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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #21

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 17 by EarthScienceguy]
These are not unbounded assumptions made out of thin air. They come from a document that is thousands of years old and is God's observations of how He created the world. And the catastrophe that He allowed to happen because of sin.
And because you believe it to be "God's observations", you don't question its authorship. You don't question the claims. You don't question it at all.
Anyone can say the same thing you said about any book at all. Say it's "God's observations", but it's another thing entirely to demonstrate that that is the fact.
If the Bible said that the universe was made from a ball of water and there was very little Oxygen in the universe then you might be justified in your assertion that this is an invalid assumption.
Oh, but what frame of mind leads you away from the Bible? Don't forget, you are guilty of citing Statement-of-Faith websites, who hold that the Bible is primary above any evidence gathered. Why is it that in this hypothetical, you concede to DrNoGods? Is it because it would be plain as the nose on your face that the Bible is wrong and you quite simply wouldn't be able to find a way to argue past it?
The problem is getting that much hydrogen to come together in the first place.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

Oh and by the way. I'm still waiting for you to explain where you got this from
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.
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
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 #22

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]
This is the definition of a "hand waving" argument, and yet another example of what I am talking about with trying to turn qualitative observations into quantitative conclusions. "Current can flow in rock" in no way suggests that enough current can flow during an earthquake event to cause a Z-pinch effect, or that any of the other conditions necessary for a Z-pinch effect can exist at any level. But the Z-pinch effect is the very thing you are claiming explains the radioactive material on Earth, and you've yet to provide papers or links to even a single observation that a Z-pinch effect has occurred in any rock at any time, earthquake or otherwise. You are just listing some qualitative effects that can occur, then leaping to the wild conclusion that not only can they produce a Z-pinch effect, but that it is sufficient to produce all the radioactive material on Earth. So it is a completely unsupported conclusion until you can demonstrate (or provide external references) that a Z-pinch effect of any kind can actually occur during earthquakes, and then follow that up with quantitative analysis to demonstrate that the effect could produce enough radioactive material to equal what we actually have on Earth. But you can't even get past step 1.

Ok, How did we get here then?
Where did the energy come from that made the universe that we live in?
Where did the space to move come from?
How did life first come into existence?

Tell me if you can.


What false assumption? I didn't make any assumptions in that statement. My claim was that things like Humphrey's balls of water for planets, or your claim that Z-pinch effects actually happen during earthquake, are false assumptions because they demonstrably are. But prove me wrong. Provide some references to show that planets did start out as balls of H2O with all the H-atom nuclear spins aligned, or that Z-pinch effects have been observed during earthquakes.



Evolutionists don't make any assumptions about HOW life came to be, only that it did via some mechanism. The nature of that mechanism is irrelevant to what evolutionists believe, but of the people who do worry about how life arose, as far as I know none of them have proposed theories claiming that it just popped into existence for no reason.
Then how did it? You have no answer. So it must be that it just popped into existence. There is no mechanism for life. So you have to believe that it just popped into existence.
Again, that is exactly what creationism claims.


No, that is not what Creationism claims. To put it into the words of Sir Isaac Newton from the Principia.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.�

Creationist believe in an intelligent first cause that designed everything we see. He then carefully crafted man as the crown of His creation.

Life did not just pop out of nothingness which naturalist have to believe. When looking at the complexity of life that is insane. Everyone believes the odds of life are astronomical. Believing astronomical odds is the definition of insanity.

Ok, How did we get here then?
Where did the energy come from that made the universe that we live in?
Where did the space to move come from?
How did life first come into existence?

Tell me if you can.


Preaching. And the document was written when science knowledge was nearly nonexistent so cannot be expected to be accurate on anything relating to science. Humans had no idea where the sun went at night, or that microorganisms existed, etc. So they made up gods to explain things that they didn't understand.
I could not have said it better myself. And yet Christians are bound to this document. And it still produces testable predictions that have been validated.

Walt Brown's theory is very specific and as made numerous predictions that have been shown to be true. Russel Humphrey's theory is very specific and it makes predictions that have shown to be true.

