RE: Empirical evidence for young earth

RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

drj11 -> RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (4/30/2008 11:28:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me. I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm. Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth? I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him. You're right.. there is a margin of error.. by a few percent. So it might not exactly be a billion.

iluvatar -> RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (5/1/2008 8:37:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me. I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm. Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth? I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him. You don't have to stand around for a billion years. Radioactive materials decay at constant rates with a steady, predictable curves. You only have to measure the amount of decay for a relatively short amount of time to be able to calculate the half-life. -Dan.

SavedByGraceMD -> RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (5/1/2008 1:35:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: iluvatar quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes quote: ORIGINAL: PromiseLander Hey I'm an Architect, not a scientist - they looked good to me. I suppose the best evidence I can give you for creation and a young earth are the same physical evidences that many scientists mistakingly use for the purposes of the religion of evolution. The evidences are the same, it's all in your paradigm. Let's take the same evidence then. Zircons, by their chemical nature, exclude lead atoms when they are formed. But natural zircons often contain both uranium atoms and lead atoms. The half-life for the process that turns uranium to lead is around a billion years. Furthermore, the isotopes of the lead atoms are precisely the ones that result from radioactive decay, while different lead isotopes that exist in nature are not found in the zircons. How does this physical evidence point to a young earth? I love how someone can say that the half life for this process is a billion years. so who is the 1 billion and 1 year old who stood around watching this happen. I would like to meet him. You don't have to stand around for a billion years. Radioactive materials decay at constant rates with a steady, predictable curves. You only have to measure the amount of decay for a relatively short amount of time to be able to calculate the half-life. -Dan. I was just making a joke. I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance. If so, than that statement is just a good old guess on assumptions.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (5/1/2008 2:07:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I was just making a joke. I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance. For conditions likely to be found on earth (as opposed to, say, in the middle of a neutron star) most of the nuclear decay processes of interest are virtually unchanged by these variables. As far as I know, a difference has never even been observed experimentally. For one type of nuclear process, K capture, increasing the pressure has led to experimentally measured changes in the decay rate of less than one percent. K-capture is not involved in the zircon dating method I mentioned.

iluvatar -> RE: Empirical evidence for young earth (5/2/2008 6:54:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SavedByGraceMD I was just making a joke. Oh... well... ya never know 'round here. [8D] quote: I don't know much about that. But is it not possible for the process to slow down, or speed up , depending on the outside ( i am losing the word, so lets just say) forces. Like heat, cold, pressure, or some other instance. If so, than that statement is just a good old guess on assumptions. Like ES said, only certain types of decay can be altered and only by relatively small percentages and only under conditions that would have had some other side-effects (like, say, the whole planet being subjected to several hundred atmospheres of pressure or just being vaporized altogether). -Dan.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI