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

On 6 Feb, 02:25, "Judson McClendon" <ju...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alistair" <alist...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

I can see why you would believe as you do. However: no reference to
Polonium spheres nor any indication as to why they are a problem for
science. I see no reason why a god should create a naturally occuring
chemical as a problem for science. In deed, your belief is that all
evidence as to age was planted by a devious god to dissuade us from
christianity so why should he plant evidence to prove science false?



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. :-)

When we achieve Methuselah's age then I shall be able to answer: yes,
I have observed that process. As to your response, I have observed
aspects of that migration (witness the quake that caused the boxing
day tsunami as part of that process) and I shall point out that few
meteorites are recovered from the Antarctic where they lie on the
surface of the ice and snow and are easily found. I say few and by
that I mean in comparison to the tonnages that you claim should be
there. I should also point out to you that we are living in a time
where few substantial meteors enter and survive the burning up in the
atmosphere. Those that do will chiefly fall into oceans where they
will not be recovered and where they do contribute to the iron cycle
in the oceans. Finally, large meteorites falling on land (given that
75% fall in to the oceans) are few and far between, are not likely to
survive contact with the landed surface (probably being destroyed by
the blast and heat generated by the impact) and, should they form
craters, those craters will erode and be infilled (often by the
material that the meteorite has excavated) to the point where even
very large craters (see Chixlub) are difficult to detect. So, given
millions of years it is likely that most meteors fell to earth and
have substantially contributed, by action of geologic processes, to
the substantial iron-nickel core at the centre of the earth.
Otherwise, how do you explain the earth's magnetic field which saves
us from being frazzled by cosmic radiation?


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

Common at the core.


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.

Given their falsely based beliefs the large pads were a prudent
precaution.

Dust does accumulate
on Moon in the *precise* way as expected. However, not enough
dust. Moon not 4 billion years old. Duh!

The moon was made 6000 years ago. I know, because my pappy watched it
happen. Actually the moon is 4.5 billion years old. From wikipedia:

Several mechanisms have been suggested for the Moon's formation. The
formation of the Moon is believed to have occurred 4.527 ± 0.010
billion years ago, about 30-50 million years after the origin of the
solar system.


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. :-)

I think it is up to you to find evidence to support your cranky
theories.

Incidentally, if the salts were not removed by geologic processes then
they would still be in the oceans and they would be like the dead sea.
But they are not. So how do you explain that in 6000 years all that
extra salt has been dried out to form salt crusts and salt rocks
(there is a salt rock mined for road salt off Cornwall, England, and
another one in Malta. Doubtless there are more elsewhere in the world
(including Siberia)).


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.

Not true. Polonium can be formed by radiopactive decay of other
elements. All that such spheres prove (and you have not provided any
references to support your case) is that Polonium has formed and
decayed. That could have happened within 100 years of the formation of
the granite and may still be an on-going process. I suggest that you
look up chemical elements and their radioactive half-lifes.

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.

Not an impossibility, after all there are elements which pass through
granite with comparative ease.

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. :-)


Before you start laughing, for a truely preposterous theory, read the
bible. Genesis, for the story of creation, would be agood place to
start. 8-O

You could also read any tract propounding intelligent design.

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. :-)

I have no doubt that coal miners lose their tools and that some miners
are practical jokers.


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. :-)

I do believe the truth. Darwin.


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. :-)

There is neither any need to believe in a god nor to not believe in a
god in order to participate in the scientific process. I have
encountered many scientists who believe in god. However, not believing
in a god does prevent you from hamstringing yourself by coming out
with creationist nonsense.


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.

They are more accurate than the wristwatch you wear.

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.

In place coal seams? Would these be coal seams where men are mining
coal? I only ask because said men do carry hammers and can easily
misplace them (or play practical jokes on those who are gullible
enough to believe in in situ fossilised hammers).

Obviously, either
intelligent men have been on the Earth for those millions of years,
or the coal isn't millions of years old.

Human ancestry goes back 7 million years. Coal, as we have already
established (following your arguments) is only 6000 years old and has
embedded fossils placed in it by god to test the faithful.


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? :-)

You'll have to explain what uniformatarionist is as I can find no
reference in wiki.


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? :-)

Now you are talking nonsense.


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)

But does not accord with the evidence that you quoted earlier: the
moon. Romans 1:18-22 does not mention Polonium. 8-P


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... Polonium exists in the granite (now magically trans-mogrified into ... with polonium particles embedded in the granite. ... If that's not physical evidence of instantaneous creation, ... If I believed in god then I would not be taking your word ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I suppose God created it instantaniously, like the granite & polonium. ... embedded in the middle of in-place coal seams that evolutionists ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I see no reason why a god should create a naturally occuring ... christianity so why should he plant evidence to prove science false? ... The polonium is evidence that proves Creation true. ... with polonium particles embedded in the granite. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I see no reason why a god should create a naturally occuring ... The polonium is evidence that proves Creation true. ... Polonium exists in the granite (now magically trans-mogrified into ... that the polonium spheres somehow flowed and penetrated ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Christianity Ends Today
    ... Despite a new album and tour, David Bowie claims to have rocked his last ... "I think we are due for a revival of God awareness. ... "Rock & roll has been really bringing me down lately. ... Oh Lord, no. He's not unlike Elton John, who represents the ...
    (alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic)