Replies

I'm aiming my comment to you because, unlike so many other posters here, you do not seem to accept as given that the definitive account of the evolution of the earth is contained in Genesis.

On the other hand, you seem open to different but considered ideas, and so, I heartily recommend to you, "The Hot Deep Biosphere" by Thomas Gold. Gold is the discoverer of Pulsars, among other things, and is Professor Emiritus of Physics at Cornell University. Gold's recent book is fascinating at the very least, and if Gold is correct in his interpretation of the data, revolutionary. According to Gold, the Earth was never all that hot. If you tnink about it, if is the Earth really were "hot as Hades" that extreme heat would have driven away all the water as well as most other lighter elements and compounds. Today's Earth would be a barren ball of stone with just a wisp of an atmosphere and not much else.

If you don't have the $15 to buy the book, you can do a Google search on Thomas Gold and you will find plenty of written material on the web.

I'd be very interested to hear his take on these zircons.

The evoloonists talk as though their theory is a fact, but have to back off and rewrite it almost daily, all the while shunning embarassment by the ol' "science is dynamic" ploy.

So is politics, which is why we have spineless libs to contend with.

"I did not have miosis with that amoeba!"

The finding of these zircons tends to support at least the contention that the Earth was cooler sooner than previously thought. The Earth's core is certainly still very hot, consider volcanoes, geysers, and hot springs, nevermind the seismic evidence that much of the core is liquid (because it fails to propagate shear waves) despite the fact it has a density near iron.

Your assessment of me prompts me to ask a question, for both non-creationists and creationists: What evidence would be sufficient to cast in doubt your theory of how the Earth was formed? These zircons are like evidence at the scene of a crime: they have a particular isotopic ratio, which implies the temperature when they formed had to be such-and-such. Col. Mustard was in the library with the lead pipe, as it were. If that conflicts with the then current theory, it's gone, and a new one is sought to replace it. What evidence would be sufficient to cause a creationist to abandon creationism?