Evidence for a Young Earth (Not Billions of Years Old)

[Polymath257]

That’s what you keep claiming due to your false beliefs even if the actual experimental data has proven otherwise.....

As I said, will continue to ignore the experimental data so it doesn’t get in the way of theory....

If you think that data from 14,800 feet is relevant here, then you have much deeper problems.

In particular, we can use the gravimetric data (acceleration due to gravity) to determine the density profile. Care to see the results?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It’s neither.

The densest part of the earth is near the surface.

Kola Superdeep Borehole

I read the article - and my best guess is that you're referring to this quote:

Also unexpected was a decrease in rock density after the first 14,800 feet. Beyond this point the rock had greater porosity and permeability which, paired with the high temperatures, caused the rock to behave more like a plastic than a solid and made drilling near impossible.

Now, let's take a look at this:

After 24 years of digging, and several branches in the hole, the deepest branch of the Kola Superdeep Borehole stopped in 1994 at 12,262 meters (about 7.5 miles).

So, they stopped at about 7.5 miles. Which makes this relevant:

The thickness of the Earth's crust averages about 18 miles (30 kilometers) under the continents.

Which means they still barely scratched the surface of the Earth with the deepest hole ever drilled. This means your source says NOTHING about the density of the mantle/core. So how did you come to the conclusion that the Earth's surface is more dense than any other part of Earth if this is your source for that information?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If you think that data from 14,800 feet is relevant here, then you have much deeper problems.

In particular, we can use the gravimetric data (acceleration due to gravity) to determine the density profile. Care to see the results?

Lol, it’s only you that thinks the data is irrelevant....

Gravtamerric data (acceleration due to gravity) only tells you that surface spots are more dense than others. It says nothing about the density closer to the core as the entire profile is made from core to surface with no way to distinguish which density is greatest. Don’t try to pull your false beliefs off into me. I don’t buy Fairie Dust....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I read the article - and my best guess is that you're referring to this quote:


Now, let's take a look at this:


So, they stopped at about 7.5 miles. Which makes this relevant:


Which means they still barely scratched the surface of the Earth with the deepest hole ever drilled. This means your source says NOTHING about the density of the mantle/core. So how did you come to the conclusion that the Earth's surface is more dense than any other part of Earth if this is your source for that information?

Based upon what? Those same seismic reflection profiles that led them to the erroneous belief that the density increased from crust to denser basalt but was in fact a decrease in density and an increase in porosity and permeability?

So let me see if I got your claim correct. Based upon data that led them to believe there was an increase in density, they instead found a decrease in density. Then based upon what is clearly an erroneous interpretation, you are still going to use the same interpretation which has already been shown to be wrong to say it’s denser near the core.

That about sum it up? Using interpretations that have already failed the test of direct experiments and continuing in those false interpretations anyways....

It says everything about the core. They thought the data meant denser material, found it to actually be less dense. So their interpretation of the data meaning denser material would be just as flawed towards the center. Otherwise if interpretations and predictions were correct, they would have known it wasn’t denser to begin with and their entire theory based upon erroneous beliefs would not have been falsified.

You can’t use falsified interpretations of data to support the same interpretation of the data..... I on the other hand can use falsified interpretations of the data to support continued falsification of interpretation of the data.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don’t claim that at all... people grow up, they don’t evolve into larger versions of themselves. Such a false analogy you present..... I’m flabbergasted you had the nerve to even try something so ridiculous .....

That you think it was a “gotcha” moment instead of just silliness.....

Ring species are merely incorrect classifications. But then they claimed the same thing about finches, that they couldn’t mate because of reproductive isolation. Then 200 plus years after Darwin someone actually looked and found them humping like rabbits right before their eyes. With the DNA data to show their genealogy was so intermixed that it couldn’t be matched to the current classifications, and that they had always been interbreeding. No one just ever took the time to actually look.....

So granted, it might take another 200 years before someone actually looks instead of just jumps to conclusions as Darwin did and classified them as separate species based upon that incorrect assumption.

It was claimed Tigers and lions couldn’t mate. It was claimed Grizzly and Polar bears couldn’t mate. And even if we know they can they still hold to the incorrect classifications......

