Old post- etc etc etc etc

Check out the origins for earths radioactivity in the link I provided above.
Long story short, electricity/ionization can accelerate decay rates.
Also here:
Waterflow can accelate these so called ‘clocks’ too.

Just as evolutionists rely on assuming creation was not vegetarian originally to yield a belief in evolutionary processes, they too rely heavily on assumptions (and ignore data) to yield ‘old age’ results needed for the belief in evolutionism.

If you prefer a video to watch regarding earths radioactivity.:+1:

This is the difference between copy-pasta from the internet and hearing the information interpreted by actual scientists. You are able to respond to specific points brought up on the other side, rather than just heaping more undigested google trawlings onto your own side. Like they say, you can’t fill a bowl that is already full.

1 Like

Just thought of this article too.
Again, the primary dating scheme of radiometric dating is built upon wild assumptions of slow n steady decay, yet we now know such assumptions are unreasonable.
Big difference between 44 billion year half-life and just 33 year half-life! Again, Rocks are not clocks.

No, assuming God had to jump through multiple hoops (read the conclusion) just to create the appearance of great age is an unreasonable assumption. Just assume God created with the appearance of age, last Thursday.

1 Like

Did you even read what I wrote, my dear brother @Helloandgoodbye?

The reason I ask is that you saw that the subject of my post was radiometric dating, so (it seems) you thought it would be a good idea to just copy-paste links from creationist publications about the subject

Here’s the thing: it is 100% obvious that you did not pay attention to any of the details in what I had posted.

If you had actually read and understood what I wrote, you definitely would not have linked to the article on radioactive decay under laboratory conditions.

Allow me to explain in more detail. You have never heard this information before, I am quite sure.

Here’s a quote from that article:

163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. [Emphasis added]

First of all, Woodrappe admits that under the conditions in which life can exist (“normal Earth conditions”), radioactivity is negligible. To reach the fast decay state, 163Dy must be heated to such insanely high temperatures that all of the electrons are stripped away. Physicists normally call this a plasma state, and it is considered to be a fourth state of matter (the other three being solid, liquid, and gas).

What else is in the plasma state? The hydrogen and helium in the sun.

You seem to think that raising the temperature on the earth to many times higher than the temperature on the sun’s surface–this being the “laboratory conditions”- explains why radiometric dating is inaccurate.

I am sorry, my dear brother, but I think you and Woodrappe, the author of the AiG article, are mistaken in thinking that those laboratory conditions have ever existed on earth. If you were right, the entire earth would have been completely vaporized into quadrillions of atoms. Not even the sand would have survived, much less water and life itself.

Woodrappe also proposes a vast weakening of the weak nuclear force during the creation week. The problem with this hypothesis is that every atom other than hydrogen would have flown apart under such conditions.

A heavens and earth with nothing but hydrogen: does that sound plausible to you, my brother?

The first article you linked from ICR is no better. First Thomas cites research about tiny, insignificant fluctuations in systems that are not even used in radiometric dating. The systems used in radiometric dating have not been shown to be influenced at all by those seasonal factors.

Then Thomas discusses cavitation-induced fluctuation in radioactivity. This presumably has an effect by immensely compressing the radioactive material, much as the explosion of TNT in a warhead can turn a lump of uranium into a bomb.

Once again, a widespread cavitation condition that might cause radiometric dating to fail would also destroy the earth and every trace of life upon it.

Finally, Thomas states that helium atoms in zircons supposedly indicate a young age. The study upon which he is relying is riddled with bad data and erroneous analysis, as Henke explains here:

Please, my brother read Henke’s article carefully.

Thanks and God bless,
Chris

4 Likes

Hello again,

The cavitation study cited by Thomas in ICR could not be reproduced by other physicists:

In other words, if Thomas and ICR were acting responsibly, they would have retracted it years ago. The fact that they are leaving it out there unedited leads me to conclude that ICR is not a reliable source of scientific information.

Thanks,
Chris

1 Like

Morning sir. Maybe u missed this link I provided above:
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

This piezoelectric phenomenon explains The source of the plasma which created and accelerated nuclear decay ‘clocks’ during and after The worldwide flood, which is not ‘normal earth conditions’ which we live under today.
Video I linked above too should be helpful for you.
Also check out The Liquefaction section, which best explains the origins of rock layers.
Ttysoon

The conditions required to support your hypothesis about radiometric dating are indeed not normal earth conditions. They would cause the earth to heat 10 times hotter than the surface of the sun, which would cause the earth to vaporize instantly.

The earth as we know it would be no more. As the cloud of vaporized earth particles cooled, it would turn into a ring of billions of tiny asteroids between the orbits of Venus and Mars.

Do you see the problem here?

Best,
Chris

1 Like

Am I reading this correctly? The source of the super-heated plasma was a flood of water? This thinking is not the product of “normal rational conditions.”

1 Like

Christy quoted ‘I was brought up on creation science. Been there, done that, not going back.’
The extreme bias and closed minds are evident on this forum. As usual with ppl in general. Impossible to change a mind that is not seeking.
I believe it is Jeremiah 29:13 that reads ‘those who seek truth will find it’

No sir, you are not reading it correctly. The piezoelectric effect is the source, as demonstrated in labs too.
Yourself and Chris should read through the 600+ page online book I provided, and watch the video. Then let me know what u think?