Both are falsifiable theories but when tested they have been confirmed not falsified.


It was Humphreys who claimed planets started as balls of H2O with all the H-atom nuclear spins aligned, not the bible. But we know this is an invalid assumption, and he, himself, claimed that god aligned the nuclear spins (ie. a clear "god did it" claim as the basis of his entire "theory"). It is utter nonsense.
His theory made predictions that were tested and and shown to be correct. You would need more than just rantings.
So the piezoelectric effect was known 2000 years ago? Care to give us some bible verses or other texts from 2000 years ago describing the piezoelectric effect? Wikipedia say that French physicists Jacques and Pierre Curie discovered piezoelectricity in 1880. But again, you've yet to relate the piezoelectric effect to creation of a Z-pinch, which is the basis for your entire claim. Just another grossly qualitative argument that because current can flow in granite due to a piezoelectric effect, that this can somehow create a Z-pinch effect (hint ... it can't), and on top of that a big enough one to produce all the radioactive material on Earth. Pure, unadulterated hand waving.
This is easily falsifiable if someone wants to take it up.

Walt has made many predictions using his theory and all the ones that have been test has been proven.

Compare that with evolutionary theory that looks nothing like what Darwin proposed. Evolution does not even have a mechanism for "upward change". Have you seen any successful duplications and mutations lately.


Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe ... think about it.
Hydrogen is a gas that would obey the gas laws. Think about it.

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 #23

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 19 by rikuoamero]
And because you believe it to be "God's observations", you don't question its authorship. You don't question the claims. You don't question it at all.
Anyone can say the same thing you said about any book at all. Say it's "God's observations", but it's another thing entirely to demonstrate that that is the fact.
Not only could they, but they have. The Bible has been in existence for over 2000 years. The Old Testament even longer more like 3-4 thousand years. And has not changed. It is still the same today. Every translation, every piece of translation they all match we we have today there may be a few words here and their but for the most part it has not changed.

And it has proven the test of time. The Bible has been proven correct over and over again.

Oh, but what frame of mind leads you away from the Bible? Don't forget, you are guilty of citing Statement-of-Faith websites, who hold that the Bible is primary above any evidence gathered.


Why wouldn't I? I believe that to be the case and creation theories confirm that to be the case. t.
Why is it that in this hypothetical, you concede to DrNoGods? Is it because it would be plain as the nose on your face that the Bible is wrong and you quite simply wouldn't be able to find a way to argue past it?


Why would I concede when I am winning the debate. The best DrNoGods can come up with is that the original assumptions are wrong. The theory makes predictions and every prediction is at least plausible. Until someone actually runs the experiment the numbers more than work out.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.
Hydrogen still obeys the gas laws even if it is the most abundant element in the universe.

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 His promise of what is to come.

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 #24

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 20 by EarthScienceguy]
Ok, How did we get here then?
Where did the energy come from that made the universe that we live in?
Where did the space to move come from?
How did life first come into existence?

Tell me if you can.


None of this has anything to do with a Z-pinch effect creating all of the radioactive material on earth. You're moving the goal posts again. I pay no attention to any of these questions because they are still speculative. Start 4.6 billion years ago when our solar system formed and discuss things from that point. We do have many answers from that point forward, including how the radioactive material on Earth came to be ... and it wasn't via any Z-pinch effects.
Walt Brown's theory is very specific and as made numerous predictions that have been shown to be true. Russel Humphrey's theory is very specific and it makes predictions that have shown to be true.

Both are falsifiable theories but when tested they have been confirmed not falsified.


You are still completely missing the point on these. It does not matter what Humphrey's "theory" predicts, or any coincidences that fall out of it, because his assumptions are known to be completely wrong. Planets did not start out as balls of H2O with all of the H-atom nuclear spins aligned. He just made that up and claimed "god did it." Therefore, ergo, ipso facto, anything that follows from those bogus assumptions is irrelevant. You obviously cannot be a real scientist if you think that the validity of a theory is proven by it producing numbers purely through coincidence, without any tenets of the theory having a realistic basis. Humphrey's assumptions have no basis in reality, they are not valid, and therefore anything he predicts from these assumptions is meaningless. Same with Walt Brown.
His theory made predictions that were tested and and shown to be correct. You would need more than just rantings.


