Why I'm not a young earth creationist...

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying that the Strong Nuclear Force, a fundamental constant in nature, is somehow changed by a temperature change of a few hundred degrees?

When one is totally ignorant of the sciences one can be convinced by many bad arguments that one wants to believe. The reality is far different.

I know of one radioactive that greatly increases its decay rate if you can reduce it to a naked nucleus. The problem is that the conditions where a naked nucleus is not even to be found within the Sun much less anywhere on or in the Earth. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Pointing out the history of the dismal state of humanity doesn't mean I have a negative outlook on life. Like I said; my hope is in Christ. Not in myself, you or any other fallen human being. My hope isn't in angels. It's not in "saving the earth".

My trust is in Christ and that He paid for my sin. My assured hope (and not just wishful thinking) is that on the other side of eternity NONE of this current suffering is going to matter! At least it's not going to matter for me. I can't speak for your eternity.

What does this have to do with anything in this topic or sub-forum? This isn't a general theology discussion.

 

[The Righterzpen]

Why would you want a line of narrow bodies of water? I don't know of any triangles that use strait lines.

???? What does your comment have anything to do with Euclidean, flat-space geometry?

That mathematical principle is speaking of the difference between two dimensional and three demential spaces. A shape in two dimensional space has points and lines. A shape in a three dimensional space also has planes.

It's like the difference between a painting on a canvas and a sculpture. Paintings have height and width, but only have the illusion of depth.

By definition you can't have a strait line on a sphere because a sphere is 3 dimensional. A line is not. So thus any line you'd put on a sphere would be curved. Now on a two dimensional space you could draw a line through a circle and call it a diameter. But the diameter of a sphere would be a plane.

That has nothing do do with bodies of water.

l> - There's a rudimentary depiction of a two dimensional triangle. Where do you not see any strait lines? A three dimensional triangle is generally called a pyramid.

The only creationist geologist that I know of that has dabbled in dating is easily shown to be a liar. Do you know of any honest geochemists that oppose evolution? I seriously doubt if you can find any.

Prove to me that all geochemists are evolutionists. (Two people can play this game too.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

When one is totally ignorant of the sciences one can be convinced by many bad arguments that one wants to believe. The reality is far different.

I know of one radioactive that greatly increases its decay rate if you can reduce it to a naked nucleus. The problem is that the conditions where a naked nucleus is not even to be found within the Sun much less anywhere on or in the Earth. Let me see if I can find it.

Pretty much any thing that decays by electron capture. When fully ionized the nucleus can't capture an inner electron.

Electron capture - Wikipedia

Temperature and density affect the decay rate in a fully ionized plasma as they determine the probability that an electron will be "close enough" to the nucleus to be captured.

 

[Hans Blaster]

By definition you can't have a strait line on a sphere because a sphere is 3 dimensional.

Woosh.

(It is spelled "straight" BTW.)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Prove to me that all geochemists are evolutionists. (Two people can play this game too.)

I thought I said that it is unlikely that any geochemists are "evolutionists".

Evolutionary biology (evolutionists) and geochemistry (geochemists) are very different scientific fields.

 

[VirOptimus]

How exactly am I doing that?

Because YEC is initself a stance on physical reality (what science is all about).

 

[The Righterzpen]

What does this have to do with anything in this topic or sub-forum? This isn't a general theology discussion.

Maybe you should ask Ponderous Curmudgeon why they made the statement about the philosophy of nihilism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

???? What does your comment have anything to do with Euclidean, flat-space geometry?

You were talking about "strait lines". Strait lines are never used in Euclidean, flat-space geometry.

That mathematical principle is speaking of the difference between two dimensional and three demential spaces. A shape in two dimensional space has points and lines. A shape in a three dimensional space also has planes.

It's like the difference between a painting on a canvas and a sculpture. Paintings have height and width, but only have the illusion of depth.

