Creationists, You (Hypothetically) Win!!!

[Neatras]

Within this thread, I'm willing to concede each and every sundry point made by Creationists in an attempt to debunk evolution. In here at least, you win! Not only discrediting evolution, but even going as far as to establish Creationism as the only plausible theory. Congratulations!

So, what's next? Why, the next step for any scientific theory. Testing out the wazoo, predictions, studies, and efforts made to improve our understanding of the magnificent reality before us. And despite its... *ahem* notable age, Creationism "Theory" currently doesn't seem to have much of reality mapped out in a way that suits our very skeptical needs. No firmaments to be found, after all.

But what matters isn't how you got here, it's what you do now. What will Creationism bring to the table? In what manner can Creationism explain reality in a way that benefits humanity, especially in ways that evolution just wasn't able to? I want details. After all, to discard a scientific theory, you have to replace it with a theory of equal or greater merit, one with explanatory power to match or exceed the predecessor.

So, Creationists... Let's get started.

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?
By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?
By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?
By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?
By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

By Creationist logic, what can you possibly offer to science to make up for supposedly destroying evolution? When evolutionary theory has not only made successful predictions, withstood 150 years of debate, and even intertwined with geology, paleontology, biology, chemistry, and physics in such a fitting way that it makes itself out to be the only logical explanation for the diversity of life as we see it?

Creationists, I'm tired of beating around the bush. For far too long, I've heard people make the claims that all the evidence backs Creationism. But if it has even an iota of evidence to it, if it has any explanatory power to make predictions about reality as we see it, in ways that evolutionary theory simply can't match, then show it.

Otherwise, quit trying to call Creationism a scientific theory.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 29 by DrNoGods]

Part of the 176Lu decay experiences an alternative decay mode to 176Hf which represents, in effect, a shortcut that is 14 orders of magnitude faster than the conventional 176Lu decay (t½ = 41 Ga). Moreover, in this particular instance, no changes in the nuclear force are necessary. Extreme temperatures suffice, and the greater they are, the shorter the effective half life of 176Lu decay to 176Hf. In terms of specifics, at temperatures below about 200 million K, t½ remains unperturbed at about 41 Ga. But, over the interval of 200 to 300 MK, the effective t½ drops precipitously (by nearly 10 orders of magnitude), then begins to level off asymptotically at still higher temperatures. Thus, at 600 MK, the effective t½ of 176Lu is only about 8 days!

Klay, N. et al., Nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences, Physical Review C44(6):2847–2848, 1991.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 27 by Neatras]

Which heat problems are you thinking of with regards to Walt Brown's theory. If you are thinking of many pick the worst one you can think of if you would. I do like Walt's theory. And I am always interested in criticisms of it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 31 by EarthScienceguy]

Klay, N. et al., Nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences, Physical Review C44(6):2847–2848, 1991.

Why did you reference that article? All they did there was map out the energy level structure to define the various ground state energy levels for each observed transition, and they measured some of the decay rates at fixed temperatures. From these measurements, they inferred the excitation energy of the isomer, and the neutron separation energy (neither of which are decay rates). Here's a link to the abstract:

https://journals.aps.org/prc/abstract/1 ... RevC4.2801

And here is the abstract (below in green). There is no mention of measuring the temperature dependence of nuclear decay rates, which was the point being challenged, so I didn't bother buying the full text:


N. Klay, F. Käppeler, H. Beer, G. Schatz, H. Börner, F. Hoyler, S. J. Robinson, K. Schreckenbach, B. Krusche, U. Mayerhofer, G. Hlawatsch, H. Lindner, T. von Egidy, W. Andrejtscheff, and P. Petkov
Phys. Rev. C 44, 2801 – Published 1 December 1991

Excited states of the deformed odd-odd nucleus 176Lu have been investigated by the following experiments: measurement of the 175Lu(n,γ)176Lu reaction with high resolution crystal spectrometers and of the 175Lu(n,e−)176Lu reaction with a double focusing magnet-spectrometer. In total, 509 gamma transitions could be identified in 176Lu, and multipolarities were determined for 228 of these transitions. Additionally, a measurement of γ-γ coincidences after neutron capture and an investigation of the 175Lu(d,p)176Lu transfer reaction were also performed. Information on the lifetimes of relevant levels was obtained by the technique of delayed coincidences, and, in one case, by the Doppler shift attenuation method. With these results, a level scheme was established, comprising 97 energy levels connected by 270 gamma transitions. About 30 Nilsson configurations and corresponding rotational bands were identified. The comparison with model calculations indicates that the level scheme comprises all excited states with spins 1<I<8 up to 900 keV. In particular, this scheme contains transitions that connect the Iπ=7− ground state with the 1− isomer via mediating levels at higher excitation energy. From this coupling, the excitation energy of the isomer was precisely defined to 122.855±0.009 keV. Accordingly, the neutron separation energy of 176Lu could be revised to 6287.91±0.15 keV. Based on the fact that more than 90% of the observed intensities could be placed in the level scheme, an isomeric ratio, σp(i)/σtot=0.870±0.025, was deduced for the fractional population of the isomer by thermal neutron captures.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Ok let's go at it this way then. I thought that was interesting but I should have realized that it would still have all kinds of problems with the production of heat, which would have melted the crust of the earth and that would be a problem. I prefer an earth's crust that is not molten. But that is what I deserve for not double checking.

But that was a simple answered but I will go into the more complexed one that that I am pretty sure I can defend.

I am not sure if you are familiar with stellar evolutionary theory. In stellar evolutionary theory says that are star will fuse elements together until it reaches iron. Now there is a reason why a star stops at iron. It stops at iron because fuse after iron becomes endothermic.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html

Elements are stable because of the balance of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. In lighter elements the proton to neutron ratio is 50-50. In heavier elements the ratio is more like 60-40 to become stable. If they are not stable then like when elements are made in a nuclear reactor they immediately break down. They call this the valley of stability.

Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes. 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.

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

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 33 by DrNoGods]

I wrote this over successive breaks so it may be a little disconnected.


Ok let's go at it this way then. I thought that was interesting but I should have realized that it would still have all kinds of problems with the production of heat, which would have melted the crust of the earth and that would be a problem. I prefer an earth's crust that is not molten. But that is what I deserve for not double checking.

But that was a simple answered but I will go into the more complexed one that that I am pretty sure I can defend.

I am not sure if you are familiar with stellar evolutionary theory. In stellar evolutionary theory says that are star will fuse elements together until it reaches iron. Now there is a reason why a star stops at iron. It stops at iron because fuse after iron becomes endothermic.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html

Elements are stable because of the balance of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. In lighter elements the proton to neutron ratio is 50-50. In heavier elements the ratio is more like 60-40 to become stable. If they are not stable then like when elements are made in a nuclear reactor they immediately break down. They call this the valley of stability.

Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes. 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.

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

For an instant, temperatures in this “hot dot� (less than one ten-millionth of a millimeter in diameter) reached 3.5 × 108 K—an energy density greatly exceeding that of a supernova! The electrodes ruptured with a flash of light, including x-rays and gamma rays. Also emitted were alpha and beta particles, plasma, and dozens of transmuted chemical elements. The total energy in this “hot dot� was about four orders of magnitude greater than the electrical energy input! However heat was absorbed by elements heavier than iron that were produced by fusion. Therefore, little heat was emitted from the entire experiment. The new elements resulted from a “cold repacking� of the nucleons of the target electrode.

Stanislav Adamenko, “The New Fusion,� ExtraOrdinary Technology, Vol. 4, October-December, 2006, p. 3.

This Z-pinch is actually very interesting. When I first saw this a few years ago I thought it would be possible to make an engine from this technology. It is interesting to see that some of the new engines that NASA is rolling out is utilizing this technology. It is possible to use because even though its producing fusion using normal fusion theory it still does not produce heat because of the heavier elements that are produced by the z pinch.

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. All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.
In ratios that matched the those on the earth.


And there is more.

It is very common for lightning to occur during Earthquakes. The reason for this is compression of rock. Just like an electric grill uses quartz to create a spark because of compressing the quartz. Granite which has quartz in it when compressed creates a huge electric current in the ground.


Now what does all of this have to do with the radioactive elements that we find on the earth. Now before you all go off on my use of the flood. Which I am quite sure I can defend and we even go further off than what we already are. I am just telling you all now I am not going to defend it here.

So if during the flood the crust was compressed it could easily cause current to go through the crust that would cause the radioactive elements to form because of the z –pinch. This would also cause all of the isotopes to form in the percentages that we see today.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 34 by EarthScienceguy]

So if during the flood the crust was compressed it could easily cause current to go through the crust that would cause the radioactive elements to form because of the z –pinch. This would also cause all of the isotopes to form in the percentages that we see today.

What on earth led to that?

1) You commented in post 28: "... simply heating up a radioactive element causes the rate decay rate to increase."

2) I challenged this in my post 29.

3) You responded with a reference to a paper by Klay et al.

4) I pointed out in post 33 that the Klay et al paper has nothing to do with the temperature dependence of radioactive decay rates, which was the point being challenged.

5) You then reply with post 34 which is some rambling comments about fusion and the biblical flood myth (which I assume you are referencing with "the flood" comment). What does that have to do with the temperature dependence of radioactive decay rates? Are you (yet again) jumping off on some completely new tangent about how isotope ratios arose, and claiming that this has something to do with Noah's flood and compression of the earth's crust? Where did that come from, and why?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

I agreed with with you. The fast radioactive decay was not possible.

But that is not our only theory. On radioactive decay.

I changed to our second theory.

[Tcg]

I changed to our second theory.

Three-card Monte works the same way. Of course at the hands of a skilled practitioner, it is much harder to keep track of. Your con is easy to identify.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 28 by EarthScienceguy]

You asked about radioactivity and simply heating up a radioactive element causes the rate decay rate to increase. MMMM.

False. No external factors that influence radioactive decay have been found. Temperature as we describe it is a macroscopic value based upon microscopic vibrations of the atoms or molecules of a material. Temperature as we understand it doesn't have meaning on a subatomic scale. You might have a point if you are considering temperatures above 10,000,000K as in the cores of stars.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 1 by Neatras]

By Creationist logic, what kind of fossils should we expect to see in different rock layers?

Those we actually found: gaps, jumps, stasis, sudden appearances and all. No need for endless artistic impressions of intermediates, and excuses for why they never showed up-

By Creationist logic, what explains the precision of endogenous retroviral relics in our genome that maps to near perfect similarity to other species'?

same thing that explains similarities in Ford and Chevy pickups, and it's not that one spontaneously and accidentally morphed from the other

By Creationist logic, what methods for interpreting radioactive decay can we use for the purpose of improving industry?

what industry specifically? you will probably find many creationists working in them already

By Creationist logic, what is the best method for preventing and countering viral mutation and ensuring the general health is secured? Any pharmaceutical nuggets of wisdom you can enlighten us with?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/201 ... developed/

James M. Tour is an American synthetic organic chemist, specializing in nanotechnology. Tour is the T. T. and W. F. Chao Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Materials Science and NanoEngineering, and Professor of Computer Science at Rice University in Houston, Texas, United States.

Tour is a proponent of intelligent design and works on this assumption . He is a signatory of "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", which states "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life

By Creationist logic, what mechanism causes/prevents novel traits from appearing in species over successive generations?

mathematics prevents this happening accidentally, but it can be preordained with specific information