Why is the Earth Round?

[ImprobableJoe]

It figured this would be a dishonest creationist being stupid. :facepalm: For fucks sake, can one of these people be honest, just fucking ONCE before I die?

 

[Dean]

nasher168

And have you given up the accretionary model?

Of course not. It's the only one that adequately explains the facts.

One begins to perceive a trend. It is beginning to look as though Stripe is being deliberately inexplicit in his statements ... statements that will require corroborating evidence. And he has yet to substantiate any of those claims. Nevertheless, it is quite plain to see where Stripe might be going with his claims ...

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Great! So can you think of a better explanation for the heat inside the Earth?

Tartarus obviously. The heat is generated by the friction of Titans struggling against their bonds.

 

[Dean]

Great! So can you think of a better explanation for the heat inside the Earth?

Tartarus obviously. The heat is generated by the friction of Titans struggling against their bonds.

The internal heat of the Earth is a product of a multiplicity of factors. The first of course being from an event mentioned by nasher, the Iron Catastrophe in the Earth's geological history, in which heavier elements such as Iron and alike (metals) moved toward the centre of the planet (note: that the Earth's core is comprised almost entirely of Iron). The reason it is called a "catastrophe" was because unimaginable amounts of thermal energy from friction was created during this time, enough to more of less re-molten-ify the Earth. Of course, this was quite "a while" ago ...

Then there is the extraneous factor of the decay of radioactive isotopes, and also: compression due to gravitational force, and meteor impacts during the Earth's earliest, and most chaotic days. (This was intended to answer Stripe, BTW...)

And anyhow, Stripe, what are you attempting to demonstrate with this, exactly? :?

 

[Laurens]

Can you think of a better possible explanation?

I can.

Go on then...

 

[nasher168]

Stripe is being deliberately inexplicit in his statements

It's the Socratic Method of teaching.

Of course, it will rather fall down here, because the evidence against a young Earth is just too overwhelming. God would have to be lying in every way he could in order for the idea of a young Earth to hold.

 

[Inferno]

And anyhow, Stripe, what are you attempting to demonstrate with this, exactly? :?

That the earth can't be billions of years old and therefore evolution is wrong? I guess that's what he's trying to get at.

 

[Stripe]

Radioactivity should be explained by the process also.)

Explain.

Ummmm.... If you want to explain the heat inside the Earth by saying "radioactivity", I'm going to ask you to explain the source of the radioactivity.

Pretty simple, I thought.

The accretionary model explains radioactivity by using radioactive protoplanetary material, but I think that theory has several terminal issues. I know a much more likely explanation.

 

[Laurens]

I know a much more likely explanation.

Stop acting like a smug child and tell us then...

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Ummmm.... If you want to explain the heat inside the Earth by saying "radioactivity", I'm going to ask you to explain the source of the radioactivity.

Pretty simple, I thought.

This has been done. Read above.

The accretionary model explains radioactivity by using radioactive protoplanetary material, but I think that theory has several terminal issues. I know a much more likely explanation.

You know, this is really tiresome. So you think the theory has terminal issues? Great! What are they? Where are they? Because I'm not convinced that you are an expert in the field, and I don't plan to just take your word for it.

So you have a more likely explanation? Great! What is it? If you have a point, make it. I'm not going to post to you in this thread again until you do, and I encourage others to do likewise.

 

[Stripe]

The heavy elements are created when stars explode. These heavy elements are inherently unstable and will decay over time. Many of these elements decay at a very slow rate, with half-lives of billions of years.
The Earth formed from a dust cloud which contained heavy elements thrown out by dying stars. When it condensed under gravity, the heavier elements predominantly fell towards the centre in the Iron Catastrophe.

Yeah, well I'm not much interested in defeating the established theory in this thread. Rather I was invited to share my ideas which are rather different.

But, just quickly, the accretionary model fails mostly because the tension between particle size, accretion rate and radioactive residue cannot be married up in a contiguous physical model. Basically - if the starting material is too fine it won't coalesce. If it's too coarse it requires a non-star source. If the accretion rate is too low, heat will not be retained and if it cannot be too fast because of supply rates. Radioactive material needs to be plentiful enough to power the heat of the Earth, but it cannot bring with it material with too short a half life.

