Why did God make Different Aged Rocks

[Freodin]

I know that I should be used to it by now, but this style of conversation really grinds on my nerves...

I also know that it might be difficult to keep track of these internet conversations, its sidetrackings, its derails and flamewars and still stay on course...

But in spite of this knowledge, I am getting fed up.

It happened before, in the last conversation I had with AV. I made a point, directly responding to one of his posts, showing a problem in his reasoning and asking him to comment... repeatedly. Result: ignore, Pluto, Thalidomite.... end of thread.

Now again, I asked a direct question, aimed at exactly the same false idea that he ignored before. Result: ignore, Pluto, and I`m sure Thalidomite will come in shortly.


My patience is almost done. I´m an optimist at heart, so I keep trying. For a short time...

I have two posts left. Right here I will repeat my question, just in case AV missed it.

"Please consider the following question carefully and ANSWER it! Please don´t answer it with a counterquestion, but give your own reasoning.

What is the reason that a person needs a certain minimum age before it can walk, talk, be given a job, get married or have children?

(And before you complain that I did answer your post with a counterquestion: I will give a direct answer after you have considered and answered my question here.)"

If he still doesn´t respond to that, I will present my explanation he asked for (...And if you say Adam was any less than 2 days old, yet did all the above, then you have some explaining to do.) and that I already gave in our last conversation, which he ignored.

And if he still ignores it... he can take a hike. I´m done. If this is the "higher standard" that people adhere to, I don´t want to take part in it any more.


A number of times, the question came up whether the (mis)behaviour of Christians was a cause for my Atheism. I always answered "no", and I still do.

But it is the behaviour of Christians that drives me from their cherished "community".


I know that none of those who a responsible for that do care about me, my presence or absence on this board... but if repentence really means something to you, I advice you strongly to reconsider your current behaviour.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It wasn't me who did the tests, Cabal, it was scientists who did the tests, the scientists the consensus likes to keep us in dark about.
The consensus are very good at keeping people in the dark. You know that.

The test in question was published in Physical Review Letters 77, 5190–5193 (1996) so no one is trying to keep people in the dark. The scientists did the test because they were interested to see if beta decay rates of certain elements might be changed in the cores of very hot stars because of ionization of the element in the plasma. Alpha decay has not been found to change with temperature in many experiments. The decay of 7Be to 7Li by inverse beta decay can be slowed down in certain compounds and increased slightly at very high pressure. There is some very controverial work which claims that changes in beta decay rates of of 0.3% with temperature for some unionized atoms can't be ruled out.

What we know is that professional creationists are very good at misinterpreting and distorting literature results to try to support their positions and can be quite successful in misleading their followers who can't understand the complexities of the science being distorted. This is a classic example.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the reason that a person needs a certain minimum age before it can walk, talk, be given a job, get married or have children?

I don't even know how to answer this question, Freodin.

First of all, I said "walk, talk, be given a job, get married and have children" -- 86.

You're saying, "walk, talk, be given a job, get married or have children".

I think my question is a very good one, in light of the fact that Adam is accused of being 1 day old.

And even though I agree he is one day old existentially, he is 20 or 30 years old physically.

I can't make any sense out of your question.

 

[Doveaman]

Now, citations, PLEASE. Or just admit that you had nothing all along

You mean like something peer-reviewed? Nothing of that sort exists on your side of the universe, you are well aware of that.

You are also well aware that scientists live on two completely different sides of the universe.

Some live on the front side in which there is electricity, cosmic lightning bolts, global catastrophes, rapid climate changes, the effects of which can alter decay rates significantly.

Others, like you, live on the back side of the universe in which the earth’s geological history is more or less uniform. Those living on the back side cannot even imagine decay rates being altered significantly.

Fortunately, there are many who recognize that the back side of anything stinks.

Antarctic Fossil Questions...

Catastrophism...

Russian Discovery...

The Pitfalls...

Do nuclear decay rates...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You mean like something peer-reviewed? Nothing of that sort exists on your side of the universe, you are well aware of that.

False as we will see below

You are also well aware that scientists live on two completely different sides of the universe.

Some live on the front side in which there is electricity, cosmic lightning bolts, global catastrophes, rapid climate changes, the effects of which can alter decay rates significantly.

Others, like you, live on the back side of the universe in which the earth’s geological history is more or less uniform. Those living on the back side cannot even imagine decay rates being altered significantly.

Fortunately, there are many who recognize that the back side of anything stinks.

Russian Discovery...



Do nuclear decay rates...

I had already mentioned this previously. The reported changes are only for certain types of beta decay and are very small. The forum you link is talking about this paper which is published.

Evidence of correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach, John B. Buncher, John T. Gruenwald, Dennis E. Krause and Joshua J. Mattes
Astroparticle Physics
Volume 32, Issue 1, August 2009, Pages 42-46
Abstract

Unexplained periodic fluctuations in the decay rates of 32Si and 226Ra have been reported by groups at Brookhaven National Laboratory (32Si), and at the Physikalisch–Technische–Bundesanstalt in Germany (226Ra). We show from an analysis of the raw data in these experiments that the observed fluctuations are strongly correlated in time, not only with each other, but also with the time of year. We discuss both the possibility that these correlations arise from seasonal influences on the detection system, as well as the suggestion of an annual modulation of the decay rates themselves which vary with Earth–Sun distance.



