If the Earth is young...

[KerrMetric]

I'm not confused. I'm a Christian.

It seems both. At least I know you are confused though I am not sure you are a Christian to be honest.

But there is no doubt you are completely lost on the technical aspect of things.

 

[Phred]

Oh, I've wet my pants.

How would you know? Since you're just a human who doesn't know anything that isn't in the Bible...

 

[Vainglorious]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why are there no isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years present?

After all, if everything was new 6,000 years ago we should see evidence of all isotopes with half lives of under 6,000 years. Yet, naturally occurring within our environment we don't see anything with a half life under 80 million years present.

Seems either the earth is irrefutably old or the creator is deceiving us.

[/FONT]

Because the Earth must be less than 10,000 years old and these isotopes could not decay by random natural processes this is clear evidence of Intelligent Design

 

[dad]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Why are there no isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years present?

After all, if everything was new 6,000 years ago we should see evidence of all isotopes with half lives of under 6,000 years.
[/FONT]

No. You aren't even close here. You mean if everything was PO and in decay as of 6000 years ago, this would be the case.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Yet, naturally occurring within our environment we don't see anything with a half life under 80 million years present.[/FONT]

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]So, 4400 years ago, when decay started, we started to see that decay, and it's rate of decay. A rate, which, if there were decay in the past, would have taken at least 80 million years for some of these things. This really says nothing. No proof exists there was this decay in the past, so it is just an old age present based assumptive belief of the past! If it was always in decay, this is how long it would have taken to decay. I don't know why some of you guys have a hard time comprehending this one. Guess because so much of your faith is based on it.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We look at a daughter material. We see it is now produced by decay of such and such a material. We imagine how long it would take to produce this amount of daughter material through decay.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since the daughter was there before decay started anyhow, this is a useless mental calculation. Totally irelevant to real time. [/FONT]

 

[Numenor]

Perhaps GOD doesn't know what a half life is and never considered such because HE is not a scientist....

And here was me thinking God was the eternal Almighty. Not so almight now is he!

 

[Phred]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No proof exists there was this decay in the past[/FONT]

There is proof and I've posted it in this thread.

 

[dad]

There is proof and I've posted it in this thread.

Noting how things now work, not only is not proof they worked the same in the past, it bears no relation unless the past was the same, and could be proved such, which it wasn't and can't.
You say "..These are elements that are far too decayed, thus showing that they've been decaying longer.." But I explained that you only assume the elements are much decayed. The daughter materials, if present when decay began, do not indicate oldness at all. It simply appears old if you assume the past was as the present, which I have no reason to assume with science, and certainly not the bible.
Like this, perhaps, in case you really still don't get it. Materials A and B were here pre split, involved in some process other than decay, with the result being they would last forever. (Spiritual and physical together). The split happens, decay begins, the process we now have is one of decay, and Material A is in a state of decay into material B. If we were ignorantly to assume all the B came from the present observed decay, we would imagine long ages which in fact never existed.
The premise this is based on is purely the belief and assumption the past was physical only like the present, which cannot be evidenced or proved. Therefore you claim of old age is 100% a statement of faith. You have not begun to prove a thing, as you just falsely claimed here.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Noting how things now work, not only is not proof they worked the same in the past, it bears no relation unless the past was the same, and could be proved such, which it wasn't and can't.
You say "..These are elements that are far too decayed, thus showing that they've been decaying longer.." But I explained that you only assume the elements are much decayed. The daughter materials, if present when decay began, do not indicate oldness at all. It simply appears old if you assume the past was as the present, which I have no reason to assume with science, and certainly not the bible.
Like this, perhaps, in case you really still don't get it. Materials A and B were here pre split, involved in some process other than decay, with the result being they would last forever. (Spiritual and physical together). The split happens, decay begins, the process we now have is one of decay, and Material A is in a state of decay into material B. If we were ignorantly to assume all the B came from the present observed decay, we would imagine long ages which in fact never existed.
The premise this is based on is purely the belief and assumption the past was physical only like the present, which cannot be evidenced or proved. Therefore you claim of old age is 100% a statement of faith. You have not begun to prove a thing, as you just falsely claimed here.

The point is that isotopes with decay times longer than 80 million years exist in nature but those with decay times less than 80 million years do not unless they are produced in the decay chain of longer lived isotopes or produced naturally as with C14. Either God created a world that looked like there had been billions of years of radioactive decay or there has been billions of years of radioactive decay.

