Woody said:
Our evolutionary heritage won't let us.
Age of earth core less than 1.5 billion years
- Thread starter Woody
- Start date
Our evolutionary heritage won't let us.
Woody said:
Who taught me not to? Guess if you can.
Woody said:
That might not be true. A magma material is not likely to float through space and than land on proto-earth. More likely, it formed as part of earth and that would take it back 4.5 bill years. The inner core of the earth might not have existed then and that doesn't mean it didn't have an internal dynamo of some kind nonetheless.
I did submit a seperate question in the thread and I didn't note an answer to it. Take a look and feel free to respond at your earliest convenience.
I think the problem that Woody actually has is that he probably started his engineering degree at a community college then transferred into a university, thereby skipping required courses like chemistry, geology etc. At best, he got college level physics, but probably with a focus on engineering rather than geophysics or the like.
Thus, Woody thinks he has the credentials to discuss topics of geology but fails to see the mistakes he makes in interpreting the results of studies like the ones he has cited to date.
Thus, Woody thinks he has the credentials to discuss topics of geology but fails to see the mistakes he makes in interpreting the results of studies like the ones he has cited to date.
SkinWalker said:
I simply put a question to you, and you choose to criticize rather than answer.
Where did the earth's heat come from, a catastrophic planet collision?
How is the earth's core 3 billion years younger than its surface? You say, it was there but hadn't formed yet. How so?
I'm waiting for answers instead of judgment. But if you want to judge, go ahead if it makes you feel better.
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for scientific answers.
Like most humanists on this forum, you're long on criticism and short on answers.
I'll have to make a note of that common trait:
Humanists criticize you for asking a question and they always have the same answer: "your question is too stupid to answer."
One of my managers told me: when somebody says your question is too stupid to answer, they mean they're too ignorant to explain it. I'd have to say I agree.
Last edited:
Ha, interesting dichotomy. If you break a brick in two, are you looking at the brick's interior? No, because wherever you make a break, you are now seeing an outer surface. So it's "impossible" to see the interior of a brick.
Likewise the "Earth's Core". There has always been a physical area equidistant from all points on the surface (whether that surface was all molten rock, or cold rock and water) which we can call the Earth's Core. That physical location, evidently, cannot be younger than the object of which it is the core of! But the materials making up that core can obviously be a variety of ages (depending, as ever with geology, what we mean by "age", particularly of material which is molten), and simply circulating in and out. If it's a matter of heat transfer, some catastrophe having happened 1.5 bn years ago is hardly ruled out. That may be what this new data is telling us. It's certainly not telling us the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old - the established age of the oldest surface rocks (on Earth and the Moon) is beyond doubt in itself.
Can you explain specifically your motivation for posting this thread? And why here in the Religion section? There's a disagreement between two different scientific sets of data - this always means we don't know enough. It has historically never meant that the answer is to be found in the supernatural. Science does not claim to know everything, it only claims the only method capable of learning anything - learning anything material, that is. Philosophy and Religion, for their part, shouldn't profess to try to explain natural phenomena - "explain" in the useful sense of getting enough data to get a workable hypothesis which will enable us to make other decisions.
It seems that we've delved once again into your personal religious beliefs, which don't appear to me to be relevant. From your description of your Christianity, it seems to me to be a harmless enough facet and I see no reason to go on about your reasons for holding those beliefs. There's all sorts of philosophising going on here, but I don't particularly see that the topic justifies any of it. Here's an anomaly in data. Scientists working in the field are presumably working on an explanation which will yield something useful. Philosophical ponderings on the nature of God, Creation or Evolution are not going to actually solve the actual problems derived from living on this planet.
