Critical thinking isn't one of your strong points.Easy. In some cases they NEVER existed! Now if you have some with a half life of say around 4500 years, I may be able to offer another explanation. Quite funny that you post a pic and think you clenched an argument.
Science teaches evolution of stars and man, not creation. That is simply not harmonious.This entire thread makes me sad...
Science is not anti-bible.
The Bible is not anti-science.
Reject science, trust God.People are a different story.
There are some things described in Bible that are not consistent with science. Does it follow that one should totally reject the Bible? I say no.
Actual science works. Origins so called sciences are a fraud.There are some things in science that are not consistent with the Bible. Does it follow that one should totally reject science? I say no.
Relax, the bible says Jesus is the creator and the gospel is all about Him.I worry that there is no room for the Gospel in either of those extremes.
The issue is whether what He says is true or whether demon science overrules Him.God loves you whether the earth is 6000 years old or 4.5 Billion years old, whether the gold on the earth was created by God in a way we can't understand or by way of collapsing neutron star collisions.
I love good and hate evil and lies.I love science and I love the Lord. That's what I have to say I guess...
Nothing like that. The issue is whether certain isotopes now produced by decay with long half lives actually ever existed and whether you can prove it if you claim they did.Critical thinking isn't one of your strong points.
By claiming in some cases the elements were never meant to exist is admitting that scientists have created elements that God was never able to accomplish.
Congratulations you have given a leg up to science which you despise.
Let me remind you what you stated previously.Nothing like that. The issue is whether certain isotopes now produced by decay with long half lives actually ever existed and whether you can prove it if you claim they did.
Irrespective of whether this change of goalposts is due to incompetence or straight out dishonesty, you are the one making the claim and the burden on proof is on you and no one else.In some cases they NEVER existed!
This make no sense whatsoever which is par for the course.Now if some long half lived isotope supposedly should have existed, but decayed away, they say it was here, it is just now missing! Ha.
Let me remind you what you stated previously.
Irrespective of whether this change of goalposts is due to incompetence or straight out dishonesty, you are the one making the claim and the burden on proof is on you and no one else.
I ask the question again if the decay rates do change with time then why are the synthetic elements not found in nature.
Take the isotope ⁹⁸Tc as an example which has a half life of 4.2 x 10⁶ years.
Note the long half life despite the fact it is not found in nature.
In fact it proves the earth must be older than 6000 years!
You seem to be claiming that the absence of an isotope you claim should have been here but has disappeared proves your case!? So how do you know it ever existed?
I see on site that makes this claim..
"All the isotopes with half-lives of less than 80 million years are not found in nature. The isotopes with half-lives greater than 700 million years are."
Missing Isotopes
If this is true, then how can you prove that these missing isotopes ever existed?
You are going around in circles again.You seem to be claiming that the absence of an isotope you claim should have been here but has disappeared proves your case!? So how do you know it ever existed?
As pointed out by Kylie your creationist site is nonsense.I see on site that makes this claim..
"All the isotopes with half-lives of less than 80 million years are not found in nature. The isotopes with half-lives greater than 700 million years are."
Missing Isotopes
It’s simple using ⁹⁸Tc as an example.If this is true, then how can you prove that these missing isotopes ever existed?
Good point. So the issue with that is how much was here when this nature started?!Carbon 14 is found in nature and it has a half life of 5730 years. That's significantly less than 80 million years. Thus, your source is wrong when it claims that "isotopes with half-lives of less than 80 million years are not found in nature."
You are going around in circles again.
If the isotopes never existed in nature but are produced in particle accelerators you are making the case for scientists being able to produce isotopes which God cannot.
Yeah I know, so what?! Man tinkering around can produce some stuff God did not bother using here...so??As pointed out by Kylie your creationist site is nonsense.
Half life alone is not the determining factor whether an element occurs naturally or not.
For example ⁹⁸Tc which has a half life of 4.2 x 10⁶ years does not occur naturally on Earth but is produced in particle accelerators.
⁹⁹Tc on the other which has a half life of 2.111 x 10⁵ years is found in trace amounts on Earth despite being only 0.05X the half life of ⁹⁸Tc.
The reason for this is ⁹⁹Tc is the fission byproduct of ²³⁵U which makes up 0.72% of natural uranium; no such fission mechanism exists for ⁹⁸Tc.
It’s simple using ⁹⁸Tc as an example.
While it doesn’t occur naturally on Earth its presence is found in Technetium stars.
You must have some private communication channel with God because it fails your standard of being in the Bible which is supposedly the source of all knowledge.No. Just because God does not use everything He could in making the earth does not mean He could not use them if He wanted to.
Did he/she tell you this………..Yeah I know, so what?! Man tinkering around can produce some stuff God did not bother using here...so??
Of course it is simple to make up fairy tales; a three year old can do that.No. Just because the isotope NOW has a decay rate does not mean it used to in the former nature. If the theoretical decay time in 211 thousand years, and our nature only existed for, say, 4500 years, then the material already existed but was not engaged in a decay process before this nature started. What you do is look at PRESENT rates and try to impose the in the past. Simple.
