Home | Be a Christian | Devotionals | Join Us! | Forums | Rules | F.A.Q.


Go Back   Christian Forums > Theology (Christians Only) > Theology (Christian Only) > General Theology > Origins Theology
Register BlogsPrayersJobsArcade Calendar Mark Forums Read

Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 21st July 2009, 10:48 AM
busterdog's Avatar
Senior Veteran

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,764
My Mood Lurking
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889)
busterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond repute
busterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond repute
Missing Energy in Creation: A New Theory

The massive amount of energy necessary for creation is missing from the record and most theories. Gravity was not sufficient. Here is another theory. I am not advocating, except for the backhanded swipe at the nebular hypothesis.

Plasma works for me -- all I want is a model. Alleged proof is for morons. We are just talking about models.

"You rattle my brain ...."



Did great balls of fire form the planets? - space - 20 July 2009 - New Scientist

Did great balls of fire form the planets?

ASTEROID-SIZED balls of magma hurtled through our infant solar system, and spray from their many collisions provided much of the raw material that formed Earth and its rocky siblings. That's according to a new take on an old theory that challenges the notion that the solar system started out as a placid sea of dust motes which simply clumped together to form planets.
The early family tree of our solar system's rocky planets features tiny glassy spheres called chondrules, found today inside ancient meteorites. The origins of chondrules, which are typically about a millimetre across, are shrouded in mystery. They make up much of the material preserved in meteorites that were formed about 2 million years after the solar system began and are thought to have clumped together to form asteroid-size planetesimals, which in turn agglomerated to make Earth and its peers.
Chondrules' glassy composition and spheroidal shape show that they were once molten. According to the popular view, they formed when dust grains in the nebula surrounding the infant sun were suddenly heated, perhaps when cosmic lightning or shock waves shot through the nebula.
But calculations published in 2008 on the retention of sodium by the chondrules suggest they formed in dense swarms (Science, vol 320, p 1617). This is difficult to reconcile with the melting of dust motes in a nebula, which are expected to be widely spaced.
Now, Ian Sanders of Trinity College Dublin in Ireland says another formation scenario, involving collisions between asteroid-sized balls of magma - kept molten through their high radioactivity - offers a better explanation. Sanders renewed the case for the idea, first proposed in the 1980s, at this week's meeting of the Meteoritical Society in Nancy, France.
Decay of radioactive isotopes today helps to keep the cores of relatively large bodies like Earth molten. Sanders argues that the greater abundance of radioactive material in the fledgling solar system means that if objects larger than 30 kilometres across formed, they would have melted through.
Collisions between such magma balls would breach their thin crusts of solid rock, spraying molten material into space, where the droplets would quickly cool to form chondrules.
Collisions between magma balls would breach their thin crusts and spray material into space



"It puts a completely different slant on what happened in the early solar system in the first 2 million years," Sanders says. That is the period when chondrules formed, based on measurements of key isotopes within them.
Conel Alexander of the Carnegie Institution of Washington DC, who led last year's Science study, says the high density of droplets possible in plumes ejected from magma balls could explain his team's results, but finds the idea hard to accept on other grounds. A key issue is that material within magma balls should have quickly sorted into chemically distinct layers, with iron sinking to the core and lighter elements near the surface. The chemical signature of such sorting is not present in chondrules, Alexander says.
Sanders notes that some of the chondrules are indeed depleted in iron, as might be expected if they splashed from near the surface of a layered liquid body, though such chondrules are in a minority.
Free associating:



Great balls of fire.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!

  #2  
Old 21st July 2009, 07:44 PM
philadiddle's Avatar
Drumming circles around you

31 Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: Canada Member For 5 Years Steward
 
Join Date: 23rd December 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,493
Blessings: 931
Reps: 26,510,215,182,048,496 (power: 26,510,215,182,059)
philadiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond repute
philadiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond reputephiladiddle has a reputation beyond repute
Could you explain what point you are trying to make? I don't mean that question in a rude or rhetorical way. As I read your post you say that there is new evidence for a model that explains the formation of our solar system, but then you say you don't endorse it, so what are you getting at?
__________________
"The Bible does not lend any moral support to natural selection...Ergo, natural selection is not a process that human beings should support." - SkyWriting
  #3  
Old 21st July 2009, 10:39 PM
busterdog's Avatar
Senior Veteran

Gender: Male Married Faith: Christian Country: United States Member For 5 Years
View Profile Pic
 
Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,764
My Mood Lurking
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889)
busterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond repute
busterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond reputebusterdog has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by philadiddle View Post
Could you explain what point you are trying to make? I don't mean that question in a rude or rhetorical way. As I read your post you say that there is new evidence for a model that explains the formation of our solar system, but then you say you don't endorse it, so what are you getting at?
The article finds that gravity can't explain the accretion of planetary bodies. It posits a highly energized form of matter - hot, radioactive matter -- as the building block of the planetary bodies. The extra energy necessary to make the planets had to occur in some form or another -- that's my thesis, or even speculation if you like. But, this particular theory agrees that there was a lot more energy involved, it just wouldnt agree with, say, energy in the form of electromagnetism energizing plasma.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Closed Thread


Return to Origins Theology

Thread Tools
Display Modes


 
Become a CF Site Supporter Today and Make These Ads Go Away!


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:51 AM.