Age of earth core less than 1.5 billion years

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Woody, Mar 19, 2006.

  1. care to explain what he was doing then when he sent huge expeditions in search of the holy grail, ark of the covenant, and the spear of destiny because he believed they were magical artifcats that would help him win the war? also, its pretty clear hitler was fucked up, so who cares what he thought?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Silas said:

    Agreed -- a catastrophic event could possibly help explain this timeframe of the earth's geology 1.5 billion years ago. If there was a largescale collision, which half would you call earth prior to the collision?

    To answer your question, I've read the "creationists'" list of natural causes for a great flood over at Talk Origins. I think they left one out.

    I can think of another scenario that could cause a worldwide flood on the earth. It's unlikely that anything could survive and it's completely hypothetical:

    If another planet passed close enough to the earth then a massive amount of water (in the form of high temperature and pressure steam) could possibly be released from the earth's core -- it's down there -- especially if the Roche limit were being approached. I don't know the chemical affinity of the water to the minerals in which it is embedded, but it is highly likely at least some of it would be released. It's unlikely anything could survive the event.

    If the approach were parallel to the earth's rotational axis then the effect would be most pronounced at one of the poles, and more water would be released. If the planetary approach were perpendicular to the earth's rotational axis, then less water release but much more devastating effects to the earth's crust and surface.

    In either event it would probably effect the earth's rotation in some fashion, causing it to wobble, and possibly change its rotational axis.

    Put the theory in the pseudoscience section if you wish -- it's not going to happen so I don't really care.

    Precisely, because there are too many "mothers controlling their children" around here. An objective conversation is hard to find.

    Agreed -- your response is rational. The topic isn't really a big deal, so why should someone make it something that it isn't? Too much hysteria around here.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member


    That's not the way the BSME curriculum works. Take a look for yourself.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    So you're saying you *didn't* get an applied science degree at a community college then transfer in to a four-year? There's no geology courses listed for a engineering degree at UNC... That's not a bad thing. But if you're planning on debating topics of geology, it might serve you better to obtain some education in the topic, either formally or informally. I wouldn't dream of debating the fine points (or even the general ones) of mechanical engineering with you since I'm as ignorant as they come on the subject. Not to mention the fact that I've no pocket-protector.

    Perhaps you might consider emailing Dr. Butler directly and simply asking him what the implications are of a 1.5 Gyr inner core.

    The problem with your Roche limit/catastrophic hypothesis is that the alleged timeframes are long, long before hominids, much less H. sapiens, were on the planet. Who, then, recorded this alleged flood? What civilization was your imaginary friend pissed at? The Sumerians were of the fourth millenium BCE, and they are the originators of the Christian flood myth. The geologic record is pretty reliable at these fairly recent periods with regard to global climate and conditions. But going back 1.5 Gyr, there were no people. If there was a global catastrophe, it affected no one and perhaps nothing living.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  8. Silas asimovbot Registered Senior Member

    Are you implying that if what was before the collision could not be defined as "the earth", therefore "the scientists were all wrong, the earth is much younger than they thought", the first thing I would say is that this is actually not the body blow you may think it to be. For the sake of argument, something was in Earth's orbit, and its characteristics were sufficiently different from the current planet so that we could not properly call it the Earth, therefore the Earth, as we know it, is not 4.55 bn years old, but merely contains many rocks and structures that come from the "pre-Earth". Does this mean "science got it wrong"? Or does it mean that science has refined the model of the Earth's history to be closer to the evidence? Science is self-correcting, by its very nature. That is what makes it a useful tool for learning about the Universe. Genesis, however, cannot "change one jot or tittle" regardless of how far away from reality and all the available evidence its own model of Earth's history is.

    Aha! A new Velikowsky! Unfortunately, Velikowsky's theories were not based on any actual knowledge of gravitaitonal dynamics. This is the same problem here - you are speculating based on what you think you know about gravity, but it's nowhere near being a usable theory until you can create a model, based on strict mathematical and physical principles, which can create the situation you describe, and for which the evidence of Earth's history can be shown to match.

