Civil and engaging debate on Christianity and religious issues

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Reply to topic
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 1: Fri Feb 22, 2019 10:20 am
Reply
The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
1. Myth is the ratio of parent daughter amounts.

Creation theory says that God created adult creatures and fully functional systems. God did not create Adam as an embryo God created Adam as a man. God did not create an egg He created an adult chicken. God created our sun as if it has been burning for billions of years. The reason why God created a universe with billions of years of life left in it is to show man the immortality that he lost in the fall. It is also meant to show man the future immortality that he can have.

With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.

Now before I receive all the comments about God making thing magically appear. Might I remind all of those that believe in uniformitarianism that you have NO working theory of origins. Big Bang theory is not a theory of origins because it begins after all the energy is in the universe already. The universe from nothing is not a theory of origins because it also has to start with some sort of space. You have simply changed your belief in God to a pantheistic belief of the power of nature to overcome impossible odds. Saying that science just has not come up with a solution yet, is saying that you believe that nature found a way for life to come into existence, that is pantheism.

Although the above could be true, there are reasons why I do not believe that radioactivity was created during creation week.

1. Most Radioactive elements are found in the upper continental crust or granite. (https://www.nature.com/articles/208479b0) There really is no reason why God would create radioactive material in pockets in upper mantle crust. Deep in the earth I could see as a heat source for the liquefaction of the outer core. But not in the upper mantle. So it must have come into existence after the initial creation of the universe.

It has been shown in experimentation that fusion and heavy radioactive elements can be produced by high voltage currents of electricity in a process called z-pinch.

Quote:
Since February 2000, thousands of sophisticated experiments at the Proton-21 Electrodynamics Research Laboratory (Kiev, Ukraine) have demonstrated nuclear combustion31 by producing traces of all known chemical elements and their stable isotopes.32 In those experiments, a brief (10-8 second), 50,000 volt, electron flow, at relativistic speeds, self-focuses (Z-pinches) inside a hemispherical electrode target, typically 0.5 mm in diameter. The relative abundance of chemical elements produced generally corresponds to what is found in the Earth’s crust.

... the statistical mean curves of the abundance of chemical elements created in our experiments are close to those characteristic in the Earth’s crust.33

Each experiment used one of 22 separate electrode materials, including copper, silver, platinum, bismuth, and lead, each at least 99.90% pure. In a typical experiment, the energy of an electron pulse is less than 300 joules (roughly 0.3 BTU or 0.1 watt-hour), but it is focused—Z-pinched—onto a point inside the electrode. That point, because of the concentrated electrical heating, instantly becomes the center of a tiny sphere of dense plasma.

With a burst of more than 1018 electrons flowing through the center of this plasma sphere, the surrounding nuclei (positive ions) implode onto that center. Compression from this implosion easily overcomes the normal Coulomb repulsion between the positively charged nuclei. The resulting fusion produces superheavy chemical elements, some twice as heavy as uranium and some that last for a few months.34 All eventually fission, producing a wide variety of new chemical elements and isotopes.


31. Stanislav Adamenko et al., Controlled Nucleosynthesis: Breakthroughs in Experiment and Theory (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Springer Verlag, 2007), pp. 1–773.

Those who wish to critically study the claims of Adamenko and his laboratory should carefully examine the evidence detailed in his book. One review of the book can be found at

www.newenergytimes.com/v2/books/Reviews/AdamenkoByDolan.pdf

u “We present results of experiments using a pulsed power facility to induce collective nuclear interactions producing stable nuclei of virtually every element in the periodic table.” Stanislav Adamenko et al., “Exploring New Frontiers in the Pulsed Power Laboratory: Recent Progress,” Results in Physics, Vol. 5, 2015, p. 62.

32. “The products released from the central area of the target [that was] destroyed by an extremely powerful explosion from inside in every case of the successful operation of the coherent beam driver created in the Electrodynamics Laboratory ‘Proton-21,’ with the total energy reserve of 100 to 300 J, contain significant quantities (the integral quantity being up to 10-4 g and more) of all known chemical elements, including the rarest ones.” [emphasis in original] Adamenko et al., p. 49.

In other words, an extremely powerful, but tiny, Z-pinch-induced explosion occurred inside various targets, each consisting of a single chemical element. All experiments combined have produced at least 10-4 gram of every common chemical element.

u In these revolutionary experiments, the isotope ratios for a particular chemical element resembled those found today for natural isotopes. However, those ratios were different enough to show that they were not natural isotopes that somehow contaminated the electrode or experiment.

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

34. “The number of formed superheavy nuclei increases when a target made of heavy atoms (e.g., Pb) is used. Most frequently superheavy nuclei with A=271, 272, 330, 341, 343, 394, 433 are found. The same superheavy nuclei were found in the same samples when repeated measurements were made at intervals of a few months.” Adamenko et al., “Full-Range Nucleosynthesis in the Laboratory,” Infinite Energy, Issue 54, 2004, p. 4.


It is totally in the realm of possibility for all of the radioactive elements in the earth's crust to be made by the z-pinch process.

It has also been observed that electrical current in the form of lighting takes place during earthquakes.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140106-earthquake-lights-earthq...

https://www.livescience.com/43686-earthquake-lights-possible-cause.html

All that would be needed to generate pockets of radioactive elements with all of the percentages of isotopes that we see today could have been made in an instant, with understood science that we see today.


Those that hold to uniformitarian beliefs have greater difficulty explaining radioactivity in the upper crust. Why would radioactive elements exist mainly in pockets in the upper continental crust? This is even harder to envision when one considers that it only takes 2 billion years for plate material to circumvent the radius of the Earth. All Tectonic plates should have been subducted several times over in the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. Therefore uniformitarian beliefs would predict that radioactive elements should be evenly distributed about the surface of the earth after mixing in the mantle or non existent because of density. Especially since the density of U is around 19, Zirconium silicate has a density of over 4 and Zirconium has a density of over 6. Granite and basalt both have a density of around 3.

So any uniformitarian theory must first answer the question of why radioactive elements exist mostly in continental crust. Second, why would these radioactive elements exist in pockets in the crust? Third, why would these heavy elements not sink to the core when the earth was in molten form. Especially when one considers the oldest radioactive rocks on the earth were dated at 4.4 billion years old, long before the earth's crust cooled 4.1 billion years ago.


2. There are detectable subducted plates at the base of the mantle outer core boundary, along with detectable subducted plates at the transition zone. These subducted plates are detectable because they have not yet reached thermal equilibrium with the mantle rock around them. How could these slabs not have reached thermal equilibrium after millions of years? All of the images of the subducted slabs show consistently cooler rock surrounded by extremely hot mantle, even after traveling more than 1500 km (930 mi) right through the mantle itself.

Mao, W. and S. Zhong. 2018. Slab stagnation due to a reduced viscosity layer beneath the mantle transition zone. Nature Geoscience. DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0225-2.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/may/24/extra-layer-of-tectonic-plates-d...

There are so many subducted slabs under the pacific that many geologist describe the mantle below the the pacific ocean as a log jam of plates in the upper mantle. If it takes millions of years to for plates to subduct into the mantle then most of these plates should be already mixed with the mantle. A single shallow convection cycle takes on the order of 50 million years, though deeper convection can be closer to 200 million years. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_convection) So why have these plates not melted, mixed with the rest of the mantle and been recycled as new crust? Because they have not been in the mantle for millions of years simply thousands of years.

This melting and mixing in the mantle should produce an even distribution of radioactive elements, but that is not what is observed.

Pantheism does not have an answer for the problems associated with radioactive dating on the earth. Only creationism has an unbroken series of causes that lead to radioactivity on the earth.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 2: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:10 am
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

More cut/paste of standard creationist propaganda and nonsense. This kind of pseudoscience is not really worth a discussion. Run the numbers for how much energy would be required for a Z-pinch process to do what you are implying, and the conditions required for the process for a planet the size of Earth, and see how ridiculous the whole idea is.

You guys love to find some process that could, possibly, in theory, produce some thing or some effect remotely similar to something in the real world, then claim that whatever you've found is in fact the correct explanation without actually running the numbers or looking at viability, etc. (ie. without doing any real science). Nothing to debate here.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 3: Fri Feb 22, 2019 11:59 am
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post (1): rikuoamero
EarthScienceguy wrote:

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. `


So god planned the fall? He did it to us?




Quote:

It is also meant to show man the future immortality that he can have.


You know god's mind that well? Because I'm guessing that you would also argue, when it was convenient to you, that six thousand years, and 4.5 billion years is nothing--not even a drop in the bucket--compared to eternity.




Quote:

With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.


This, we must grant. An omnipotent god could have created a world that looks older than it is. He could also have deliberately written the bible to include misrepresentations.

Either of those moves would make him a liar.

When I look at a bible, I'm looking at copies of translations of copies of translations. One can at least argue that god isn't responsible for the errors. But when I look at the earth, with its fossils and layers and radioactivity and other spoor, I'm looking at the untranslated word of god. I'm looking at the real thing.

So it amuses me that some people say, in effect, "God tried to make the earth look old, but I am too smart for him."

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 4: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:24 pm
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to post 1 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
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.


Citation needed. I'm especially interested to know just where you pulled this from. It can't be from the Bible, as the Bible doesn't mention an earth or sun or universe that is billions of years old, or claims that any appearances of such are a deception to remind us of something. After all, the lack of any mention of an old universe in the Bible is an often used talking point by us atheist skeptics.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 5: Fri Feb 22, 2019 3:52 pm
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to DrNoGods]

Quote:
More cut/paste of standard creationist propaganda and nonsense. This kind of pseudoscience is not really worth a discussion. Run the numbers for how much energy would be required for a Z-pinch process to do what you are implying, and the conditions required for the process for a planet the size of Earth, and see how ridiculous the whole idea is.


You did not read the above did you. Radioactivity is not over the whole planet that is the problem. It is in very specific areas of the earth. Areas where the current was high enough going through granite to cause a z-pinch. This is not of if it could happen, or nature will surely make it happen. This does happen and is observed during earthquakes.

All radioactive elements have been made in the lab close to the ratio that is in the earth's crust using the z-pinch. Are you debating the labs findings?

Quote:
You guys love to find some process that could, possibly, in theory, produce something or some effect remotely similar to something in the real world, then claim that whatever you've found is in fact the correct explanation without actually running the numbers or looking at viability, etc. (ie. without doing any real science). Nothing to debate here.


With kilometers granite being crushed and quartz having a sensitivity of 2.5 x 10-12 C/N and 1.2 x10-2 V/N. Granite has a compressive strength of 2 x 108 N/m2. Gives 2.4 GWatts of power which is more than enough to produce a z pinch needed.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile Visit poster's website 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 6: Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:47 pm
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
[Replying to post 5 by EarthScienceguy]

Quote:
All radioactive elements have been made in the lab close to the ratio that is in the earth's crust using the z-pinch. Are you debating the labs findings?


No ... I'm saying that a lab experiment producing 0.0001g of material from 100-300 Joules of input energy cannot be extrapolated to lightning events during earthquakes being responsible for a Z-pinch effect sufficient to produce the known quantity of radioactive material on Earth. Not by many orders of magnitude. You're just doing the usual creationist's trick of finding a process that could possibly, qualitatively, explain something and then leaping to the conclusion that it is the actual, correct explanation without any evidence whatsoever. There are far better, quantitative explanations within a subject called science.

Quote:
Gives 2.4 GWatts of power which is more than enough to produce a z pinch needed.