By definition you can't have a strait line on a sphere because a sphere is 3 dimensional. A line is not. So thus any line you'd put on a sphere would be curved. Now on a two dimensional space you could draw a line through a circle and call it a diameter. But the diameter of a sphere would be a plane.

Once again, strait lines are not used that way.;

That has nothing do do with bodies of water.

Want to bet?

l> - There's a rudimentary depiction of a two dimensional triangle. Where do you not see any strait lines? A three dimensional triangle is generally called a pyramid.

Okay . . . So what?

Prove to me that all geochemists are evolutionists. (Two people can play this game too.)

Sorry, you made your foolish claim first. You need to defend it before you get to ask others to do the same.

 

[The Righterzpen]

I thought I said that it is unlikely that any geochemists are "evolutionists".

Evolutionary biology (evolutionists) and geochemistry (geochemists) are very different scientific fields.

I never said that you said anything about geochemists and evolutionists. That was a comment someone else made to me that I was responding to.

The "evolutionist" aspect of geochemistry has to do with postulated ages of the earth. If the estimation is predicated on unreliable dating methods. A geochemist can't be sure based on the dating method that their dating is accurate.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
The "evolutionist" aspect of geochemistry has to do with postulated ages of the earth. If the estimation is predicated on unreliable dating methods. A geochemist can't be sure based on the dating method that their dating is accurate.

No, you are in error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Pretty much any thing that decays by electron capture. When fully ionized the nucleus can't capture an inner electron.

Electron capture - Wikipedia

Temperature and density affect the decay rate in a fully ionized plasma as they determine the probability that an electron will be "close enough" to the nucleus to be captured.

Yes, but that would only extend half lives. Creationists need to cut half lives down. Way down.

And thanks to AiG I found the answer. They sometimes find real science that they think supports their beliefs not realizing that it actually refutes them:

"The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years.6 This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years)."

Billion-Fold Acceleration of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

In other words, if the surface of the Earth was far hotter than the interior of the Sun, so hot that liquid water would not exist. Gaseous water would not exist. Water would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen in the conditions necessary to decrease the half lives of elements. I love it when science denying sources try to use science. They never understand the consequences of what they propose. This would not have turned Noah and company into cooked meat. It would not have even reduced them to ashes. They are proposing to separate the individual atoms of their bodies. I don't think that the Flood was supposed to work that way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said that you said anything about geochemists and evolutionists. That was a comment someone else made to me that I was responding to.

The "evolutionist" aspect of geochemistry has to do with postulated ages of the earth. If the estimation is predicated on unreliable dating methods. A geochemist can't be sure based on the dating method that their dating is accurate.

A geochemist would know that that the dates were reliable.

 

[The Righterzpen]

You were talking about "strait lines". Strait lines are never used in Euclidean, flat-space geometry.

Once again, strait lines are not used that way.;

Want to bet?

Okay . . . So what?

Sorry, you made your foolish claim first. You need to defend it before you get to ask others to do the same.

OK than explain to me how what you said about water applies to Euclidean flat space geometry; because "flat space" geometry would deal in two dimensions not three. (thus why it's called "flat space geometry"). Whereas water exists in three dimensions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@The Righterzpen I see that you used a smiley rating. Did you see how screwed up? Twice. If you did not then you likely misused that rating. And that is against the rules here.

 

[VirOptimus]

This is very funny.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK than explain to me how what you said about water applies to Euclidean flat space geometry; because "flat space" geometry would deal in two dimensions not three. (thus why it's called "flat space geometry"). Whereas water exists in three dimensions.

Dude! You are the one that keeps talking about "strait lines".

Take a geometry class. They really are not used.

Or maybe a spelling class.

By the way, you owe me an apology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is very funny.

Too much fun to stop, though I did tip my hand a bit too much in my last post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

 

[VirOptimus]

Too much fun to stop, though I did tip my hand a bit too much in my last post.

I'm sure you straitened up the matter for him.