Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving

"Alistair" <alistair@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The universe certainly seems to have such indications of greater age. For
example, we can see things that were not there when the photons would
have left.

Not really. Out of over 200 odd methods to date the Earth, only a
very few indicate ages over perhaps a million years.

I would be interested in knowing the list of 200 methods of dating the
earth. And how few of them give an age beyond 6000 years (all of them
excepting for an analysis of the bible).

Given that the stars consume hydrogen and produce helium and other
elements. Would you mind explaining where and how uranium is produced
and how long it takes to make that particular element.

I suppose God created it instantaniously, like the granite & polonium.
Why would we assume otherwise?

Consider the
amount of nickel-iron from meteorites. Even at today's rate of
meteorite falls, if the Earth were 4 billion years old, there would
be some 70 or 80 feet of nickel-iron covering the surface.

The oldest rocks on the planet's surface date to approx 3.8 billion
years ago. Any iron falling upon the surface would be oxidised and the
rust washed away. Such rust has accumulated as iron oxide deposits in
rock strata and also been passed through the crust (via subduction) to
form the core.

Right. Right down through the 50 miles of rock. Everyone can observe
meteorites. No doubt you've observed this migration through 50 miles
of rock also, which is why you're so sure? Like I said: long and
complex processes that are entirely theoretical and cannot be
experimentally proved. Perfect, thanks. :-)

Careful, I said "nickel-iron, not iron. The preponderance of meteorites
are nikel-iron, and nickel is relatively rare in the Earth's crust.

It is not
to be found. Look at the Moon's surface. They expected to find deep
seas of micro-dust from billions of years of exposure to radiation,
meteorites and heat/cold cycles, yet it simply isn't there.

I remember being told that the moon was made of green cheese. Just
because someone idly moots that the surface is so doesn't make it so.
That is why we have scientists - to discover the truth. Without them
we would all being worshipping midionite storm gods.

Er. It *was* the scientists who expected that dust, and they have
no explaination for why it isn't there. Remember the big saucer feet
on the lunar landers? That was for the dust. Dust does accumulate
on Moon in the *precise* way as expected. However, not enough
dust. Moon not 4 billion years old. Duh!

Consider
the salinity of the oceans. We know how much salt is being poured
into the world's oceans currently, and it is not likely that the
ground was less salty before being leached of salt from thousands
(or billions) of years of rainfall, yet if the earth were over about
10,000 years old, the oceans today would be like the Dead Sea.

Only if the salts were not deposited and removed from the oceans by
geologic processes. Where do you think rock salt comes from?

Please show experimental verification of process you hypothesize. :-)

Consider the ubiquitous polonium spheres in granite. There is no
reasonable explanation for them, except that the Earth was formed,
in place, essentially instantaneously.

A search of wikipedia does not show polonium spheres as an article but
does mention polonium as a natural element with a half life up to 103
years. Polonium can be formed by the natural decay of radioactive
elements or by bombarding bismuth with radiation. Granite contains
radioactive elements so what is your problem?

I see you aren't aware of this discovery made in the 1950's. Briefly,
every piece of granite on or in the planet is filled with little dark
specks. These specks are called "polonium halos" because they are
caused by the radioactive decay of small pieces of the radioactive
element polonium. The thing is, chemical analysis of the halos shows
that the size of the haloes and the remains indicate that the polonium
entirely decayed inside the granite. In other words, from the time the
polonium came into existence, it was inside the granite until it was
entirely decayed. This means that the granite and the polonium had
to have come into existence together, within about 20 minutes or so.
Anti-Creationists have tried to refute this, of course, but the only
"explanations" they have come up with are downright ludicrous. For
example, that the polonium spheres somehow flowed and penetrated
*every single granite rock on the planet* at a later time, without
disturbing the very neat little spheres, of course. Oh, and also
without getting anywhere else, of course. That "theory" is so mind-
bogglingly preposterous it makes me laugh out loud. I'm torn between
it and punctuated equilibrium as to which is the most preposterous
theory that otherwise intelligent people actually believe. :-)

There are obvious human
artifacts, like rock hammers with wooden handles, found embedded in
seams of coal; I've seen them.

What would be really convincing would be a dinosaur skeleton holding a
placard with "End nuclear testing now!". A discarded rock hammer is
just that.