Likewise the "Earth's Core". There has always been a physical area equidistant from all points on the surface (whether that surface was all molten rock, or cold rock and water) which we can call the Earth's Core. That physical location, evidently, cannot be younger than the object of which it is the core of! But the materials making up that core can obviously be a variety of ages (depending, as ever with geology, what we mean by "age", particularly of material which is molten), and simply circulating in and out. If it's a matter of heat transfer, some catastrophe having happened 1.5 bn years ago is hardly ruled out. That may be what this new data is telling us. It's certainly not telling us the earth is less than 4.5 billion years old - the established age of the oldest surface rocks (on Earth and the Moon) is beyond doubt in itself.
Can you explain specifically your motivation for posting this thread? And why here in the Religion section? There's a disagreement between two different scientific sets of data - this always means we don't know enough. It has historically never meant that the answer is to be found in the supernatural. Science does not claim to know everything, it only claims the only method capable of learning anything - learning anything material, that is. Philosophy and Religion, for their part, shouldn't profess to try to explain natural phenomena - "explain" in the useful sense of getting enough data to get a workable hypothesis which will enable us to make other decisions.
It seems that we've delved once again into your personal religious beliefs, which don't appear to me to be relevant. From your description of your Christianity, it seems to me to be a harmless enough facet and I see no reason to go on about your reasons for holding those beliefs. There's all sorts of philosophising going on here, but I don't particularly see that the topic justifies any of it. Here's an anomaly in data. Scientists working in the field are presumably working on an explanation which will yield something useful. Philosophical ponderings on the nature of God, Creation or Evolution are not going to actually solve the actual problems derived from living on this planet.
Woody said:
I'm merely responding to "And you are an anthropology major? Physics is a little out of your league isn't it?" You *did* ask these questions, yes? I'm just pointing out that I'm every bit as qualified as you to discuss them. I actually went back to make sure you hadn't edited the post and removed those two questions, since we've established that's a habit of yours as well.
Woody said:
Maybe.
Woody said:
You're not reading the very papers you cited correctly. You keep changing 'inner' core to 'core,' as if the researchers were referring to the entire core. I maintain my criticism of your education: I think the very fact that you probably skipped out on some very basic science courses is the source of your ignorance.
Woody said:
Hey, you said it: I'm the anthropologist here. I want to study what makes the superstitious tick and at what lengths they'll go to in order to justify their belief systems.
Woody said:
No, you're not, you're waiting for answers that collide with your beliefs so you can call them, 'laughable.' You haven't shown a want to learn anything in the past, why should we think any different of you now?
Who actually said that, or are you making that up as well?
In other words, your manager gets a lot of stupid questions from you?
You're not really an engineer, are you, Woody?
SkinWalker said:
Well, what was Hitler? Certainly wasn't Christian, as many believe:
{The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.}
I could go on but you can read it here.
http://answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
What about the 4.5 billion year old zircon?
Woody said:
I thought you had me ignorelisted....
But you're right. The topic does *not* belong in the Religion subforum. It belongs in Earth Sciences or Pseudoscience. The manner by which you cherry pick the data suggests a pseudoscientific method. In otherwords, you words aren't credible. Possibly because you're under-educated in the subject of geology but probably because you have long indoctrinated superstitions that you need to justify.
You have conclusions to which you cherry pick science to "prove." This is pseudoscience. Real science arrives upon tentative conclusions after all the data is examined.
So, you're not going to address the point that the paper indicates, very clearly, inner core and not the entire core or even suggest what that might mean, eh? You're just going to stick by your pseudoscientific ignorance that this implies the entire Earth is only 1.5 Gyr and there could not have been a core prior to the current inner core, right?
Like I said, someone should move this to pseudoscience.
Last edited:
Zappa said:
what book are they refering to, with the page numbers.
however I believe you've got it wrong read mein kampf and check out his speeches.
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest.
from a speech in 1922
http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm
"Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith. "
"throughout the history of the world we have to recognize mostly a specifically Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism and intolerance are typical symptoms of Jewish mentality."
"And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord."
adolf hitler "mein kampf"
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
do a bit more reading.
Last edited: