Origins of the Universe. (Creation versus science. Do they contradict?)

[Mousetrap]

I remember when I saw this in 2009 when I started to investigate whether the Earth was really a Laplace Hadean, or wet composition.
This was the article in Science I found, and continued to look for more such evidence.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Zircon/zircon.php

Seems as if the Hadean Epoch of Laplace was in error afterall.
Now, guess why all the scientists hated the Nebular theory dating from 1755?
And why did they want to incorporate a hellish formation of the Earth?
We will get to that soon.

[Mousetrap]

Then we can look at the latest discoveries on how the Earth formed as published by National Geographic.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/10/141030-starstruck-earth-water-origin-vesta-science/

The article in Science reported that the Earth was 4.1 billion years old when it was irrigated with water.
However, the article in NG now moved it closer to 4.4 billion years.
So, what we now know is that

of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found that our seas may have arrived much earlier on our planet than previously thought.
"The study shows that Earth's water most likely accreted at the same time as the rock," said Marschall.

"The planet formed as a wet planet with water on the surface."

While the authors are not ruling out that some of the water that covers 70 percent of Earth today may have arrived later, their findings suggest that there was enough already here for life to have begun earlier than thought.

"Knowing that water came early to the inner solar system also means that the other inner planets could have been wet early and evolved life before they became the harsh environments they are today," explained Nielsen.

Therefore, I will stay with observed and experimental science, rather than with Hakurei Reimu's ancient and untested theory of a Hadean Earth.
As promised, I will not make any assumptions about what science knows, I will not twist any scientific discoveries, and will not use any unproven theories.
Here we have it, The Earth was not a solid rock when it accreted. It was a collection of Gas Liquid and Matter (space dust).
Wonder where I heard this before?

[Mousetrap]

Now that we know the Earth was a wet accretion of material, gasses and liquids, we can go forward.
How did the Sun appear when it formed in the Solar system?
Look here, it actually tells us that the sun is as old as the Earth.
Well in that case, the Biblical description that the Earth was wet and DARK and God said Let there be light, is actually chronologically correct.
https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

[Mousetrap]

https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html
Wow, here we have an explanation that the Sun actualle fell into its gravitational field resulting into Nuclear fusion.
Look at the fact that the Sun took 50 million years to "grow " to "adulthood".
It was slowly increasing in its intensity.
Did the Bible not say it was Light, and 4 days later the Sun shined into the Atmosphere?

[Mousetrap]

Now for the second claim about the formation of the Moon, was there a giant impact with a foreign proto-planet on Earth ejecting matter into space to form the Moon?
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
No there was not.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

[Baruch]

Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

Nope

[Mousetrap]

And the Moon still contains water!
If it was formed from the Giant impact theory, It would be impossible due to it being a burning hot ball of magma.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.454..192S
Here we have evidence that the Moon can not be a baby of the Earth.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF
and eventually science dont know where the Moon originated from, but believe it is a baby from the Earth, and not of a collision.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/titanium-paternity-test-fingers-earth-moons-sole-parent

Interestingly, they have 3 scenarios, on how it might have happened, but not one includes the accretion nebulous theory.

[Mousetrap]

Did he say anything interesting in all those posts?

So to conclude.
It is a fact that the Earth was a wet collection of liquid, gas and matter that accreted from the beginning.
The Earth was not a ball of magma, neither the Moon.
This is what science says after observed science, and not some Theory that was never proven.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Had to peek. The water was blown off the early Earth with everything else, and wasn't destroyed when Thea hit, just turned to steam. Since then there have been a couple of impacts with smaller bodies, you might notice a divot or two in the surface of the Moon?

[Mousetrap]

Here we have the Nebular theory.
Placed in the publication The World around us.
By Michael Henbest.
Guess what, in 1972 he already said that the Hadean theory, or Laplace's theory was incorrect, and believed that the Nebular hypothesis are correct.


Oh gracious, I think I can actually place the Atheists' description of the Origins of the Universe, and Solar system in the King James Version!
Now who would have thought?

[Mousetrap]

Had to peek. The water was blown off the early Earth with everything else, and wasn't destroyed when Thea hit, just turned to steam. Since then there have been a couple of

Thea never existed.
Scientists can not find a trace of it in the composition of the Moon.
As a matter of fact, the Gigantic collision theory still needs to get any observed evidence.
I refuse to embrace any Theory that does not have scientific experimental evidence.
I can only stay with the Nebular Theory where a wet earth developed by accretion and the Moon from the same nebulous cloud.
For that there is ample evidence.
Please note that science says the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, and took 150 million years to become an adult.
Therefore it was not a warm unit until 4.35 billion years ago.
Zircon crystals and Silver ions date the water containing Earth to 4.1 to 4.4 Billion years.
This is what the evidence says, not me!
Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You can go.

[Mousetrap]

You can go.

Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

But, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

And talking out of experience, it will be the Atheists that wants to go, not me.

I will however place that factor on this forum only tomorrow, so that my atheist friends can first read what science claims, and to allow time so it sinks in.

[Hakurei Reimu]

WOW, you are incredibly correct about what science says about the Formation of the Universe.
I gave you a "Like" because you deserve it.

Appreciated, but it doesn't seem to disturb you that my discription differs in very significant ways from yours.

However, you should keep in mind that you have 2 claims that is different with what I postulated about.

There are more than two, if you read carefully.

Claim 1.
The Earth was not a soggy and wet entity during its' formation, but a solid boiling red rock after coalescing, and eventually turned into a cooler sphere that took millions of years, perhaps a billion or so, to collect moisture from it's core and meteorites to form an ocean. This hard rock then eroded producing mud. Before this happened, there was no way the Earth could have been a ball of MUD.

Yes, I say that because that's what the best science has determined. Without the extreme derth of volitiles in the inner solar system, you have a hard time explaining why the Earth is not a gas giant.

By the way, I was never specific about how much time each step took. Early formation of the solar system might have been surprisingly quick, not even 100 million years.

Claim 2, something bashed the Earth when it was still shapeless, and this material formed the Moon.

Oh, it had a shape. It was nearly spherical. This is because of gravity. A body is at its lowest gravitational energy when it is in a spherical shape.

This is BUT ONE THEORY!
today no scientist will sign such a theory anymore.
lets see why.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143457.htm

The above source says that water was present in the earth's original building blocks. Like in hydrous rocks. It was not bulk liquid water. Or bulk solid water. It would still need to be baked out of the rock. Even if it were in ice, that ice would be surrounded by a shitton of rock, which isn't very porous to water. The rocks would need to melt before the water in the ice could go anywhere, even to the surface. Hence, you still need a remelting event.

And look at this:
https://www.amnh.org/explore/science-bulletins/earth/documentaries/zircons-time-capsules-from-the-early-earth/article-zircons-recast-earth-s-earliest-era/

I will reply to the above later today.

Your source doesn't quite say what you want it to say, sport. From your article: "Using the uranium-lead decay system, scientists have determined that these zircons are 4.375 billion years old, which means that they formed during the Hadean eon." Our best determination of the Age of the Earth is about 4.49-4.59 billion years old. So, you can't account for that earliest 115+ million years. It would only take about ~100 million years for the Earth to solidify from being completely molten, which means that the accretion of the earth preceded the zircon formation by a good margin. If the impactor hit early enough, it would hardly make a difference in the cooling time, and remelting events do have this tendency to reset all the associated radiological clocks that we use to determinet the age of the earth and so forth.

TL;DR: the melting and remelting I described would already have been over and done with by the time those zircons form. Your references do not support your conclusion. The only thing it suggests is that the Earth cooled off faster than we previously thought, but not faster than is physically possible.

However, the article in NG now moved it closer to 4.4 billion years.

This is still younger than some of the estimates for the molten Earth, with plenty of time for the Earth to solidify. The format of your figure indicates that it could be up to 500 million years in either direction, though in reality this would be less but still significant. Look up "significant figures" sometime.

