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

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

The polonium is evidence that proves Creation true. If science is in
error, it's because science rejected any explaination which included
God as a possibility.

Arrant nonsense. Haven't you worked it out yet? I don't believe in god
or messiahs or heaven or devils. The existance of the Polonium (if it
does exist where it is said by some to exist) proves only that
Polonium exists in the granite (now magically trans-mogrified into
wood). There is no sign of a deity there.

Please give some *reasonable* hypothesis of how polonium particles could
come into existence and *completely* decay inside every grantie rock on the
planet, leaving 100% of the decay resudue in place, *without* evidence of
any other decay that could produce the polonium. This is the situation as it
is known to exist. It is perfectly consistent with instantaneous (or nearly so)
creation of the Earth, with polonium particles embedded in the granite. I is
not consistent with any reasonable theory on planetary creation that leaves
God out. If that's not physical evidence of instantaneous creation, what
would you consider to be evidence?

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.

Already covered. There are no residual remains of such decay into
polonium, proving that this did not happen as you suggest.

For a physicist you have a deplorable lack of understanding of
radioactive decay and half-lifes.

Perhaps so, but I know that radioactive decay gives off radioactive
particles, and leaves residue. And I know that the halos are caused
by the radiation and radioactive particles, and the residue is all there,
and the amounts of each correspond to what we would expect see if
the polonium were created there and completely decayed in place. I
also know that if the polonium is a product of decay, then the residue
of that decay would also be there, and it is not.

The
remains are precisely what would be seen if the polonium and the
granite were created in-place instantaneously, or very nearly 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.

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

And embed themselves ubiquitously in *every single* piece of granite,
but nowhere else? I don't think so. If they pass through granite that
easily, why didn't they pass completely through?

Because they had no desire to do so. If a god can exist then it must
be possible for inanimate materials to be self-determining too. If you
knew anything about physics and were prepared to take your head out of
the bible for one minute you might find the answer to that on
wikipedia. The polonium is a natural decay element where materials are
bombarded by radiation from uranium. I put it to you that, if the
polonium spheres exist (in wood and not in granite) it is most likely
to be the result of specks of uranium bombarding surrounding materials
and causing them to transmute into polonium. That would explain why
the polonium is in spheres too.

Although one person posted a link to polonium found in wood I note
that you have so far failed to provide a credible source, within or
without the bible, for the existance of the spheres.

That explaination *does not* fit the evidence, which I've pointed out
several times, and you simply don't care. As I've also pointed out
time and again, evidence is irrelevant to you, unless you see it as an
excuse to explain away God. :-)

Have you ever visited a graveyard where there are many granite
monuments? Every single one of them has these polonium halos.
Pointedly, they are *not* made of wood. :-)

Or, if they formed
elsewhere, how did the whole sphere (burned into the granite) get
there? Or why aren't the halos distorted from true spheres? It just
doesn't make sense, in any form or fashion; it's preposterous. :-)

More preposterous: assigning a non-natural super-deity based
explanation to a natural phenomenon.

Purely subjective, extremely anti-God bias, zero evidence. And that
is your idea of science? Apparently so. :-)

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).

Don't you think it would be strange for a modern miner to be
carrying a stone-age hammer made from a rock that had been
shaped and bound into the split end of a stick using leather
thongs? And how do you explain the fact that the remains of
coal the hammer was embedded in are still bound to it? (In
the photos and video I've seen, the hammer is still partially
imbedded in a large chunk of coal, which is very brittle with
low adhesion. Such an object would be virtually impossible to
fabricate. :-)

Show me your evidence. I certainly won't take your word as gospel.

The real point is you won't accept any evidence, because you *don't
want* there to be a God. A true scientific attitude would be to accept
whatever explanation was true. You see science as *necessarily*
excluding God. Science should not care whether an explaination is
God or natural processes apart from God, and simply look for the
truth. This is the antithesis of what scientific attitude should be and is,
on the face of it, proof of bias against even the possibility of God
having any part in creation or the functioning of the universe in general.
This is what I've been saying all along. :-)

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.

Try "uniformitarianism" which you implied in your sentence above
beginning with "Geologic processes." Also reference with detailed
statistical analysis of the pattern of meteorite craters on the
surface of Venus, which proves uniformitarianism is not true for
Venus. Conclusion: if it's clearly not true on venus, why should
we assume it here?

I am neither a religious uniformitarianist nor a geological one. I
recognise that geologic processes (eg plate tectonics) have not been
uniform throughout the existance of the earth (there was a time when
the land consisted of one giant continent so plate tectonics at that
time did not occur). So why should they remain unchanged in the
future?

Yet you just criticized possible geologic changes during the Great
Flood on exactly that basis! Get your story straight, either there
could have been sudden changes or their could not. If not, then
you are, by definition, a uniformatarionist. If they could, then don't
attack the Great Flood on that basis. :-)

I also have no doubt that there are areas of the universe where the
current laws of physics may not apply.

As for Venus:
Venus is thought to undergo periodic episodes of plate tectonics, in
which the crust is subducted rapidly within a few million years,
separated by periods of a few hundred million years of relative
stability. This contrasts strongly with Earth's more or less steady
state of ongoing subduction and continental drift, but is consistent
with how geological processes operate without oceans, since oceans are
believed to act as a lubricant in subduction. It is believed the
surface rocks of Venus are only about a half-a-billion years old as
impact crater analysis suggests that its surface dynamics have
exchanged its surface for a clean face (wiping out old craters)
sometime in the last billion years.

I agree, "Venus is thought... ." The point being, regardless of the
particular hypothesis, uniformitarianism is definitely out for Venus.
Knobody *knows* precisely what happened on Venus. Just like
theories on the formation of the Earth or evolution; they are
*theories* not facts, and not *proof* of anything. In physical
science, proof means experimental verification. Even then, it might
not be total proof. But no experimental verification, no proof. You
zealously believe in them because you have faith in them, because
they support what you want to believe. :-)

Strange, I thought the entire universe was created 6000 years ago, in
your mythology. Do you now admit that the universe is at least 500
million years old?

I was using evidence on your side of the issue. If that's your side, then
go by the evidence your side accepts. Nothing unfair in pointing out
inconsistencies in your position. Aren't you constantly trying to do that
to me? ;-)
--
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