Age of earth core less than 1.5 billion years
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
C
charles cure
Guest
Woody said:
you know, this is similar to how you acted in the conversation about the flood. you come up with a radical and not-too-supportable premise that attempts to use scientific data against itself (as if that somehow proves that it is useless), your premise - being faulty to begin with - is then steadily eroded by people who understand more about the facts of the science than you do, and as this erosion takes place, you cling to your original position and challenge others over increasingly less relevant discrepancies until you eventually just give up and look for some other way to acheive what it was you were originally attempting. that must tire you out huh?
SW said:
Science of Religion -- Good one. Nice self-rationalization job. There's an art sub-forum too. Who belongs there?
Which would imply the earth is probably younger than 4.5 billion years -- what other conclusion do you offer? This is where it gets entertaining. When a scientist comes up with a catastophic theory to explain geology that's ok -- like the geologist at Caltech that says the earth's rotational axis changed 90 degrees in the cambrian. I asked you once and I ask you agian -- would that be a catastrophic event? You sound like a steady-state theory fundy.
By the way -- As far as my faith goes I don't really care if the earth is 10 trillion years old.
That conclusion is that Roche forces could cause the earth to boil off a huge reservoir of water -- whether anything could even survive it is a whole nuther question.
Yer just jealous 'cause you din't think of it.
Yeah I've been looking for a thermal model that explains the earth's geological paradoxes which include an atmosphere that is not consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a heat transfer ratio that's out of whack for the same. How did the earth's core get so hot to start with? I read aanother planetary collision. The answers keep pointing to catastrophies -- which scare evolution fundies.
Six of one half-dozen of the other. Nobody knows what the initial temperature was for the earth's core. But it's a bad assumption to use an internal temperature that justifies 4.5 billion years. It doesn't work.
And how did the heat get down there 1.5 billion years ago? The pressures down there are like in millions of atmospheres, and the temperatures like 15,000 degrees F.
No, the paper confirms heat sources inside the earth are neglible and can not explain Eurey's paradox. In short -- geology doesn't match that hypothesis.
Wishful thinking on your part? I didn't say it.
Science of Religion -- Good one. Nice self-rationalization job. There's an art sub-forum too. Who belongs there?
Which would imply the earth is probably younger than 4.5 billion years -- what other conclusion do you offer? This is where it gets entertaining. When a scientist comes up with a catastophic theory to explain geology that's ok -- like the geologist at Caltech that says the earth's rotational axis changed 90 degrees in the cambrian. I asked you once and I ask you agian -- would that be a catastrophic event? You sound like a steady-state theory fundy.
By the way -- As far as my faith goes I don't really care if the earth is 10 trillion years old.
That conclusion is that Roche forces could cause the earth to boil off a huge reservoir of water -- whether anything could even survive it is a whole nuther question.
Yer just jealous 'cause you din't think of it.
Yeah I've been looking for a thermal model that explains the earth's geological paradoxes which include an atmosphere that is not consistent with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and a heat transfer ratio that's out of whack for the same. How did the earth's core get so hot to start with? I read aanother planetary collision. The answers keep pointing to catastrophies -- which scare evolution fundies.
Six of one half-dozen of the other. Nobody knows what the initial temperature was for the earth's core. But it's a bad assumption to use an internal temperature that justifies 4.5 billion years. It doesn't work.
And how did the heat get down there 1.5 billion years ago? The pressures down there are like in millions of atmospheres, and the temperatures like 15,000 degrees F.
No, the paper confirms heat sources inside the earth are neglible and can not explain Eurey's paradox. In short -- geology doesn't match that hypothesis.
Wishful thinking on your part? I didn't say it.
Last edited:
Yes, Woody, there is a scientific study of religion. I realize that the superstitious are offended when those that are sucked into their magical thinking decide to study them like rats in a cage. Get used to it 
You seem to think that catastrophic events early in Earth's history are problematic for "evolutionists" but I've never known this to be true. There is ample evidence that the primal Earth was very catastrophic and violent. This is not only accepted but well understood. That there may have been a 90 degree shift in Earth's rotational axis is a speculation, but one that has yet to be demonstrated conclusively. It wouldn't be problematic for scientists' understanding of evolution and may even serve to answer some questions.
With regard to "six of one, half dozen of another" comment, it just serves to demonstrate your ignorance as well as your tunnel vision with regard to your need to promote your mythology at the cost of critical thought. If you go back and look at my two quotes, you'll see that I wasn't referring to the synonymity of 1.5 billion yrs vs. 1.5 Gyrs. You seem to fallaciously assume that because there is an apparent timeline for the inner core that this applies to the entire core.
Moreover, the K-Ar dating that CC cited is valid (actually, I think he said Ar-Ar). The material had to be sufficiently cooled for the "geologic clock" to have set itself for the dating to work. Which means the planet was formed. The dating is globally consistent and for the dated matrix to be coalesced to the degree that it is, heat would have had to be uniformly applied.