Therefore, I will stay with observed and experimental science, rather than with Hakurei Reimu's ancient and untested theory of a Hadean Earth.

The melting and remelting of the Earth's crust is NOT Laplace's Hadean Earth hypothesis. It comes from the protoplanetary hypothesis. The energy from bringing together a cloud of debris into a clump called "Earth" represents a large amount of energy that would heat up the Earth â€" the earth would start melting LONG before it reached its present size, and before it could really be called "Earth."

The remelting from the impactor is when the Earth could really be called "Earth," because that's when the Earth would have all of it's initial chemical and isotopic composition, and the solidification of our crust is where our radiological clocks would finally start in ernest. Remelting would be over and done with before the zircons solidified, and their clocks started. There's plenty of time for it to happen, and there is no other credible source for the volitiles including water except by being boiled out of rock.

As promised, I will not make any assumptions about what science knows, I will not twist any scientific discoveries, and will not use any unproven theories.

Sure you won't. Thing is, I'm the only one who has presented any science at all, and it is to first approximation as correct science as it can be.

Here we have it, The Earth was not a solid rock when it accreted. It was a collection of Gas Liquid and Matter (space dust).
Wonder where I heard this before?

Not in science, which is what you claim that the Bible describes.

Look here, it actually tells us that the sun is as old as the Earth.
Well in that case, the Biblical description that the Earth was wet and DARK and God said Let there be light, is actually chronologically correct.
https://www.space.com/58-the-sun-formation-facts-and-characteristics.html

Your own source says that the sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, and a further source (https://www.space.com/19321-sun-formation.html) states that after coalescing, it only took 10's of millions of years to finally start up nuclear fusion. The times are approximately the same, but there's slop either way, and physical considerations preclude that the sun was a bright object any later than that of the Earth. Again, the fact that Earth is not a gas giant is pretty damning evidence to the contrary. You need a fairly bright young sun in the early solar system to sweep it of excessive volitiles so that the inner solar system isn't dominated by a bunch of gas giants like the outer solar system. The principle mechanism is the fact that the sun was shining, and it is the fact that the sun was shining that stopped it's own growth.

If the sun was dark the time the Earth formed, then the rocky core of Earth would be smothered in thousands of miles of thick reducing atmosphere â€" Earth would be a gas giant. Earth is not a gas giant, ergo the sun had started shining as the Earth was coalescing, sweeping away the volitiles before they could turn the forming Earth into a gas giant's core.

You even later say that it took only 50 million years for the sun to grow to adulthood, yet you don't seem to realize that this is WELL within the margins of errors for the events in question.

Now for the second claim about the formation of the Moon, was there a giant impact with a foreign proto-planet on Earth ejecting matter into space to form the Moon?
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/origin98/pdf/4045.pdf
No there was not.

This is a conference paper, not a scientific paper. It's the consensus of one person, not the consensus of the body of science. You still need to explain why the Moon's isotopic composition matches so closely to that of the Earth's crust, and given that the giant impactor would be a protoplanet like the Earth, complete with an iron core, you would need an uneven distribution of elements and remelting to bring the iron from the impactor to the Earth's core. There's still no other way to explain the Moon but a giant impactor. The details would still need to be worked out, but some sort of high energy event would still be needed to give the Moon the characteristics it does.

And the Moon still contains water!
If it was formed from the Giant impact theory, It would be impossible due to it being a burning hot ball of magma.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008Natur.454..192S
Here we have evidence that the Moon can not be a baby of the Earth.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97/pdf/1070.PDF
and eventually science dont know where the Moon originated from, but believe it is a baby from the Earth, and not of a collision.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/titanium-paternity-test-fingers-earth-moons-sole-parent

Interestingly, they have 3 scenarios, on how it might have happened, but not one includes the accretion nebulous theory.