Again, you're completely missing the point. Show that planets began as balls of water with all of the H-atom nuclear spins aligned and you have a starting point for an argument. Otherwise, it is Humphrey's that is doing the ranting and being laughed at as a pseudoscience fraud.
This is easily falsifiable if someone wants to take it up.


So you admit that earthquakes producing Z-pinch effects is pure speculation. Progress.
Hydrogen is a gas that would obey the gas laws. Think about it.


Yes, and one of those laws is gravity because gases have mass. That's why you don't experience 1000 MPH winds when you step outside despite the surface of the Earth moving through space at about that speed. Gravity acts on the atmospheric gases and keeps them bound to the Earth. In space, there are many kinds of events that can move gases laterally (eg. nearby supernova explosions that cause pressure waves to travel outward), and rotationally. These effects cause gases to bunch up or spread out, and the bunched up regions (due to the mass of the gas) eventually attract additional gas due to their own gravity. This process can continue for the typical 10-30 million years it takes to form a star until there is sufficient mass to fuse hydrogen to helium at the core, and create the stability condition where gravity offsets the opposing outward force from the core reactions and you have a star. But your original question was where the hydrogen came from, and that is not a mystery.

But back to the original point of this discussion. Z-pinch effects cannot be responsible for production of the radioactive material on earth. You've taken a laboratory result done under conditions completely different from those that exist in rock during an earthquake, and with no evidence that Z-pinch effects even occur in such conditions, and made a claim that this effect is responsible for the radioactive material on Earth. There is nothing compatible with an "Earth Science Guy" in that process. It certainly isn't remotely connected to how real science is done.
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

Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Post #25

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 21 by EarthScienceguy]
It is His promise of what is to come.
I have asked you, twice now, to cite where it is you got the reason for a sun that "appears" billions of years old but actually isn't. I didn't ask you whether it was a promise. I asked you where you got it from. Is God quoted as saying so in the Bible?

My thought is you made it up. Just like most if not all the Bible documents, it's something made up and simply declared to be true, with nothing at all to show that it's true.
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
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 #26

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 22 by DrNoGods]
None of this has anything to do with a Z-pinch effect creating all of the radioactive material on earth. You're moving the goal posts again. I pay no attention to any of these questions because they are still speculative. Start 4.6 billion years ago when our solar system formed and discuss things from that point. We do have many answers from that point forward, including how the radioactive material on Earth came to be ... and it wasn't via any Z-pinch effects.
I know that you do not because you do not know, that is my point. You have no idea how we came to be. You may hope it is one way, but you do not know. You cannot prove anything about origins. You may want there to be no God in heaven but you have no way to prove that there is no God in heaven. Because you have absolutely no alternative. You speak of some naturalistic means of origins and that science will someday solve the problem of origins. But that is some sort of pipe dream. They are not even close to solving the problem of origins. They do not even have a guess of how it might have happen. To produce what our senses tell us is reality.

So keep hoping keep praying to that God of science that you think will deliver all of the answers. You have more faith than I could ever have.

You are still completely missing the point on these. It does not matter what Humphrey's "theory" predicts, or any coincidences that fall out of it, because his assumptions are known to be completely wrong. Planets did not start out as balls of H2O with all of the H-atom nuclear spins aligned. He just made that up and claimed "god did it." Therefore, ergo, ipso facto, anything that follows from those bogus assumptions is irrelevant. You obviously cannot be a real scientist if you think that the validity of a theory is proven by it producing numbers purely through coincidence, without any tenets of the theory having a realistic basis. Humphrey's assumptions have no basis in reality, they are not valid, and therefore anything he predicts from these assumptions is meaningless. Same with Walt Brown.
That is not even possible. Prediction is what proves a hypothesis and makes it a theory. Especially when more than one prediction is correct.



Again, you're completely missing the point. Show that planets began as balls of water with all of the H-atom nuclear spins aligned and you have a starting point for an argument. Otherwise, it is Humphrey's that is doing the ranting and being laughed at as a pseudoscience fraud.
It might be if his predictions were not correct, but they were. Naturalistic theories were incorrect.
So you admit that earthquakes producing Z-pinch effects is pure speculation. Progress.
That experiment has not been performed no, at least I have not been able to find or an experiment that would relate to this. But the evidence does point in the direction of reality. Radon gas predicting Earthquakes. Very convincing.

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 #27

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to post 23 by rikuoamero]
I have asked you, twice now, to cite where it is you got the reason for a sun that "appears" billions of years old but actually isn't. I didn't ask you whether it was a promise. I asked you where you got it from. Is God quoted as saying so in the Bible?
I gave my reason in the introduction.

This is an assumption of the creation event.

What creation event do you subscribe to?

How do you believe the universe came to be?

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 #28

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 24 by EarthScienceguy]
I know that you do not because you do not know, that is my point. You have no idea how we came to be. You may hope it is one way, but you do not know. You cannot prove anything about origins.


Why would I care about origins? I never think about this subject at all. I don't care about it in the least and it has nothing to do with being an atheist. It is just not something I have the slightest interest in, and I've never spent any time trying to figure it out, or pay attention to any specific theories or opinions on the subject. Why you keep bringing this up is beyond me. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about other than it seems to be something you jump to in order to change the subject.
You may want there to be no God in heaven but you have no way to prove that there is no God in heaven. Because you have absolutely no alternative


I don't care one way or another about this subject either, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. I'd be perfectly happy if there was a god of some sort, and that humans have afterlives. But there is zero evidence that either of these is true, and no reason otherwise to believe they are true. So I don't spend any time worrying about the issue. It is not relevant to my existence in any way, and I've never tried to prove one way or the other whether there is a god in heaven or not, or that heaven exists. Why did you even bring this up?
You speak of some naturalistic means of origins and that science will someday solve the problem of origins. But that is some sort of pipe dream. They are not even close to solving the problem of origins. They do not even have a guess of how it might have happen.


This is simply not true. There are quite a few ideas on how life may have arisen on this planet (eg. abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.). So to state that "they do not even have a guess of how it might have happened" is plain wrong. "They" clearly do have multiple hypotheses ... it is just that none of them have yet been proven to be correct. This is called an open problem in science, and there are many other examples. That does not mean that the default explanation is "god did it."
That is not even possible. Prediction is what proves a hypothesis and makes it a theory. Especially when more than one prediction is correct.


What is not possible? My comment was that a hypothesis is not verified just because it may happen, by pure coincidence, to predict some numbers that may be close to observations. The fundamental principles comprising the theory also have to be realistic and consistent so that the predictions not only match observations, but the principles underlying thetheory are consistent with other known science. Humphreys made up his assumptions, and stated so (god did it), but they have no basis in reality. The fact that you think his "theory" is valid just because it coincidentally gets some number close is proof that you don't understand how science works at the most fundamental level. Humphrey's predictions are nothing more than pure coincidence, arrived at by the usual creationist method of assuming the answer at the start (ie. whatever the bible says), then fudging things to match the predetermined answer. That is not science.
It might be if his predictions were not correct, but they were.


Yet again, you clearly don't seem to understand that Humphrey's predictions are meaningless because the initial assumptions that he entirely made up (and said so himself), and then used to formulate his "theory", are wrong. Why can't you grasp this simple fact? It doesn't matter what his "theory" predicts if the premises upon which it is based are demonstrably wrong, as they are. Or are you trying to claim that he demonstrated that the planets begin as balls of H2O and that all the H-atom nuclear spins were aligned at t=0? He didn't even attempt to justify these assumptions ... he just made them up, and then made some references to god and the bible, and left it at that. It is pure nonsense.
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
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 #29

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods]
Why would I care about origins? I never think about this subject at all. I don't care about it in the least and it has nothing to do with being an atheist. It is just not something I have the slightest interest in, and I've never spent any time trying to figure it out, or pay attention to any specific theories or opinions on the subject. Why you keep bringing this up is beyond me. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything we are talking about other than it seems to be something you jump to in order to change the subject.
Origins is the topic.

You discount Humphrey's theory on the basis of the original assumption that God created a water in a certain form. You say that you reject this because you see no evidence of God.

What would you expect God to do to make Himself known?

God could not be like us in physical form

But You know of the complexity of in nature. You can calculate the astronomically low chance for life to come into existence. And yet you see no God.

You put your faith in the theory of evolution believing it as fact. Yet evolution does not even have a working mechanism.



And yet there is no working alternative theory that gives a reality as what we perceive.


God creation ex nihilo is consistent with the Christian view of nature.



Quote:
You may want there to be no God in heaven but you have no way to prove that there is no God in heaven. Because you have absolutely no alternative


I don't care one way or another about this subject either, and it is irrelevant to the discussion. I'd be perfectly happy if there was a god of some sort, and that humans have afterlives. But there is zero evidence that either of these is true, and no reason otherwise to believe they are true. So I don't spend any time worrying about the issue. It is not relevant to my existence in any way, and I've never tried to prove one way or the other whether there is a god in heaven or not, or that heaven exists. Why did you even bring this up?

Quote:
You speak of some naturalistic means of origins and that science will someday solve the problem of origins. But that is some sort of pipe dream. They are not even close to solving the problem of origins. They do not even have a guess of how it might have happen.


This is simply not true. There are quite a few ideas on how life may have arisen on this planet (eg. abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.). So to state that "they do not even have a guess of how it might have happened" is plain wrong. "They" clearly do have multiple hypotheses ... it is just that none of them have yet been proven to be correct. This is called an open problem in science, and there are many other examples. That does not mean that the default explanation is "god did it."

Quote:
That is not even possible. Prediction is what proves a hypothesis and makes it a theory. Especially when more than one prediction is correct.


What is not possible? My comment was that a hypothesis is not verified just because it may happen, by pure coincidence, to predict some numbers that may be close to observations. The fundamental principles comprising the theory also have to be realistic and consistent so that the predictions not only match observations, but the principles underlying thetheory are consistent with other known science. Humphreys made up his assumptions, and stated so (god did it), but they have no basis in reality. The fact that you think his "theory" is valid just because it coincidentally gets some number close is proof that you don't understand how science works at the most fundamental level. Humphrey's predictions are nothing more than pure coincidence, arrived at by the usual creationist method of assuming the answer at the start (ie. whatever the bible says), then fudging things to match the predetermined answer. That is not science.

Quote:
It might be if his predictions were not correct, but they were.


Yet again, you clearly don't seem to understand that Humphrey's predictions are meaningless because the initial assumptions that he entirely made up (and said so himself), and then used to formulate his "theory", are wrong. Why can't you grasp this simple fact? It doesn't matter what his "theory" predicts if the premises upon which it is based are demonstrably wrong, as they are. Or are you trying to claim that he demonstrated that the planets begin as balls of H2O and that all the H-atom nuclear spins were aligned at t=0? He didn't even attempt to justify these assumptions ... he just made them up, and then made some references to god and the bible, and left it at that. It is pure nonsense.

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 #30

Post by EarthScienceguy »

I do not know how to debate someone who keeps wanting to run from the scientific method. Prediction is the cornerstone in determining a theories veracity. You may not like the assumption you may not even believe the assumptions. But you still need to explain why the assumption produced correct calculations.

There was no way to fudge results. No one had any idea what the magnetic field was of the planets that were measured. So there was no way to manipulate results. Common belief at the time was in total opposition to his calculations.

In the end the spin on the protons of that much water did yield the correct results on every planet in the solar system. So why is that if the assumption is false.

Post Reply