As to no decay in the past we have already discussed the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and your attempts to dismiss it also amount to God created a region that looked like there had be a reactor. The light from Supernova 1987A, ~170,000 light years away shows cobalt 56 was decaying at about the same rate it does today, 170,000 years ago. Now you may come up with some dad-hoc irrationalization but it will just come down to one more thing that God had add to his creation to fool us into thinking the Universe is ancient.

 

[dad]

The point is that isotopes with decay times longer than 80 million years exist in nature but those with decay times less than 80 million years do not unless they are produced in the decay chain of longer lived isotopes or produced naturally as with C14.

The decay chain wasn't a decay chain, but it still had links. To look at a decaying link and assume it was always so is not supportable. You say C14 is produced naturally, yet you assume that the past was the same, so only if it was the same would there be any meaning in your statement, Since this you cannot prove, I am afraid, you are left dangling with no case.

Either God created a world that looked like there had been billions of years of radioactive decay or there has been billions of years of radioactive decay.

If the split happened, it would look like what we see, and only the presumptions of old agers would make it seem old in their heads.

As to no decay in the past we have already discussed the Oklo natural nuclear reactor and your attempts to dismiss it also amount to God created a region that looked like there had be a reactor.

And this was a very good point, actually trying to address the issue. But I did cover that when you raised it. I even now try to quantify statements as a result of that exchange with something like, 'there was no universal decay in the past'.
There are a lot of assumptions involved there, however. There was something going on there, with the result of an atomic level change, that closely resembles our nuclear reactors today. Only in that part of the world so far has this been found. Now, I have a couple questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer them.
-What would cold fusion leave as compared to the hot reaction process we know about today? Could such a reaction in the past have been something more like this? Since we do not know how to (or even if it is possible) do cold fusion, I suspect no one could have the answer to that one! Perhaps the spiritual addition in the past allowed this sort of thing? Be it as it may, we see evidence that likely some reaction took place. Cold seems to make some sense to me, but we do need to look at evidence here if that might be ruled out.

Now, why, some mihght ask, would there be a fusion reactor set up in this locale? Take a deep breath, as I try to give a possible answer here. Actually, I'll see if anyone can guess, it seems almost obvious to me now, after having had a think on the matter. I'll give y'all a few posts to see if anyone hits it before giving my answer.

The light from Supernova 1987A, ~170,000 light years away shows cobalt 56 was decaying at about the same rate it does today, 170,000 years ago.

No no no no! That light got here in the former universe, and form, lickety split, and pronto. The old age bit is merely a present observation of the present PO universe and it's light, and how fast it now gets here. Get it?

Now you may come up with some dad-hoc irrationalization but it will just come down to one more thing that God had add to his creation to fool us into thinking the Universe is ancient.

I think it is hight time to stop being fooled into thinking ols no existant ages transpired, and put that same old same old philosophy in it's place!

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The decay chain wasn't a decay chain, but it still had links. To look at a decaying link and assume it was always so is not supportable. You say C14 is produced naturally, yet you assume that the past was the same, so only if it was the same would there be any meaning in your statement, Since this you cannot prove, I am afraid, you are left dangling with no case.

You are still missing the point. Where are the isotopes with half lives of less that 80 million years? Did they decay away or did God mislead us by creating an earth without them?

If the split happened, it would look like what we see, and only the presumptions of old agers would make it seem old in their heads.

Only if God made the world so that the "split" would cause it to look billions of years old. Did he do that just to fool us?

And this was a very good point, actually trying to address the issue. But I did cover that when you raised it. I even now try to quantify statements as a result of that exchange with something like, 'there was no universal decay in the past'.
There are a lot of assumptions involved there, however. There was something going on there, with the result of an atomic level change, that closely resembles our nuclear reactors today. Only in that part of the world so far has this been found. Now, I have a couple questions for anyone who thinks they may be able to answer them.
-What would cold fusion leave as compared to the hot reaction process we know about today? Could such a reaction in the past have been something more like this? Since we do not know how to (or even if it is possible) do cold fusion, I suspect no one could have the answer to that one! Perhaps the spiritual addition in the past allowed this sort of thing? Be it as it may, we see evidence that likely some reaction took place. Cold seems to make some sense to me, but we do need to look at evidence here if that might be ruled out.

