What is creation science?

[warpus]

The evolutionary model is that the whole earth was covered in water before "current" land appeared.

Wait, are you talking about the theory of evolution evolutionary model?

Cause if so, it makes no claims or predictions about water levels.

 

[brennan]

If there was no water, how would the lava eventually cool enough to create an atmosphere?

Why would water be required? There is a multitude of objects in the Solar System cooled to solid form without the presence of any water. Hot objects can cool without the aid of any material medium for heat removal (i.e. without convection) via EM radiation.

 

[timtofly]

Wait, are you talking about the theory of evolution evolutionary model?

Cause if so, it makes no claims or predictions about water levels.

There is evidence of water 4 billion years ago, and not just small amounts here and there.

Why would water be required? There is a multitude of objects in the Solar System cooled to solid form without the presence of any water. Hot objects can cool without the aid of any material medium for heat removal (i.e. without convection) via EM radiation.

No one said it was required. We are talking about amounts of water, that rapidly cooled the crust, and affected the way continents formed and disappeared.

And those examples still do not have water with a friendly atmosphere. The point was not cooling, but cooling with an atmosphere that allows rain and oceans.

 

[brennan]

Earth got lucky in that regard. Mars and Venus didn't.

 

[Arakhor]

The evolutionary model is that the whole earth was covered in water before "current" land appeared. Is the evolutionary model shoehorning as much as every other theorist on the planet? The point of major disagreement is that the current land after it arose out of the water was ever completely flooded again.

Be that as it may, that’s still nothing to do with evolution, which contrary to what creationists may have you believe, is not an all-purpose term for anything and everything that contradicts the Genesis story.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Tim, where do you find evidence for the amounts of water?

 

[timtofly]

Reading this led to this. They both show studies of how a earth in an eccentric orbit would be made stable. The assumption is "what makes a habitable earth".

If it is from the accretion of "dust" then read this.

Here is another study that was done during last summer. My theory about it is if there was a very thick layer of ice around the earth, the hotter formed zircons from Iceland would be found, but not as many as those found from magma formation.

This last one states about oceans, but I am not sure who is confirming what. For some reason the evidence points to the fact that zircons formed recently came from a hotter dryer planet, than the ones found from 4 billion years ago when it was cooler and wetter, what ever that means. It would seem to indicate that the earth started out near the edge with an eccentric orbit before it settles down closer with a more circular orbit. It may have lost a great deal of ice in it's collision with another planet that formed the moon, but still retained enough to have both water and a large amounts of magma activity.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Reading this led to this. They both show studies of how a earth in an eccentric orbit would be made stable. The assumption is "what makes a habitable earth".

I'm sorry but you'll have to apply this to Earth. A stable Orbit doesn't mean an orbit similar to all planets.

If it is from the accretion of "dust" then read this.

How does this negate the accretion of "dust"? Flesh out your reasoning. Don't just drop a couple of links.

Here is another study that was done during last summer. My theory about it is if there was a very thick layer of ice around the earth, the hotter formed zircons from Iceland would be found, but not as many as those found from magma formation.

This last one states about oceans, but I am not sure who is confirming what. For some reason the evidence points to the fact that zircons formed recently came from a hotter dryer planet, than the ones found from 4 billion years ago when it was cooler and wetter, what ever that means. It would seem to indicate that the earth started out near the edge with an eccentric orbit before it settles down closer with a more circular orbit. It may have lost a great deal of ice in it's collision with another planet that formed the moon, but still retained enough to have both water and a large amounts of magma activity.

Uhm, that's the research I linked to earlier.

When you go: it would seem, you make a leap in your logic. It doesn't point to that at all. And here's the thing:
Evidence suggest a cooler planet than previously thought. From this you go: see: eccentric orbit near the edge. A cooler planet doesn't indicate this, or dismiss the sequence in which the Earth is thought to be formed.

No, you want that eccentric orbit. So that is why it would seem this way to you.

None of these articles is evidence against the sequence of events that led to Earth being formed. If you think it is, please be more specific. I'm not going to hunt in multiple articles for your evidence.

 

[timtofly]

I'm sorry but you'll have to apply this to Earth. A stable Orbit doesn't mean an orbit similar to all planets.

The current planets in our solar system have stable orbits. The ancients said that earth had an eccentric orbit, before the current one. Scientist have found evidence of newly formed planets similar to earth types that may tell us how earth got it's start.

How does this negate the accretion of "dust"? Flesh out your reasoning. Don't just drop a couple of links.

There is no evidence that the earth was formed from meteorites, unless this section of earth in Afghanistan can prove the theory.