Their results are very contraversial because the measured changes are so tiny. As ratio of the mean decay rate their measured rates vary from 0.998 to 1.002 at the most. This is the tiny change I mentioned in a previous post. I have the paper but I am not sure it is legal for me to post a figure from it.

Meanwhile these two papers find no evidence of correlation between earth sun distance and decay rates

Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth–Sun distance
Eric B. Norman Edgardo Browne, Howard A. Shugart, Tenzing H. Joshi and Richard B. Firestone

Astroparticle Physics
Volume 31, Issue 2, March 2009, Pages 135-137
Abstract

We have reexamined our previously published data to search for evidence of correlations between the rates for the alpha, beta-minus, beta-plus, and electron capture decays of 22Na, 44Ti, 108Agm, 121Snm, 133Ba, and 241Am and the Earth–Sun distance. We find no evidence for such correlations and set limits on the possible amplitudes of such correlations substantially smaller than those observed in previous experiments.


Searching for modifications to the exponential radioactive decay law with the Cassini spacecraft
Peter S. Cooper,

Astroparticle Physics
Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2009, Pages 267-269
Abstract
Data from the power output of the radioisotope thermoelectric generators aboard the Cassini spacecraft are used to test the conjecture that small deviations observed in terrestrial measurements of the exponential radioactive decay law are correlated with the Earth–Sun distance. No significant deviations from exponential decay are observed over a range of 0.7–1.6 A.U. A 90% CL upper limit of 0.84×10-4 is set on a term in the decay rate of 238Pu proportional to 1/R2 and 0.99×10-4 for a term proportional to 1/R. The terrestrially measured Earth–Sun distance correlation is (3×10-2)/R2.



The tiny fluctations in beta decay rates that have been reported may be real or they may be artifacts of the measuring system. In any case they are about a billion times too small to have the consequences you require to support Young Earth Creationism.

 

[Freodin]

I don't even know how to answer this question, Freodin.

First of all, I said "walk, talk, be given a job, get married and have children" -- 86.

You're saying, "walk, talk, be given a job, get married or have children".

I think my question is a very good one, in light of the fact that Adam is accused of being 1 day old.

And even though I agree he is one day old existentially, he is 20 or 30 years old physically.

I can't make any sense out of your question.

I am impressed at the new depths you can sink. Wow, you cannot answer the question, because I wrote "or" instead of "and".

It is so easy: you don´t think that a one day old can do one, any or all of the things you posted. Surely you have a reason to think that, don´t you? (You DO have a reason to think the things you think, do you?)

So what is that reason?

I´ll tell you. The reason is because you still use your terms exchangably in every way you see fit.

Look what you just wrote: " I agree he is one day old".... whopps, existentially.

So how can one who is one day old do all the things on your list? Simple answer: it is not his time in existence that counts, but his existential state... that what you call "physical age".

But here you show your basic dishonesty: you equate these terms when it suits you, and make a clear distinction between them when it suits you.

You agree with science that the earth is 4.57 billion years old? Ah, no, you don´! Science says that the world is, in your term, existentially 4.57 billion years old. Do you agree with that? No, you don´t. So quit lying that you do!

And here´s the rub: there is no such a thing as "physical age" as you call it. There is only one "age", that is based on the passage of time, and everything else that might bear the label "age" is only "apparent age".

This is bacause humans have just one single experience of "age"... and that is time-bound. All other so-called "age" concepts are based on an apparent relationship with that "real age".

BTW, don´t bother to reply to this post... this was my last post in this forum. I´m done with trolls like you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Look what you just wrote: " I agree he is one day old".... whopps, existentially.

No, there is no 'whoops' about it.

I clearly use the terms -- and have been using them for years here -- non-interchangeably.

QV my thread on it: 1.

So how can one who is one day old do all the things on your list? Simple answer: it is not his time in existence that counts, but his existential state... that what you call "physical age".

No:

• His time in existence = his existential age = 1 day.
• His maturity w/o history = his physical age = 30 years.

I submit you're confused.

But here you show your basic dishonesty: you equate these terms when it suits you, and make a clear distinction between them when it suits you.

Here you are calling me dishonest, without even giving me a chance to reply -- and you're the one confused.

You agree with science that the earth is 4.57 billion years old?

That's right -- and just for the record -- you guys are starting to make me regret that decision; but I have standards, and I don't plan to deviate from them.

Ah, no, you don´!

Ah, yes, I do!

Science says that the world is, in your term, existentially 4.57 billion years old.

No -- 'in my term' -- physically 4.57 billion years old.

I have made this Claritin-clear so many times before, but I'll be more than happy to do it again for those who have information allergies:

• the earth is 6014 years old -- existentially
• the earth is 4.57 billion years old -- physically

QV please: 130

Do you agree with that? No, you don´t. So quit lying that you do!