No one could answer anything about a presplit world that only exists in your mind but in the real world there is no way that "cold fusion" could account for the observations at Oklo.

Now, why, some mihght ask, would there be a fusion reactor set up in this locale? Take a deep breath, as I try to give a possible answer here. Actually, I'll see if anyone can guess, it seems almost obvious to me now, after having had a think on the matter. I'll give y'all a few posts to see if anyone hits it before giving my answer.

Will we actually see something even more absurd than no gravity before the flood? I can hardly wait.

No no no no! That light got here in the former universe, and form, lickety split, and pronto. The old age bit is merely a present observation of the present PO universe and it's light, and how fast it now gets here. Get it?

But the light from SN 1987A shows that decay of 56Co was occuring so even if it got here lickety split presplit it still means there was decay before the split. Get it?

 

[dad]

You are still missing the point. Where are the isotopes with half lives of less that 80 million years? Did they decay away or did God mislead us by creating an earth without them?

The question is what was happening 4400 years ago that there was none? If there were they would still be here. I think where you get confused is looking at decay now, and thinking it was always like this. How would old agers explain this? Why is it a cut off point here, regardless of the so called 80 million years? Why is it nothing from say some imaginary 7 million years is not found decayed in nature? Or 1 million? Why would it not be an imaginary 120 million years, rather than the 80 million we find? I can't see how any old age explanation would be better than a split one?
At first appearance it would seem that some materials were not involved in the former process, that is why no daughter materials are not there? Creation happens the material were made, and no decay materials were there. Where is the mystery here? Only old agers expect some decay material there, not those who know it was created!

Only if God made the world so that the "split" would cause it to look billions of years old. Did he do that just to fool us?

No, He needed to do it for some reason for the sake of man, apparently to limit us, and presumably the damage we might do. (Say if modern men lived a thousand years still.) Being physical only now, and in a state of physical decay, people who assume that is all there was would have a twisted perception, yes, but that isn't His fault. They could have read His word, and believed, and known all the while.

...there is no way that "cold fusion" could account for the observations at Oklo.

Let's be clear here, I don't care if it was cold or hot or none at all. But why exactly do you say that that sort of nuclear reaction could not leave the material at Oklo so affected? Evidence please. I didn't realize you ewere a cold fusion whiz, in pre split conditions, no less!

Will we actually see something even more absurd than no gravity before the flood? I can hardly wait.

I deal with bible, and science, and evidence, and it is your conclusions that are the absurd ones. Guess no one was interested in the explanation on that one.

But the light from SN 1987A shows that decay of 56Co was occuring so even if it got here lickety split presplit it still means there was decay before the split. Get it?

No, this is anything but the case! You see, the split process may have started at certain points, like SNs. They were perhaps the first things to become PO, with all the universe eventually to follow. In the first moments they became PO, we would expect there was decay, and all things PO! The rest of the universe, or the portion between there and earth, anyhow was still in the merged state, bringing the event almost right away to earth! This is why we could see it here! It may have been an in split process event. Once again, check, and mate!

 

[OdwinOddball]

The question is what was happening 4400 years ago that there was none? If there were they would still be here. I think where you get confused is looking at decay now, and thinking it was always like this. How would old agers explain this? Why is it a cut off point here, regardless of the so called 80 million years? Why is it nothing from say some imaginary 7 million years is not found decayed in nature? Or 1 million? Why would it not be an imaginary 120 million years, rather than the 80 million we find? I can't see how any old age explanation would be better than a split one?

The rest of the world can explain it very simply. Did time and the laws of physics work the same yesterday as they did today? How about 20 years ago? A hundred? A thousand? Acording to personal experience and recorded history, yes they did.

Your outlandish hypothesis requires that everything be changed to fit your pre-ordained conclusion. This is the antithesis of logical thinking. It is the opposite of science, not that you really claim your idea to be such. With such a method though, one can propose any idea they want and develop a theory to explain it. It is the same methodology used to write works of fiction. Instead of taking the logical, simple answer you propose complexity where non is evidenced all because you insist the bible must be 100% correct, and failing to do so would invalidate your entire world view, and erode whatever tenous grasp you still have on sanity.

I will propse one idea for you to think on, and then I will never speak with you again, as doing so is no more beneficial then for me to drive down to the local mental hospital and coverse with a paranoid schitzophrenic, which your extreme delusion sugest is exactly what you may be aflicted with.