I never advanced an accretion nebulous theory. It's been giant impactor all the way down. Now, to the specifics, the third news article does not discount the giant impactor. If you read it carefully, you find that the reason why the article dismisses the giant impactor is because the moon would be as much the impactor as it would be the Earth, but what if the same thing happened to the Earth, making the Earth's crust just as much a half-and-half as the moon? Then that explains the correleation right there. The second paper just means that the Moon is mostly Earth crust. The first article could also easily mean that there was a significant influx of water to the Moon, such as the lighter elements of the impactor (which would have the tendency to hang around more in orbit than fall to the Earth) or even Earth's first ocean.

But what the evidence does point to is that the Earth's Moon and its crust have a common source, which requires some of the Earth's crust to be lifted up from the Earth, at the cost of 7.61 x 10^28 Joules (which is the energy equivalent of 20 billion gigatons of TNT) and doesn't even take into account it's orbital velocity, or an even larger amount of material falling onto the Earth, which would result in even more energy from the infall and thus melting. Either way, the Earth's surface is fucked.

Thea never existed.
Scientists can not find a trace of it in the composition of the Moon.

See above. Even if Thea didn't exist, there still needed to be a high energy event to lift that material from the Earth's surface to the Moon's orbit. The earth's surface would be fucked either way.

As a matter of fact, the Gigantic collision theory still needs to get any observed evidence.

The fact that we have a large moon that is coplanar to the Earth is a large mark in its favor.

I refuse to embrace any Theory that does not have scientific experimental evidence.

Just because you are ignorant of what evidence there is to support a theory doesn't mean that the evidence doesn't exist.

I can only stay with the Nebular Theory where a wet earth developed by accretion and the Moon from the same nebulous cloud.

The nebulous cloud would be mostly gaseous hydrogen and helium, not water, oxygen or nitrogen, or even carbon dioxide. You need to make the inner system hydrogen and helium poor in order for the Earth to remain a rocky world. That's a huge strike against it.

For that there is ample evidence.

The fact that the Earth is not a gas giant notwithstanding. The nebular theory gets the Earth's composition 90% wrong.

Please note that science says the Sun is 4.5 billion years old, and took 150 million years to become an adult.
Therefore it was not a warm unit until 4.35 billion years ago.

No, it didn't take that long for the sun to become an adult. Your 150 million years figure is a number that is completely made up by you and not found anywhere in your sources. Your 4.5 billion years for the sun's formation is approximate and may vary by as much as 500 million years in either direction, but physical considerations (like the derth of gas giants in the inner solar system) requires the sun to ignite brightly in time to deplete the inner solar system, because that ignition is the time that the sun itself stops the accretion of its own hydrogen and helium. This places hard constraints on the order of events, even if the exact dating is a bit fuzzy.

Zircon crystals and Silver ions date the water containing Earth to 4.1 to 4.4 Billion years.

Which leaves plenty of time for the Earth to cool from being completely molten.

This is what the evidence says, not me!

No, it's not what the evidence "says." That's what you want it to say.

Therefore, forget that there was ever a Hadean epoch on earth, Laplace was wrong.

The Hadean epoch is not the same theory as planetary melting. It a separate consideration. The Hadean epoch is the assumption of prolonged vulcanism and techtonic upheaval. That is what is not supported, but the differentiation of the Earth with a molten iron core and an iron-poor silicate crust requires a primeval melting event, even if that event was over in a very short order (100 million years â€" yes, that's a short amount of time).

Quite interesting once you find out some people's pre conceived ideas about science is totally incorrect.
Isnt it?

No, that didn't happen. Instead, it became really obvious that you don't have the scientific background to correctly interpret the data you have been presented, and even recognize what you're looking at. The form the Earth now takes requires some very specific events to occur in a constrained order, from the early start of the Sun, to the composition of the Moon. There's no way around either an early start to the sun, or a high energy event that put the moon's material into orbit.

But, there is another factor I will present for the case on the Biblical description about the origins of our solar system.
This is the nail in the coffin of any atheistic ideas that the Bible can never be reconciled with science.

No, that didn't happen, either. The only thing that happened is that you proved that you don't know how to read scientific papers and science news articles correctly.