The Myth of radioactive dating.

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

1. Myth is the ratio of parent daughter amounts.

Creation theory says that God created adult creatures and fully functional systems. God did not create Adam as an embryo God created Adam as a man. God did not create an egg He created an adult chicken. God created our sun as if it has been burning for billions of years. The reason why God created a universe with billions of years of life left in it is to show man the immortality that he lost in the fall. It is also meant to show man the future immortality that he can have.

With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.

Now before I receive all the comments about God making thing magically appear. Might I remind all of those that believe in uniformitarianism that you have NO working theory of origins. Big Bang theory is not a theory of origins because it begins after all the energy is in the universe already. The universe from nothing is not a theory of origins because it also has to start with some sort of space. You have simply changed your belief in God to a pantheistic belief of the power of nature to overcome impossible odds. Saying that science just has not come up with a solution yet, is saying that you believe that nature found a way for life to come into existence, that is pantheism.

Although the above could be true, there are reasons why I do not believe that radioactivity was created during creation week.

1. Most Radioactive elements are found in the upper continental crust or granite. (https://www.nature.com/articles/208479b0) There really is no reason why God would create radioactive material in pockets in upper mantle crust. Deep in the earth I could see as a heat source for the liquefaction of the outer core. But not in the upper mantle. So it must have come into existence after the initial creation of the universe.

It has been shown in experimentation that fusion and heavy radioactive elements can be produced by high voltage currents of electricity in a process called z-pinch.
Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is found in the Earth’s crust.

... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth’s crust.33

Each experiment used one of 22 separate electrode materials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. In a typical experiment, the energy of an electron pulse is less than 300 joules (roughly 0.3 BTU or 0.1 watt-hour), but it is focused—Z-pinched—onto a point inside the electrode. That point, because of the concentrated electrical heating, instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma.

With a burst of more than 1018 electrons flowing through the center of this plasma sphere, the surrounding nuclei (positive ions) implode onto that center. Compression from this implosion easily overcomes the normal Coulomb repulsion between the positively charged nuclei. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.


31. Stanislav Adamenko et al., Controlled Nucleosynthesis: Breakthroughs in Experiment and Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 2007), pp. 1–773.

Those who wish to critically study the claims of Adamenko and his laboratory should carefully examine the evidence detailed in his book. One review of the book can be found at

www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/Reviews ... yDolan.pdf

u “We present results of experiments using a pulsed power facility to induce collective nuclear interactions producing stable nuclei of virtually every element in the periodic table.� Stanislav Adamenko et al., “Exploring New Frontiers in the Pulsed Power Laboratory: Recent Progress,� Results in Physics, Vol. 5, 2015, p. 62.

32. “The products released from the central area of the target [that was] destroyed by an extremely powerful explosion from inside in every case of the successful operation of the coherent beam driver created in the Electrodynamics Laboratory ‘Proton-21,’ with the total energy reserve of 100 to 300 J, contain significant quantities (the integral quantity being up to 10-4 g and more) of all known chemical elements, including the rarest ones.� [emphasis in original] Adamenko et al., p. 49.

In other words, an extremely powerful, but tiny, Z-pinch-induced explosion occurred inside various targets, each consisting of a single chemical element. All experiments combined have produced at least 10-4 gram of every common chemical element.

u In these revolutionary experiments, the isotope ratios for a particular chemical element resembled those found today for natural isotopes. However, those ratios were different enough to show that they were not natural isotopes that somehow contaminated the electrode or experiment.

33. Stanislav Adamenko, “The New Fusion,� ExtraOrdinary Technology, Vol. 4, October-December, 2006, p. 6.

34. “The number of formed superheavy nuclei increases when a target made of heavy atoms (e.g., Pb) is used. Most frequently superheavy nuclei with A=271, 272, 330, 341, 343, 394, 433 are found. The same superheavy nuclei were found in the same samples when repeated measurements were made at intervals of a few months.� Adamenko et al., “Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory,� Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4.
It is totally in the realm of possibility for all of the radioactive elements in the earth's crust to be made by the z-pinch process.

It has also been observed that electrical current in the form of lighting takes place during earthquakes.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/new ... y-science/

https://www.livescience.com/43686-earth ... cause.html

All that would be needed to generate pockets of radioactive elements with all of the percentages of isotopes that we see today could have been made in an instant, with understood science that we see today.


Those that hold to uniformitarian beliefs have greater difficulty explaining radioactivity in the upper crust. Why would radioactive elements exist mainly in pockets in the upper continental crust? This is even harder to envision when one considers that it only takes 2 billion years for plate material to circumvent the radius of the Earth. All Tectonic plates should have been subducted several times over in the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. Therefore uniformitarian beliefs would predict that radioactive elements should be evenly distributed about the surface of the earth after mixing in the mantle or non existent because of density. Especially since the density of U is around 19, Zirconium silicate has a density of over 4 and Zirconium has a density of over 6. Granite and basalt both have a density of around 3.

So any uniformitarian theory must first answer the question of why radioactive elements exist mostly in continental crust. Second, why would these radioactive elements exist in pockets in the crust? Third, why would these heavy elements not sink to the core when the earth was in molten form. Especially when one considers the oldest radioactive rocks on the earth were dated at 4.4 billion years old, long before the earth's crust cooled 4.1 billion years ago.


2. There are detectable subducted plates at the base of the mantle outer core boundary, along with detectable subducted plates at the transition zone. These subducted plates are detectable because they have not yet reached thermal equilibrium with the mantle rock around them. How could these slabs not have reached thermal equilibrium after millions of years? All of the images of the subducted slabs show consistently cooler rock surrounded by extremely hot mantle, even after traveling more than 1500 km (930 mi) right through the mantle itself.

Mao, W. and S. Zhong. 2018. Slab stagnation due to a reduced viscosity layer beneath the mantle transition zone. Nature Geoscience. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0225-2.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... ntists-say

There are so many subducted slabs under the pacific that many geologist describe the mantle below the the pacific ocean as a log jam of plates in the upper mantle. If it takes millions of years to for plates to subduct into the mantle then most of these plates should be already mixed with the mantle. A single shallow convection cycle takes on the order of 50 million years, though deeper convection can be closer to 200 million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection) So why have these plates not melted, mixed with the rest of the mantle and been recycled as new crust? Because they have not been in the mantle for millions of years simply thousands of years.

This melting and mixing in the mantle should produce an even distribution of radioactive elements, but that is not what is observed.

Pantheism does not have an answer for the problems associated with radioactive dating on the earth. Only creationism has an unbroken series of causes that lead to radioactivity on the earth.

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #71

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote:

There's no evidence for the existence of such a "life force." If nonliving molecules are organized in correct ways an entity can result that can sustain itself and reproduce (ie. it is "alive"). Again, just because science has yet to produce a living thing from nonliving molecules does not mean that it never will. It just means it has not been accomplished yet. Science never just gives up on a problem and declares it unsolvable. I may be long dead before the origin of life mechanism(s) are worked out, but given science's track record, I'd certainly place my bets on a scientific solution rather than a "god did it" explanation (again, yet to be shown as a correct explanation for anything, ever). (Emphasis added)
I fear that if you are “long dead� you will know the answer long before those living scientists who are still working on the problem.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #72

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 68 by Still small]
I fear that if you are “long dead� you will know the answer long before those living scientists who are still working on the problem.


Hmmm ... that would imply that once I die something else happens other than the abrupt transition from a living being to a nonliving being. If that something were an enjoyable afterlife of some sort I'd be all for it, but unfortunately there is zero evidence that any such thing actually happens with humans or other animals, or any reason to believe that such a thing could happen. It is wishful thinking.

From your reply to Donray (post 335):
Yet, you appear to accept ‘by faith’ (without evidence) the naturalistic creation of the two basics of existence, being the entire physical universe and life itself. To some that may appear somewhat hypocritical.


Again, the track record of science in answering questions like this is sufficiently excellent that it is rational to expect it will succeed with these two particular problems in due time. But these are unsolved problems, so there is nothing naturalistic to have "faith" in until they are indeed solved. There are hypotheses which may or may not pan out, but the expectation of a naturalistic explanation is not based on nothing (ie. faith) as you keep suggesting. It is based on the proven track record of science in explaining nature in so many instances that it is sensible to expect it will succeed with these problems as well.
Oh . . . sorry, the original bear kind was created on Day 6 of the Creation Week approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. Approximately 1,500 years later, a pair (male and female) of the original bear kind entered the Ark and commenced reproducing 1 year later upon leaving the Ark. As the bear kind migrated to different environments, they adapted via epigenetics, giving rise to the various species we see today.


