Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

toldailytopic "Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
    is all you're going to continue to hand me in all your further posts, because it's all you have to offer. I read ya loud and clear, Arthur Brain. May you continue to find happiness in your Pokemon collecting.

    LOL
    You shouldn't really laugh at yourself when you're just acting like a teenage dope and can only repeat the same feeble stuff about Pokemon (of all things?!) Carry on as you will, I don't want to enable you anymore as it's embarrassing to witness and you're obviously not very old, or for your sake I hope you aren't because if you're an adult it's even more embarrassing. Bottom line is, Barb is right, you are wrong. All of the foot stamping, juvenile shouting, feeble deflections, lame projection etc is not going to change that. Evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life.

    Well this is fun isn't it?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
      You shouldn't really laugh at yourself when you're just acting like a teenage dope and can only repeat the same feeble stuff about Pokemon (of all things?!) Carry on as you will, I don't want to enable you anymore as it's embarrassing to witness and you're obviously not very old, or for your sake I hope you aren't because if you're an adult it's even more embarrassing. Bottom line is, Barb is right, you are wrong. All of the foot stamping, juvenile shouting, feeble deflections, lame projection etc is not going to change that. Evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life.

      LOL

      When have I ever said that the nonsense you call "evolutionary theory" is about the origin of life? That's right: Never. The nonsense you call "evolutionary theory" isn't about anything, whatsoever, which is why you've consistently found it necessary to consistently stonewall against the questions I've asked you throughout this thread.

      Carry on with your Pokemon passion, as you will, Arthur Brain.

      All my ancestors are human.
      PS: All your ancestors are human.
      PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        ... and the creationists move the goalposts... again...
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.
        It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        If anything, you're the one who moved the goalposts by focusing only on "static pressure" instead of just "pressure." If by goalpost moving by creationists, then it's probably moving the goalposts back to where they were originally from where you yourself moved them.
        Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer (I am) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms. You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference. Feel free to charge thousands of chemists/scientists/engineers all over the world with mass incompetence at your leisure.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        It was YOUR link and YOUR goalpost and I cited the "evidence" YOU presented. As I recall, (checks), yes, the link specified corresponding pressure UNDER the Earth's surface. If YOUR link was supposed to be compelling evidence of YOUR claim it failed rather miserably.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Yes, "PRESSURE."

        NOT "static pressure." That (focusing on "static pressure" as opposed to just "pressure") was you moving the goalposts.
        There is only one kind of “pressure’ and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa). That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        Here it is again: https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html

        "However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15"
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Yes, which is still in line with what I said.
        … or so you thought. You understanding has been corrected.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        The sourse (15) has this to say about the "high pressure" test:

        "15. H. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

        A few decay rates increase by 0.2% at a static pressure of about 2,000 atmospheres, the pressure existing 4.3 miles below the Earth’s surface. [See G. T. Emery, “Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates,” Annual Review of Nuclear Science, Vol. 22, 1972, pp. 165–202.]

        In another static experiment, decay rates increased by 1.0% at pressures corresponding to 930-mile depths inside the Earth. [See Lin-gun Liu and Chih-An Huh, “Effect of Pressure on the Decay Rate of 7Be,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 180, 2000, pp. 163–167.]


        The conclusion of the test cited as evidence "high pressure" could increase decay rates:

        "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay."
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        "static pressure"

        Which is only one type of pressure.
        … which you now know are equivalent terms.

        To the scientist/engineer,

        Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

        … and…

        Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

        … mean the same thing.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        "Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16"
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        No "static pressure" there, just "pressure."
        See above.
        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        The source for (16) is vague on details:

        "16. K. Makariunas et al., “Effect of Chemical Structure on the Radioactive Decay Rate of 71Ge,” Hyperfine Interactions, Vol. 7, March 1979, pp. 201–205.

        u T. Ohtsuki et al., “Enhanced Electron-Capture Decay Rate of 7Be Encapsulated in C60 Cages,” Physical Review Letters, Vol. 93, 10 September 2004, pp. 112501-1 – 112501-4
        .”
        I, for one, would like to see this source.