As to the origin of the heat, you are right that a collision is the most popular hypothesis for the origin of the Earth's heat. The evidence may indeed be the Moon, but we will probably never know what mini-planet impacted our own, if, indeed, it did occur. But the paper you cited certainly isn't suggesting that the age of the planet is anything different than the 4.6 billion years currently estimated by several other independent methods.
You seem to think that catastrophic events early in Earth's history are problematic for "evolutionists" but I've never known this to be true. There is ample evidence that the primal Earth was very catastrophic and violent. This is not only accepted but well understood. That there may have been a 90 degree shift in Earth's rotational axis is a speculation, but one that has yet to be demonstrated conclusively. It wouldn't be problematic for scientists' understanding of evolution and may even serve to answer some questions.
With regard to "six of one, half dozen of another" comment, it just serves to demonstrate your ignorance as well as your tunnel vision with regard to your need to promote your mythology at the cost of critical thought. If you go back and look at my two quotes, you'll see that I wasn't referring to the synonymity of 1.5 billion yrs vs. 1.5 Gyrs. You seem to fallaciously assume that because there is an apparent timeline for the inner core that this applies to the entire core.
Moreover, the K-Ar dating that CC cited is valid (actually, I think he said Ar-Ar). The material had to be sufficiently cooled for the "geologic clock" to have set itself for the dating to work. Which means the planet was formed. The dating is globally consistent and for the dated matrix to be coalesced to the degree that it is, heat would have had to be uniformly applied.
As to the origin of the heat, you are right that a collision is the most popular hypothesis for the origin of the Earth's heat. The evidence may indeed be the Moon, but we will probably never know what mini-planet impacted our own, if, indeed, it did occur. But the paper you cited certainly isn't suggesting that the age of the planet is anything different than the 4.6 billion years currently estimated by several other independent methods.
SW said
From some of the conclusions I hear you making, it appears to be pretty subjective.
For example:
Most all cultures make mention of a largescale flood and you say that's just because of entertainment value.
Other examples:
- People believe in the supernatural to explain the unexplainable. (applies to primitive man).
- People start religions to control other people (while true in the past it is considerably less true today).
- Belief in the supernatural is not rational -- This is based on your belief that science fully explains all real phenomena. It is unlikely that science will ever prove or disprove whether an afterlife is for real or whether or not God is for real. I am convinced the supernatural is for real, regardless of anyone's religion. I came to this conclusion long before choosing christianity.
What makes you so sure there isn't an afterlife?
I am glad you take an interest in the fundamental ilk. Go ahead and study us all you want to. You'd like to think of us as rats in a cage, because it probably makes you feel better about yourself, at least that's the vibe you send out.
From some of the conclusions I hear you making, it appears to be pretty subjective.
For example:
Most all cultures make mention of a largescale flood and you say that's just because of entertainment value.
Other examples:
- People believe in the supernatural to explain the unexplainable. (applies to primitive man).
- People start religions to control other people (while true in the past it is considerably less true today).
- Belief in the supernatural is not rational -- This is based on your belief that science fully explains all real phenomena. It is unlikely that science will ever prove or disprove whether an afterlife is for real or whether or not God is for real. I am convinced the supernatural is for real, regardless of anyone's religion. I came to this conclusion long before choosing christianity.
What makes you so sure there isn't an afterlife?
I am glad you take an interest in the fundamental ilk. Go ahead and study us all you want to. You'd like to think of us as rats in a cage, because it probably makes you feel better about yourself, at least that's the vibe you send out.
Last edited:
Round and round we go.
Woody said:
Floods happen Woody, it's no surprise many cultures have these types of stories. Although it has already been proven that no flood has ever occurred which covered all of land.
And as a result, nothing is explained.
Yes not many religions are started today because there is too much media to ensure myths don't spread and become standardized. Noah's Ark is a good example of this. I have no doubt a flood covering the entire planet would be easy to believe in a time without media and sciences.
When I was a child, I used to believe my toys would come alive when I wasn't in the room. Science will also never prove or disprove that either. But this is when I was a naive child... What's your excuse?
A remarkable amount of observation telling us that all memories and personality are part of the brain structure. And of course, the brain decomposes.
Although I understand mortality is a hard thing to deal with, I don't really understand the human desire for an eternal afterlife. I sure as hell don't want to live forever wether it be wind sailing with Jesus or sucking Satans cock.
Luckily I don't need to concern myself with such stupid notions.
KennyJC,
ok so we all rot in the ground.
So in your opinion people come to faith because they long for an afterlife and they can't face the fact they are going to die.
Hell is also a possible outcome for the afterlife, and the simple death you envision would be far more comfortable.
The notion is that in the end, justice will be served. The wrongdoers that got away with it in this life are going to pay for what they did. OJ Simpson won't have a slick lawyer, Adolph Hitler will have 6 million jews to answer for, and serial killers will get what they deserve.
ok so we all rot in the ground.
