|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
 Posted - 11/03/2003 : 07:29:29 [Permalink]
|
Hippy, good and thoughtful post.
You said,
quote:
Actually, there are some scientific facts in the Bible that were probably ahead of its time. For instance, "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."
I assume you say this is accurate because the earth is in space. I am not familiar with this passage, where is this in the bible?
quote:
As for why we havn't found any 'modern' animals with dinosaurs, I could think of a number of reasons, but I don't want to get into that argument because even if we never find 'modern' animals with dinosaurs that would still be circumstantial evidence, and not conclusive.
There are thousand of fossil beds and this is never been seen, therefore the most obvious reason is that they did not exist at the same time. The other point however if modern animals were found with dinosaurs that would be HARD evidence that these animals coexisted and would blow evolution 'out of the water'.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2003 : 09:12:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Now then, back to the core: Are rocks good conductors of electricty?
No, rocks are actually extremly poor electric conductors. Rocks are silicates and metal oxides, neither of them are electrical conductors. You need "pure" metals, as in metal alloys that have a low degree of contamination such as oxides and other non metals (look up "periodic table" for reference).
Only at high temperatures does half-metals (see periodic table) become conductive, and metal oxides get chemically reduced enough (metal and oxygen gets separated) to carry currents.
quote:
I ask because I was wondering, why hasn't the electricty in the core simply bled into the other layers until it equalized?
It's only in the innermost parts of Earth we have high enough temperature to find "pure" molten metals.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/03/2003 : 23:15:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
I assume you say this is accurate because the earth is in space. I am not familiar with this passage, where is this in the bible?
Job said that to Bildad the Shuhite when he complained that God was unjust to him.
Job chapter 26:
26:5 Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.
26:6 Hell is naked before him, and destruction hath no covering.
26:7 He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
26:8 He bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds; and the cloud is not rent under them.
26:9 He holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it.
26:10 He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/03/2003 23:16:00 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2003 : 12:31:06 [Permalink]
|
Hi,
Dave, I took a look at the talkorigins site. It looks like it has the scientist's response to questions, but I'm looking for more than that. I'm looking for the studies that the scientist's base their reports on. I would like to examine the research that they did, and their methods, before I consider their conclusions. I don't think that they're lying or anything, I just wonder if they're assuming something that they shouldn't. Do we know why they said that the core was mostly made of iron? I'm not saying it isn't, but I want to know if their studies have any basis.
Hippy. |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/05/2003 : 19:44:02 [Permalink]
|
Well, Hippy, most, if not all, of the articles on the Talk.Origins site are highly referenced. For example, the Age of the Earth FAQ has, at a glance, a couple-dozen references listed at the end. Looking some of those up (depending on which particular claims they are references for), might give you the answers you're looking for.
Of course, unless you become a geologist, a cosmologist, a physicist, a biologist, etc., etc., there will always be questions left unresolved for you, I'm sure. For example, how do we know the core is iron? I haven't looked into the question personally, but let's assume there's an answer out there based on seismic data, which in turn relies on knowing the speed of sound through various materials like iron. You can then question whether or not those speeds are correct, and find someone who'll describe for you how the various speeds of sound through different materials are measured. You can then question the assumptions upon which those measurement methods are based, and on and on.
I'm sure you get the picture. Unless you actually are an expert in the relevant field(s), there will always be something to question, some assumption which may or may not be correct. Heck, even if you get PhDs in every relevant field, there will be assumptions from which you can't escape. The fundamental nature of science itself rests upon an assumption which cannot be logically proven.
But (and there's always a 'but'), these things work together. We measure the age of the Earth by several different methods, and get pretty much the same answer. (Since we know we're never going to know the age precisely, "pretty much the same" is generally good enough.) Since they are the same, they provide checks for each other. Either they're all right, because they're the same, or they are all wrong, and by coincidence come up with the same answer, which would be pretty astounding. Even more astounding: for the Earth to be only 6,000 years old (for example), all of the measurements need to be off by well over 4 billion years, and all in the same direction of error.
Of course, the fact that there are unchecked assumptions might look like 'faith' to some, but it's really not. It's a reasoned compromise. It's an admittance that we can't rationally or logically get to the "zero assumptions" point, but with an assurance (using multiple measurements, for example), that we can, indeed, know things about the world we live in. If we question everything, after all, we wind up twitching in a corner, sucking our thumbs and wondering if the room we're in even exists.
Those of us who aren't experts in everything (and that includes every last person on Earth) make such compromises every day. We assume that cars are going to stop for red lights, since we cannot ask the drivers (before they actually stop, that is). We assume that the sidewalk is actually a sidewalk, and not carefully-disguised quicksand. This continues even into the sciences, where I (for example) don't have the resources to build my very own particle accelerator from scratch, and so I make a reasoned compromise, and assume that the vast majority of high-energy physicists are correct when they talk about what a proton is made of (plus, the fact that they're not arguing about it means they, like the measurements of Earth's age, are in agreement, and thus more realiable).