        Those are the original "goalposts". As you can clearly see, I moved nothing.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        Well, then you must not be in control of your mind, because you tried to focus the argument on "static pressure" rather than just "pressure," and in doing so, you seem to have excluded the rest of what was said on Walt's page.
        … which is irrelevant considering “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms in science and engineering.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        Obviously, "great pressure" does cause "electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely" and "electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds" but, "Obviously, static pressures do not significantly accelerate radioactive decay".
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        "Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons."
        Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?


        Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

        What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.

        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
        Perhaps you don't know what "static pressure" means or what a "static pressure" test is or how a "static pressure test" is conducted .

        FYI: All pressure tests are done with static pressure and it IS just "pressure" .

        Did you get that? Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

        You can’t quote the science as evidence of your assertion then deny the result.
        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        You can't quote the relevant portion of your opponents argument and then ignore that portion.

        That's called special pleading.
        No, it’s called, “doing the science”. You should try it sometime.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        You were so close. As I said above, you should have kept reading:

        Focus please:


        Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

        Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun.

        Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

        When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

        While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

        We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.)

        Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?
        It was nice of you to repost this and display your formatting/reading error.

        Here is the correct format:

        Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

        Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

        Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun.

        Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

        When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

        While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. [YELLOW]Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

        We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.)

        Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?

        From your formatting you seem to think that “compressing” and “stripping” are the same thing . You should focus on the science instead of focusing on grinding your axe.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        See, here's the thing, you're focusing too much on the "static pressure" of the weight of the crust.

        I'm not talking about JUST "static pressure," nor is Walt.

        We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

        Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

        Now...

        SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.

        Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.


        The goalpost was "pressure."

        Not simply "static pressure," but the result of compressing the quartz in the crust of the earth.
        You now know “static pressure” and “pressure” are synonymous terms.

        Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

        Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

        Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
        And as you can now see, you're a hypocrite too, for bearing false witness against us when you did the very thing you accused us of, simply because you failed to read (or at the very least, failed to quote) the summary of the page located at it's beginning.
        … cry me a river.
        Last edited by Silent Hunter; October 19th, 2019, 07:39 AM.
        "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
          It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.
          Calling it a myth does not make it a myth, SH.

          Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer
          I have never claimed to be such.

          (I am) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms.
          It seems you are mistaken:


          Q: What is the difference between static pressure, total (ram) pressure, and dynamic pressure?
          A: Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something (a fluid such as air) in contact with it. Static pressure is the pressure you have if the fluid isn't moving or if you are moving with the fluid. Air would press against you equally in all directions. It decreases with an increase in speed because of conservation law. Total (or ram) pressure is the pressure a fluid exerts as it is brought to a stop. Total pressure is what acts on you as you face into the wind and the air collides with your body. Dynamic pressure is the pressure of a fluid that results from its motion. It is the difference between the total pressure and static pressure. Pilots rely on instruments that measure dynamic pressure to determine their airspeed.


          https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-e...namic-pressure

          To correct, or at least, focus, what I said above, Walt is talking about dynamic pressure, not static pressure.

          And something you seem to have misunderstood is that the pressure is only the initial cause, not the only cause.

          You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

          There is only one kind of “pressure’
          As you were just shown, that's incorrect.

          and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa).
          It's also measured in bars, technical atmospheres, standard atmospheres, Torr, and pounds per square inch.

          That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.
          See above.

          To the scientist/engineer,

          Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

          … and…

          Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

          … mean the same thing.
          The fact is that pressure DOES accelerate radioactive decay, however minimally. But that's not the argument that Walt was making, that pressure (alone) accelerated radioactive decay.

          Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?


          Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]



          What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.
          You missed it:


          Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

          . . .

          Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

          When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

          While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.



          The fact is, decay rates can and do change depending on the conditions.

          The point is, there were conditions in the Flood that caused decay rates to significantly increase.

          The cause of those conditions was pressure.

          Serious question for the engineer: what happens when you rub two pieces of quartz together?

          It was nice of you to repost this and display your formatting/reading error.

          Here is the correct format:

          Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

          Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

          Decay rates for silicon-32 (32Si), chlorine-36 (36Cl), manganese-54 (54Mn), and radium-226 (226Ra) depend slightly on Earth’s distance from the Sun.[19] They decay, respectively, by beta, alpha, and electron capture. Other radioisotopes are similarly affected. This may be an electrical effect or a consequence of neutrinos[20] flowing from the Sun.

          Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes. An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

          When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

          While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. [YELLOW]Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

          We can think of a large sample of a radioisotope as a slowly-leaking balloon with a meter that measures the balloon’s total leakage since it was filled. Different radioisotopes have different leakage rates, or half-lives. (Stable isotopes do not leak; they are not radioactive.)

          Some may think that a balloon’s age can be determined by dividing the balloon’s total leakage by its leakage rate today. Here, we will address more basic issues: What “pumped up” all radioisotopes in the first place, and when did it happen? Did the pumping process rapidly produce considerable initial leakage—billions of years’ worth, based on today’s slow leakage rates?
          Were you supposed to have changed something?

          From your formatting you seem to think that “compressing” and “stripping” are the same thing .
          Not at all.

          You now know “static pressure” and “pressure” are synonymous terms.
          See above.

          Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

          Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.
          But does accelerate it, however minimally.

          Yet...

          You skipped over the part of my post that linked "pressure" (of any kind) with how elements can be stripped of their electrons, which significantly accelerates radioactive decay.

          Here it is again:

          We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

          Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

          Now...




          SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.

          Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            It is when we are discussing radioisotope decay rates being affected by pressure and you steer the discussion to the myth of “hydroplate theory”.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Calling it a myth does not make it a myth, SH.
            Calling it a theory doesn’t make it a scientific theory, JR. Calling “hydroplate theory” total BS is a closer approximation.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            Nope, try again. You are obviously NOT an engineer
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            I have never claimed to be such.
            No one was accusing you of doing so. It was an observation based on how little you understand the subject.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            (I am, [an engineer]) and do not understand how engineers/scientists use terms. To an engineer/scientist, “static pressure” and “pressure” are equivalent terms.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            It seems you are mistaken:

            Q: What is the difference between static pressure, total (ram) pressure, and dynamic pressure?
            A: Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something (a fluid such as air) in contact with it. Static pressure is the pressure you have if the fluid isn't moving or if you are moving with the fluid. Air would press against you equally in all directions. It decreases with an increase in speed because of conservation law. Total (or ram) pressure is the pressure a fluid exerts as it is brought to a stop. Total pressure is what acts on you as you face into the wind and the air collides with your body. Dynamic pressure is the pressure of a fluid that results from its motion. It is the difference between the total pressure and static pressure. Pilots rely on instruments that measure dynamic pressure to determine their airspeed. https://howthingsfly.si.edu/ask-an-e...namic-pressure
            I’m not “mistaken” at all. When you Google the internet for a simple understanding of the subject you get simple answers.

            The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            To correct, or at least, focus, what I said above, Walt is talking about dynamic pressure, not static pressure.

            And something you seem to have misunderstood is that the pressure is only the initial cause, not the only cause.
            Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay, and now its “dynamic pressure” and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause. Can I expect you to quit shuffling around and make up your mind anytime soon?

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            You are attempting to make a distinction without a difference.

            There is only one kind of “pressure’
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            As you were just shown, that's incorrect.
            As you were just shown… again, you are incorrect. “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            and it is measured in an SI unit called the pascal (Pa).
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            It's also measured in bars, technical atmospheres, standard atmospheres, Torr, and pounds per square inch.
            Quite true, those are other UNITS pressure is measured in, be it static, dynamic, or otherwise; the pascal is the Système international (SI) unit of pressure. The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            That you think “static pressure” and “pressure” are two different kinds of pressure is testament to your total lack of knowledge/understanding of the subject.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            See above.

            My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            To the scientist/engineer,

            Static pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

            … and…

            Pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.

            … mean the same thing.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            The fact is that pressure DOES accelerate radioactive decay, however minimally. But that's not the argument that Walt was making, that pressure (alone) accelerated radioactive decay.
            As I noted above, the goalposts are again in motion.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            Yeah, so. What does this have to do with “pressure”?

            Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16]

            What does this have to do with stripping an atom of its electrons? Moving goalposts seems to be a habit with you.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            You missed it:
            Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.[16] Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”[17] The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.[18]

            . . .

