Earth's Core is still molten and therefore Earth has not yet become a solid mass.
Granite is 20-60% quartz (SiO2), 10-50% plagioclase (Na,Ca)(Si,Al)4O8 and 20-60% alkalai feldspars (K)(Si,Al)4O8(orthoclase, microcline and sanidine, albite, anorthoclase).
2007-02-21 16:05:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by April C 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Granite is formed in plutons of magma in the Earth's crust that cool over long periods. The covering rock and dirt is then eroded to reveal the granite. The Earth became a solid mass about 4.6billion years ago.
2007-02-21 14:38:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by tentofield 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Priscilla - I am actually a little surprised to see you so quick to assume that creationist wouldn't have credentials. In the past, I have always admired your center-of-the-aisle approach to controversial issues. A biblical worldview is not as difficult to defend as some here would lead us to believe. I am no biologist, and I never will claim to be, but I do have a brain, and to me it seems that evolution is a theory which works very well on paper, but is almost impossible to pull off in the real nitty-gritty world of nature. Small changes may accumulate, but I seriously question if small changes are enough to give the kind of "leading edge" that would be required to evolve entire populations, even isolated ones, over time. In the real world, there are TONS of factors that daily deterine if something lives or dies, let alone reproduces. In the odd event that a genetic mutation is even beneficial, the organism still has to overcome all the other crap nature throws at it, and do so with such success that its offspring (which share said mutation) eventually overtake all other members of that species, or at least overtake that isolated group of said species. I'm not sure if what I am saying is clear, but the thought is simply, works on paper, doesn't work so well out in the forest/desert/arctic/jungle/whatever. Life just isn't that clean cut. So why do 99% of scientists flock to this theory? Well, I can't be certain, but my guess is this: There's no acceptable alternative that can't be called "religion". So while evolution may be difficult to defend, it's a lot easier than the next-best non-religious idea. Interpret that as you will. Always a pleasure to read your thoughtful questions. God bless, Jason
2016-03-29 06:30:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