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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #41

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 37 by DrNoGods]
Explain why you think "eternal energy" is in the form of a living being. If you can't justify that claim then nothing you derive from it has any validity. But you've misunderstood this fundamental point repeatedly (eg. Humphrey) and can't seem to appreciate why completely made up and unfounded assumptions are useless for deriving, or predicting, anything useful in science.
1. There is no other theory to explain the complexity we see in the universe.
2. There is no other theory that produces a universe in which humans exist as more than random energy.
3. I believe in scientific laws like probability which indicates the universe that we know it cannot exist. (constants in the universe, Life in the universe, consciousness of individual beings.)
Last edited by EarthScienceguy on Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #42

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 37 by DrNoGods]

And the Biblical eyewitness account.

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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #43

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 38 by EarthScienceguy]
1. There is no other theory to explain the complexity we see in the universe.


Stating that "eternal energy" is in the form of a living being is not a theory ... it is an unsubstantiated claim.
2. There is no other theory that produces a universe in which humans exist as more than random energy.


Ditto (on the "theory"). But what actual theory does exist that produces a universe in which humans DO exist as nothing but random energy (which doesn't make sense, as anything that is nothing but random energy is, by definition, not a human).
3. I believe in scientific laws like probability which indicates the universe that we know it cannot exist. (constants in the universe, Life in the universe, consciousness of individual beings.)


What? You believe in probability, and claim probability indicates that the universe we know cannot exist? Then how can you believe in probability if it indicates something known to be false (as the universe does, in fact, exist)?
And the Biblical eyewitness account.


There is a biblical eyewitness account that "eternal energy" is in the form of a living being? Do tell us where that nugget is located in the bible. I suppose if someone could live for 900+ years, or come back to life after dying, or live in the belly of a big fish for several days, they could probably also see energy. Makes sense.
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
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #44

Post by rikuoamero »

An update for the consideration of readers:

In his opening post, ESG claims that the reason the sun looks old is not because it actually is that old (billions of years) but to act as a reminder to mankind about the immortality it has lost.
I have challenged ESG at least twice within this thread to back up his statement. I also recently asked it as an independent question within the Ask a User subforum. I directed ESG to that question via a private message.
Since then, ESG has been active on the site, but with no reply to me, or the posts I have made requesting justification.
Now certainly, ESG has no literal onus to respond to me...but this is a debate forum, most especially a science based sub-forum. Assertions just cannot be made and then abandoned when called out on. That is just not good form.
I leave this to let readers know the situation, and to let them form whatever conclusions they might make. I will henceforth cease debating with ESG, since my conclusion is that ESG prefers to make grandiose claims about reality and then not back them up, and even worse...ignore requests to back them up.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

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 #45

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 41 by rikuoamero]
... my conclusion is that ESG prefers to make grandiose claims about reality and then not back them up, and even worse...ignore requests to back them up.


This is what happens when someone has an indefensible position and is trying to support claims that are scientifically proven to be false. It is constant moving of the goal posts, switching the subject abruptly when cornered, or simply ignoring questions altogether. The only other option would be to admit that science is right and 2000+ year old myths are not, but that would put a wrench into the narrative.

I still don't understand why so many people like ESG (and the websites he parrots like AIG, CRI, etc.) bother with the effort. Just say you believe the biblical descriptions (or whatever holy text is relevant) because of faith and leave it at that. No need to try and make these old stories compatible with modern science ... that is a battle that can never be won.
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

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2281
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 1952 times
Been thanked: 734 times

Post #46

Post by benchwarmer »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 41 by rikuoamero]
... my conclusion is that ESG prefers to make grandiose claims about reality and then not back them up, and even worse...ignore requests to back them up.


This is what happens when someone has an indefensible position and is trying to support claims that are scientifically proven to be false. It is constant moving of the goal posts, switching the subject abruptly when cornered, or simply ignoring questions altogether. The only other option would be to admit that science is right and 2000+ year old myths are not, but that would put a wrench into the narrative.

I still don't understand why so many people like ESG (and the websites he parrots like AIG, CRI, etc.) bother with the effort. Just say you believe the biblical descriptions (or whatever holy text is relevant) because of faith and leave it at that. No need to try and make these old stories compatible with modern science ... that is a battle that can never be won.
The only reason I can think of to bother with this pointless 'battle' is because if they didn't, their beliefs would quickly fall by the wayside. All they have left is to somehow show that 'science' does in fact line up with whatever they happen to believe.

Science has a proven track record that no one can deny given we use the fruits of it everyday in our increasingly technological society. The only card left to play is that 'some science is wrong' and try to do the usual smoke and mirrors and hope no one notices. This is, or course, an epic fail.

One would think a smart theist would simply say that as we discover the natural laws, all we are doing is discovering the handiwork of 'god' and leave it at that. The problem is that many theists are shackled to their ancient texts which they have elevated to 'scripture' and they can't stand to have their foundations washed out from underneath them.

There was a global flood! - Bzzt. Modern geology and other earth sciences have found no evidence of this.

We are descended directly from 2 humans who came directly from God! - Bzzt. Modern genetics shows we have common ancestors with other species.

The earth is only 4,000 to 6,000 years old! - Bzzt. Modern physics using radiometric dating shows that the Earth is actually 4.54 billion years old. The same physics used to create complex atomic bombs proves we understand radioactivity.

And on it goes. As Bible story after Bible story falls to modern science, some feel the need to attempt a pointless battle with science in some vain hope to salvage their holy books.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you want to find the true god (if there be such a thing), following the actual data we observe is the only way to find this god. Making stuff up or recycling the stuff ancient people made up is not the way to go.

Who do you think a god would be more disappointed with? The people who blindly follow ancient texts regardless of evidence in front of them or the people who simply follow what can be observed? You can't blame the later group even if they didn't find a god. They did the best they could with what they could observe. The former group could be in a lot of trouble though. "It was measurable and observable! Why did you eschew that for stories and rules written down by other people?!?"

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

Post #47

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 41 by rikuoamero]
In his opening post, ESG claims that the reason the sun looks old is not because it actually is that old (billions of years) but to act as a reminder to mankind about the immortality it has lost.
I have challenged ESG at least twice within this thread to back up his statement. I also recently asked it as an independent question within the Ask a User subforum. I directed ESG to that question via a private message.
Since then, ESG has been active on the site, but with no reply to me, or the posts I have made requesting justification.
Now certainly, ESG has no literal onus to respond to me...but this is a debate forum, most especially a science based sub-forum. Assertions just cannot be made and then abandoned when called out on. That is just not good form.
I leave this to let readers know the situation, and to let them form whatever conclusions they might make. I will henceforth cease debating with ESG, since my conclusion is that ESG prefers to make grandiose claims about reality and then not back them up, and even worse...ignore requests to back them up.

Ok,

Comets, can only be 10,000 years old.

Genetics say that humans and animals say that we can only be 10000 years old.

Subducted plates that are not melted is an indication of a young earth.

The lack of erosion features between rock layers is an indication of a young earth.

The grand canyon is a testament to a young earth and the flood.

Humphrey's equation predicting magnetic fields based on 6000 years is a testament to a young solar system.

So the sun has the appearance of age but the solar system is actually young.

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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #48

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 4 by rikuoamero]

God said in Genesis that man would die if he ate from the tree of good and evil. So before that time man was not going to die he was going to live forever.

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

Post #49

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 43 by benchwarmer]
There was a global flood! - Bzzt. Modern geology and other earth sciences have found no evidence of this.

We are descended directly from 2 humans who came directly from God! - Bzzt. Modern genetics shows we have common ancestors with other species.
At the boundaries between some sedimentary layers we find evidence of only rapid erosion. In most other cases, the boundaries are flat, featureless, and knife-edge, with absolutely no evidence of any erosion, which is consistent with no long periods of elapsed time, as would be expected during the global, cataclysmic Genesis Flood.

In the Grand Canyon below the base of the Redwall Limestone the underlying Muav Limestone has been rapidly eroded in a few localized places to form channels. These channels were later filled with lime sand to form the Temple Butte Limestone. Apart from these rare exceptions, the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones, as well as the boundary between the Temple Butte and Redwall Limestones, are flat and featureless, hallmarks of continuous deposition.

In Grand Canyon some locations the boundary between the Muav and Redwall Limestones is impossible to find because the Muav Limestone continued to be deposited after the Redwall Limestone began. This feature presents profound problems for uniformitarian geology. The Muav Limestone was supposedly deposited 500–520 million years ago, the Temple Butte Limestone was supposedly deposited about 100 million years later (350–400 million years ago), and then the Redwall Limestone deposited several million years later (330–340 million years ago). Based on the evidence, it is much more logical to believe that these limestones were deposited continuously, without any intervening millions of years.



The earth is only 4,000 to 6,000 years old! - Bzzt. Modern physics using radiometric dating shows that the Earth is actually 4.54 billion years old. The same physics used to create complex atomic bombs proves we understand radioactivity.
Brief explanation of radioactive dating.

A radioactive date takes 3 different samples. 1 sample of radioactive material which we can call p, 1 sample of daughter element which we can call d and a one sample of a different isotope of the daughter element which we can call n. The equation that is used is to calculate the time is the following.

log F = N/H log 1/2

F = fraction remaining
N = number of years
H = 1/2 life

To obtain the fraction remaining. The slope of the line of p/n vs. d/n is used. The slope of the line is then subtracted from 1 because it is assumed that there is no contamination in any of the samples.

Example

When dating a lunar rock. Using the Rb/Sr the slope of Sr-87/Sr-86 vs. Rb-87/Sr-86 yielded a slope of .048.

If section of a rock is examined and it does not have p/n to d/n does not have a slope then the rock is regarded as being contaminated. So the only way a date will be used is if the p/n to d/n has a slope which means a predetermination of age.

The slope is then subtracted from 1 to give the amount left. In our example we would subtract 1-.048 = 0.952 so F = 0.952. Subtracting the slope from 1 means we are assuming no contamination is present.
The half life of Rb. is 48.8 years. So this gives a date of 3.3 billion. If any of the three samples are contaminated then the date would be a bogus date. Take for example these dates.

Below are dates of the actual lava flows and the dates prescribed to them by K-Ar dating.

Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma125
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma126
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma127
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma128
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian, Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma129
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800–1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma130
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, New Zealand (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma131
Alkali basalt plug, Benue, Nigeria (<30 Ma) 95 Ma132
Olivine basalt, Nathan Hills, Victoria Land, Antarctica (<0.3 Ma) 18.0±0.7 Ma133
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt. Erebus, Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma134
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma135
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma136
30.3±3.3 Ma137
East Pacific Rise basalt (<1 Ma) 690±7 Ma138
Seamount basalt, near East Pacific Rise (<2.5 Ma) 580±10 Ma139
700±150 Ma140
East Pacific Rise basalt (<0.6 Ma) 24.2±1.0 Ma141

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #50

Post by rikuoamero »

EarthScienceguy wrote: [Replying to post 41 by rikuoamero]
In his opening post, ESG claims that the reason the sun looks old is not because it actually is that old (billions of years) but to act as a reminder to mankind about the immortality it has lost.
I have challenged ESG at least twice within this thread to back up his statement. I also recently asked it as an independent question within the Ask a User subforum. I directed ESG to that question via a private message.
Since then, ESG has been active on the site, but with no reply to me, or the posts I have made requesting justification.
Now certainly, ESG has no literal onus to respond to me...but this is a debate forum, most especially a science based sub-forum. Assertions just cannot be made and then abandoned when called out on. That is just not good form.
I leave this to let readers know the situation, and to let them form whatever conclusions they might make. I will henceforth cease debating with ESG, since my conclusion is that ESG prefers to make grandiose claims about reality and then not back them up, and even worse...ignore requests to back them up.

Ok,

Comets, can only be 10,000 years old.

Genetics say that humans and animals say that we can only be 10000 years old.

Subducted plates that are not melted is an indication of a young earth.

The lack of erosion features between rock layers is an indication of a young earth.

The grand canyon is a testament to a young earth and the flood.

Humphrey's equation predicting magnetic fields based on 6000 years is a testament to a young solar system.

So the sun has the appearance of age but the solar system is actually young.
I'm breaking my self-imposed exile to chime in here. ESG sent me a PM to say he had answered my question (it was literally four words, You have your answer...so yeah, I was left scratching my head as to what exactly he was talking about). Turns out this is it.
Notice that ESG does NOT give me the answer. His claim, the thing that I asked the question over was him saying and I quote from his opening post
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.
(emphasis mine).
I challenged ESG to explain himself, to show justification for where he pulls this answer from (my guess is that part of his body covered by his trousers, the part that makes contact with the toilet bowl), where he somehow got the reason why the sun is old. I even made a question in Ask a Specific User, pointing out that the lack of a mention of an old universe/world/sun is a talking point of skeptics.
I did not ask for evidence that the sun is old. I did not ask him whether or not humans were once immortal.
No, I asked this complete fucking imbecile (mods - ban me if you want, I don't care) to actually back up his claim as to the reason for an old looking sun and all he can do is wait two months, and then give me a complete non-answer. This moron shows me and readers why being a creationist and especially a young earth creationist, means your brains must have dribbled out of your ears. Stellar reading comprehension there, old boy. Really showed me. You're a true credit to your god, and since I expect you to not get what I mean, I was sarcastic in these last three sentences.

You don't have any sources or evidence for what you claimed was the REASON for an old looking sun that is "actually" young. You don't have any because there aren't any. Your Bible doesn't mention it, and I repeat myself, the fact that it DOESN'T mention this just shows that whoever wrote it most likely did not understand anything about reality, about the stars and the universe in general.

I'm sick and tired of YECs and YECs with a Statement of Faith to actually try putting their beliefs to the test. DrNoGods I see has been putting in a good fight (I still read this forum, even after I left), but you ESG refuse to consider even the slightest possibility that your beliefs might be wrong. All your beliefs have you do is waste everybody's time and just vomit dogma that ultimately has no meaning.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Post Reply