            Major corporations hold patents for electrical devices that on a small scale accelerate alpha, beta, and gamma decay, thereby decontaminating hazardous nuclear wastes.
            An interesting patent awarded to William A. Barker is described as follows:[21]

            When a Van de Graaff generator generates 50,000 – 500,000 volts across radioactive material for at least 30 minutes, alpha, beta, and gamma particles sometimes escape. This large negative voltage is thought to lower each nucleus’ energy barrier.

            While these electrical devices can safely decontaminate hazardous radioactive material by accelerating decay rates, they are expensive and have decontaminated only small samples. Many nuclear scientists do not understand why they work, but a few pages you will. Clearly, the common belief that decay rates are constant in all conditions is false.

            The fact is, decay rates can and do change depending on the conditions.
            Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.

            What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            The point is, there were conditions in the Flood that caused decay rates to significantly increase.

            The cause of those conditions was pressure.
            Not “dynamic” pressure?

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Serious question for the engineer: what happens when you rub two pieces of quartz together?
            I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.

            Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
            Now all you have to do is show your/Brown’s “conclusion” actually happened apart from wishful thinking.

            Despite your ungrounded and specious objections, pressure does not significantly accelerate radioactive decay.
            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            But does accelerate it, however minimally.
            VERY minimally and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error. Can I go now?

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Yet...

            You skipped over the part of my post that linked "pressure" (of any kind) with how elements can be stripped of their electrons, which significantly accelerates radioactive decay.
            This was where I pointed out your formatting error.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            Here it is again:
            Yeah, let’s look at that.

            “However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

            The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

            “Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

            I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.

            Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
            We're talking about what happens when quartz is compressed. And in fact, had you bothered to read the ENTIRE page like I told you was necessary, you would have realized the the pressure I and Walt are talking about is NOT static, but constantly changing.

            Consider first that quartz, when compressed, produces current, and that about 20% of the earth's crust is comprised of quartz.

            Now...

            SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.4 For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.

            Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.5 To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page 387, and Figure 203 on page 380.
            These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html.
            "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
              My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.
              Like anybody is going to just take your word for it, on line, that you're married.

              I'll bet it must be pretty hard to obtain a coffee cup like the gem you just described, eh?

              All my ancestors are human.
              PS: All your ancestors are human.
              PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                Saying it doesn't make it so, Hunter.
                Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                It is
                It "is"?? Not, "It does"??

                But, if you really do mean that saying it does make it so, then I'd recommend you hop on the first trolley out of the neighborhood of make-believe and visit us in the neighborhood of truth and logic.
                All my ancestors are human.
                PS: All your ancestors are human.
                PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                  Shoo, move along. You're unwilling to learn, you're unwilling to think rationally. Please, stop begging for attention in my thread. Thanks.
                  Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                  Can I go now?
                  By "now", do you mean ten days ago, on 11 October 2019?
                  All my ancestors are human.
                  PS: All your ancestors are human.
                  PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                    Calling “hydroplate theory” total baloney is a closer approximation.
                    This is an appeal to ridicule.

                    Try making a valid argument.

                    The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

                    Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay,
                    Because it is.

                    and now its “dynamic pressure”
                    Well, dynamic prpessure is a type of pressure. So both statements are true.

                    and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause.
                    Pressure is what caused the overall process. The other things are a result of that pressure.

                    I thought that was clear.

                    Listen, am I going to have to put out this many fires with the next part of the argument?


                    My (MD) wife has a coffee cup that says, “PLEASE DO NOT CONFUSE YOUR Google SEARCH WITH MY MEDICAL DEGREE. I would advise you to do the same with my ENGINEERING DEGREE.
                    Good for you.

                    Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.
                    Which shows that decay rates are NOT constant, as you asserted before. Which means that measurements used in radiometric dating are not as reliable as you thought.

                    What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.
                    Special pleading.

                    The fact is some decay rates HAVE been changed. Which means that it's possible to do.

                    I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.
                    I apologize, I mixed up the question I wanted to ask. Your answer is correct, but it's the question I was trying to ask. It's somewhat related to the topic, but not enough to warrant a discussion on it.

                    The (better) question I wanted to ask was, "What happens when you apply pressure to quartz?"

                    [QUOTE]VERY minimally[/QUTOE]



                    Can I go now?
                    No one is keeping you here. I'm enjoying the discussion, though.

                    Yeah, let’s look at that.

