A Scientists Approach to Creation (Origins)

by David Turell , Thursday, January 17, 2013, 00:35 (4328 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: Sorry for some many replies in such short succession, but I had one more question regarding the radiometric dating.
> The first is based on gravity being the major function, which suggests that ALL of the heavier elements would have gravitated to the core of the planet, leaving your magma flows to consist primarily of lighter elements and perhaps a light dusting of the heavier ones in the form of sediments.-The earth formed by the accretion of planetismals. Explosion of supernovae placed heavier elements on the Earth's surface as a sequential process. That is how it took 500 million years to go from early sun to Earth formation. I don't know all the details of the theory of planet formation, but the books on how special the Earth is are quite clear. For life, we must have a molten iron/nickel core for a magnetic field to protect us, floating continents for the rock/CO2 cycle, and so on and so on. 
>> 
> Tony:To muddy the waters further, if the early earth was molten, then none of our radiometric dating is valid anyways, because there is no way to prove any sort of homogeneity of isotopes in the original formation of the rocks, nor any way to know how the heat variations would have affected those atomic clocks. -We are measuring prior time in continental layers floating on that molten core we have. I don't think your theory fits.
> 
> Tony:The final icing that I can think of, for the moment at least, is two part. First, do we/can we account for the spread of isotopes distributed through accretion and cataclysmic events? (Earthquakes, floods, volcanos, meteorstrikes, etc)-Your theory won't break up geologic layers enough to get the result you are suggesting. Look at Grand Canyon pictures