Uhm, that's the research I linked to earlier.

It is not the same. It is a different team with a different emphasis. The accepted first continents formed can only be found in Africa and Australia. Your article was about zircons found in this last remaining section of the very first continent. The oldest ones were from 4.4 billion years ago. The article that I linked to says:

“Our conclusion is counterintuitive,” said Miller. “Hadean zircons grew from magmas rather similar to those formed in modern subduction zones, but apparently even ‘cooler’ and ‘wetter’ than those being produced today.”

The editors of the article used the same question and the same artwork, but the articles themselves are about two different teams in two different locations on the earth. One starting from the oldest source and one starting from a location that has only been around for 18 million years. They both may lead to the same conclusion that there was enough water to cool magma that was not "air" cooled.

When you go: it would seem, you make a leap in your logic. It doesn't point to that at all. And here's the thing:
Evidence suggest a cooler planet than previously thought. From this you go: see: eccentric orbit near the edge. A cooler planet doesn't indicate this, or dismiss the sequence in which the Earth is thought to be formed.

No, you want that eccentric orbit. So that is why it would seem this way to you.

None of these articles is evidence against the sequence of events that led to Earth being formed. If you think it is, please be more specific. I'm not going to hunt in multiple articles for your evidence.

A cooler planet indicates that it may have been further away from the heat of the sun than it is now. A hotter planet would have formed near the sun. An earth like the ones covered in ice would be cooler 4.5 billion years ago, and then go through tremendous change and be subjected to higher temperatures later before it once again cooled down to current conditions. None of this has anything to do with what I want. The diagram in the article shows that such an "earth" had less heat areas as compared to the current magma cross sections. It also states the effects of other larger planets in the system.

Simulations of young planetary systems indicate that giant planets often upset the orbits of smaller inner worlds. Even if those interactions aren’t immediately catastrophic, they can leave a planet in a treacherous eccentric orbit – a very elliptical course that raises the odds of crossing paths with another body, being absorbed by the host star, or getting ejected from the system.

There is no jump in logic. The evidence so far seems to point to the earth as having an orbit that brought it from the edges to the center, and perhaps more than once, before it collided with another planet and formed it's moon, and more than likely brought it to it's current orbit. The prevailing views for years was that it was in a standard orbit with accretion from "dust" or meteorites. Was hot without any known water source other than huge comets, and somehow hit another planet and formed the moon, and then cooled down even though it was close to the sun.

 

[Berzerker]

How do you get anyone, Babylonians or otherwise, to assume that the Earth is spinning based on nothing at all? Neither Aristotle nor Ptolemy believed in a moving Earth or rotation around the Sun, for that matter. You can't just say that people believed that the Earth moved in space without any evidence. That's just silly.

It wouldn't take an Einstein to watch the sky and figure out the world is round and rotating, but it would take an uncommon insight. Aristotle and Ptolemy did not write Genesis. They did not write the Enuma Elish. They were largely ignorant about Sumerian astronomy.

There is a cylinder seal (VA 243) dating back over 4,000 years that shows our solar system, 11 objects surrounding a star. Those objects match up with the descriptions of the celestial gods in the Enuma Elish. I dont know that the person who wrote the relevant verses in Genesis "knew" the world was spinning, but their original source knew.

It states until 2.5 billion years ago. A time I have been offering you a couple of times.

You mentioned 2.5 bya in reference to my claim water covered the world more than 4 billion years ago. I still dont know what your point was, but the article does not say the Earth was covered by water 2.5 bya. It says some of the cores of continents (cratons) were already in existence by that time.

So when did it start? I hope you're not suggesting that lava-Earth was covered with water. How do you propose a transition from a hot boiling Earth to one being instantly water covered before land appears?

Why couldn't water cover the lava Earth? We've had water for up to 4.4 billion years, didn't it cover lava? The water we got now covers lava. A "lava" world forming at the freeze line would have plenty of water, it would have formed surrounded by and probably in water.

We know there have been surface rocks found between 2.5 and 3.8 billion years ago. So you really have to argue:

4 billion years ago: water covered Earth

You got it

To you anything does because you're determined it does. A wind sounds like Earth being catapulted from the asteroid belt into a new, mindboggling steady orbit magically mimicking the orbits of other planets. First Earth is amongst the asteroid belt, because that's where water comes from. Never mind the meteorites that can transport the water, and which scientists tell us the water came from, nope, Bezerker knows better than these scientists, Asteroid belt: water -> Earth water.

You haven't cited any scientists who know I'm wrong or know how we got our water, they just believe it came from the asteroid belt. They thought our water came from comets but isotope ratios dont support the idea, so they now think asteroids brought us our water.