                    “However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

                    The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

                    “Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

                    I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.
                    Both of them are part of the big picture I'm trying to show you, SH. More on that in a moment.

                    These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html.
                    That's because we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.

                    Or did you not realize that the link above was just the beginning of the chapter on the origin of earth's radioactivity? The link goes to an online book, after all, not just an article.

                    ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

                    So the question that needs answering:

                    What happens when one puts pressure on a piece of quartz?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      Calling it a theory doesn’t make it a scientific theory, JR. Calling “hydroplate theory” totally bad science is a closer approximation.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      This is an appeal to ridicule.

                      Try making a valid argument.
                      No, its an appeal to FACT. “Hydroplate” is not a scientific theory and it is bad science.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      The bottom line is, “Pressure is the continuous physical force exerted on or against an object by something”, be it moving or stationary. Engineers/scientists simply refer to it as “pressure”.

                      Moving the goalposts seems to be a habit with you. First you claim “pressure” is the cause of increased radioactive decay,
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Because it is.
                      Not according to your link. According to Wally, pressure is the (indirect) cause of heavy elements, including radioactive isotopes, not radioactive decay.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      and now its “dynamic pressure”
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Well, dynamic prpessure <pressure> is a type of pressure. So both statements are true.
                      Prove to me you understand what “dynamic pressure” is and is not? From your posts I don’t think you understand that it doesn’t apply to Wally’s bad science.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      and not only that, it isn’t even the only cause.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Pressure is what caused the overall process. The other things are a result of that pressure.

                      I thought that was clear.
                      Nope. You said “pressure” increases radioactive decay and are just now getting around to adding that there are additional requirements necessary for that to occur. Either get to the point or don’t, I have better things to do than have a discussion about something you have made clear you don’t understand.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Listen, am I going to have to put out this many fires with the next part of the argument?
                      You’ve got it backward. I’m growing tired of correcting you.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      Well, no, I didn’t miss anything. I agree isotope decay rates can be manipulated in SMALL samples and under EXTREME, man-made, conditions.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Which shows that decay rates are NOT constant, as you asserted before. Which means that measurements used in radiometric dating are not as reliable as you thought.
                      This is a straw man. Natural decay rates ARE constant. It takes EXTREME, man-made, conditions to even change some (though not all) isotope decay rates more than a fraction of a percent, QED. You have yet to rebut this argument.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      What you seem to have missed is, “Most attempts to change decay rates have failed.” Even conditions causing an increase in radioisotope decay rates only cause minimal change (with a few notable exceptions) but these conditions, “are small scale” and “they are expensive and have decontaminated (increased decay rates) only small samples”.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Special pleading.
                      You can’t call the conclusions of your own sources special pleading.

                      This is what special pleading looks like:

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      The fact is some decay rates HAVE been changed. Which means that it's possible to do.
                      Just because something can be done in the laboratory doesn’t mean those same conditions occur naturally. What is possible in the laboratory isn’t necessarily probable in nature.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      I’m not a materials engineer, but, if memory serves, they will luminesce.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      I apologize, I mixed up the question I wanted to ask. Your answer is correct, but it's the question I was trying to ask. It's somewhat related to the topic, but not enough to warrant a discussion on it.

                      The (better) question I wanted to ask was, "What happens when you apply pressure to quartz?"
                      I believe it is called the piezoelectric (sp) effect.

                      Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      VERY minimally
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      I wonder why you left out, “and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error”?

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      Can I go now?
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      No one is keeping you here. I'm enjoying the discussion, though.
                      I thought there would be milk and cookies later but so far nothing but bad science.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      Yeah, let’s look at that.

                      “However, we knew as far back as 1971 that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.15 Under great pressure, electrons (especially from the innermost shell) are squeezed closer to the nucleus, making electron capture more likely. Also, electron capture rates for a few radioisotopes change in different chemical compounds.16“

                      The next paragraph is talking about something else; you linked the two together and thought “squeezing” and “stripping” of electrons were somehow associated.