The math that has been referenced from Wiki is the amount of radioactive material that needs to be present to explain the heat flux we measure, but if there is an alternative source for heat then those amounts need not be so high.

And I think I've got a very reasonable alternate source.

No. If the Earth was much, much younger as I'm sure you believe, the surface should be molten from the increased radioactivity. As things are, the core's temperature is decreasing, but won't solidify like Mars for billions of years.

Mate, you cannot hold my ideas to the conditions of your ideas. The Earth's crust was never molten and radioactivity is a result of the heating mechanism, not it's cause.

 

[Stripe]

No it is not dificult to produce. Just increase heat and pressure to above the critical point.

You make it sound so easy! :shock:

In this hole both would certainly be higher.

Your pressure would certainly be higher and the temperature too, but in order to create supercritical water you need to keep the water in place. The heat will simply generate a convection current in the water and were the heat great enough the water would simply boil away. In order to generate the pressure you'd need to cap the newly formed ocean.

 

[Stripe]

It figured this would be a dishonest creationist being stupid. :facepalm: For fucks sake, can one of these people be honest, just fucking ONCE before I die?

:chuckle: Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning, did we?

 

[Inferno]

And I think I've got a very reasonable alternate source.

Great. What is it?

 

[WarK]

And I think I've got a very reasonable alternate source.

Great. What is it?

Oh, it's ok, don't worry, I've already disproved it

 

[Stripe]

That the earth can't be billions of years old and therefore evolution is wrong? I guess that's what he's trying to get at.

Actually, no. I was invited to give an explanation of why I think the Earth is young. But I don't think I can convince people that evolution is wrong because ... Well, lets just pretend I can't do it.

Anyway. If I can present a rational idea that does not require billions of years, then I am justified in looking for evidence to falsify my idea, right?

 

[Stripe]

Oh, it's ok, don't worry, I've already disproved it

I think you broke the old record. :mrgreen:

 

[australopithecus]

Anyway. If I can present a rational idea that does not require billions of years, then I am justified in looking for evidence to falsify my idea, right?

First you have to present a rational idea.

 

[Laurens]

Actually, no. I was invited to give an explanation of why I think the Earth is young. But I don't think I can convince people that evolution is wrong because ... Well, lets just pretend I can't do it.

Anyway. If I can present a rational idea that does not require billions of years, then I am justified in looking for evidence to falsify my idea, right?

Rather than focusing on radiometric dating, a subject which unlike you I don't feel that I have enough knowledge about, I thought I might ask you some basic questions about geology:

1. Take a look at this picture:

This is an angular unconformity. Those rocks that are at a steep angle, were deposited long ago as sediment, they have been titled at that angle by geological activity and yet more layers of sediment have formed on top (the horizontal layer) over time.

Given that everything we know about geology requires that such unconformities take millions of years, how do they fit into the picture of a young Earth?

2. Take a look at this picture:

This is fossil coral, up a mountain...

Now I know what you're thinking 'Noah's flood', but the thing is we know how long corals take to grow, and it grows at between 5 and 25 millimeters per year (http://www.coral.org/resources/about_coral_reefs/coral_overview#howlong) so sizeable coral reefs would not be able to grow during the short time that the Bible claims that the Earth was flooded for.

How do you suppose that a fossilized coral reef got up a mountain given what I've just told you? I'll give you a clue... The real answer requires millions of years.

[/pre-emptive strike]

 

[Inferno]

Actually, no. I was invited to give an explanation of why I think the Earth is young. But I don't think I can convince people that evolution is wrong because ... Well, lets just pretend I can't do it.

Anyway. If I can present a rational idea that does not require billions of years, then I am justified in looking for evidence to falsify my idea, right?

Let's not pretend anything here and stick to the facts. You claim that you have a better model... explain it. Let's hear your "rational idea" straight out, don't pussy-foot around it.
BTW, you can't convince us that evolution is wrong because you don't have any facts at all.