It's done in a lab. :idunno:
Which is more parsimonious?
A. Stars exploded, formed a planet with radioactive material concentrated in the crust, or,
B. Radioactive material formed in the crust.
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
It's done in a lab. :idunno:
Which is more parsimonious?
A. Stars exploded, formed a planet with radioactive material concentrated in the crust, or,
B. Radioactive material formed in the crust.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
:chuckle: Same old Stripe. He gets caught in a lie and then does everything he can to move the goal posts. I, for one, would like you to actually address the challenge given. When have you ever NOT asserted the truth of your agenda. Is it not true you believe the bible and only the bible is right about... everything? Is "six days" a fact? When, concerning creation, have you denied any possibility that you are wrong. When has that ever happened Stripe? When? Don't worry. We'll wait. Six days is a fairy tale and just a theory, Stripe.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
What is your evidence radioactive material does not exist in the mantle and core in the same proportions as the crust thus making "A" a very real possibility?
And you'll be able to quote me lying. :up:
What challenge? :idunno:
You mean that in every post I assert that to reject YEC is to reject science?
Feel free to quote one.
It's not important what people believe. What is important in a rational discussion is that you present your ideas in a manner that allows a seat at the table for the other side. Thus, despite the Darwinists' belief that their ideas are settled science, if they wish to engage rationally, they need to dial down the rhetoric and respond to what the other side says, not what they wish we would say.
Fact: The Bible plainly says "six days." We believe that when it says "six days," that's what it means. If you have some compelling reason that "six days":
A. Does not mean what it plainly says, or,
B: Cannot be accurate,
Then there's your seat at the table. Have the discussion. You're not welcome as long as you will not correct the side — yours — that at every turn asserts the truth of their ideas and denies the participation of people with dissenting ideas.
I might be wrong. Let us know when you've gotten over yourself and are ready to engage over the actual issue so we can put this rigmarole, which plays out every time, behind us.
Good. Do it quietly. :up:
Yip.
When the Darwinists are ready to treat their ideas in the same manner, let us know. :up:
I did not compare crust with inner Earth.
Do try to keep up. :up:
Here's another curious statement by Mr. Bryan Nickel:
"It would be as if a powerful explosion, or some sudden release of energy, blasted rocks up onto the steep sides of a long valley. Most rocks would quickly roll back down and dislodge somewhat unstable rocks that were part way up the slope. Today, rocks rarely roll down the sides of the valley. Wouldn’t it be foolish to assume that the rubble at the bottom of this valley must have been accumulating for billions of years, merely because it would take billions of years for all that rubble to collect at the very slow rate rocks roll downhill today?"
No, it isn't "as if". His example is misleading.
It turns out that there are radioactive elements on the Moon, which doesn't fit in with the idea that they were formed on Earth.
Oh, and on Mars too.
"It would be as if a powerful explosion, or some sudden release of energy, blasted rocks up onto the steep sides of a long valley. Most rocks would quickly roll back down and dislodge somewhat unstable rocks that were part way up the slope. Today, rocks rarely roll down the sides of the valley. Wouldn’t it be foolish to assume that the rubble at the bottom of this valley must have been accumulating for billions of years, merely because it would take billions of years for all that rubble to collect at the very slow rate rocks roll downhill today?"
No, it isn't "as if". His example is misleading.
It turns out that there are radioactive elements on the Moon, which doesn't fit in with the idea that they were formed on Earth.
Oh, and on Mars too.
The question is which is true. Since there are radioactive elements on the Moon and Mars, B is wrong.
Right Divider
Body part
I guess that you never really watched the video that JR posted earlier, nor understand the HPT.
Many things, including radioactive elements, were ejected from the earth into space. The Moon and Mars being near neighbors would clearly be potential landing zones for those elements.
I did not watch the entire video.
Interesting idea- got all bases covered.
What he does is very straightforward. One of the biggest stumbling blocks for a Young Earth is radioactive decay. So he has to attack it from every possible angle.
He finds a few examples of radioactive decay rates being affected by environmental conditions. So, a small leap, and all radioactive decay is affected by environmental conditions, and the decay rates that we see today have nothing to do with what they were even a few thousand years ago. "Just imagine rocks falling down a slope..." Very imaginative.
To attack from another angle, he speculates that there were no radioactive materials in the early Earth, and that they were created by the flood. The conditions required to do this are not easy ones to achieve, so he extrapolates from a few lab experiments, and then speculates on a setup that allows for such conditions, while somehow allowing Noah to survive.
There's an explanation for Moon and Mars radioactivity as well? Great. I suppose there will be one for Saturn too, or distant galaxies...whoops. There already is evidence for that.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/316169
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/09/origin-of-radioactive-space-material-finally-identified
yes. And you can create winds in a wind tuunel without being hurt, but when you have a hurricane, it is a different story.
Yes.
Are we in agreement that some cataclysmic things can happen, but people can survive, even in close proximity?
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Kudos to you, here, for your opposition to the silly "science" handed to us by Disney's Nat Geo, where they tell us that "birds are dinosaurs". [See http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...nosaurs-quot&p=5345088&viewfull=1#post5345088]
You wouldn't want to say that mammals did not coexist with birds, would you?
Alate_One
Well-known member
Really you're going to go there?
When I said dinosaurs I meant non-avian dinosaurs which is the typical meaning in a context like this.
It's not as if someone like you believes that birds are dinosaurs, do you?