                      “Beta decay rates can increase dramatically when atoms are stripped of all their electrons. In 1999, Germany’s Dr. Fritz Bosch showed that, for the rhenium atom, this “decreases its half-life more than a billionfold—from 42-billion years to 33 years.”17 The more electrons removed, the more rapidly neutrons expel electrons (beta decay) and become protons. This effect was previously unknown, because only electrically neutral atoms had been used to measure half-lives.18”

                      I understand why you were confused but these are two separate processes.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      Both of them are part of the big picture I'm trying to show you, SH. More on that in a moment.
                      Get it done already. The bad science you offer is frustrating to someone who knows better.

                      Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                      These paragraphs discuss the ORIGIN of Earth’s radioactivity. There is nothing here about increased decay rates. Its right there in the title of your link https://www.creationscience.com/onli...activity2.html.
                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      That's because we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.

                      Or did you not realize that the link above was just the beginning of the chapter on the origin of earth's radioactivity? The link goes to an online book, after all, not just an article.
                      I skipped to the end already. Nothing but bad science to the final sentence.

                      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                      So the question that needs answering:

                      What happens when one puts pressure on a piece of quartz?
                      I think I answered that.

                      I’m tired of rabbit trails. Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown. If you don’t reach a conclusion with your reply I am unlikely to return to the discussion.
                      "The more scientifically literate, intellectually honest and objectively skeptical a person is, the more likely they are to disbelieve in anything supernatural, including god."

                      Comment


                      • toldailytopic &amp;quot;Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life&amp;quot;

                        Originally posted by Silent Hunter View Post
                        No, its an appeal to FACT. “Hydroplate” is not a scientific theory and it is bad science.

                        Not according to your link. According to Wally, pressure is the (indirect) cause of heavy elements, including radioactive isotopes, not radioactive decay.

                        Prove to me you understand what “dynamic pressure” is and is not? From your posts I don’t think you understand that it doesn’t apply to Wally’s bad science.

                        Nope. You said “pressure” increases radioactive decay and are just now getting around to adding that there are additional requirements necessary for that to occur. Either get to the point or don’t, I have better things to do than have a discussion about something you have made clear you don’t understand.

                        You’ve got it backward. I’m growing tired of correcting you.

                        This is a straw man. Natural decay rates ARE constant. It takes EXTREME, man-made, conditions to even change some (though not all) isotope decay rates more than a fraction of a percent, QED. You have yet to rebut this argument.

                        You can’t call the conclusions of your own sources special pleading.

                        This is what special pleading looks like:

                        Just because something can be done in the laboratory doesn’t mean those same conditions occur naturally. What is possible in the laboratory isn’t necessarily probable in nature.

                        I believe it is called the piezoelectric (sp) effect.

                        Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown.

                        I wonder why you left out, “and, it seems, within the bounds of the margin of error”?

                        I thought there would be milk and cookies later but so far nothing but bad science.

                        Get it done already. The bad science you offer is frustrating to someone who knows better.

                        I skipped to the end already. Nothing but bad science to the final sentence.

                        I think I answered that.

                        I’m tired of rabbit trails. Do you think you’ll be making a point soon? I have better things to do than to have a discussion with someone who learned science from Wally Brown. If you don’t reach a conclusion with your reply I am unlikely to return to the discussion.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Right Divider View Post
                          That vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that the "theory" cannot be falsified.
                          Creationists have vague and malleable terms for evolution, because new evidence keeps trashing their previous definitions. But the scientific definition has changed once. Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." That's still true, but the rediscovery of Mendel's work allows us to be more precise. The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."

                          Which is why creationists don't want to talk about that. As noted before, they either intentionally obfuscate, or confuse things like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution), with evolution, itself.

                          The majority of those that call themselves "evolutionists" believe that a SINGLE LIVING THING came into being and that all life is a descendant of that wondrous creature.
                          So the evidence indicates, but one can accept Darwinian theory without making that conclusion. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that consequence of evolution?

                          "Evolution" cannot begin until there is life
                          Yep. Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how. And it merely describes how existing life changes over time. Darwin didn't include it in his theory, but expressed a belief about how it began:

                          "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
                          Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872

                          and we have no way to verify nor falsify the existence of this SINGLE creature from which all life is supposedly descended.
                          When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist)would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms. That prediction has been verified. And we can test that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.

                          Believing in common descent from this SINGLE creature is just that... a belief.
                          "Belief"; that vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that any finding can be fitted into it, and any meaning applied:

                          "I believe in God."

