drkildare #fundie

drkildare #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

Suppose: The earth is 4600 million years old.
Suppose: 4600 million years ago the earth was a fireball. Burning from the center outwards.

Fact: That fire is still burning on the inside, and the surface of the earth is only occasionally affected by sporadic volcanic activity.

Question: If that fire started 4600 million years ago, why is it not already extinguished? I mean 4600 million years is an awful long time. Would the earth have a sufficient amount of combustion potential after that amount of time?

If it doesn't then this goes some of the way in answering the challenge made to me - to prove a young earth by scientific means.

Let's go for it on this one.

67 comments

old comment by Dark_Lord_Prime

"Suppose: The earth is 4600 million years old."

Why? 4.6 billion too difficult for you?

"Suppose: 4600 million years ago the earth was a fireball. Burning from the center outwards."

Ok, but why are we starting with a completely wrong premise?

"Fact: That fire is still burning on the inside, and the surface of the earth is only occasionally affected by sporadic volcanic activity."

Fact: the core of the Earth is molten iron and rock, not "a ball of fire." The fact that it's hot enough to set fire to anything it touches doesn't mean it is, itself, fire.

"Question: If that fire started 4600 million years ago, why is it not already extinguished?"

Because it's not a fire, and the core is molten because of the extreme pressure and heat of being at the center of the planet.

"If it doesn't then this goes some of the way in answering the challenge made to me - to prove a young earth by scientific means."

Speculation based on wild assumptions and incorrect premises is not "scientific means," idiot.

old comment by Paler_Face

Suppose: The earth is 4600 million years old.
Fair enough. Sounds like a reasonable estimate.

Suppose: 4600 million years ago the earth was a fireball. Burning from the center outwards.

No. The very early earth consisted mostly of molten rock. It was not a fireball. Study a bit of planetary formation theory please.

Fact: That fire is still burning on the inside, and the surface of the earth is only occasionally affected by sporadic volcanic activity.

The earth is not burning on the inside. Below the outer crust that we stand on, there is the mantle, which is made of molten rock (simply put). It isn't buning. It's just very, very hot down there.

Oh, for fuck's sake THE EARTH ISN'T ON FIRE ON THE INSIDE!

If it doesn't then this goes some of the way in answering the challenge made to me - to prove a young earth by scientific means.

You have no understanding of basic science what so ever. You base your conclusions on erronous assumptions and the strawmen that you have been fed by Answers in Genesis and Kent Hovind. Go to a library, find the science section, and learn, or STFU.

Let's go for it on this one.

Let's not.

old comment by Giveitaday

Suppose: 4600 million years ago the earth was a fireball. Burning from the center outwards

Why should anyone play your revisionist science game when the science of the matter are quite well understood by people who don't make it up as they go along.

Fact: That fire is still burning on the inside, and the surface of the earth is only occasionally affected by sporadic volcanic activity

No, that's not a fact. There is no "fire" burning on the inside.

Answer: Because the is no fire. There is no combustion taking place the interior of the planet is molten rock with a liquid/semi-liguid iron core that is slowly cooling, but that cooling is futher slowed by additional heat generated by tidal friction and radioactivity, and the fact that crust and pressure generated by the sheer enormity of all the weight act as a thermal blanket holding much of that heat inside, much like a thermos.

If it doesn't then this goes some of the way in answering the challenge made to me - to prove a young earth by scientific means.

No it doesn't, because your basic understanding of geology is wrong. You can't use your pet theories to prove somthing if your pet theories themselves are deeply flawed and basically bunk.

Let's go for it on this one.

You do that. What your saying boils down to "Hey, If we keep lying for jesus over and over and over then eventually it will be true.". Facts don't work like that, and the fact that you don't seem to get that is just pathetic.

old comment by Thinking Violet

OK, I'll go for it.

The Earth's core is not 'on fire'.

1) Most of the heat at the core is residual heat from when the entire Earth was a molten ball.
2) The Earth as a whole IS cooling, but many miles of compressed rock in the mantle mean that the heat loss is relatively slow.
3) That same mantle that insulates the core also adds incredible pressure on the core which generates heat (like a bicycle pump gets hot when you use it)
4) Since the core is mostly molten (and hence liquid) the rotation of the earth generates eddy currents within that liquid, which generates heat.
5) Radioactive isotopes within the core are decaying, which generate even more heat.
6) The moon exerts a gravitational force upon the earth which not only moves seawater, causing tides, but it also distorts the actual shape of the Earth. Admittedly, this distortion is only of the order of a foot or so, but considering the masses involved, that's enough to generate quite a bit of heat.

That's only off the top of my head, genius. 5 minutes on Google would have prevented you from looking like quite such a willfully ignorant fool.

old comment by Canadiest

"If it doesn't then this goes some of the way in answering the challenge made to me - to prove a young earth by scientific means."

When are you going to start? I mean proving something scientifically. You just asserted it can't have stayed that warm that long without one evidence that it couldn't.

The Sun doesn't create enough energy to counter entropy.
If the Earth is as old as they say the Moon would have been too close in the past.
If we were even a few million years old the human population would be 1000 times bigger.

These are all creationist strawmen that scientists have wasted their time explaining the whys of and proving the answers to only to have them continue to assert these canards.

This sounds like an argument that Lord Kelvin tried to use shortly after the publication of Origin of Species to prove that there was not enough time for Darwinian evolution. He calculated that the Earth could only be about 25 million years old given what was then known about geothermal flow . Of course, he couldn't have known about radioactive decay.

drkildare #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

67 comments

Confused?