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.

JJ50
Banned
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 6:22 am

Post #61

Post by JJ50 »

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

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

Post #62

Post by Still small »

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.
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

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 #63

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 59 by Still small]
... 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."
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 #64

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 59 by Still small]
... 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."
True, I should not have referred to biogenesis as the Law of Biogenesis as it has yet to be assigned that designation.
“Laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experiments or observations that describe some aspect of the natural world. The term law has diverse usage in many cases across all fields of natural science.� - Wikipedia

Though, by this description, it probably should be designated as a Law. Unless, of course, DrNoGods can link an instance of observational evidence were, in nature, life has come from non-life. Even an instance from a carefully designed laboratory experiment. Until such time, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. To think so, would be done purely upon the basis of faith or a refusal to accept the evidence. Otherwise, we should not refer to the Law of Gravity just because of the fact that we have yet to demonstrate the mechanism whereby gravity does not apply.

So back to the point, as I have explained elsewhere, without the first leg of the relay, the race cannot start. So, again, Donray (& others), 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 mechanisms which are natural/physical explanations. And again, good luck with that one.

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 #65

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 61 by Still small]
Though, by this description, it probably should be designated as a Law. Unless, of course, DrNoGods can link an instance of observational evidence were, in nature, life has come from non-life. Even an instance from a carefully designed laboratory experiment. Until such time, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. To think so, would be done purely upon the basis of faith or a refusal to accept the evidence. Otherwise, we should not refer to the Law of Gravity just because of the fact that we have yet to demonstrate the mechanism whereby gravity does not apply.


I agree that the mechanism for how the first life forms arose from collections of nonliving molecules has yet to be elucidated, which puts it into the category of an unsolved scientific problem (of which there are many). But at least physical explanations of natural phenomena abound, described by the physical sciences humans have developed such as chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, geology and all the other "ologies." A great deal of what happens in nature can indeed now be explained precisely via these sciences, when in the past these things were attributed to gods (or devils) because science had not developed sufficiently to provide the explanations.

Contrast this to the existence of any supernatural entity of any type, including the thousands of gods humans have invented. The record of these kinds of entities being the correct explanation for anything is virtually zero. They are proposed to be responsible for many things (eg. origin of life, origin of the universe, etc.), but there has yet to be a shred of evidence to support their existence, much less their ability to do fantastic things like create life (from what .... by assembling the same nonliving materials we are all made of but through an equally unexplained mechanism other than poof ... life?), or allow humans to live forever even after their bodies have ceased to function.

So, given the track record of scientific, physical explanations for nature, and that of supernatural entities of any type (zero), I'll take the scientific side. When "god did it" scores even one point in the explanation-of-nature game let us know. Meanwhile, science will continue to mercilessly run up the score.
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

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #66

Post by Donray »

Still small wrote:
DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 59 by Still small]
... 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."
True, I should not have referred to biogenesis as the Law of Biogenesis as it has yet to be assigned that designation.
“Laws of science or scientific laws are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experiments or observations that describe some aspect of the natural world. The term law has diverse usage in many cases across all fields of natural science.� - Wikipedia

Though, by this description, it probably should be designated as a Law. Unless, of course, DrNoGods can link an instance of observational evidence were, in nature, life has come from non-life. Even an instance from a carefully designed laboratory experiment. Until such time, there is absolutely no evidence to the contrary. To think so, would be done purely upon the basis of faith or a refusal to accept the evidence. Otherwise, we should not refer to the Law of Gravity just because of the fact that we have yet to demonstrate the mechanism whereby gravity does not apply.

So back to the point, as I have explained elsewhere, without the first leg of the relay, the race cannot start. So, again, Donray (& others), 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 mechanisms which are natural/physical explanations. And again, good luck with that one.

Have a good day!
Still small
OK, how about you presenting any kind of experiment that proves:
1: Your god exists.
2: The material that your god created the universe from.
3: What you god is made of.
4: How your gods brain works and what material it is made from.
5: From what material did your god create life.

Keep in mind that you need experimental proof before =you belive in stuff.

So, bet you come up with nothing but your bible to supply proof.

Again, you want experiments so supply some that back up your mythical creation ideas.

PS: You have never explained how your Kind and Adaptation works. You gave an example of a bear kind that evolved into all the current bear types. You never said what the original bear type looked like, where its fossil evidence is, etc. So no you
did not answer my question. You again supplied links to try to dis prove evolution. I asked you to prove your idea of Kinds and adaptation. Gives timeframes about your bear and trace its adaptation with fossil evidence that explains your time frame.

YOU NEVER HAVE GIVEN ANY TIME FRAME FROM ANY OF YOUR MYTHICAL CREATION IDEAS.

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

Post #67

Post by Still small »

DrNoGods wrote:I agree that the mechanism for how the first life forms arose from collections of nonliving molecules has yet to be elucidated, which puts it into the category of an unsolved scientific problem (of which there are many). But at least physical explanations of natural phenomena abound, described by the physical sciences humans have developed such as chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, geology and all the other "ologies."
Therefore, you appear to be saying that because science has explained known phenomena, you have faith that science will eventually explain the unknown phenomena, (though it has, so far, no understanding of how to explain it).
A great deal of what happens in nature can indeed now be explained precisely via these sciences, . . .
Hey, isn’t this what science is supposed to do, explain the natural things, the material things, by observation and experimentation. Where it fails, is trying to explain the things where all known laws of science brake down, for example, the singularity of the Big Bang. And the things which defy all experimental efforts to prove otherwise such as the constant observation of life only ever coming from life.
. . . when in the past these things were attributed to gods (or devils) because science had not developed sufficiently to provide the explanations.

Contrast this to the existence of any supernatural entity of any type, including the thousands of gods humans have invented. The record of these kinds of entities being the correct explanation for anything is virtually zero.
This is a common generalisation used by naturalistic materialists and I would agree in most part as many societies have invented their gods as explanations of natural phenomena. But I am referring to one specific god, being the God of the Bible, (who by the way claims to be the only true God). Therefore, which natural phenomena, specifically, would you be referring to which science has proven by experimentation to be of natural causes which the Bible attributes to God, alone?
They are proposed to be responsible for many things (eg. origin of life, origin of the universe, etc.), but there has yet to be a shred of evidence to support their existence, much less their ability to do fantastic things like create life…
So, we are at a stalemate, as science also has yet to be able to produce life from non-life. If I’m wrong here, please provide links.

… like create life (from what .... by assembling the same nonliving materials we are all made of but through an equally unexplained mechanism other than poof ... life?), or allow humans to live forever even after their bodies have ceased to function.

I believe I showed in KINDS and ADAPTATIONS -Post 123 that there is more to life than just a bunch of elements. There is something which science has yet to find or replicate. This would probably indicate that it is not physical and thus not testable by science, yet this life-force, so to speak, must exist. (In particular, ‘the breathe of life’ referred to in Genesis 2:7.)
So, given the track record of scientific, physical explanations for nature, and that of supernatural entities of any type (zero), I'll take the scientific side.
So again, you are going by a position of faith, meaning that even though science has yet to explain the unexplainable, you believe it will.

When "god did it" scores even one point in the explanation-of-nature game let us know. Meanwhile, science will continue to mercilessly run up the score.
As I believe God upholds the universe, He may indeed use natural forces to bring about a particular phenomenon, in line with the laws of nature which He set in place. But it is the ‘unexplainable-by-nature game’ where He has it over naturalistic science which has yet to score at all.

Have a good day!
Still small

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #68

Post by Donray »

StillSmall knows very little about his god. He most likely will answer my questions.

How about a few more question that he nor any creationist can answer.

Why does the bible describe a flat earth? https://flatearthscienceandbible.com/20 ... -a-dome-2/

Where does god reside?

How big is god?

What did Adam and Eve look like and how does this match fossil records?

Does your god travel faster then light if so how?

Why is there no documented case of pray making a person with a lost limb whole again?

Why doesn't pray work? If you think it does give us proof.

Again, you require proof and experiments to prove evolution but require zero proof about your creation myth or your god.

The bible is full of myths from other civilizations that were retold by the Jews.


ALL creationists can do is try to discredit science because they cannot just logically support there beliefs.

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 #69

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 64 by Still small]
Therefore, you appear to be saying that because science has explained known phenomena, you have faith that science will eventually explain the unknown phenomena, (though it has, so far, no understanding of how to explain it).


Faith is probably the wrong word. Would you call "faith" the confidence I have that if I drive 60 miles per hour on a straight road, for one hour, I will be located 60 miles from my starting point? Or do I have "faith" that if I drop the apple I am currently about to eat that it will fall towards the floor.

There was a time not that long ago when people observed things like this and had no scientific explanation for them, but the observation was universal. Scientists like Newton and Einstein wanted to explain phenomena like this and now we have good theories of gravity that explain observations, but the Standard Model of physics has not yet explained gravity within it (ie. there is no gauge boson for gravity (graviton) like the photon for EM fields, for example).

If I believe that the Standard Model may be modified in the future to accommodate the graviton, or that this may be observed in some future physics experiment, is that "faith"? Or is it just observing that, far more often than not, science does eventually arrive at a valid explanation of nature, while attributing these things to supernatural entities like gods has never, even once, been shown to be the correct explanation. Belief in gods is purely, 100% faith-based because it is believing something without evidence. Belief that science can find an answer for the origin of life, or explanations for dark matter and dark energy, or a full understanding of cancers at the molecular level, or any of the many other unsolved problems is based on its prior track record in solving problems, not on blind faith which is required for the belief in any god (including the one you seem to think is the only "true" god).
And the things which defy all experimental efforts to prove otherwise such as the constant observation of life only ever coming from life.


This just puts origin of life from nonlife into the category of yet-to-be-solved problems. The fact that science has yet to explain something in no way means that it never will. You seem to be concluding that all unsolved problems in nature will remain unsolved forever, or that a god explanation is the default answer or the most likely answer and science should give up trying. Science has repeatedly shown that it is far more capable of explaining observations then religion.
But I am referring to one specific god, being the God of the Bible, (who by the way claims to be the only true God).


Of course! Don't all monotheist religions claim that their god is the only "true" god? Ask a Hindu who the "true" god (or gods) is.
This would probably indicate that it is not physical and thus not testable by science, yet this life-force, so to speak, must exist. (In particular, ‘the breathe of life’ referred to in Genesis 2:7.)


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).
So again, you are going by a position of faith, meaning that even though science has yet to explain the unexplainable, you believe it will.


Call it faith if you like, but science has actually explained things previously not explained in nature, while religion and gods have never done so. So it is simply looking at which has been successful and which has not.
But it is the ‘unexplainable-by-nature game’ where He has it over naturalistic science which has yet to score at all.


You're confusing "yet to be explained by science" with "never can be explained by science." Unsolved scientific problems are far more likely to eventually be solved and have naturalistic explanations (as proven by the track record of science doing this very thing countless times), than in the phenomenon having a supernatural explanation (as shown by this never, even once, being demonstrated). Unsolved problems are not automatically never solvable by science because they aren't solved today, which seems to be the basis of your argument.
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 #70

Post by Still small »

Donray wrote:

OK, how about you presenting any kind of experiment that proves:
1: Your god exists.
2: The material that your god created the universe from.
3: What you god is made of.
4: How your gods brain works and what material it is made from.
5: From what material did your god create life.

Keep in mind that you need experimental proof before =you belive in stuff.

So, bet you come up with nothing but your bible to supply proof.

Again, you want experiments so supply some that back up your mythical creation ideas.

PS: You have never explained how your Kind and Adaptation works. You gave an example of a bear kind that evolved into all the current bear types. You never said what the original bear type looked like, where its fossil evidence is, etc. So no you
did not answer my question. You again supplied links to try to dis prove evolution. I asked you to prove your idea of Kinds and adaptation. Gives timeframes about your bear and trace its adaptation with fossil evidence that explains your time frame.

YOU NEVER HAVE GIVEN ANY TIME FRAME FROM ANY OF YOUR MYTHICAL CREATION IDEAS.
I shall relocated and reply to this in the more appropriate “KINDS and ADAPTATIONS� thread.

Have a good day!
Still small

Post Reply