.