Hi Helloandgoodbye. You may be getting some of the reactions you’re getting because you’re approaching us with the attitude that we’re all scientifically ignorant and you possess the magic pieces of information that can fix that for us. When in reality, what you are telling us is nothing we haven’t heard hundreds of times before. Young-earth arguments have been measured and found wanting, but I didn’t know that until I ventured outside of the bubble and started listening to scientists and theologians instead of just young-earth apologists. AIG and ICR are not really about doing science – they’re more about selectively packaging pieces of it in a way that will seem to fit their predetermined conclusions about the age of the earth.

I’d invite you to first recognize where the holes may be in your own understanding of science, and do some reading around the site. We’re here because we don’t believe that science and Christianity have to be at odds. I hope you’ll continue to ask questions and learn about science – I’m still continually amazed at how much information is out there!

6 Likes

Since you asked for feedback on your seven points, here we go:
1. The biblical creation account puts Earth first before the stars, and yet evolution teaches stars before the earth.
Evolution says nothing about the creation of stars or planets. Evolution is concerned with biology, not physics or astronomy.

2. Biblical teaching puts Birds before land creatures and vice versa with evolutionary teaching.
Is that “Biblical teaching,” Ken Ham’s teaching, or your teaching?

3. Genesis chapter 5 and 11 as well as Luke chapter 3 genealogies give The creation date of approximately 4000 years before Christ, whereas the evolutionary idea is that humans existed long before that.
Genesis 5 and 11 do not give a date for creation. Where did you get that idea? As far back as 1890, William Green wrote,

“But are we really justified in supposing that the author of these genealogies entertained such a purpose? It is a noticeable fact that he never puts them to such a use himself. He nowhere sums these numbers, nor suggests their summation. No chronological statement is deduced from these genealogies, either by him or by any inspired writer. There is no computation anywhere in Scripture of the time that elapsed from the creation or from the deluge, as there is from the descent into Egypt to the Exodus (Ex. xii. 40), or from the Exodus to the building of the temple (I Kings vi. 1).”

If the author of the genealogies had intended to state the date of creation, why didn’t he add up the figures and give us an elapsed time, as we see in Ex. 12 and 1 Kings?

4. Genesis 1:29 reveals the creation was originally vegetarian, genesis 9:3 reveals when flesh eating began, Isaiah 11:9-11 Confirms that God’s standard of good in Genesis was that lions got along with lambs and children could have played near cobras holes.
Isaiah 11 is a prophetic description of the coming kingdom of God. Do you always interpret prophecy literally? Even literal interpreters don’t go that far.

5. Genesis 3:18 puts thorns after sin, (The importance of the crown of thorns Christ Took upon himself) and yet allegedly according to the idea of evolution thorns existed for up to 55 million years.
This is a great example of missing the forest for the trees. Genesis 3:18 was not written to tell us when thorns came into existence. Thorns did not “allegedly” exist prior to human beings. That’s a simple fact.

6. The idea of earthquakes, tsunami‘s and other natural disasters before Sin and a cursed earth doesn’t quite square up either.
If earthquakes, tsumanis, and other natural disasters didn’t exist, life would not exist; the earth would be uninhabitable.

7. Lastly, (for now)the idea of death and decay before sin.
See above. Also, @Dave_Miller has an excellent article on the subject here:

You speak like this is something brand new that you’ve discovered. It’s 600 pages of junk science that has been debunked for years.

4 Likes

Except for the 600 page book, I read ALL the articles that you linked to. AND I read many of the sources that were footnoted in those articles.

Can you honestly say the same thing about the articles recommended to you by others in this thread?

If you cannot, I suggest for the sake of your spiritual well-being that you not hurl accusations about the alleged close-mindedness of those you are speaking with.

I have also spent many hundreds of hours reading creationist literature over the course of my lifetime.

Can you say that you have spent a similar amount of time reading the literature written by Christians who believe that mainstream science and the Scriptures are compatible?

The accusation of close-mindedness is easily hurled, much like any other specious accusation.

Best,
Chris

Is anyone aware of a University that has a doctorate degree that joins Faith & Science? Thanks in advance!

1 Like

Boston U and Edinburgh have programs. May God open many doors for you, Ben!

1 Like

@DOL, you teach this course. Does your university also have a program for doctorate level, or do you know of others? @Chris_Falter mentions Boston U and Edinburgh. Thanks

Hi,
We don’t have a Sci-Rel PhD program.

1 Like

Thanks. @ben, I appreciated Dr Lamoureux’ online free course–blessings.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/science-and-religion-101?

You first said ‘It’s 600 pages of junk science that has been debunked for years.’
Then you said ‘Except for the 600 page book, I read ALL the articles that you linked.’

See what I mean? And everything you have read you have probably read with your bias filter on :pensive:

In other words, you say It Is ‘junk science’ yet you have not read it… such a statement demonstrates how in deep to evolutionism you are. Come back!