    In any case, I do not see the point of such speculation. What you describe clearly does not match the description in Genesis. The whole point of Creationism is to promote the concept of Genesis being a literal description of the events. A worldwide flood may well have happened at some point in early Earth's history, but if Noah isn't on there with his boatload of living creatures, it's not the Flood of Genesis. I once saw a response to an evolutionist's question about the Dinosaurs which said, in effect, "Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark, because birds are dinosaurs!" The number of reasons this is a nonsensical argument in favour of Creationism become almost too many to express, but principally, If birds are dinosaurs, that's an implicit admission of the validity of Evolution, which is the very thing the Creationist is trying to deny.

    A worldwide flood 1.5bn years ago has no relevance because not only was there no Noah, there were none of the creatures that Genesis states had been created and existed at the time of the Flood. On the other hand it is far easier to believe that Flood tales (of which the one in Genesis is only one representative of many) derived from some major flood event that occurred sometime in the prehistory of each culture that produced it, written down from oral traditions that preceded. Everywhere the people could see there was deep flood water - so obviously to them "the whole world" was flooded.

    Theologically speaking, the Flood story is very problematic. It is retained and defended because it speaks of God imposing punishment for evildoing, which makes it a moral fable. It speaks of His compassion for animals, and for the one man and his family He found to be just, which tells us of God's love, and of Man's responsibility for all other Life on this Earth of which we have stewardship. But it also speaks of an absolutist God who is capable of making mistakes and regretting them.

    Creationism is a doctrine predicated on the concept that "if we cannot accept every word of the Bible as the Word of God, why should we accept any of it? The response is either to disbelieve all the evidence that proves Genesis wrong, or to twist that evidence round to fit the events of Genesis so that the Bible can be considered to be "free of error". But a more mature approach might well be to accept the fallibility of the Bible, without decreasing its importance to the world's culture, or to ones basic faith in God.
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2006
  9. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    SW said,

    Darwin didn't have a biology degree either, but I get the gist of what you are saying.

    To me the earth's geology is just another thermal machine with physical processes -- very complex. It involves the same physics, solid mechanics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, mechanics, dynamics, chemistry, and control system theory that I studied in rigorous detail.

    In engineering school, We don't take the watered down sciences and mathematics that liberal arts and business majors get, and we had plenty of it. Civil engineers get a dose of the earth sciences, but mechanicals are way ahead of them on heat transfer. Chemical engineers are up to par with us on heat transfer. I haven't studied the geology curriculum, but I'd say it's unlikely they get 15+ hours in the calculus-based pure thermal sciences.

    This is how my job works -- I come upon a problem I've never experienced before and I must apply all my education and experience to solve it. No-one else could beat it hence I'm working on it. I must take inconsistent information and make sense of it, work through all the human noise and agendas to set up tests to help diagnose potential root causes, try things, until I drive out solutions that odviously work -- hence I get a pay check.

    Criticism is part of life for an engineer because it is so visible when an idea fails, but we just keep driving on until we succeed. We're unafraid to be wrong initially as long as were right in the long term. We take calculated risks that would rattle the nerves of many people. I've never had a problem that's beat me, though I've got one now with a lead dust conveyor system that's driving me nuts. With this one -- I have to make lemonade out of a lemon we bought, but I'm doing it. So is life. I live by the laws of science -- and somebody thinks I hate them because I'm a christian.

    In the end -- concerning my lack of experience with geological machinery -- same science but different machine to apply it to. I don't find it intimidating to pose a hypothesis and have it ridiculed. Such is life.
  10. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Then, it appears you are incompetent, if this thread is any indication of your abilities.
  11. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    So why is it that I, a "liberal arts major," has figured out that the core mentioned in the paper you cited was probably all liquid prior to the formation of the solid inner-core? It seems logical that a liquid core would cool from the inside out. Butler's paper implies that the slope of the liquidus is steeper than that of the core adiabat. Go back to the paper and search those to terms: liquidus & adiabat.

    Then apply your engineering "expertise" to it and tell us why the "core" can't be older than 1.5 Gyr. If you truly *did* get a science education, you'll revise your position and apologize here. If all you have is a piece of paper from a diploma mill, you'll carry on with "the core is only 1.5 billion years old, where did the heat come from/core come from" nonsense.
  12. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    the zircon?
  13. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    solidus/liquidus = solidification line

    adiabat = area of zero heat transfer

    ok I'll look into it and get back.

    That would imply a liquid converting to a solid state -- the state should be identifiable by temperature and pressure alone without regard to geology or anything else except the material chemistry. Implying that the core went from liquid to solid at that time.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2006
  14. Woody Musical Creationist Registered Senior Member

    Ok, it implies a solid core started about 1.5 billion years ago.

    and from the source:

    So we are probably currently in "avalanche mode" with more heat transfer toward the earth's surface. What would that imply geophisically -- perhaps an increase in earthquake activity?

    Nuclear style heating was not needed in the thermal model -- which by the way would explain less atmospheric noble gases under current assumptions of the earth's age and known atmospheric composition.

    Can you agree with that SW?

    The core wasn't in a solid state until 1.5 billion years ago. It was there as a liquid. Would you like me to revise?

    The revision has no effect on the hypothetical method proposed for flooding the earth, of which there is no verifiable data. I believe it is very possible Roche forces could induce a "steam flood." What would survive it though?

    Oh, and by the way, I apologize for upsetting your applecart.

    The solid core is admittedly hotter than it's surrounding fluid mantle. I personally find it fascinating that this is the case. I am quite familiar with pressure causing a gas to condense to liquid, but pressure causing liquid to become solid is beyond anything I've ever studied. There must be a different mechanism, such as core separation into different elements with different melting temperatures. Or do you have an alternate explanation?

    You know you could make a point without whupping out diplomas -- it would serve an open, scientific dialogue much better.

    SW said:

    Couldn't you say something like -- "the heat is theorized to come from a planetary collision where kinetic energy was converted to heat?"

    I feel like you have the answers but you are either defensive, or wanting to bait a trap -- either one is not conducive to learning anything and hence a waste of time. Too much human baggage to get anything done in an efficient manner.

    This is how I function: I'm not a perfectionist (many scientists are perfectionists) -- I'm an engineer and whatever works is good enough. I have an appetite for knowledge, don't give a crap if I'm wrong because pride is an obstical, and if I'm working too hard and eating too little I find some other intellectual outlet like playing a music instrument or reading.

    Since you base all reality on science, I present to you a logical argument that proves there is a supernatural force, being, or whatever you want to call it that created this universe. Science is a subset of logic. Science does not include all logic. Hence you are denying part of reality if you only accept science as a proof of all reality. The logic proof is called the law of exclusive middles. It came from Plato's era. I already covered it on another thread. "Q" had to edit the thread to take out the "G". Otherwise the proof stands:

    Proof the universe was created

    After you study the proof, tell me that a belief in the supernatural is irrational.
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2006
  15. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Methane comes from three sources: through the thermal decomposition of organic material; from non-biological reactions of simple inorganic compounds; or through metabolic activity of methanogenic microbes. Each leaves a different carbon isotope signature.

    Until now, no geological evidence for methanogens had been found in the early Archaean Eon that represents the first 1.5 billion years of Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history. But a team led by geologist Yuichiro Ueno of Tokyo Institute of Technology, Yokohama, has found the depleted carbon 13 isotope signature produced by modern methanogens in 3.46-billion-year-old rocks.
  16. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Your ref did not answer my question concerning this. I thought the various carbon isotopes were related to cosmic rays and if incorporated, without new carbon added later, make carbon dating of old organic matter possible.

    Are you telling me now that the ratio of the isotopes depends also on biological and/or geological processes. (I.e. sort of a very low resolution natural mass spectrograph, made by nature?) If you can, a few words more about this would be appreciated.
  17. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Plants take up atmospheric carbon dioxide by photosynthesis, and are eaten by animals, so every living thing is constantly exchanging carbon-14 with its environment as long as it lives. Once it dies, however, this exchange stops, and the amount of carbon-14 gradually decreases through radioactive decay. [wiki]
  18. Andre Registered Senior Member

    Well getting back to the original opening posts, all models and speculations are merely that. If you don't consider all the variables, you're bound to be off track right away.

    Some (a litle? much, most?) internal heat of Earth is generated by core mantle boundary friction, probably a more important reason for the spin of the Earth decreasing with a second or so per million years. Yet, the heat generated by this infinithesimal decelleration is significant. The main cause for the friction is assymetric reaction of the mantle and the core on the Earth precession cycle due to different gyroscopic properties.

    James Vanyo has tried to parametrize these factors but not a word about that in the paper. No refs to that, no "friction", "precession" etc in the text.

Share This Page