Good one ... combining modern genetics with 2500 year old myths has prospects for a career in fiction writing. In the nonfiction world though, modern science has generally succeeded in disproving the myth and it has done that from just about every angle possible when it comes to the biblical creation story and the flood myth. But it is certainly good fiction given how long ago it was made up.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #73

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 68 by Still small]
I fear that if you are “long dead� you will know the answer long before those living scientists who are still working on the problem.


Hmmm ... that would imply that once I die something else happens other than the abrupt transition from a living being to a nonliving being. If that something were an enjoyable afterlife of some sort I'd be all for it, but unfortunately there is zero evidence that any such thing actually happens with humans or other animals, or any reason to believe that such a thing could happen. It is wishful thinking.
You may hope so. Though it may seem as referred to as Pascal’s Wager, I can be no worse off than you. Mind you, your belief or non-belief has no bearing on my eternity but only yours. That being my concern, your eternity which is the motivation for my involvement in forums such as this, despite the ridicule and abuse often received. Even if for no other reason than you’ll be without excuse - Romans 1:20  “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:�
Again, the track record of science in answering questions like this is sufficiently excellent that it is rational to expect it will succeed with these two particular problems in due time. But these are unsolved problems, so there is nothing naturalistic to have "faith" in until they are indeed solved. There are hypotheses which may or may not pan out, but the expectation of a naturalistic explanation is not based on nothing (ie. faith) as you keep suggesting. It is based on the proven track record of science in explaining nature in so many instances that it is sensible to expect it will succeed with these problems as well.
Unfortunately, I think you fail to see the circular reasoning in your argument. You refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural and, therefore, you must assume there is natural explanations for everything including those things which may have no natural explanation. Thus, to your way of thinking, as everything must have a natural explanation, there is no supernatural.
Assuming that because ‘science’ has given a natural explanation to some phenomena, that ‘science’ will be able to explain everything is like saying, “as Joe (or Bill or Fred)(or Mary) is good at building things out of LEGO blocks, he(she) will be capable of building an International Space Station.
Good one ... combining modern genetics with 2500 year old myths has prospects for a career in fiction writing. In the nonfiction world though, modern science has generally succeeded in disproving the myth and it has done that from just about every angle possible when it comes to the biblical creation story and the flood myth.
Sorry, I thought that as Donray was complaining about my lack of a time frame, he was wanting a time frame from my perspective, which I have done. Though you often claim that ‘modern science has generally disproved the myth’, when one removes your base assumptions, often ‘claimed’ to be axioms, your own mythical explanation often falls apart.
But it is certainly good fiction given how long ago it was made up.
Do you often determine truth with a clock or calendar? In a thousand years from now, will Newton’s laws and theories be classed as myths just because they were formulated so long ago?

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #74

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 70 by Still small]
Unfortunately, I think you fail to see the circular reasoning in your argument. You refuse to accept the possibility of the supernatural and, therefore, you must assume there is natural explanations for everything including those things which may have no natural explanation. Thus, to your way of thinking, as everything must have a natural explanation, there is no supernatural.


It is far simpler than this. It is that the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist. Not just the many gods humans have invented, but any of the other examples such as spirits of all types, ghosts, angels and devils, demons, etc. If there was just one instance of any one of these things being shown to exist in reality then there would be a reason to expect that any of then may exist.

But so far that has not happened, ever, even once. So my refusal to believe in the supernatural is simply that it (in any manifestation you may choose) has never been demonstrated to exist. On the other hand, science has succeeded, repeatedly, to explain nature including many things that were once attributed to gods and various deities. It therefore makes sense to expect it will continue to do so based on its track record in the past.

The LEGO analogy is not relevant to this issue because that is just direct extrapolation. A better analogy would be if Mary had built International Space Stations previously, using different designs and different materials, it might be logical to assume that she could build one out of LEGOs if she went through the engineering and science aspects of the problem and demonstrated that it was possible, and compatible within the constraints imposed by known science. But if Mary had never built an ISS of any kind, despite being an expert at LEGO construction, if would take a heaping helping of faith to think that she could build an ISS out of LEGOs ... you could not arrive at that extrapolation with logical reasoning, while in the former example you could.
Do you often determine truth with a clock or calendar? In a thousand years from now, will Newton’s laws and theories be classed as myths just because they were formulated so long ago?