                          "I believe there are wolves in Yellowstone park."

                          "Scientists believe the fossil information that shows birds evolved from dinosaurs."

                          "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

                          It's what creationists do.

                          Yep.
                          This message is hidden because ...

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                            Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how.
                            One of your colleagues has denied that human life began, by telling us that there has never been less than a human population of about 10,000:

                            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            There is a way to estimate population size based on the genomic content of the population. Based on that data, the current scientific consensus is humans never got below a population of about 10,000 individuals.

                            https://biologos.org/articles/series...ation-genetics
                            If there's never been less than 10,000 humans, then human life has always been, and human life never began. And thus, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with human life.
                            All my ancestors are human.
                            PS: All your ancestors are human.
                            PPS: To all you cats, dogs, monkeys, and other assorted house pets whose masters are outsourcing the task of TOL post-writing to you (we know who you are )– you may disregard the PS.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by 7djengo7 View Post
                              One of your colleagues has denied that human life began, by telling us that there has never been less than a human population of about 10,000:



                              If there's never been less than 10,000 humans, then human life has always been, and human life never began. And thus, the nonsense you call "the theory of evolution" has nothing to do with human life.
                              10,000 proto-humans simultaneously evolved into modern humans?

                              is that the new fairy tale?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by The Barbarian View Post
                                Creationists have vague and malleable terms for evolution,
                                Yet, every time we keep correcting you as to what evolution is really about, it's always the same answer.

                                I wonder why that is.

                                because new evidence keeps trashing their previous definitions.
                                No, rather, it doesn't.

                                But the scientific definition has changed once.
                                Because it was proven to be false.

                                Darwin defined it as "descent with modification." That's still true, but the rediscovery of Mendel's work allows us to be more precise. The modern scientific definition is "change in allele frequency in a population over time."
                                Because no one disagrees that species change over time. Which is to say, you've defined the argument out of existence.

                                Which is why creationists don't want to talk about that.
                                You'd rather talk about change (which no one, not even creationists, disagrees with), than talk about what evolution really is.

                                As noted before, they either intentionally obfuscate,
                                Like you're doing right now?

                                Hypocrite.

                                or confuse things like natural selection (an agency of evolution) or common descent (a consequence of evolution), with evolution, itself.
                                Nope.

                                So the evidence indicates,
                                Except that it doesn't.

                                The evidence indicates that God created over the process of six days, and that He created birds and sea creatures on day five before land animals and man on day six, and that around 1500-1600 years later, there was a global flood that destroyed all life on earth (save Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark with him).

                                but one can accept Darwinian theory without making that conclusion. Would you like to learn about the evidence for that consequence of evolution?
                                What, the evidence that species change over time? Because no one disagrees with that idea.

                                Yep. Evolution assumes life began, without specifying how.
                                And yet, it's the "how life began" bit that is the most important part.

                                Creationists have both how life on Earth began AND .

                                And it merely describes how existing life changes over time.
                                See? There you go again, defining the argument out of existence.

                                NO ONE disagrees that species change over time.

                                What we disagree with is that all species are descended from a single common ancestor.

                                Darwin didn't include it in his theory, but expressed a belief about how it began:

                                "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
                                Charles Darwin, last sentence from On the Origin of Species, 1872
                                Darwin rejected the Biblical explanation of how life was brought into existence.

                                And he wasn't even the first.

                                When the function of DNA was discovered, it allowed scientists to predict that the family tree of living things first discovered by Linnaeus (who was not an evolutionist) would be demonstrated in the genetics of all living organisms.
                                Except that the one thing it's done is toss everything up in the air into a scrambled mess for the evolutionists, and hasn't done anything to put anything down solidly.

                                That prediction has been verified.
                                Saying it doesn't make it so, Barb.

                                And we can test that by looking at the DNA of organisms of known descent.


                                "Belief"; that vague and malleable term... ever changing to make sure that any finding can be fitted into it, and any meaning applied:

                                "I believe in God."

                                "I believe there are wolves in Yellowstone park."

                                "Scientists believe the fossil information that shows birds evolved from dinosaurs."

                                "I believe I'll have another Guinness."

                                It's what creationists do.


                                Yep.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X