Time is relative. For time to move faster you would need an observer outside of time to judge the difference. In your fantasy this would be God. But to those inside time, time would move forward at the same steady rate. For all we know, time could currently be moving faster now than it did yesterday. But as far as we will ever be able to judge, this will be unnoticeable, and thusly a meaningless concept. Therefore, regardless of wether time moved faster for the outside observer in your world, to those involved time moves the same then as it does now. This applies not only to inteligent observers, but to all physical interaction in said world, including radioactive decay. To the internal observer, a year then would appear to be the same as a year now.

Thus, your theory is meaningless, it provides nothing. You can still postulate on differences in physical laws, and if you didnt wrap it up in an such obvious delusion, it might actually be an interesting subject to delve into. However, the elaborate tale you have created to go with it demonstrates that it is nothing more than a work of fiction. I could pickup virtually any hard Sci-Fi novel and provide numerous theories that would be even more elaborate than yours. However, this would not change that they are fiction, existing only on the printed page and in the head of myself and other readers. The difference between you and I is I recoginize fiction when I see it. If this is a problem for you, as it seems to be, I strongly advise seeking physciatric help before your delusional state devlopes into a more dangerous mental malady resulting in harm to yourself or others.

 

[dad]

The rest of the world can explain it very simply. Did time and the laws of physics work the same yesterday as they did today?

There was none to work, it was not a physical only world. The PO laws got rolling at the split.

How about 20 years ago? A hundred? A thousand? Acording to personal experience and recorded history, yes they did.

No, history fades into a gray area that is dated by belief and assumption only fairly quickly. The split, according to my calculations was around 4400 years ago. That's how long you have to apply PO laws, no more.

Your outlandish hypothesis requires that everything be changed to fit your pre-ordained conclusion.

Not at all, your conclusion requires it be the same to fit yours!

This is the antithesis of logical thinking.

How would you know? You would need to demonstrate you know logic to try and monopolize it!

It is the opposite of science, not that you really claim your idea to be such.

No it is the same as science, as far as science can go, which is far less than you thought!

With such a method though, one can propose any idea they want and develop a theory to explain it.

No. One could use evidence and the bible to help where science cannot help, though, could one not?

It is the same methodology used to write works of fiction. Instead of taking the logical, simple answer you propose complexity where non is evidenced

Creation is complexity now? And granny and the speck are simplicity? No. It is precisely your fantasies of the past that are not at all at all at all evidenced. Belief and assumption period. End of your story.

all because you insist the bible must be 100% correct, and failing to do so would invalidate your entire world view,

He cannot fail, which invalidates YOUR whole world you dreamed up.

and erode whatever tenous grasp you still have on sanity.

Like you are Dr Sane. You sound more like Dr Strangelove.

I will propse one idea for you to think on, and then I will never speak with you again,

Parting is such sweet sorrow. I hardly know you. In fact I don't.

as doing so is no more beneficial then for me to drive down to the local mental hospital and coverse with a paranoid schitzophrenic, which your extreme delusion sugest is exactly what you may be aflicted with.

You're swell too, calm down, we don't need an episode here where you feel possesed to write again, after all, do we?

Time is relative. For time to move faster you would need an observer outside of time to judge the difference.

WEll, Dr Time, I am afraid your opinion is relative -to the box!

In your fantasy this would be God. But to those inside time, time would move forward at the same steady rate.

Cut the speech, who cares about in box time here?

For all we know, time could currently be moving faster now than it did yesterday.

For all you know the whole universe was in a speck.

But as far as we will ever be able to judge, this will be unnoticeable, and thusly a meaningless concept.

Hey, you brought it up, not me, add it to your other meaningless old age beliefs.

Therefore, regardless of wether time moved faster for the outside observer in your world, to those involved time moves the same then as it does now. This applies not only to inteligent observers, but to all physical interaction in said world, including radioactive decay. To the internal observer, a year then would appear to be the same as a year now.

This is supposed to be a point of some kind? Box theories of time you don't ebven understand what it is relative to? No.

Thus, your theory is meaningless, it provides nothing.

Because you rant about PO time, and what you think it means without God, at that?!! Ha. You drive alone to that asylum, sonny.

You can still postulate on differences in physical laws,

They were the same since they came to be, what changes? Try to stick to some semblance of meaning here.

and if you didnt wrap it up in an such obvious delusion, it might actually be an interesting subject to delve into.

The delving in your mind goes deep, apparently. Not clear, but at least deep.

