Arguments Against Old Earth Theory

[Justatruthseeker]

When I said that there is a negative corrolation between the shape of a society and its religiosity, I was also considering the US.

It's among the most religious countries of the western world, but the society is in one of the worse shapes as well in terms of literacy, education, health, violence/crime rates, infant mortality, general life expectancy,...

I wasn't talking about how "rich" societies are or can be.

It's in the worst shape because those in control believe in evolution and that's all that's taught in schools anymore. You can't blame religion, you took it out of schools to teach your false doctrine, reap the rewards of your own making and stop blaming others for the very things you all brought about. Children do actually learn what they are taught in school, and they are acting out the very values they are being taught, which is not religious values, it's not taught anymore.

You got exactly what you wanted, so don't complain now because you got what is the inevitable outcome of a Godless society. Every year religion goes down, and every year society gets worse. I know you can't correlate the two because you want to blame religion, even if it's decreasing, but I guess you could blame religion because it's decreasing..... if one needed a scapegoat that badly.

So you all got what you wanted to teach the children, now reap your rewards....

 

[DogmaHunter]

It's in the worst shape because those in control believe in evolution and that's all that's taught in schools anymore.

Then the rest of the secular world should be in the same shape, which is not the case.
The point exactly. ps: no other western secular country has as much creationists with seats in congress/senate then the US. pps: no other wester secular country has schools even questioning biology.

You can't blame religion

I'm not blaming religion. If you go back and read what I said, I spoke about a correlation. I didn't imply any causal links. I just noted the correlation. Which seems pretty universal. The higher the level of religiosity, the worse shape it is in.

I'm not saying that religion is the causal factor. It could just as well be that the actual causal factor is something else and that the higher religiosity is just another consequence of that causal factor.

Children do actually learn what they are taught in school, and they are acting out the very values they are being taught, which is not religious values, it's not taught anymore.

Natural science classes are just about teaching students about the world around them, how it works. It has nothing to say about any values, morals, ethics or whatever.

You got exactly what you wanted, so don't complain now because you got what is the inevitable outcome of a Godless society.

You mean things like higher literacy rates, less crime, less violence, less teenage pregnancy, less domestic violence, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher average income, better education, ...?

Yeah, I kinda am a fan of those things. You not so much, it seems.

Every year religion goes down, and every year society gets worse.

The corrolation of societal health indexes and general religiosity, shows the exact opposite trend.

I know you can't correlate the two because you want to blame religion

I'll state a second time that I used to word "CORROLATION". It doesn't imply causation.
I'm not blaming anything. I'm just noting the statistics.

So you all got what you wanted to teach the children, now reap your rewards....

It's hilarious how you understood from my post the exact opposite of what I actually said.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Then the rest of the secular world should be in the same shape, which is not the case.
The point exactly. ps: no other western secular country has as much creationists with seats in congress/senate then the US. pps: no other wester secular country has schools even questioning biology.

But only you are willing to believe that those who claim to be christians for votes are actually Christian. They then pass laws which help the rich and downtrodden the poor. Reduce help to those in need while giving tax breaks to mega corporations. One is not what one claims to be, but the actions one does.

Just like the popes that started the crusades and inquisition, nothing but wolves in sheeps clothing out for their own power and personal gain.

People will say anything to get re-elected.

I'm not blaming religion. If you go back and read what I said, I spoke about a correlation. I didn't imply any causal links. I just noted the correlation. Which seems pretty universal. The higher the level of religiosity, the worse shape it is in.

Yet when Christianity was actually taught in schools, the problem was much, much less. Go look at history. The very year after religion was taken out of our schools is when the problems started. That's when it began to skyrocket, whether you want to admit to that or not.

I'm not saying that religion is the causal factor. It could just as well be that the actual causal factor is something else and that the higher religiosity is just another consequence of that causal factor.

Again, don't equate people going to church on Sunday to be seen by their peers as equating to belief. Then they go out and do whatever until the next time they can go to church to make themselves feel better.

Natural science classes are just about teaching students about the world around them, how it works. It has nothing to say about any values, morals, ethics or whatever.

And that's the problem, they have removed all teaching of values, morals and ethics and left it to the parent, who also was not taught values, morals or ethics, as seen in how bad society is in which people that have none rise to the top.

You mean things like higher literacy rates, less crime, less violence, less teenage pregnancy, less domestic violence, lower infant mortality, higher life expectancy, higher average income, better education, ...?

Come on, go look at the statistics. Crime has skyrocket inproportionally to population increase since religion was removed from the schools. Children blowing up other children, shooting them down in cold blood.. domestic violence has also risen disproportionately to population increase. Don't equate medical knowledge with whether or not a society is religious or no, one has nothing to do with the other.

Yeah, I kinda am a fan of those things. You not so much, it seems.

I'm a fan of those things too, but statistics says just the opposite about crime and domestic violence.

The corrolation of societal health indexes and general religiosity, shows the exact opposite trend.

That's funny, because every poll the religious majority decreases yet the societal health, crime, etc is increasing disproportionally to population increase.

I'll state a second time that I used to word "CORROLATION". It doesn't imply causation.
I'm not blaming anything. I'm just noting the statistics.

But the statistics show crime and other factors increased disproportionally to population increase just after religion was removed from the schools in what 1963 or so?