So in your opinion people come to faith because they long for an afterlife and they can't face the fact they are going to die.
Hell is also a possible outcome for the afterlife, and the simple death you envision would be far more comfortable.
The notion is that in the end, justice will be served. The wrongdoers that got away with it in this life are going to pay for what they did. OJ Simpson won't have a slick lawyer, Adolph Hitler will have 6 million jews to answer for, and serial killers will get what they deserve.
IMO, yes. Absolutely.Woody said:
Oblivion is neither comfortable nor uncomfortable.
And this is the part that just amazes me. The christian will lump me and my fellow atheists, no matter what our lifestyles, with these monsters for an eternity of torture. Thanks a bunch. You're all so kind.
Woody said:
Subjective? Perhaps. "Entertainment value?" I don't recall ever using those words. If I were to follow your example, I should call you a liar right now.
You're a liar. Show me where I said "entertainment value" and I'll retract my accusation. By the way, you did write the words Mythbuster quoted. Then you edited the post. I'm sure of it. I experienced those words on my monitor. That makes you a liar again, eh?
But "most cultures with flood myths" would be a subjection that is hard to dismiss (Dundes 1988). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a major culture in antiquity that didn't have a flood myth. The Greeks, Inca, Maya, Egyptians, Babylonian, Akkadian, Chaldean, Caddo, Navajo, etc. Flood stories exist in ancient Chinese, Indonesian, and even European cultures. Of course, there are those who would use this as evidence of a global flood rather than a global trend. But this would ignore the fact that each of these cultures made use of flood-prone areas for their habitations because of agricultural needs. Interestingly enough, most flood stories are from cultures that make good use of agriculture.
Woody said:
This isn't subjective, it's objective. And it isn't limited to "primitive" man. How many examples would suffice to demonstrate this is a largely universal symptom of Religion?
Woody said:
I don't recall ever mentioning this, though it is *a* theory, I don't necessarily accept it. I think people engage in religion for a variety of reasons, but mostly because the human brain is predisposed to religious thought because of its ability to seek out and find patterns and anthropomorphize the world.
Woody said:
Belief in the supernatural is not rational because the supernatural cannot be verified. It simply does not exist. This is an objective and observed point of view. The supernatural exists only in the imagination of the believer.
Face it, Woody: you live in an ethnocentric and bigotted world where you believe in magical explanations. Perhaps you find comfort in the delusion of afterlife and "sins forgiven." Perhaps its a matter of the mind-virus of religion overwhelming you at an early age as your parents committed the child abuse of indoctrination to superstition. Perhaps you resent science because it threatens your belief system. And so on.
Reference
Dundes, Alan [ed.] (1988). The Flood Myth. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Yes. Sorry it's not as romantic as you would like.
People turn to religion because it is pretty (If you ignore the 'kill all infidels' and endorsing of slavery etc).
I'm afraid Hitler and Pope John Paul the second are dust now. It would be nice to think good behavior has a reward and bad behavior gets punished in some sort of afterlife realm. But it doesn't.
That's not to say disbelief makes people go out and do horrible things because they don't worry about punishment after they die... In fact society in secular countries with high amounts of atheism are very healthy. It's the countries ridden with religion that makes them unstable and more likely to do naughty things thinking they will actually be rewarded after they die.
There is nothing more noble than a non-believer doing good things. They aren't doing it to get rewarded by a mythical being.
superluminal said:
Neither O.J. Simpson or Hitler were atheists.
I know. Did I word that poorly? I meant that christians see us atheists as being just as bad as OJ, Hitler, etc...
Woody said:
I implied nothing. I said it had "good story-telling value." Not all stories are meant to entertain.
That leaves you as nothing but a liar. I'd say see you in hell if I thought your imagination or superstitions were anything to worry over.
Woody:
Probably every decent-sized culture experiences a devastating flood at some point. To people who never venture more than a few miles from their homes, that must seem like a "global flood".
Quite clearly, there are many questions science cannot currently answer. If it could, there would be no need to do any research. Can we cure bird flu? If science had the answer already, why wouldn't we do it? Clearly, science doesn't have an answer for bird flu - yet. But does that mean we need a supernatural explanation for bird flu, or a supernatural solution?
What convinced you?
What makes you so sure there is?
Probably every decent-sized culture experiences a devastating flood at some point. To people who never venture more than a few miles from their homes, that must seem like a "global flood".
Quite clearly, there are many questions science cannot currently answer. If it could, there would be no need to do any research. Can we cure bird flu? If science had the answer already, why wouldn't we do it? Clearly, science doesn't have an answer for bird flu - yet. But does that mean we need a supernatural explanation for bird flu, or a supernatural solution?
What convinced you?
What makes you so sure there is?
superluminal said:
Your assessment is not exactly wrong.
I don't see you as being just as bad as those people, but my evaluation of you doesn't count.
Christians are taught biblically that unbelievers endure the same eternal fate as those people, but those people (Hitler, et al) will pay for exactly what they did.