So you don't understand analogies. And you never have been able to support your Darwin's finches argument. You probably still do not understand your error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, it’s only you that thinks the data is irrelevant....

Gravtamerric data (acceleration due to gravity) only tells you that surface spots are more dense than others. It says nothing about the density closer to the core as the entire profile is made from core to surface with no way to distinguish which density is greatest. Don’t try to pull your false beliefs off into me. I don’t buy Fairie Dust....

@Polymath257 did not even imply that they used surface gravity data for the Earth's gravity profile. I have a feeling that he does know how it was determined. And the problem is that you do believe in Fairy Dust. You are accusing others of your flaws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

14800 Feet? Really? That is fully within the crust! It isn't even 3 miles down? The densest part of the Earth is well below the crust.

Didn't you know? The Earth is Hollow!

 

[Polymath257]

Lol, it’s only you that thinks the data is irrelevant....

Gravtamerric data (acceleration due to gravity) only tells you that surface spots are more dense than others. It says nothing about the density closer to the core as the entire profile is made from core to surface with no way to distinguish which density is greatest. Don’t try to pull your false beliefs off into me. I don’t buy Fairie Dust....

And data from earthquakes? The patterns of conduction of the waves through the Earth? That tells a lot about density.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And data from earthquakes? The patterns of conduction of the waves through the Earth? That tells a lot about density.

And my beliefs have been confirmed.

 

[We Never Know]

14800 Feet? Really? That is fully within the crust! It isn't even 3 miles down? The densest part of the Earth is well below the crust.

Since below the crust is being discussed, have any of you read this from February?

These mountains are more rugged, with large differences in elevation, than the ranges we're familiar with on the surface, such as the Rockies and Appalachians, according to a Princeton University statement.
In order for the scientists to discover these mountains, buried some 410 miles below the surface, our planet needed to shake — a lot.

Mountain Range More Rugged Than the Rockies Found Buried Deep Within Earth

 

[Justatruthseeker]

@Polymath257 did not even imply that they used surface gravity data for the Earth's gravity profile. I have a feeling that he does know how it was determined. And the problem is that you do believe in Fairy Dust. You are accusing others of your flaws.

I know, he claimed they used below surface data.....

“In particular, we can use the gravimetric data (acceleration due to gravity) to determine the density profile. Care to see the results?”

But the density profiles are based on ALL the mass between the core and the surface and so can not tell you if the density is more at any particular depth.

His entire argument is based upon Fairie Dust and your support of his fallacious argument shows you do believe in Fairie Dust.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Since below the crust is being discussed, have any of you read this from February?

These mountains are more rugged, with large differences in elevation, than the ranges we're familiar with on the surface, such as the Rockies and Appalachians, according to a Princeton University statement.
In order for the scientists to discover these mountains, buried some 410 miles below the surface, our planet needed to shake — a lot.

Mountain Range More Rugged Than the Rockies Found Buried Deep Within Earth

Yes, once again the same seismic reflection data who’s interpretation led to the erroneous conclusion about the density transition zone between crust and mantle which wasn’t more dense, but less dense.

But here we are, scientists using the same old falsified interpretation to support conclusions the actual experiments have already falsified.

Instead of updating their belief after falsification, they continue with the same interpretation that was already falsified. Instead of theory changing to meet the falsifying data it remains stagnant as the falsifying data is ignored. And so in the end science looses and is shoved into the background in favor of belief....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

And data from earthquakes? The patterns of conduction of the waves through the Earth? That tells a lot about density.

Sigh...... you still don’t get it do you. It was that same interpretation of the seismic reflection data that was falsified. They thought it meant greater density when it was actually less dense and more porous. And this from just below the surface where the data, and therefore the interpretation should have been the most accurate......

And yet here you are, continuing with the same interpretation of the seismic data that has already been shown to be false by direct empirical data.....

 

[Subduction Zone]

I know, he claimed they used below surface data.....

“In particular, we can use the gravimetric data (acceleration due to gravity) to determine the density profile. Care to see the results?”