What absolute rubbish.No one says that God made the stars exactly as He made earth, so naturally we would see things there that may not be here! Remember also that the ONLY place we see that decay from light from stars is HERE! Not there. So any time involved in that process is time as WE know it HERE! It is unknown what time may be involved there.
It is not rubbish that God did not make all the stars the same or like earth. One differs from another in glory. He also is not moving His HQ to some star, but to earth. You could not look at the make up of New Jerusalem for example, and expect that all we see there be mirrored in stars! The bizarre and illogical compulsion you display to forbid God from designing with whatever materials He likes has zero biblical foundation. Furthermore, the end conclusions you draw from your stubborn stance oppose Genesis directly, because of course stars were made after earth.You must have some private communication channel with God because it fails your standard of being in the Bible which is supposedly the source of all knowledge.
You are making up this rubbish as you are going along.
It is not science to claim gold and etc all came from stars, rather than creation by God. That is total belief and religion.Of course it is simple to make up fairy tales; a three year old can do that.
This is supposed to be a science forum which is an evidence based subject.
Such as...?Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn’t make it right particularly when you have no supporting evidence while the counterevidence is overwhelming.
False. You see the streamed light from there here always and only here and you have been nowhere else! You are supposed to be defending science when you seem clueless as to what it says?What absolute rubbish.
We observe distant events over THERE in terms of space and time rather than HERE.
I understand that HERE in the fishbowl and present time that light has a speed! Now try to impose that limit on the universe! I dare you.You do understand the speed of light is not infinite.
No you do not do any such foolish thing. You observe light here from an unknown distance or time! The way you derive the false and imaginary millions of light years is by assuming there is time there that is exactly like time here. Religion.We observe the photons from a supernova 3 million light years away as it occurred 3 million years ago not as it is now.
The idea that time is different out there as opposed to here is refuted by the simple fact that astronomers can synchronize clocks on Earth by using pulsars thousands of light year away.
https://phys.org/news/2018-12-esa-clock-distant-stars.html
Your 'arguments' have devolved, yet again, into an all up out-of-control rant! Get a grip!It is not rubbish that God did not make all the stars the same or like earth. One differs from another in glory. He also is not moving His HQ to some star, but to earth. You could not look at the make up of New Jerusalem for example, and expect that all we see there be mirrored in stars! The bizarre and illogical compulsion you display to forbid God from designing with whatever materials He likes has zero biblical foundation. Furthermore, the end conclusions you draw from your stubborn stance oppose Genesis directly, because of course stars were made after earth.
It is not science to claim gold and etc all came from stars, rather than creation by God. That is total belief and religion.
Show us some science that proves the early earth had no gold, or that the gold had to have come from where you claim!!!? You can't. Don't preach about science here when you peddle religion.
This is a science forum and we expect support for science claims.
Such as...?
False. You see the streamed light from there here always and only here and you have been nowhere else! You are supposed to be defending science when you seem clueless as to what it says?
I understand that HERE in the fishbowl and present time that light has a speed! Now try to impose that limit on the universe! I dare you.
No you do not do any such foolish thing. You observe light here from an unknown distance or time! The way you derive the false and imaginary millions of light years is by assuming there is time there that is exactly like time here. Religion.
Irrelevant since they only see the light here in OUR time! Haha
We wait for proof that only the stars fit the bill for getting gold to early earth...ha. We know, you have none at all but believe real real hard.Your 'arguments' have devolved, yet again, into an all up out-of-control rant! Get a grip!
Your faith is fine by me .. your lack of rational reasoning makes what you say indistinguishable from a delusion .. your abuse and misrepresentation of science's inferences is pure evil (IMO).
You'll be waiting for a looong time .. inferences aren't proofs and there is no need to believe in anything .. but its clear you need both as an excuse to conduct your Holy War. You're not gonna get either from me.We wait for proof that only the stars fit the bill for getting gold to early earth...ha. We know, you have none at all but believe real real hard.
You have none then, as expected. Ha. Lurkers...behold the religion!You'll be waiting for a looong time .. inferences aren't proofs and there is no need to believe in anything .. but its clear you need both as an excuse to conduct your Holy War. You're not gonna get either from me.
Ha!You have none then, as expected. Ha. Lurkers...behold the religion!
Some poor kids might have actually thought science articles dealt in some sort of reality or fact. As we see here it is just empty claims based on hollow beliefs. That is noteworthy and worth knowing.Ha!
Lurkers .. behold the GOADING!
Can you point out where the science claim is wrong?
Hi Kylie,
I don't have an issue with the science, since I don't understand it sufficiently. But I can stipulate it is correct, I don't mind. But what I question is the underlying supposition that "if it happened that way today over there, that means it happened the same way then over here." And that's not good logic.
God can both create a planet with gold in it, and can also create a starfield which includes physics for making gold. But that doesn't mean that all gold was made that way.
Much love!
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?