Even if that number were accurate, 2.4e9W expended over 1s would only be 2.4e9 Joules (1W = 1 J/s). That would produce a whopping (2.4e9 / 200) * 0.0001g = 1200g = 2.6 lbs of material (using 200 J to produce 0.0001g from the lab experiment ... they state 100-300 J). And you referenced "kilometers of granite" being crushed (over what area?). How many "kilometers of granite would need to be crushed to produce the millions of tons of radiometric material that is on Earth? Where did that much energy come from? The whole Z-pinch idea is nonsense.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 7: Mon Feb 25, 2019 4:58 am
Reply
Re: The Myth of radioactive dating.

Like this post
EarthScienceguy wrote:

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.

Then this God of yours is deceptive.

Quote:
With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.

I'll take that as an acceptance that the universe at the very least, appears to be billions of years old.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 8: Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:38 am
Reply

Like this post
Bust Nak wrote:

EarthScienceguy wrote:

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.

Then this God of yours is deceptive.


How is God deceptive? He, at no point, claims that the creatures are old. You have inferred an age from appearance, after making certain assumptions about processes changing over time, and about the starting conditions. It is you deceiving yourself by relying upon false assumptions. God has made it perfectly clear how old the created kind were on Days 5 & 6 and a plain reading shows that.

Quote:
Quote:
With this being the case God could have very easily created radioactive elements with long half lives halfway through their decay cycle.

I'll take that as an acceptance that the universe at the very least, appears to be billions of years old.


Once again, only if you infer long age processes from assumed starting conditions. A plain reading gives a clear indication of the actual age. As an analogy - as I leave for work in the morning, expecting a long stressful day, I suggest to my loving wife that it would be nice to come home to a lovely warm bath.
I arrive home at my usual 6pm and find a bath had been run and was a delightful 38 deg C (close to 100 deg F). My hot water system is set to 68 deg C. At what time did my wife run the bath? And how did you arrive at that time?

Have a good day!
Still small

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 9: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:39 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 8 by Still small]

Quote:
You have inferred an age from appearance, after making certain assumptions about processes changing over time, and about the starting conditions. It is you deceiving yourself by relying upon false assumptions. God has made it perfectly clear how old the created kind were on Days 5 & 6 and a plain reading shows that.

The reason you are saying the measured age is wrong (or as you say inferred) is because you believe you already have the 'correct' answer for the question "How old is the Earth?", an answer straight from the Bible, which you presume to have been written by God, or dictated by him.
This number you did not get by performing scientific measurements. This number you got from a book, whose author is unknown, and you do not allow this number to be challenged or questioned in any way.
In other words, you are Exhibit A of the problem I point out whenever I talk about Statements of Faith.

Quote:
A plain reading gives a clear indication of the actual age.

And we have no reason to go with the plain reading from this one book. Why should scientists get their answers from a book, instead of performing measurements? If the Bible said your house is full of dragons, would you say your house is full of dragons, even though you never see them?

Quote:
. As an analogy - as I leave for work in the morning, expecting a long stressful day, I suggest to my loving wife that it would be nice to come home to a lovely warm bath.
I arrive home at my usual 6pm and find a bath had been run and was a delightful 38 deg C (close to 100 deg F). My hot water system is set to 68 deg C. At what time did my wife run the bath? And how did you arrive at that time?

I know the answer you're expecting. A "I don't know, how about we ask your wife?". Problem with your analogy is is that your wife is presumably a real person (presumably, you might not actually be married in real life) and we could potentially ask her questions. The author of Genesis? Who was that? Where and how can I ask questions of a person dead for thousands of years?

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 10: Mon Feb 25, 2019 9:01 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 8 by Still small]

Quote:
I arrive home at my usual 6pm and find a bath had been run and was a delightful 38 deg C (close to 100 deg F). My hot water system is set to 68 deg C. At what time did my wife run the bath? And how did you arrive at that time?


Tell me the volume of water in your bathtub, the insulating characteristics of the bathtub enclosure (an average R value is OK), and the air temperature in the room, and I can give you a pretty good estimate of the time your wife ran the bath (with an assumption that it was filled "instantly" at 68C ... and if you want that taken into account tell me the volumetric rate that she admitted the 68C water from the faucet). I can arrive at this via simple calculations that are commonly known because scientists worked them out over a century ago.

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

Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version