Even when found embedded in the middle of an in-place coal seam
that is supposed to be millions of years old? See what I mean?
Even real evidence, you discount out of hand. :-)

Instead, they
propose preposterous, convoluted, mind-bogglingly stupid
"explanations" (like punctuated equilibrium), and choose to believe
those instead.

So, you would rather believe an improbable and far fetched convoluted
explanation lacking any verifiable scientifically derived evidence in
support, as written in the bible, and all that that implies than the
simple truth: the bible is wrong and your entire philosophy is based
on a handful of fallacious beliefs.

I would rather believe the truth, and I do. You don't want to
believe the truth, and will cling tenaciously to any theory, no
matter how convoluted or preposterous or unverifiable, so
long as it doesn't require you to be responsible to God. :-)


If you don't believe that, just observe the long and
complex "explanations" that will undoubtedly be posted to refute
the clear and simple things in this paragraph,

Nothing long and complex. You start with one simple concept:
theorise, experiment, deduce the truth. Then you take your
observations and build upon it. The only simpler concept is to believe
verbatim every word of a work of fiction.

You left out your first step: a priori assume there is no God, then
refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary. :-)

all of which will be
assumptions, of course, that can't be experimentally verified as
true. Radioisotope dating methods are so error prone they are
practically useless.

If they are practically useless then that implies that you believe
that in certain circumstances you find them useful. Please explain why
you choose to dismiss the majority of radioisotope measurements in
favour of the handful that you accept. Note - if the rock hammers to
which you referred were genuine then their ages could be verified by
radioisotope dating. Ironic isn't it?

You entirely misrepresent what I said. I only quote radioisotope
readings to show how inaccurate they are. I don't rely on them, of
course. I'm saying that if you get radioisotope readings that are
accurate, it is almost by accident, and therefore unreliable. It is
common to obtain different readings from the same material that
differ by multiples of many thousand.

The point of the hammers was the fact that they were found
embedded in the middle of in-place coal seams that evolutionists
would insist *have to be* millions of years old. Obviously, either
intelligent men have been on the Earth for those millions of years,
or the coal isn't millions of years old.

Lava flows that formed in front of cameras,
and known to be a few days old, have been radioisotope dated to
thousands of years old.

Geologic processes, outside of the bible, take millions of years.
Radioisotopes within those rocks would have been formed before the
rock cooled at the surface.

Oh, you're a uniformatarionist? Don't you know about Venus? :-)

Surprize to the geologists who did the tests. Obviously they aren't
as informed as yourself, in spite of being on PBS and all that. :-)

If I had a ruler that couldn't reliably tell
the difference between an inch and five miles, I would throw it away.

If you needed a ruler to differentiate between an inch and a mile then
you you would be an ignoramus.

Agreed. So, what about those who depend on and frequently quote
readings from such vastly unreliable "rulers" that can't tell an inch
from a mile? :-)

Creation of the universe was "a *lot* of trouble". Do you think the
God Who could do that would have trouble filling in such tiny details?

Presumably the bible can explain the polonium spheres that you
mention? I just did a search of the bible and find no mention of
polonium.

God apparently created the Earth instantaneously, which is in perfect
accord with the evidence of the polonium spheres. (Romans 1:18-22)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... Out of over 200 odd methods to date the Earth, ... Where do you think rock salt comes from? ... does mention polonium as a natural element with a half life up to 103 ... Radioisotope dating methods are so error prone they are ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Age of Earth, 1952 opinion
    ... The Earth's Age ... current date for the earth and then 10 years or so from now a new date ... What is often considered "history" is ... torched rock in a cave full of bones where there are no documents. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • barking dogs
    ... Well if All the articles in the rock according to age and that water ... center of the earth and local gravitational variation by cosmic changes ... What is called a Riemannian sphere would be no pacific ocean there and ... went from there to sumeria not the footprints in Mexico along side Dogs ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To John Harshman -- re Isochrons
    ... spinning of the earth. ... High-pressure rocks change to low-pressure rock. ... A magma is a liquid, some extract of the mantle not ... Is it reasonable to expect that a local homogeneity ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Origins of Life on Earth
    ... meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. ... amino acids are found on Earth. ... other organic compounds by planetary infall. ... we can determine the age of the rock. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)