Debates on Christianity, Creation vs Evolution, Philosophy, Politics and Religion, Ethics, Current Events, and Religious issues

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Reply to topic
EarthScienceguy
First Post
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:20 am  The Myth of radioactive dating. Reply with quote

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.

Quote:
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/AdamenkoByDolan.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/news/2014/01/140106-earthquake-lights-earthq...

https://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-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/2017/may/24/extra-layer-of-tectonic-plates-d...

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.
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 51: Thu May 09, 2019 10:22 am
Reply

Like this post (1): rikuoamero
rikuoamero wrote:

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.


Warning Moderator Warning


As you've admitted, statements like this is totally not acceptable.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 52: Thu May 09, 2019 1:17 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to rikuoamero]

Quote:
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 am conceding that the Sun appears old. That half or so of the hydrogen appears to be used up. Now you believe that all of the Hydrogen was turned to helium. I believe that it was created basically as it is right now with the proportions of the hydrogen and helium basically unchanged since the point of the creation.

The proof of the young age would be indirect evidence. And there is plenty of the evidence of a young solar system, which I gave before.

Naturalist have no mechanism for the beginning of the universe.
Naturalist have no mechanism for the beginning of our solar system.
Naturalist have no mechanism for the beginning of life.

In each of these cases naturalist have to rely on some directed energy to create what we see.

With that being said, this is suppose to be fun. Debating someone who has different opinions. I find it very interesting learning how others view the world. No, my opinions will not change, and as of now, I have been presented with anything I could not find a logical answer for.

This is not meant to stress anyone out. Take a deep breath breath and relax the sun will come up tomorrow no matter what anyone believes.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 53: Wed May 29, 2019 1:22 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 52 by EarthScienceguy]

Officer, I am conceding that the body appears to have been someone that was murdered. But in actuality, the body was created in a murdered state! No need to investigate this supposed crime. Case closed.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 54: Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:38 pm
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to post 16 by DrNoGods]

I’ve been very impressed by the depth of knowledge shown and the considerable time and effort put in to explain a lot of the questions posed in this thread. Far more than I’d manage.

The OP somewhat reminds me of a discussion I once had with a ‘moon landing hoax’ poster a few years ago. Mountains of evidence were always ‘trumped’ by their one grainy photo or misunderstood fact.

As EarthScienceguy has stated (in his last post) that his opinions won’t change, I don’t think there’s much more to be said. At least he’s now on record as agreeing that the sun ‘looks’ old. Maybe your (DrNoGods) efforts will at least help others who are looking for genuine answers to some interesting questions about the Earth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 55: Fri Jun 28, 2019 9:28 am
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to post 54 by Diagoras]

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to change the views of people like ESG and other creationists here. I've never understood why they bother making the effort to try and convince people that creationism is compatible with modern science ... the gaps are just far too wide to bridge with any kind of rational arguments.

Quote:
The OP somewhat reminds me of a discussion I once had with a ‘moon landing hoax’ poster a few years ago. Mountains of evidence were always ‘trumped’ by their one grainy photo or misunderstood fact.


I've actually heard moon landing hoax people say that they are certain the NASA photos of Earth from the moon are faked because they show the Earth ito be round when they know it is flat!

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 56: Fri Jun 28, 2019 8:10 pm
Reply

Like this post
One cannot debate EarthScienceGuy because he believes in an all-powerful invisible thing that control his life and can alter any physical science to confuse all science. The thing that ESG believes in can alter the half-life and that means that radioactive dating cannot be relied on. ESGs god created fake bones so the anthropologists get everything wrong. This invisible magician god appears to be one of joker gods.
Of course, EarthScienceGuy can only try to convince others that science is wrong versus logically proving that his sky god is real and that his creation ides can be proved.

Why not pin these creation people down to explain their creation theory? They should be able to explin from what material their god created the universe otherwise we are in the same place with the big bang that science cannot explain before the big bang.

Creationist should be able to state how their adaptation worked using know fossil remains and where the other hominoids fit in.

They should be able to provide theories that are provable and don’t depend on magic. If they do explin and it requires magic they need to say the its magic and I don’t know how the magic works. Instead the idiots try to discredit science with their magic tricks that there god does.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 57: Sat Jun 29, 2019 6:11 am
Reply

Like this post
Donray wrote:
Instead the idiots try to discredit science with their magic tricks that there god does.


Warning Moderator Warning


Calling anyone an idiot on the forum is against the rules.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 58: Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:35 am
Reply

Like this post
Science and radioactive dating win out over the creation story myth every time,imo.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 59: Tue Jul 02, 2019 7:58 am
Reply

Like this post
Donray wrote:
]Creationist should be able to state how their adaptation worked using know fossil remains and where the other hominoids fit in.


Donray, this is a statement or request which you repeatedly make yet refuse to acknowledge replies such as I believe I did in [KINDS and ADAPTATION -post 12]. You appear to ignore and/or deny the existence of such responses and then continue to repeat the request.

Quote:
They should be able to provide theories that are provable and don’t depend on magic. If they do explin and it requires magic they need to say the its magic and I don’t know how the magic works. Instead the idiots try to discredit science with their magic tricks that there god does.


You appear to be asking a paradoxical question. I acknowledge that science has repeated shown that energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed by natural means (1st LoT) plus that living matter can, by nature, only be produced by living matter (Law of Biogenesis). Yet you are asking me to explain how a supernatural/metaphysical Creator God supernaturally/metaphysically created the universe and all living creatures but you’ll only accept explanations which are natural/physical. Good luck with that one.

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 60: Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:12 am
Reply

Like this post (1): Kenisaw
[Replying to post 59 by Still small]

Quote:
... that living matter can, by nature, only be produced by living matter (Law of Biogenesis)


There is no such thing as a "Law of Biogenesis." This is purely a phrasing used by creationists to give the impression that biogenesis is a scientific law when it is not. The term biogenesis (life coming only from other life) was coined back when there was tacit belief in spontaneous generation (eg. fleas arising from dust, maggots from dead flesh, etc.). Pasteur and others showed this kind of thing was not the correct explanation and the term biogenesis was used to describe the general observation that life comes from life. But it is not a scientific "law" ... it is simply a word used to describe the process of life arising from life, and it does not imply that abiogenesis is not possible and that biogenesis is the only mechanism that can produce life.

Creationists (try to) take advantage of the fact that mechanisms for abiogenesis have yet to be demonstrated to suggest that it is somehow therefore impossible. Similar to how creationists always refer back to other unsolved scientific issues such as origin of the universe, or explanations for dark matter and dark energy, to suggest that because science has yet to solve these problems that science is therefore based on faith (like religion), or that a god being is responsible. It is playing word games.

Biogenesis is not a scientific "law."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Hymn Lyrics Apps
Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version