But I'm blathering on about the nature of science, and not answering your question. Unfortunately, I've used up a lot of my spare time already, so if I or someone else hasn't gotten back to you by the time you read this, check the references.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/06/2003 : 01:24:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Do we know why they said that the core was mostly made of iron? I'm not saying it isn't, but I want to know if their studies have any basis.
I can't say that I know how they did when they came to the conclusion that Earth have an iron core. But I can make a qualified guess based on my knowledge of physics and astronomy:
We have to gather several seemingly unrelated clues:
* By knowing the distance to the moon, and it's orbital period, and relative size to Earth, we can use Newton's law of gravitation to calculate the mass of Earth.
* By knowing the diameter of Earth, and it's mass, we can calculate Earths density. It's ~5,5 tonnes/m³.
* We know that Earth's crust and outer mantle is mostly molten rock, which have a density of 2,0-3,0 tonnes/m³. Aluminium is the most common of metal atoms found in the crust.
Let's have a look at the densities:
Granite.... 2,7
Limestone.. 2,6-2,8
Quartz..... 2,2
Glimmer.... 2,8
Silicon.... 2,3
Carbon..... 2,2 (graphite)
Aluminium.. 2,7
Earth...... 5,5
Iron....... 7,9
Nickel..... 8,9
We know from spectral analysis that, for example, there are many asteroids in the Asteroid Field that is made up almost entirely of iron/nickel alloy.
From www.permanent.com (great site by the way): ""Iron meteorites", also called "irons", are usually just one big blob of iron-nickel (Fe-Ni) metal, as if it came from a industrial refinery without shaping. The alloy ranges from 5% to 62% nickel from meteorite to meteorite, with an average of 10% nickel. Cobalt averages about 0.5%, and other metals such as the platinum group metals, gallium, and germanium are dissolved in the Fe-Ni metal."
* This indicate that there should be an abundance of iron on earth too.
In fact, there is iron ore in the crust, but not as much as we could expect from analysing the asteroids.
* Not all metals mix well together into alloys.
* Lighter materials floats to the surface in heavier liquids. Molten stone floats on molten iron. Any steelworker can tell you that, it's what keeps them in business... 
Since the outer parts of Earth is lighter than average, then the inner part should be heavier. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Maverick
Skeptic Friend
Sweden
385 Posts |
Posted - 11/09/2003 : 02:39:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
Hi all
[...] I was raised a Christian, and I was taught to be rational and to "prove all things; hold fast to what is good."[...]
Excellent. Does this mean you have evidence to support the existence of your god? |
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." -- Carl Sagan |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2003 : 06:39:57 [Permalink]
|
Did anyone see the NOVA program last night on the earths magnetic field?
The truth (and the search for truth) in natural processes is SO much more fascinating than the simple minded explinations of the fundies. The investigation and the research that is going into the study of the earths interior and the magnetic field is really quite exciting.
It was also mentioned that the moon, mars and venus do not seem to have appreciable magnetic fields. I would guess that the moon probably plays a large part in the earths magnetic field, but it was not mentioned, as far as I know. The biggest difference between Venus and the Earth is the existence of the moon. I would imagine it's tidal effects would help to maintain the core temperature and movement of the core. Has anybody ever heard anything along these lines?
Thanks |
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2003 : 10:13:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
It was also mentioned that the moon, mars and venus do not seem to have appreciable magnetic fields.
I would guess that the moon probably plays a large part in the earths magnetic field, but it was not mentioned, as far as I know.
Since the Moon has a negligible magnetic field, its impact on Earth's magnetic field is also negligible.
quote:
The biggest difference between Venus and the Earth is the existence of the moon. I would imagine it's tidal effects would help to maintain the core temperature and movement of the core. Has anybody ever heard anything along these lines?
I haven't heard this directly, but I suppose some of the energy is converted to heat inside Earth. Probably inside the moon as well. But while Earth's crust is the only solid part, the moon has cooled enough to be solid half way to the centre.
One other major difference between Venus and the Earth (besides the moon) is the rotation. Venus actually has a retrograde rotation, with a 243 day period. There is not enough spin in Venus to produce the same amount of magma-currents that Earth has. Moon's rotation is also very slow compared to Earth, so there won't be much current there either. I think this is the key to the magnetic fields: a fast rotation that creates magma currents inside, connected to a liquid state interior.
Mars has almost the same rotational period as Earth, but is much smaller. The size (and the greater distance to the sun) means it has cooled much quicker than Earth, and it's interior is more viscous than Earth.
Jupiter on the other hand has a high rotation, and it has an interior of liquid hydrogen heated and compressed to the point of being liquid metallic. And is has an enormous magnetic field. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/19/2003 10:15:13 |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 13:02:07 [Permalink]
|
Hi guys, sorry I've been gone so long, the library I use closed unexpectedly.
