Creationism.

[Tryharder62]

I don't suppose your bullshit creationist website gave links to any of this research?

Check it out

 

[Sean]

Check it out

So that's a no, then. Some bullshit site peddling lies tells you radiometric dating is bogus and you believe it. Like I said before, you're a retard.

 

[Tryharder62]

So that's a no, then. Some bullshit site peddling lies tells you radiometric dating is bogus and you believe it. Like I said before, you're a retard.

Yes they do, I was simply encouraging you to see for yourself since you don't believe me.

 

[Sean]

Yes they do, I was simply encouraging you to see for yourself since you don't believe me.

It appears that the only "research" showing rates of isotope decay changing have been produced by the Institute for Creation Science. Not one piece of this "research" has been accepted in any reputable scientific journal or been peer reviewed. Even other creationists think they're full of shit.

 

[Tryharder62]

It appears that the only "research" showing rates of isotope decay changing have been produced by the Institute for Creation Science. Not one piece of this "research" has been accepted in any reputable scientific journal or been peer reviewed. Even other creationists think they're full of shit.

And where are you getting your information. Care to share that?

 

[Sean]

And where are you getting your information. Care to share that?

Try this one, this guy is a creationist and he thinks the ICR are full of shit:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 20

 

[Tryharder62]

Try this one, this guy is a creationist and he thinks the ICR are full of shit:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 20

Alright, the revised edition of your article was 10 years ago. I hear a lot has happened since then. LOL

 

[Sean]

Alright, the revised edition of your article was 10 years ago. I hear a lot has happened since then. LOL

Such as what? I'll take one peer reviewed scientific paper that says half lives were shorter in the past. Just one.

 

[fair_warning]

The people who did the unloving things are idiots not God.

They were carrying out God's word - you know, the stonings, the burnings etc... As Weinberg said - 'It takes religion for good people to do evil things"

First, we would need to assume that "heavens" and the universe are identical. Many would argue that "heavens" are a separate reality from our universe.
Second, it only says when and by whom the universe was created. And since the evidence shows that the universe is much, much older than the planet Earth, the claim that they were both made "in the beginning" doesn't hold much water.

And you don't have to dig very deep to completely discredit the notion of heavens and universe being known as one. The earth was believed to be flat until quite recently, so the notion that at the time the Bible was written, there was knowledge of the universe beyond our solar system because God made it all? Wtf?

I don't assume, I believe that the "heavens" and universe are identical. I would like to know how you figure they dated the entire universe. Interesting????

Yes, I'm sure you believe, as a result of your faith, that heavens and universe refer to one. But you have no evidence, not even a hint or smidgen of proof for your faithfully held belief.

That is a complete lie.

She's got faith - that requires no proof.

Yes they do, I was simply encouraging you to see for yourself since you don't believe me.

I have actually read a few of those web sites - the ones that manage to debunk all science in the first paragraph? They manipulate information and then put it in a cosmic blender with a good dose of biblical quotes and voila! out pops the evidence.

 

[phrodeau]

I don't assume, I believe that the "heavens" and universe are identical. I would like to know how you figure they dated the entire universe. Interesting????

Simply put, metals are only produced in the interiors of stars. Local stars and galaxies show evidence of higher proportions of metals than distant ones. Galaxies billions of light-years away appear to us billions of years younger. This gives us a way to determine how fast metals are produced in stars. From there, we can measure the proportions of metals in the Earth, and determine how long it took to produce those metals. That time span had to occur before the formation of our sun and the accretion of the Earth.

Extrapolating the expansion of the visible universe in reverse to a single point of origin yields an age in the same ballpark. Most radiometric dating methods give similar ages as well.

 

[fair_warning]

Here's a few points that creationists trot out being discussed on www.reducibycomplex.com



Decay of Earth’s Magnetic Field

Creationist Statement: “Dr. Thomas Barnes, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, has published the definitive work in this field.”

RESPONSE: Dr. Thomas Barnes did NOT write the “definitive work in this field.” Barnes arguments are considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience or fringe science. His arguments on the decaying magnetic field were never published in mainstream science journals because they lacked validity in model. Nevertheless, nowhere else in this argument is he mentioned. It simply states that he published the definitive work in this field, but never states what he wrote. So why is he mentioned? This statement completely fails to give validity to the argument as a whole; if anything, it detracts from the argument.

As there is no one else cited within this argument, we will assume that the remainder of this argument is based on Barnes’ work.

(Note: Barnes was a young-earth creationist, believing that the earth was no more than a few thousand years old, and was prone to taking data and fitting it to meet his preconceived conclusion. Henceforth, his model of magnetic decay lacked validity.)

Creationist Statement: “Scientific observations since 1829 have shown that the earth’s magnetic field has been measurably decaying at an exponential rate, demonstrating its half-life to be approximately 1,400 years. In practical application its strength 20,000 years ago would approximate that of a magnetic star. Under those conditions many of the molecules necessary for life processes could not form. These data demonstrate that earth’s entire history is young, within a few thousand of years.”

RESPONSE: “Empirical measurement of the earth’s magnetic field does not show exponential decay. Yes, an exponential curve can be fit to historical measurements, but an exponential curve can be fit to any set of points. A straight line fits better” -Claim CD701 (talkorigins.org) (italics added). As stated before, Barnes’ model was invalid; further, his methods were questionable, having relied on “an obsolete model of the earth’s interior” (CD701).

CONCLUSION: The entire argument made in point #2 is based on Thomas Barnes’ work on magnetic field decay. However, as has been shown, Barnes’ work was based on a false premise (an obsolete, invalid model). Barnes’ conclusion is therefore inaccurate, and the argument for a young earth based on magnetic field decay is therefore false.

 

[Sean]

She's got faith - that requires no proof.


I have actually read a few of those web sites - the ones that manage to debunk all science in the first paragraph? They manipulate information and then put it in a cosmic blender with a good dose of biblical quotes and voila! out pops the evidence.

It's like Galileo never existed. I just find it unbelievable that in the 21st century anyone can be so ignorant about basic scientific facts.

 

[fair_warning]

It's like Galileo never existed. I just find it unbelievable that in the 21st century anyone can be so ignorant about basic scientific facts.

As Benjamin Franklin said...
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason"

 

[Tryharder62]

Such as what? I'll take one peer reviewed scientific paper that says half lives were shorter in the past. Just one.

In 2009 New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data stated that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements. To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected those radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match. Also
Journal of Environemntal Radioactivity. 102(8): 749-765.

 

[Tryharder62]

Simply put, metals are only produced in the interiors of stars. Local stars and galaxies show evidence of higher proportions of metals than distant ones. Galaxies billions of light-years away appear to us billions of years younger. This gives us a way to determine how fast metals are produced in stars. From there, we can measure the proportions of metals in the Earth, and determine how long it took to produce those metals. That time span had to occur before the formation of our sun and the accretion of the Earth.

Extrapolating the expansion of the visible universe in reverse to a single point of origin yields an age in the same ballpark. Most radiometric dating methods give similar ages as well.

I'm not arguing I am just asking. Do you think that outside elements of time could have made the production of the metals either shorter or longer. Isn't it just assuming that production of the metals that long ago happened at the rate that they occur now.

 

[Sean]

In 2009 New Scientist summarized a discovery at Brookhaven National Laboratories that revealed a statistical correlation between the distance to the sun and fluctuations in the decay rate of a radioactive silicon isotope. The data stated that silicon-32 decayed more slowly in the summer, and then sped up during the winter. A 2010 Stanford University report reflected similar fluctuations in the decay rate of other elements. To see whether or not nearness to the sun somehow affected those radioisotope decay rates, researchers laid a solar proximity plot atop the silicon decay plot, and they showed a close match. Also
Journal of Environemntal Radioactivity. 102(8): 749-765.

The Brookhaven results show that the decay changed by 0.000000000000000001%

Try again.

 

[phrodeau]

I'm not arguing I am just asking. Do you think that outside elements of time could have made the production of the metals either shorter or longer. Isn't it just assuming that production of the metals that long ago happened at the rate that they occur now.

You can say that the rate of production of metals in stars has changed, and the speed of light has changed, and the radioactive decay rates have changed, and these changes occurred at the same time and in the same proportions. This would be a plausible scientific theory if any evidence can be found to confirm it.

How much would they have to change in order to fall into agreement with the Bible?

 

[Sean]

You can say that the rate of production of metals in stars has changed, and the speed of light has changed, and the radioactive decay rates have changed, and these changes occurred at the same time and in the same proportions. This would be a plausible scientific theory if any evidence can be found to confirm it.

How much would they have to change in order to fall into agreement with the Bible?

Young Earth creationists do indeed argue that the speed of light has changed. You should read that ICR site she quoted, it's hilarious.

 

[Tryharder62]

As Benjamin Franklin said...
“The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason"

Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase
Martin Luther King

 

[phrodeau]

Young Earth creationists do indeed argue that the speed of light has changed. You should read that ICR site she quoted, it's hilarious.

It takes some mental gymnastics in order to explain how plants and trees covered the land and bore fruit a day before the sun got made.

 

[stickwork]

Seriously, if I found out that my child was being taught the myth of creation I would be damn fucking mad. Schools are in the business of educating children, not entertaining them with myths masquerading as facts. When a child is old enough to be discerning about the validity of information presented to them then that is the time for myths and fables.

If you don't agree with the science of evolution then that is a conscious choice you are making. Science is what it is, facts and figures and probabilities.

There is a funny irony in you being unconvinced of science's ability to accurately date fossils, but are happy to make that leap of faith to believe in God and the bible.
.

Holy shit.

 

[fair_warning]

Holy shit.

Exactly.

 

[Tryharder62]

You can say that the rate of production of metals in stars has changed, and the speed of light has changed, and the radioactive decay rates have changed, and these changes occurred at the same time and in the same proportions. This would be a plausible scientific theory if any evidence can be found to confirm it.

How much would they have to change in order to fall into agreement with the Bible?

All I am saying is that Science doesn't have the 100% answer yet as everyone seems to be so unwilling to admit. Man, would it be so terrible if Scientists from both sides just continued to look for the truth. If you look - it is clear that more study needs to happen. That is all I am saying.

Unlike what I feel is being done alot on this thread, I don't want to bend information to fit my ideas. I want information that can stand on it's own. You don't want to admit even the flaws that have been substantiated. Most would rather pound their feet, tell me I'm a retard, and live in their own self-righteous world.

 

[phrodeau]

All I am saying is that Science doesn't have the 100% answer yet as everyone seems to be so unwilling to admit. Man, would it be so terrible if Scientists from both sides just continued to look for the truth. If you look - it is clear that more study needs to happen. That is all I am saying.

Unlike what I feel is being done alot on this thread, I don't want to bend information to fit my ideas. I want information that can stand on it's own. You don't want to admit even the flaws that have substantiated. Most would rather pound their feet, tell me I'm a retard, and live in their own self-righteous world.

I am more than willing to admit that there is uncertainty in science.

By the same token, I have never found anything approaching 100% certainty in religion.

 

[stickwork]

Exactly.

You got some serious game, lady.