It's hilarious how you understood from my post the exact opposite of what I actually said.

Because the exact opposite is what is shown if you look at statistics since 1963 onward.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's stabilized the last few years because their has been a surge in religious belief, but skyrocketed as soon as religion was removed from the schools.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

View attachment 199863
It's stabilized the last few years because their has been a surge in religious belief, but skyrocketed as soon as religion was removed from the schools.

 

[46AND2]

Perhaps you better reread the passages on slavery. If one could not fulfill his debt he could enter into servitude to the one owed. And was to be treated with respect. What we call slavery today had nothing in common with the indentured servitude of the O.T.

Perhaps you should read Leviticus more carefully. It explicitly states that MALE HEBREW slaves were to be treated well, and as something akin to indentured servants. Non Hebrews and women were straight up slaves. There is a clearly described, consistent distinction between the types of slavery.

Furthermore, the Hebrew word used for slavery regarding the ownership of the Jews at the hands of the Egyptians was the same word used when god describes what is ok when it comes to slavery. So, if it was really no big deal, as you say, why did the Jews need to be saved from Egyptian slavery?

 

[46AND2]

Radiation which did not decay at the same rate as it does today.

We know as a fact that clocks slow due to acceleration. The universe began acceleration faster than c and has only continued to increase according to modern astronomical belief.

Since acceleration causes the atomic rate of atomic clocks to slow, then those clocks (atomic decay rate) was faster in the past.

Since they are using the rate clocks tick today to calculate into the past, they of course get the wrong answers. Clocks must be speed up exponentially as one calculates backwards.

So that billions of years worth of decay would have occurred in what to us is thousands of years of today's slower clocks.

Until they accept science and speed up clocks they know must have slowed to get to their present rate, the answers will always be wrong.

If the entire universe accelerated from the start, and acceleration causes the decay rate to slow, then by extension as one goes backwards in time towards that beginning then the decay rate became faster.

Just as the twin aged faster before he began his acceleration. I find it surprising that those that are supposed to be following science refuse to follow the science they claim to follow.

Radiohalos refute your claim. The radius of radiohalos are determined by the decay energy of the particular element. It takes many millions of decay events to create a halo, as each decay event makes only an atom sized defect in the surrounding rock.

The decay energy is affected by the decay rate. Had the decay rate been faster in the past, the damage to the surrounding rock would not be consistent with the present day decay energies. Yet that is exactly what we see. The damage IS consistent with current decay energies; and must have been for many millions of years in the case of a Uranium halo. It simply must have been consistent for that long in order for a halo (actually a cross-sectioned sphere) to become visible having been damaged one atom at a time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Radiohalos refute your claim. The radius of radiohalos are determined by the decay energy of the particular element. It takes many millions of decay events to create a halo, as each decay event makes only an atom sized defect in the surrounding rock.

The decay energy is affected by the decay rate. Had the decay rate been faster in the past, the damage to the surrounding rock would not be consistent with the present day decay energies. Yet that is exactly what we see. The damage IS consistent with current decay energies; and must have been for many millions of years in the case of a Uranium halo. It simply must have been consistent for that long in order for a halo (actually a cross-sectioned sphere) to become visible having been damaged one atom at a time.

It only takes that long based upon your assumption that the decay rate was the same. Yet if it was faster, then they were created faster, yet you think it was longer based upon the rate halos form today.

But since you are not accounting for the slowing of decay due to time dilation, your confusion as to how long they took to form in the past is understandably flawed.

You only think they took a specific time to form based upon how long they would take to form at today's rate. So if they decayed faster in the past and took less time to form, you would believe they took longer when in reality they took less time. Nothing would change except the actual time they took to form based upon your belief all has always been the same.

But then I am not the one trying to convince you that redshift is caused by magical expanding spacetime, when Hubble's Law requires it be directly correlated to their actual recessional velocity in order to determine distance, which is increasing at an accelerating rate.

They simply don't understand why c is always c regardless of ones velocity, so need magical expanding space to avoid the implication of increasing high z values. Don't believe me? Do a search for why light always remains c regardless of velocity and find that the answer is "just because it is"......

 

[46AND2]

It only takes that long based upon your assumption that the decay rate was the same. Yet if it was faster, then they were created faster, yet you think it was longer based upon the rate halos form today.

But since you are not accounting for the slowing of decay due to time dilation, your confusion as to how long they took to form in the past is understandably flawed.

You only think they took a specific time to form based upon how long they would take to form at today's rate. So if they decayed faster in the past and took less time to form, you would believe they took longer when in reality they took less time. Nothing would change except the actual time they took to form based upon your belief all has always been the same.

But then I am not the one trying to convince you that redshift is caused by magical expanding spacetime, when Hubble's Law requires it be directly correlated to their actual recessional velocity in order to determine distance, which is increasing at an accelerating rate.

They simply don't understand why c is always c regardless of ones velocity, so need magical expanding space to avoid the implication of increasing high z values. Don't believe me? Do a search for why light always remains c regardless of velocity and find that the answer is "just because it is"......

It's like you didn't even read my post past the first sentence.

I don't assume that the decay rate was consistent...I provided evidence that it was. Had the decay rate been different, Uranium halos would be a different size...or never form in the first place, depending on what kind of change we are talking about.

Different decay rate=different decay energy=different sized halo.