The problem is the time frame for delivering our water keeps getting older and more narrow as our oceans get older. That means the asteroid source for our water is less likely because the mechanism - a migration of outer planets - didn't happen that far back... It happened, if at all, during or just before the LHB. So how did we get oceans before the meteorites had the time to arrive? Scientists dont know, I dont know, and you dont know, so spare me the attitude.

A collision send Earth towards the sun. Forces from other planets manage to get it to orbit exactly as the other planets.

Not exactly, we're further from the solar equatorial plane - something we share with the asteroids and Pluto. But yes, collisions do tend to cause closer orbits as objects slowed by impacts fall inward.

When the Earth was forming it was boiling lava all over the place. When the EHB stopped Earth cooled and rains started falling, continental crusts started to appear. You cannot go from boiling lava Earth to water covered Earth without going through early continental crust Earth. So there has to have been land before water covered Earth. It simply has to be.

If an asteroid hit Europa, what would happen? Erupting lava under a very deep ocean. And once again, Genesis aint talking about how the dark, water covered world formed. Its talking about how that proto-world came to have "Earth" - dry land, continents and life.

How the Earth was formed, the breadbox version.

In Genesis the Earth is not this planet, its the dry land that appeared from under the water. The water was here first according to Genesis, that doesn't mean the water was here 4.5 bya.

From this point on, the water covered Earth state is plausible.

And what point is that?

Citation required.

All moot really. You are entirely reliant on a coincidence in your position. The alleged 'evidence' in the Bible is just inadequate to make your claim.

http://www.universetoday.com/26659/earths-early-atmosphere/

If the Bible stated that 'The Earth formed from the remains of an exploded star billions of years ago, spinning as it cooled and hardened' then you might have a case. All you've got is 'day and night' and something about water. You can make with the ad-nauseum's until the cows come home, you're never going to convince people that it is a 'scientific explanation' because it simply isn't one.

Oh well, moo

Yes, and?

Just what I told Arakhor, Titan is not a better candidate than Pluto for an escaped moon from Saturn.

But Earth basically is the only planet that has water. Planets do not travel to new orbits, basically. The sun's gravity is the 'magic' that keeps planets in their present orbit. So yes, you are arguing against what we know of how our planetary system cam to be. (And not very well.)

Researchers believe some of the planets did move to new orbits

It matters, as you said 'the ancients'. If Pluto wasn't discovered until 1930, the ancients didn't know about Pluto. (It's invisible to the naked eye and barely visible with a telescope.)

They knew about the outer planets, they described them in the Enuma Elish and depicted them on a cylinder seal (VA 243).

And rings do not point, as they are circular: a circle does not have a beginning or end, so there's no point that can point anywhere. That's basic geometry.

Draw a line thru Saturn's equatorial plane (rings) and you will see the line points to Pluto.

Water is not an element of rocks, generally speaking. They are different materials. (And rock is not something you can cite.)

They cant date rocks?

This is a nonsensical statement: CO2 does not erode land (though H20 can very easily.)

Ever hear of acid rain?

For Earth, I get (based on a hand calculation using an average orbital radius of 150 billion meters and an orbital period of 365.26 days) an orbital velocity of 29800 meters per second. For an object in the Asteroid Belt region, at 2.8 Astronomical Units, I get an orbital velocity of 17800 meters per second.

If the velocity of a hypothetical Earth located at 2.8AU were to suddenly change from 17800 meters per second to 29800 meters per second, it would move further away from the Sun, not closer to the Sun. (Assuming the velocity is in the direction normal to the direction from the Earth to the Sun) Actually, this is more than the escape velocity.

So you would need one collision to slow the earth down and bring it closer to the Sun, then another collision to speed it up to its current speed and orbit.

Orbital velocity increases as distance decreases

 

[brennan]

http://www.universetoday.com/26659/earths-early-atmosphere/

I asked for a citation that shows "That toxic (Co2) environment would have quickly eroded away land"

Your link only shows that the environment was toxic (which I would not have been questioning, I think everyone with an ounce of scientific knowledge knows that the early atmosphere was not a hospitable place), not that your claim on the effects of that is true. Try again.

 

[Arakhor]

It wouldn't take an Einstein to watch the sky and figure out the world is round and rotating, but it would take an uncommon insight. Aristotle and Ptolemy did not write Genesis. They did not write the Enuma Elish. They were largely ignorant about Sumerian astronomy.

Really? Put your money where your mouth is then and provide me with a simple way to show that the Earth is rotating, not merely that the world is round.

There is a cylinder seal (VA 243) dating back over 4,000 years that shows our solar system, 11 objects surrounding a star. Those objects match up with the descriptions of the celestial gods in the Enuma Elish.

Eleven objects? So, which eleven would those be? Feel free to define them all.

I dont know that the person who wrote the relevant verses in Genesis "knew" the world was spinning, but their original source knew.

This is complete conjecture on your part. For someone trying to baffle us with science, that’s laughable.

 

[timtofly]

This is complete conjecture on your part. For someone trying to baffle us with science, that’s laughable.

Science is conjecture looking for proof. Why is that laughable?

 

[Arakhor]

No, it really isn't. Airy assertions about what unknown people did or did not think, as if that has any relevance to what is being claimed, is not scientific in the slightest.

 

[sanabas]

Really? Put your money where your mouth is then and provide me with a simple way to show that the Earth is rotating, not merely that the world is round.

Use a pendulum?

Or just notice how much the sun predictably changes position throughout the year while doing 1 rotation every 24 hours, compared to how much the stars don't change position while also doing 1 rotation every 24 hours, and visualise it from there.

I've actually got no problem believing there were people alive thousands of years ago who realised the earth orbited the sun, that the earth rotated. The rest of what's suggested in this thread, not so much.

Eleven objects? So, which eleven would those be? Feel free to define them all.

I googled 'VA 243' which made for some fun reading. The 11 objects are allegedly the 9 planets (including Pluto), the moon, and the secret 10th planet that houses the advanced aliens that really got civilisation on earth started. And that really got the earth started, since it's on a really strange orbit that brings it right in to the inner solar system every few thousand years, where it was able to collide with a planet between Mars & Jupiter, forming both the Earth & the asteroid belt. Reading the summary, it's Hubbardesque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin

 

[Arakhor]

If you postulate that the "fixed stars" are a thing and that the sun revolves around the Earth, as in Ptolemy's theory (hence the term 'Ptolemaic' for a geocentric system), I don't see how that proves that the Earth itself is rotating.

The Ancient (and not-so-Ancient) Greeks postulated a lot of things, some of which were even correct, but such ideas hardly approach the level of scientific certainty that Berserker is maintaining throughout this thread.

 

[sanabas]

But it's quite easy to see that the 'fixed stars' change position through the night. Which means either the stars are fixed to something that's spinning around once per day, or that the earth is rotating.

I want to know more about this relationship between Pluto & Saturn. At it's simplest, the theory is that if you take Saturn's orbit as your reference point, then Saturn's axial tilt = Pluto's orbital inclination, yes? Because a quick back of the envelope calculation says it's not.

 

[Harv]

Orbital velocity increases as distance decreases

This statement in itself is correct. More specifically, the relationship between the orbital velocity and radial distance is:

v=SQRT(GM/r), where

G is the gravitational constant. I used 6.7E-11.
M is the mass of the Sun. I used 2.0E30 kilograms.
r is the distance to the Sun. For Earth at 1.0AU I used 1.5E11 meters.

This can be derived by balancing the gravitational force between the Sun and the planet in question, and the force required to keep the planet in a circular orbit. So for planet Earth at 1.0 AU I get 29900 meters per second. The equation above can be simplified to:

v=29900/SQRT(D), where D is the distance from the Sun to the planet, in Astronomical Units.

At 2.8 AU, this works out to 17900 meters per second. To get closer to the Sun, you have to reduce the speed of the planet. Then when the planet is at 1.0 AU you have to increase the speed to keep it in Earth's current orbit.

Here is a soccer (football) analogy: A player at 2.8 AU kicks the cosmic soccer ball to his teammate at 1.0 AU who kicks it. GOOOAAAALLLLL!!!!!

 

[peter grimes]

Not exactly, we're further from the solar equatorial plane - something we share with the asteroids and Pluto. But yes, collisions do tend to cause closer orbits as objects slowed by impacts fall inward.

Are you referring to orbital inclination relative to the ecliptic?

Wiki says No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_inclination

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I had a lot more to say, but my browser ate it. I will say that I'm appalled at how much pseudoscientific nonsense is being spouted here.

I googled 'VA 243' which made for some fun reading. The 11 objects are allegedly the 9 planets (including Pluto), the moon, and the secret 10th planet that houses the advanced aliens that really got civilisation on earth started. And that really got the earth started, since it's on a really strange orbit that brings it right in to the inner solar system every few thousand years, where it was able to collide with a planet between Mars & Jupiter, forming both the Earth & the asteroid belt. Reading the summary, it's Hubbardesque. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zecharia_Sitchin