6days
New member
Your definition explains why common ancestry is not science.chair said:
From the Wiki Link you used it says "
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results."
Common ancestry (and Biblical creation) is a belief about the past that can't be observed. What we can do is observe and test things in the present, and we interpret through our own personal biases. Interpreting evidence to fit a priori beliefs is not science. And.... That is why real science often exposes the shoddy conclusions of evolutionists. A few examples
* Evolutionists claimed our appendix was a useless evolutionary vestige.
† That was not science...it was a false belief.
* Evolutionists claimed so called psuedogenes and retroviruses were functionless evolutionary remnants.
† That was not science...it was a false belief.
* Evolutionists claimed Neandertals were dim-witted...inarticulate...lacked culture...portrayed with furry bodies and postures similar to knuckle walkers... didn't bury dead with ceremony.... Carnivores....more
† That was not science...it was a false belief.
* Evolutionists claim C¹⁴ dates of dino tissue shouldn't be done since the fossils are too old.
† That isn't science...it is a fear of following evidence that might contradict apriori beliefs.
* Evolutionists claimed our eyes were a sloppy backwards wired design.
† Science shows it was a claim based on false beliefs and lack of knowledge.
* Evolutionists claimed Piltdown was a human ancestor and promoted this claim for many years in text books and journals.
† Science shows Piltdown never existed.
* Evolutionists claimed peppered moths were evidence of evolution in action.
† Science shows birds find it easier to see a white moth on a black background.
* Evolutionists claimed natural selection eliminates the deleterious mutations allowing beneficial mutations and time to evolve microbes into microbiologists.
† Science has shown genetic load is irreversibly increasing. (Rather than accept the science, evolution of proposed many hypothetical and unrealistic solutions such as antagonistic epistasis, quasi truncation, the multiplicative model relaxed selection and others)
Those are just a few of the many examples where evolutionists have confused their beliefs with science. Fortunately, true science helps expose the false belief system of common ancestry. It is an exciting time for bible-believing Christians as science helps confirm the truth of scripture
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
If you mean that nobody believes what you call "evolution", you are correct. What you call "evolution" is nonsense, and what is nonsense is not true. Not only that, but what is nonsense is not even false. And, nobody believes what is neither true nor false. What you call "evolution" is neither true nor false, and so, nobody believes what you call "evolution", much less knows what you call "evolution".
See, even you know better than to say (about the nonsense you call "evolution"), "It just is TRUE!"
But, surely this jester, this fake philosopher called "Didactylos", would not be so silly as to deny that one can (or, even, that some do) believe in things that exist, would he? And, what (if anything) does he mean, by saying that you don't "have to" believe in things that exist? Does he mean that you've no moral obligation to believe in things that exist? Does he mean that you're no better off, in any way whatsoever, for believing in things that exist, than you'd be, were you to not believe in them? Besides, that idiot Didactylos seems to have not paid any attention to what the uniform-wearing guy said about things that exist, viz., that they "are worth believing in". Does Didactylos mean to contradict that? That is, does Didactylos mean that some (or even all) things that exist are not worth believing in?
When it comes down to it, why would any thoughtful, reasonable person ever say what Didactylos said? That's right: none would.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Going to go where?
You do believe that birds are dinosaurs? So, what you meant to say was "The mammals we recognize today did not coexist with ALL dinosaurs, but only with SOME dinosaurs," no? Or, "The mammals we recognize today only coexist with those dinosaurs with which they exist, but not with those dinosaurs with which they do not coexist"?
Here's a fun challenge for you, Professor: If you're among those who like to say "Dinosaurs evolved into birds", can you please describe one, individual, non-bird dinosaur evolving into one, individual bird? After all, without at least one, individual dinosaur evolving into one, individual bird, no individual dinosaurs (plural) are evolving into any individual birds (plural), are they? You do not, of course, want to tell me that no single, individual dinosaur has ever evolved into one, individual bird, do you?
I'm no fool, so of course I don't believe that birds are dinosaurs, just like I don't believe that flippers are hands, and that flipper bones are finger bones, no sir!
A lot of *distinguished historians*? Besides Harry Elmer Barnes? Name them.
I realize Common Decentists use popularity to prove their ideas which is ridiculous. But it doesn't mean that popularity means nothing. Note that Harry Elmer Barnes became a pariah and if you can find a distinguished historian after the example of how he was treated, that historian would have to have some good evidence. But that's the real point. Many well spoken rational scientists have left common decent knowing they will lose their good name among the establishment, but they can't deny the evidence.
So then admit that it isn't a denial of SCIENCE if one does not believe in common decent, but evolutionary biology.
Will you back off your strong statement that one denies SCIENCE if they are skeptical of common decent?
Wow... 2/3 of the genome that we know of is used. And we don't even know a lot about what the genome does from fertilization or how the genome might react in certain environmentally stressful situations or a lot about how it interacts with epigenetic factors. So that number could easily go up. Or are you sure that estimate won't go higher than about 2/3?
But it doesn't matter, actually; you've given away the farm. With only 1/3 of the genome to not only mutate into improvements, but integrating those improvements into the other 2 billion base pairs by mutation, you'll have to have much better evidence than pictures of whale fins.
Do you believe in the sun?
Do you believe in your table?
Doe it make any difference if you do?
Right Divider
Body part
They always end up like this... :french:
genuineoriginal
New member
How did the sun evolve into my table over billions and billions of years?