Excuse me?

 

[Tomatoman]

AV:

His maturity w/o history = his physical age = 30 years.

If you have no memories and no experience of life you are not mentally 30 years old. You are 1 day. You have no mind.

 

[Hespera]

AV:


If you have no memories and no experience of life you are not mentally 30 years old. You are 1 day. You have no mind.

poof

 

[AV1611VET]

AV:


If you have no memories and no experience of life you are not mentally 30 years old. You are 1 day. You have no mind.

I am 56 years old physically -- I am 56 years old existentially.

There's only one man on the face of this earth in which the two concepts, existential and physical, were separate: Adam.

That's because Adam had his age embedded.

Remember? He was never born and never grew up.

Same with Eve.

 

[Tomatoman]

So he had no memories and no experience. That means not having a mind. You can't embed a mind. It's a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

So he had no memories and no experience.

Of what?

 

[Tomatoman]

Of what?

Exactly. He has the mind of a 1 day old baby. No mind at all. Nothing. Unless you embed 30 years of memory and experience which he can remember. Which begs the question: what is he remembering? It's a contradiction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. He has the mind of a 1 day old baby. No mind at all.

And yet he walked, talked, was given a job and got married.

 

[Tomatoman]

And yet he walked, talked, was given a job and got married.

You are ignoring the contradiction. If he was human then he he either had the mind of a one day old baby or the embedded mind of a 30 year old. So if he had a 30 year old's embedded mind what were the memories and experiences he was drawing on?

There is a contradiction.

 

[Herman Hedning]

And yet he walked, talked, was given a job and got married.

Which goes to show that Genesis is just a story.

 

[Doveaman]

In any case they are about a billion times too small to have the consequences you require to support Young Earth Creationism.

I wasn't trying to justify Young Earth Creationism. I'm just showing decay rates can be altered and could have been altered significantly in the earth's past. Therefore, our dating methods today may be misleading, and most likely are, especially in an electric universe.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I wasn't trying to justify Young Earth Creationism. I'm just showing decay rates can be altered and could have been altered significantly in the earth's past. Therefore, our dating methods today maybe be misleading, and most likely are.

the problem is with the word significantly. If you consider +/- 0.15% significant OK but I doubt that is your meaning. Analysis of the actual references behind the claims you made shows that some forms of decay could possibly have been altered by tiny amounts maybe, but not significantly unless the earth were a high energy plasma and that would have speeded up some forms of beta decay and slowed down some forms of inverse beta decay ( and destroyed the earth of course). Blowing the electrons off an atom in a plasma does not alter alpha decay rates. There is no evidence from these papers that dating methods are unreliable. There is ample evidence that creationist claims about the implications of the papers are unreliable.


I looked at the some of the papers by Simon Shnoll from one of your references. They make some very strange claims about pallindromic shapes in histograms of various types including fluctuations in counts from radioactive decay measurements of Pu 239 and noise in electric circuits maybe due to the rotation of the earth but again they are small effects if real. You can find some of them in Progress in Physics. Start 2008 volume 1 page 151. There is a least one recent paper showing no such results for a radioactive decay.
EPL (Europhysics Letters)
Volume 87 number 3
Search for correlated fluctuations in the β+ decay of Na-22 M. P. Silverman and W. Strange (2009)
Abstract. Claims for a "cosmogenic" force that correlates otherwise independent stochastic processes have been made for at least 10 years, based on visual inspection of histograms whose shapes were interpreted as suggestive of recurrent patterns. Building on our earlier work to test nuclear alpha, beta, and electron-capture decay processes for non-randomness, we searched for correlations in the time series of e+e− annihilations deriving from the β+ decay of 22Na. Coincident gamma photons were counted within narrow time and energy windows over a period of 167 hours leading to a time series of more than 1 million events. Statistical tests for correlated fluctuations in the time series and its histograms were in all cases consistent with statistical control, giving no evidence of a "cosmogenic" force.

One thing I have clearly shown is how false your claim about science keeping people in the dark is. These papers are available in the literature and physicists are activily investigating the possibility that radioactive decay rates can change. I had some trouble find Shnoll's work because your source misrepresented it so badly but I did find it eventually through a paper that references it while showing that it is probably not correct.

 

[BananaSlug]

I am 56 years old physically -- I am 56 years old existentially.

There's only one man on the face of this earth in which the two concepts, existential and physical, were separate: Adam.

That's because Adam had his age embedded.

Remember? He was never born and never grew up.

Same with Eve.

The ability to walk, talk, and do every other thing that a "30 year old" is able to do is dependent on experience acquired through life.

 

[sandwiches]

And yet he walked, talked, was given a job and got married.

So, he had the physiology of a man capable of walking, talking, etc.

So, I'll ask you again:
What, in your opinion, would be the minimum changes from a newborn baby required for a person to be able to walk, talk, be given a job, get married and have children?

If you answer ANYTHING other than 'nothing,' you're admitting that the person had at least an apparent history.