No, of course not! I was just commenting that the Genesis creation myth, and the flood myth, were good fiction given that they were written sometime in the 800-400 BC time frame (I believe that is the current best estimate for when the early old testament books were written). But they have both been shown to be nothing but myth and allegory and (with 100% certainty) not scientifically valid.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #75

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote:
It is far simpler than this. It is that the supernatural has never been demonstrated to exist. Not just the many gods humans have invented, but any of the other examples such as spirits of all types, ghosts, angels and devils, demons, etc. If there was just one instance of any one of these things being shown to exist in reality then there would be a reason to expect that any of then may exist.

But so far that has not happened, ever, even once. So my refusal to believe in the supernatural is simply that it (in any manifestation you may choose) has never been demonstrated to exist. On the other hand, science has succeeded, repeatedly, to explain nature including many things that were once attributed to gods and various deities. It therefore makes sense to expect it will continue to do so based on its track record in the past.
To the contrary, the appearance of Jesus Christ was such an instance. While you may wish to dismiss the Gospels as exaggerated stories or whatever. There are numerous books which present the evidence from scripture and other historical records as if using legal arguments in a court case and the verdict is clear that Jesus Christ is who He presents Himself to be in the Gospels, God Incarnate. If you wish, I can recommend a few if you’re prepared to check them out. Though I get the impression that you are like a number of naturalistic materialists in that it is not so much a matter that you do not believe in the supernatural but rather a refusal to believe in the possibility of the supernatural. This is evident in your clear understanding that science has yet able to give a natural explanation for such things as the origin of the universe or of life but also a refusal to even consider the possibility then, that it may be supernatural, something which is beyond what science can investigate and explain.
The LEGO analogy is not relevant to this issue because that is just direct extrapolation. A better analogy would be if Mary had built International Space Stations previously, using different designs and different materials, it might be logical to assume that she could build one out of LEGOs if she went through the engineering and science aspects of the problem and demonstrated that it was possible, and compatible within the constraints imposed by known science. But if Mary had never built an ISS of any kind, despite being an expert at LEGO construction, if would take a heaping helping of faith to think that she could build an ISS out of LEGOs ... you could not arrive at that extrapolation with logical reasoning, while in the former example you could.
Well, unfortunately, there is no observable evidence that Mary has previously built an ISS. LEGO blocks, yes, but not an ISS. One of the obstacles appears to be that Mary knows the ISS is not made of LEGO and Mary has no idea what the ISS is made from.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #76

Post by Diagoras »

Still small wrote:There are numerous books which present the evidence from scripture and other historical records as if using legal arguments in a court case and the verdict is clear that Jesus Christ is who He presents Himself to be in the Gospels, God Incarnate. If you wish, I can recommend a few if you’re prepared to check them out.
Bolding mine.

Documentary evidence of Jesus outside of the New Testament is very limited. It was a few decades after his death (around 93AD) that Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus just twice in a 20-volume history of the Jewish people. Once, simply as the brother of James, and once in the 'Testimomium Flavianum' which includes the fact that he was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus, writing about twenty years later (116AD) again references 'Christus' being put to death by Pilate. His viewpoint certainly wasn't pro-Christian, and he had a habit of stating whether particular accounts were unreliable. Based on the lack of comment on what he wrote about Jesus, it seems reasonable to conclude Jesus was crucified by the Romans and was a real person.

There are a few other snippets within letters (e.g. Pliny the Younger), but I'm not aware of any historical documents other than the bible which would show any evidence of any 'supernatural' nature, let alone sufficient to provide proof to a 'court of law' standard.

Can you provide evidence to show such historical records exist?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #77

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 72 by Still small]
Though I get the impression that you are like a number of naturalistic materialists in that it is not so much a matter that you do not believe in the supernatural but rather a refusal to believe in the possibility of the supernatural.


I'm not from Missouri, but have the position of "show me" when it comes to anything supernatural because it has never been demonstrated to exist ... not just concerning gods, angels or other entities related to religions, but anything else in that realm.

I don't rule out the existence of a preacher type running around the Middle East called Jesus, or that this person was crucified by the Romans, but there is no evidence that he was resurrected, or a divine being of any type. This is just part of a story told by the writers decades after the supposed event happened. There is no reason to believe it actually happened any more than the many other tall tales of the christian bible (eg. Noah's flood, the creation story, a man living inside a fish for longer than he could hold his breath, dead people leaving their graves and dancing in the streets, etc. etc.).
This is evident in your clear understanding that science has yet able to give a natural explanation for such things as the origin of the universe or of life but also a refusal to even consider the possibility then, that it may be supernatural, something which is beyond what science can investigate and explain.


Just because science hasn't explained something yet in no way means a supernatural explanation should be considered. Until the supernatural is demonstrated to exist, and it has not yet, it makes no sense to consider it as an explanation for any unsolved science problems (or anything else).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Post #78

Post by Diagoras »

Still small wrote:This is evident in your clear understanding that science has yet able to give a natural explanation for such things as the origin of the universe or of life but also a refusal to even consider the possibility then, that it may be supernatural, something which is beyond what science can investigate and explain.
And if you take a position that believes without evidence an act of God as the explanation for any unknown phenomenon (that science hasn’t ‘answered’), then your argument commits a fallacy from ignorance - often called the ‘god of the gaps’ fallacy.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

User avatar
Still small
Apprentice
Posts: 210
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 am
Location: Great South Land
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #79

Post by Still small »

Diagoras wrote:Documentary evidence of Jesus outside of the New Testament is very limited. It was a few decades after his death (around 93AD) that Flavius Josephus mentioned Jesus just twice in a 20-volume history of the Jewish people. Once, simply as the brother of James, and once in the 'Testimomium Flavianum' which includes the fact that he was condemned to be crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus, writing about twenty years later (116AD) again references 'Christus' being put to death by Pilate. His viewpoint certainly wasn't pro-Christian, and he had a habit of stating whether particular accounts were unreliable. Based on the lack of comment on what he wrote about Jesus, it seems reasonable to conclude Jesus was crucified by the Romans and was a real person.

There are a few other snippets within letters (e.g. Pliny the Younger), but I'm not aware of any historical documents other than the bible which would show any evidence of any 'supernatural' nature, let alone sufficient to provide proof to a 'court of law' standard.

Can you provide evidence to show such historical records exist?
As a quick summary of some of the evidence, you might like to check out that provided by J. Warner Wallace, a forensic detective, whose research in this area led him to become a Christian - link 1 and link 2.

Have a good day!
Still small

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Post #80

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 76 by Still small]
... you might like to check out that provided by J. Warner Wallace, a forensic detective, whose research in this area led him to become a Christian - link 1 and link 2.


I started reading link 1, but skipped link 2 because the author used the all too common technique of apologists of making analogies that don't apply so that they can then justify their point from the false analogies.

In this example he did it twice .. first with the Kennedy assassination and second with the 9/11 events. In both cases he points out that there was video evidence and eyewitnesses for the actual events (a bullet going through Kennedy's head, and planes flying into buildings), but then he suggests that the video and eyewitnesses should explain the reason for the events. These are not related ... but the author puts these analogies out as if they were, because it supports his similar approach to the subsequent claims about Jesus.

The reason there are so many conspiracy theories surrounding Kennedy's assassination is because none of the photos or eyewitnesses he mentioned captured the shooter actually doing the deed. If that had been the case, it would have been case closed as far as the shooting event itself. Because Ruby killed Oswald there is no way to know if Oswald acted alone or was just a hitman paid by the mob, or Cuba, or the Russians, or ?? This is additional fuel for the conspiracy fires, but is in no way answered by the fact that there was video of the actual instant the bullet passed through Kennedy's head (or planes hitting the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon).

Same with the Jesus claims. He seems to mix up claims that this person existed (I think most non-christians can accept this part) and that he was crucified by the Romans (also easy enough to accept), with this person doing magical deeds, healing people, and being resurrected and heading back to heaven. It is these parts that he gives no evidence for other than hearsay, but he's laid the groundwork for his approach with the false analogies he starts link 1 with.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply