Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 15, 2014 at 12:49 am (This post was last modified: June 15, 2014 at 1:21 am by snowtracks.)
(June 14, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote:
(June 14, 2014 at 6:28 pm)snowtracks Wrote: solarsystem.nasa.gov--- same conclusion.
The impactor now hits the Earth again (frame 9), but this time is incorporated into the Earth (frames 10-12). Its metallic core becomes part of Earth's core.
Earth already had a much larger core, was already spinning and providing a magnetic field and all the shebangs... I guess you had forgotten your point, huh?
so is the poster's statement "It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.", true or false?
Clearly, the History Channel is well known for researching claims made on its programs, and only providing the best scientifically accurate documentaries.
Quote:Testing the Giant Impact Hypothesis
The initial temperatures of the Earth and Moon, the chemical compositions of their mantles, and the time when their cores formed in principle can be used to test the giant impact hypothesis. Unfortunately, planet formation and the subsequent formation of crusts, mantles, and cores is so complicated that much of the evidence may be destroyed. Furthermore, we do not yet have sufficient data to test all the possibilities.
One of the most important predictions of the giant impact hypothesis is that the Earth should be mostly molten when it formed. This would have led to complete separation of elements that concentrate into metallic iron when the core formed. The composition of the Earth's upper mantle today suggests incomplete core formation or addition after core formation of a veneer of rocky material containing metallic iron. The problem is that the extent to which elements concentrate in metallic iron varies with pressure, temperature, and the amount of available oxygen and sulfur, and not enough experiments have been done to map out all those variables. On top of all that, the experiments are extremely difficult to do.In addition, the continued growth of the Earth by large impacts might have led to episodes of magma oceans and core formation, not just one event. Each impact would not necessarily have led to a newly homogenized planet, either, as the impactors are thousands of kilometers across. It is not easy to thoroughly mix such huge masses of rock, even if molten.In fact, we do not know if Earth's lower mantle has the same composition as the upper mantle today.
The First Few Hundred Million Years of the Earth
Although not proven to everyone's satisfaction, the giant impact hypothesis explains a lot about the Earth and Moon. Combined with our current understanding of accretion, it leads to a dynamic and somewhat terrifying picture of the first few hundred million years for both bodies.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 15, 2014 at 8:12 am
Arrogance, refusal to conduct basic fact checking and xtianity go together better.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 15, 2014 at 10:53 am
(October 10, 2013 at 10:11 am)SavedByGraceThruFaith Wrote: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
The current “theory” is that the universe came into being from some explosion called the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang theory does not match smoothness of the cosmic background radiation. So the theory of Inflation was added to the standard Big Bang. That is the latest conjecture of modern science.
Now there are many problems with this “answer” to the origin of the universe. If nothing existed before the Big Bang, then the Big Bang violates a number of principle and laws of science. It violates conservation of mass-energy. The energy went from nothing to all the energy of the universe. It violates cause and effect. Nothing never just explodes and becomes something. It violates all observations, since nothing never just explodes into something. It also does not explain the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.
If something existed before the Big Bang, then the origin question is not answered at all. If the universe always existed, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that all order disappeared an infinite time ago. But that is not the case. Also there is still no explanation of the origin of the laws of nature or why there is even order in the universe.
The beauty of science is that it is not afraid to state "we don't know." I will follow that up however by saying "we don't know YET!" For millenia religion has tried to provide an answer for whatever it is that humans just can't explain. And once religion quit executing people for providing scientific and mathematical proof for unexplained phenomena the explosion of all areas of science continues to provide one answer after another. You toss out a bunch of key words like you WANT to sound like you know what your talking about, but when compared to my twelfth-grade physics students you look like a first grader trying to learn his phonics. QUITE FOOLISH. It is no secret to anyone with a below-average IQ that FAITH is simply the point where the individual shuts down their brain because they are just too lazy to look for an answer. Put away your Bronze-Aged comic book and pick up a textbook. Reason is quickly replacing faith.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 16, 2014 at 2:55 am
(June 15, 2014 at 12:49 am)snowtracks Wrote:
(June 14, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Earth already had a much larger core, was already spinning and providing a magnetic field and all the shebangs... I guess you had forgotten your point, huh?
so is the poster's statement "It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.", true or false?
(June 14, 2014 at 12:24 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Clearly, the History Channel is well known for researching claims made on its programs, and only providing the best scientifically accurate documentaries.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 16, 2014 at 3:24 am (This post was last modified: June 16, 2014 at 3:25 am by pocaracas.)
(June 16, 2014 at 2:55 am)snowtracks Wrote:
(June 15, 2014 at 12:49 am)snowtracks Wrote: so is the poster's statement "It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.", true or false?
the question wasn't answered. usually the kudos cabal will attempt a rescue of a respected member.
Oh, there was a question in there? Sorry, I missed it.
According to the simulations presented in those sites, yes it was a glancing blow... not very glancing, though, as it did involve the cores.
Did you, at least, watch those animations?
Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 16, 2014 at 4:38 am (This post was last modified: June 16, 2014 at 4:43 am by Rampant.A.I..)
(June 15, 2014 at 12:49 am)snowtracks Wrote:
(June 14, 2014 at 7:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Earth already had a much larger core, was already spinning and providing a magnetic field and all the shebangs... I guess you had forgotten your point, huh?
so is the poster's statement "It also assumes an impact for which there is no evidence; the evidence points to a glancing blow not involving the cores.", true or false?
(June 14, 2014 at 12:24 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: Clearly, the History Channel is well known for researching claims made on its programs, and only providing the best scientifically accurate documentaries.
solarsystem.nasa.gov--- same conclusion.
The impactor now hits the Earth again (frame 9), but this time is incorporated into the Earth (frames 10-12). Its metallic core becomes part of Earth's core.
From the article I posted for you, which you cherry-picked a hypothesized scenario the same article told you was impossible to be sure of:
Clearly, the History Channel is well known for researching claims made on its programs, and only providing the best scientifically accurate documentaries.
Quote:Testing the Giant Impact Hypothesis
The initial temperatures of the Earth and Moon, the chemical compositions of their mantles, and the time when their cores formed in principle can be used to test the giant impact hypothesis. Unfortunately, planet formation and the subsequent formation of crusts, mantles, and cores is so complicated that much of the evidence may be destroyed. Furthermore, we do not yet have sufficient data to test all the possibilities.
One of the most important predictions of the giant impact hypothesis is that the Earth should be mostly molten when it formed. This would have led to complete separation of elements that concentrate into metallic iron when the core formed. The composition of the Earth's upper mantle today suggests incomplete core formation or addition after core formation of a veneer of rocky material containing metallic iron. The problem is that the extent to which elements concentrate in metallic iron varies with pressure, temperature, and the amount of available oxygen and sulfur, and not enough experiments have been done to map out all those variables. On top of all that, the experiments are extremely difficult to do.In addition, the continued growth of the Earth by large impacts might have led to episodes of magma oceans and core formation, not just one event. Each impact would not necessarily have led to a newly homogenized planet, either, as the impactors are thousands of kilometers across. It is not easy to thoroughly mix such huge masses of rock, even if molten.
In fact, we do not know if Earth's lower mantle has the same composition as the upper mantle today.
The First Few Hundred Million Years of the Earth
Although not proven to everyone's satisfaction, the giant impact hypothesis explains a lot about the Earth and Moon. Combined with our current understanding of accretion, it leads to a dynamic and somewhat terrifying picture of the first few hundred million years for both bodies.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 17, 2014 at 11:56 am
(June 17, 2014 at 11:30 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Sure, things were rough in the beginning but look at it now. Blue skies with white puffy clouds and gentle breezes of fresh air.
Sadly, it won't last, but we probably won't be around for most of the worst of what's coming in the next few hundred million years.
RE: Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.
June 17, 2014 at 5:52 pm
(June 17, 2014 at 11:56 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
(June 17, 2014 at 11:30 am)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Sure, things were rough in the beginning but look at it now. Blue skies with white puffy clouds and gentle breezes of fresh air.
Sadly, it won't last, but we probably won't be around for most of the worst of what's coming in the next few hundred million years.
![[Image: vuru6ave.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F06%2F14%2Fvuru6ave.jpg)