But the density profiles are based on ALL the mass between the core and the surface and so can not tell you if the density is more at any particular depth.

His entire argument is based upon Fairie Dust and your support of his fallacious argument shows you do believe in Fairie Dust.

Nope, you read something into it that was not there. And please, we all know that EU believers are the ones that believe in Fairy Dust.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh...... you still don’t get it do you. It was that same interpretation of the seismic reflection data that was falsified. They thought it meant greater density when it was actually less dense and more porous. And this from just below the surface where the data, and therefore the interpretation should have been the most accurate......

And yet here you are, continuing with the same interpretation of the seismic data that has already been shown to be false by direct empirical data.....

Wrong again. You are relying on one article that you did not understand. Your error was already corrected by @A Vestigial Mote and you either ignored or did not understand the correction.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Based upon what? Those same seismic reflection profiles that led them to the erroneous belief that the density increased from crust to denser basalt but was in fact a decrease in density and an increase in porosity and permeability?

So let me see if I got your claim correct. Based upon data that led them to believe there was an increase in density, they instead found a decrease in density. Then based upon what is clearly an erroneous interpretation, you are still going to use the same interpretation which has already been shown to be wrong to say it’s denser near the core.

That about sum it up? Using interpretations that have already failed the test of direct experiments and continuing in those false interpretations anyways....

It says everything about the core. They thought the data meant denser material, found it to actually be less dense. So their interpretation of the data meaning denser material would be just as flawed towards the center. Otherwise if interpretations and predictions were correct, they would have known it wasn’t denser to begin with and their entire theory based upon erroneous beliefs would not have been falsified.

You can’t use falsified interpretations of data to support the same interpretation of the data..... I on the other hand can use falsified interpretations of the data to support continued falsification of interpretation of the data.....

Did you not even read my message about the relative distance they made it into the Earth's crust with the deepest dig ever? They didn't even make it through the crust.

So I'll ask again - if the linked article is your evidence, then how did you come to the conclusion that the outer-most layers are the most dense, when the article says nothing about the density of the mantle or the core?

And let's just note that this:

So their interpretation of the data meaning denser material would be just as flawed towards the center.

is you jumping to conclusion just as badly as you are claiming these scientists/geologists are doing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Did you not even read my message about the relative distance they made it into the Earth's crust with the deepest dig ever? They didn't even make it through the crust.

So I'll ask again - if the linked article is your evidence, then how did you come to the conclusion that the outer-most layers are the most dense, when the article says nothing about the density of the mantle or the core?

And let's just note that this:

is you jumping to conclusion just as badly as you are claiming these scientists/geologists are doing.

Sigh......

It was seismic reflection data that led them to the conclusion that they should have drilled into a denser basalt substructure.... are you with me so far?

It is seismic reflection data that they use to claim the core is even denser..... Are you still with me? Haven't lost you yet have I?

So, if the interpretation of the seismic data from just beneath the surface (where the accuracy should be greater than from even deeper) was in fact shown to not be a denser material, but a less dense material.... then the same seismic data that they incorrectly interpreted to mean a more dense material, is exactly the same interpretation they use to claim a more dense core..... BUT, the actual empirical evidence of the seismic data showed that it wasn't more dense where they thought it should be based upon their interpretation, but less dense....

Logic dictates that if you interpret one reading to mean denser material that is actually less dense, then using that same interpretation, just deeper in the earth means that material is also less dense....

You cant say the same interpretation means dense material near the core, when that interpretation was shown to be wrong and actually was less dense material. They claim the core is denser due to those same seismic profiles they thought meant a denser material at the imaginary crust/mantle boundary.... When in fact it was less dense.... So their interpretation of density in the core is based upon an interpretation of the data already shown by direct experimental data to be incorrect....

It says everything about the core. Their belief in increasing density based upon their seismic profiles showed the interpretation of increasing density was wrong. it decreased. They use this same interpretation of the same data to then claim density increases with depth, even if that interpretation was shown to be incorrect below the surface where the data returned should have led to the most accurate prediction of density.... You can't continue to use an incorrect interpretation of the data to claim increasing density when the evidence has already shown it didn't increase, but decreased. So therefore based upon the same data the core decreases in density, not increases....

There is no jumping to conclusions. Simply using the same data they thought meant increasing density when in reality it was decreasing density.... What, do you think their seismic data is any different at the core than it was near the surface? Or are they just continuing to use the same interpretation deeper that was shown to be wrong shallower?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I could explain to you all why their interpretation was flawed, but you'll never accept the answer. Because theory means more to you than experimental data....

So let me ask a serious question....

Do any of you believe that gravity has anything to do with electromagnetism or electric charge????

This is the root of your problems. I already know your answer, and it is the correct answer. But you need to reason it out for yourself.... so we will need to take it one step at a time, even if we have already hinted around the problem earlier, but you were unable to see the answer at the time....

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sigh......

It was seismic reflection data that led them to the conclusion that they should have drilled into a denser basalt substructure.... are you with me so far?

Was it? Why would you expect basalt? Wasn't this land based? Land based crust tends to have a granitic base, not a basaltic one. You need to support this claim with a valid link.

It is seismic reflection data that they use to claim the core is even denser..... Are you still with me? Haven't lost you yet have I?

Yes, because we can directly observe the velocity of waves traveling through the Earth. I think we are not only following you, we have left you behind.

So, if the interpretation of the seismic data from just beneath the surface (where the accuracy should be greater than from even deeper) was in fact shown to not be a denser material, but a less dense material.... then the same seismic data that they incorrectly interpreted to mean a more dense material, is exactly the same interpretation they use to claim a more dense core..... BUT, the interpretation of the seismic data showed that it wasn't more dense where they thought it should be based upon their interpretation, but less dense....

But you have not supported your first claim at all. What makes you think that they had seismic data that they based their conclusions on? Like I said, we have left you behind.

Logic dictates that if you interpret one reading to mean denser material that is actually less dense, then using that same interpretation, just deeper in the earth means that material is also less dense....

Nope, that is no logic. That is creationist all or nothing thinking. It almost always leads to errors.

You cant say the same interpretation means dense material near the core, when that interpretation was shown to be wrong and actually was less dense material. They claim the core is denser due to those same seismic profiles they thought meant a denser material at the imaginary crust/mantle boundary.... When in fact it was less dense.... So their interpretation of density in the core is based upon an interpretation of the data already shown by direct experimental data to be incorrect....

But once again, they were not shown to be wrong yet. This appears to be your misinterpretation of an article only.

It says everything about the core. Their belief in increasing density based upon their seismic profiles showed the interpretation of increasing density was wrong. it decreased. They use this same interpretation of the same data to then claim density increases with depth, even if that interpretation was shown to be incorrect below the surface where the data returned should have led to the most accurate prediction of density.... You can't continue to use an incorrect interpretation of the data to claim increasing density when the interpretation has already shown it didn't increase, but decreased. So therefore based upon the same data the core decreases in density, not increases....

There is no jumping to conclusions. Simply using the same data they thought meant increasing density when in reality it was decreasing density....

No, the increased density of the core is based upon more than just that. Of course the seismic data strongly supports the concept. So does basic physics. Items under greater pressure will tend to be denser. Even 'incompressible objects' tend to get denser under pressure. Water for example is about 5% denser at the bottom of the Marianas trench than at the top:

Mariana Trench - Wikipedia

Perhaps you should start by supporting your claim with the claim of basaltic material.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could explain to you all why their interpretation was flawed, but you'll never accept the answer. Because theory means more to you than experimental data....

So let me ask a serious question....

Do any of you believe that gravity has anything to do with electromagnetism or electric charge????

This is the root of your problems. I already know your answer, and it is the correct answer. But you need to reason it out for yourself.... so we will need to take it one step at a time, even if we have already hinted around the problem earlier, but you were unable to see the answer at the time....

That is because your 'explanations' tend to be terribly flawed. When one opposes the experts in the field and tells them that they are wrong the odds are that the amateur is incorrect. Tell me, what sort of work do you do? Have you ever had someone who has no experience at all in your field tell you that you were "doing it wrong"? How often were they correct when they made that claim?