However, the elaborate tale you have created to go with it demonstrates that it is nothing more than a work of fiction. I could pickup virtually any hard Sci-Fi novel and provide numerous theories that would be even more elaborate than yours.

No, you couldn't. At best, you could dredge up some mickey mouse PO tid bits, that wouldn't go very far. Especially in walking hand in hand with God, and the bible as well as real evidence!

...The difference between you and I is I recoginize fiction when I see it.

That's what you think.

If this is a problem for you, as it seems to be, I strongly advise seeking physciatric help before your delusional state devlopes into a more dangerous mental malady resulting in harm to yourself or others.

Hey, doc, you ranted, and threw a hairy, said nothing, and had your little tantrum. Now go hold your breath till you turn blue, and do as you claim in never talking to me again. Unless you need a fresh one.

 

[Nathan Poe]

It's pointless to debate with dad. He doesn't even know what an isotope is, or how they came about. And the only thing he has to say about radioactive decay is that -- for some reason known only to himself -- it didn't happen thousands of years ago.

Run along, dad. Adults are talking.

 

[dad]

It's pointless to debate with dad. He doesn't even know what an isotope is, or how they came about.

On the contrary it is you who do not at all know how they came about. Really.

And the only thing he has to say about radioactive decay is that -- for some reason known only to himself -- it didn't happen thousands of years ago.

I gave the reason, it was a merged world, as creation was made to be, not a physical only one as we now find ourselves temporarily in.

Run along, dad. Adults are talking.

Cute. Nothing intelligent to say, I see, but do I detect a note of jealousy?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The question is what was happening 4400 years ago that there was none? If there were they would still be here. I think where you get confused is looking at decay now, and thinking it was always like this. How would old agers explain this? Why is it a cut off point here, regardless of the so called 80 million years? Why is it nothing from say some imaginary 7 million years is not found decayed in nature? Or 1 million? Why would it not be an imaginary 120 million years, rather than the 80 million we find? I can't see how any old age explanation would be better than a split one?

You are still missing the point, all isotopes with half lives less than 80 million years are missing. The 80 million year half life of Pu244 is long enough that a miniscule amount is found naturally and then next shortest U-235 has a half life of 700 million years so it is still around. ALL isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years are gone unless they are produced either by decay of longer lived isotopes or by other known processes.

At first appearance it would seem that some materials were not involved in the former process, that is why no daughter materials are not there? Creation happens the material were made, and no decay materials were there. Where is the mystery here? Only old agers expect some decay material there, not those who know it was created!

It is not that the daughter materials aren't there. The materials themselves aren't there.

No, He needed to do it for some reason for the sake of man, apparently to limit us, and presumably the damage we might do. (Say if modern men lived a thousand years still.) Being physical only now, and in a state of physical decay, people who assume that is all there was would have a twisted perception, yes, but that isn't His fault. They could have read His word, and believed, and known all the while.

So for some reason you can't figure out God created a strange world 6000 years ago that suddenly changed 4400 years ago to give every appearance by every aspect of science that it had existed for billions of years and in the process wiped out all evidence of the flood he used to wipe out his most of his creation after it repented God that he made it because the descendants of his sons and mortal women were wicked.

Let's be clear here, I don't care if it was cold or hot or none at all. But why exactly do you say that that sort of nuclear reaction could not leave the material at Oklo so affected? Evidence please. I didn't realize you ewere a cold fusion whiz, in pre split conditions, no less!

Let's be clear here. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or how fusion reactions yield nucleosynthesis. This is just another dad-hoc irrationalization. I don't know if even you can exceed the level of absurdity in "no gravity before the flood" thread but it looks like you are about to try.

I deal with bible, and science, and evidence, and it is your conclusions that are the absurd ones. Guess no one was interested in the explanation on that one.

Do you really wonder why people talk about your posts blowing up irony meters?

No, this is anything but the case! You see, the split process may have started at certain points, like SNs. They were perhaps the first things to become PO, with all the universe eventually to follow. In the first moments they became PO, we would expect there was decay, and all things PO! The rest of the universe, or the portion between there and earth, anyhow was still in the merged state, bringing the event almost right away to earth! This is why we could see it here! It may have been an in split process event. Once again, check, and mate!

This is total gibberish. In your fantasy if SN1987 A was not presplit the light couldn't get here lickety split and if it was presplit there was radioactive decay presplit because we see the result of 56Co decay in the light from SN1987 A. This is another classic dad-hoc irrationalization.

All you fantasies come down to God creating a world with a false appearance. In the standard version of last Tuesdayism God creates a world that looks old. In your version He created a young world that magically morphed to look old and cover up the flood evidence. In either case you have a decevier God.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It's pointless to debate with dad. He doesn't even know what an isotope is, or how they came about. And the only thing he has to say about radioactive decay is that -- for some reason known only to himself -- it didn't happen thousands of years ago.

You are right of course. It is pointless to debate with dad. I don't know why I still do it. I doubt there are even any YEC lurkers who take him at all seriously. The closest I can come to thinking of another YEC who might even remotely resemble dad would be to imagine Karl Crawford on LSD.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Upisoft]

You are right of course. It is pointless to debate with dad. I don't know why I still do it. I doubt there are even any YEC lurkers who take him at all seriously. The closest I can come to thinking of another YEC who might even remotely resemble dad would be to imagine Karl Crawford on LSD.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Take a look at this. There were people more delusional than dad.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Take a look at this. There were people more delusional than dad.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm

Good point but a little late. I have already compared dad to Charles Johnson, on the no gravity before the flood thread IIRC.

 

[dad]

You are still missing the point, all isotopes with half lives less than 80 million years are missing.

Only in the mind of those who think they should have been there. With no old ages, why should they be? There was no 80 million years ago, why claim there was then invent a missing isotopes case?

The 80 million year half life of Pu244 is long enough that a miniscule amount is found naturally

So, it seems elementary, Pu244 was involved in the former process. (Unless a result of the split process) Where is the difficulty here? Seems simple enough.

and then next shortest U-235 has a half life of 700 million years so it is still around.

It is now produced by decay, in the past it was not, but part of the other process.

ALL isotopes with half lives of less than 80 million years are gone unless they are produced either by decay of longer lived isotopes or by other known processes.

So what? The question is not how they are now produced, but we are looking at the past here, how WERE they produced? The answer is, you do not know, plain and simople.

It is not that the daughter materials aren't there. The materials themselves aren't there.

Then they were not, obviously involved in the former process, but are involved in the present one. Bingo.

So for some reason you can't figure out God created a strange world 6000 years ago that suddenly changed 4400 years ago

We live in the strange world, the original set up was perfect, and included the spiritual, and lasted forever.

to give every appearance by every aspect of science that it had existed for billions of years

Every aspect of old age philosophy that tries to ride to the unknown past on the coattails of physical only science, you mean!

and in the process wiped out all evidence of the flood he used to wipe out his most of his creation after it repented God that he made it because the descendants of his sons and mortal women were wicked.

Yes they were that, otherwise He coould have done the whole saviour thing long ago perhaps, not even needeing a split, cause it was going to take awhile!

Let's be clear here. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or how fusion reactions yield nucleosynthesis. ...

If you won't take it from me, how about this..?


"Neither cold fusion nor cold nucleosynthesis is understood at present, nor are the results yet widely accepted by the scientific community. But as we continue to explore together, cooperative experiments at several laboratories giving positive results cannot be ignored much longer.” "

"...Department of Physics and Astronomy of Brigham Young University; Steven Jones is a professor in that department"

http://blake.montclair.edu/~kowalskil/cf/113jones.html


In other words you indeed cannot say whether cold fusion in a pre split world could have left the fingerprints we see at Oklo, or not! Ha. Interesting. The plot thickens.

Do you really wonder why people talk about your posts blowing up irony meters?

No, they are old agers, and really can't do much but try to justify their lack of substance with comic relief attempts, however feeble.

..... In your fantasy if SN1987 A was not presplit the light couldn't get here lickety split and if it was presplit there was radioactive decay presplit because we see the result of 56Co decay in the light from SN1987 ....

Why talk about what it ain't, when I gave you what it likely was? First impact zones of the split process with the information relayed on the still present highway of light between here and there! Thus, the PO explosion we see there, was carried well on it's way to earth. No?

...In your version He created a young world that magically morphed to look old and cover up the flood evidence. In either case you have a decevier God.

The only ones deceived are those who omit Him from the creator role in our past. They, in effect, deceive themselves by missing the important part of the picture.

About your little flood remark, with most of the layers being pre flood, no need exists to try to use flood geology to explain them. I don't see any problems whatsoever in this light.