Dave: For years, I've heard "I'll believe it when I see it." While I understand that nobody is omniscient, I would like to know the basis of the facts that you claim disprove my understanding of the universe. My actual definition of faith is "believing what you are told." While the scientists who made the study might have been able to come to their conclusion without faith, I would have to have faith in them if I were to believe them without studying their proof. As for you boldfacing my screen name: "Study to show thyself approved" I am in the process of studying physics and Earth science, and their mentioning of the Earth's core was kind of vague.
Maverick: At the time, I believe in Yahweh because it seems to be the most reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe. I'm coming to this forum in order to challenge my faith. There is no absolute proof of anything, only varying degrees of certainty.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 20:23:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no absolute proof of anything, only varying degrees of certainty.
Exactly right! An excellent, if brief, description of scientific theories. The theories backed by the most evidence get the higher degrees of certainty.
Actually, Yahweh or some similiar deity is but one possible explanation for the birth of the universe. Nobody yet knows for sure, but it's being worked on. The same holds for abiogenesis.
We may never know, but that won't stop us from trying to find out. It's that ancient monkey curiosity, gibbering madly in our genes, that never lets us stop looking.
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/05/2003 : 22:21:24 [Permalink]
|
Hippy wrote:quote:
Hi guys, sorry I've been gone so long, the library I use closed unexpectedly.
Glad you made it back!quote:
Dave: For years, I've heard "I'll believe it when I see it." While I understand that nobody is omniscient, I would like to know the basis of the facts that you claim disprove my understanding of the universe.
Hmmm... I re-read my last post in this thread, and can't find an example of me claiming that anything "disproves" your understanding of the universe. Perhaps you could point it out to me?
But beyond that, my last post was a detailed explanation of why there will always be a "next set" of facts for you to question. Where you decide to come to a reasoned compromise about what knowledge you will accept from a secondary source is up to you, but if you take it too far, you'll just dead-end at solipsism, doubting your own existence.quote:
My actual definition of faith is "believing what you are told." While the scientists who made the study might have been able to come to their conclusion without faith, I would have to have faith in them if I were to believe them without studying their proof.
That is quite a bit different from religious faith, as I tried to get across. Say, for example, a thousand scientists all say the same thing about some phenomenon. Is it really "faith" to believe what they say? Especially when these people largely compete with each other for funding and fame, and so it is in their best interests to show each other up; to be the first to successfully challenge the current thinking on a subject; to win a Nobel Prize. If a thousand people who should disagree instead agree, there's a damn good reason for it.quote:
As for you boldfacing my screen name: ...
I can see why you might be on the defensive about that, but I bold every member's name. It's a habit I got into on another message board, and you're the first person who's had a problem with it, that I'm aware of.
But, if it'll put you at ease, I used to be a wanna-be hippy, myself. Bolding your name was in no way an attempt to "sneer" at you, or imply that you're less intelligent by self-identifying with the beginning of the "slacker" movement. It was just the result of a habit of mine.quote:
... "Study to show thyself approved" I am in the process of studying physics and Earth science...
Cool. If you don't mind me asking, at what level?quote:
...and their mentioning of the Earth's core was kind of vague.
Well, depending on how in-depth the courses (pun intended), they'll probably skim a lot of stuff. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 16:05:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
Sorry about my presumptiveness over the whole screen-name thing. Anyway, I'm about a quarter of the way through a high-school textbook on physics, but so far I've studied calculations for gravity due to mass, et cet. I'm sure you'll all have a field day with this info, but I'm a seventeen-year-old living in Wasilla, Alaska, population approximately 5,000.
As for 'disproving my faith' my faith says that the world was created 6,000 years ago, and that's what I'm attempting to find out. As for my skepticism of faith in scientists, the whole Archeoptryx fraud made me wary of trusting them. I'm not saying that we shouldn't believe something that we can't prove, I'm just saying that Christians who don't know their faith is just as bad as atheists who don't understand how scientists get their answers.
Time's up, gotta go.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
Posted - 12/06/2003 : 17:26:54 [Permalink]
|
Hippy,
I think it's great that you're a seventeen-year-old living in a small town. When I was seventeen, I was a devout Christian struggling with the same questions you are, but not nearly as thoughtfully.
I think your faith will be much stronger if it is confined to the areas that simply can't be disproven. No one can disprove that Christ died for your sins or guides you in your daily life. But it's been disproven for some time that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
If you have a deep faith that Christ is your savior, then I can't recommend highly enough that you don't attempt to prove that objectively. Attempting to do that weakens faith, because faith is believing deeply in things that can never be seen.
Also, I believe that accepting the objective fact of evolution doesn't require that one give up one's faith in Jesus, just as Galileo's confirmation that ours was not a geocentric universe didn't contradict the most important aspects of the Christian faith (though it did scare the theocrats of the time to think that even any tiny part of the Bible could be considered incorrect).
As far as Archaeopteryx is concerned I recommend highly that you go here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/forgery.html |
|
|
|
Les
Skeptic Friend
59 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
