Science and Exegesis

[Bonky]

Edited September 3, 2014 by Bonky

[ARGOSY]

 

Yes that heat problem is exactly what I admitted to. I said there would be a problem if all the existing unstable isotopes suddenly stabilised. However if unstable isotopes are continuously rapidly stabilising just like iron does, this causes no problem because there is not this huge accumulation of unstable isotopes as in current earth conditions. I dealt with your objection maybe you do not follow what I am saying but the logic is there.

 

I know I am not an expert , if you can find any experts who find a flaw in my reasoning I would appreciate that.

Well I don't know any experts personally, if you really are interested in getting feedback I'd post a write up of your hypothesis on a physics forum of some sort. Or contact Jere Jenkins who's one of the Purdue researchers working on this very topic.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/Engr/People/ptProfile?resource_id=7846

 

 

In the past I have tried to contact experts directly and have received no response. When discussing these matters on science forums no one has ever given me a logical refutation. When any scientist starts seeing sense in what I'm saying in a public science forum, all the others have laid into that scientist with intense insults (not scientifically)  just as hard as they lay into me with insults , so I have no respect for the average member of the scientific community when they approach science in an unscientific manner.  I am not getting this information from creationist websites but from secular scientific studies. The relationship between penetration of the magnetic field and drops in decay is obvious, and therefore the relationship between past strength of the magnetic field and increases in decay rates in the past should be obvious too.

[Bonky]

In the past I have tried to contact experts directly and have received no response. When discussing these matters on science forums no one has ever given me a logical refutation. When any scientist starts seeing sense in what I'm saying in a public science forum, all the others have laid into that scientist with intense insults (not scientifically)  just as hard as they lay into me with insults , so I have no respect for the average member of the scientific community when they approach science in an unscientific manner.  I am not getting this information from creationist websites but from secular scientific studies. The relationship between penetration of the magnetic field and drops in decay is obvious, and therefore the relationship between past strength of the magnetic field and increases in decay rates in the past should be obvious too.

I think I know what you mean. There is a science forum that I came across in my exploration of this topic, but I think it was geared towards an atheistic worldview. There was an admin there addressing the topic of radio decay rates but the tone of the person was a little hostile [to creationist claims].

My current position on this issue is this, if creationists were trying to support a 4 billion year old Earth I'd say they might be onto something with this research. The issue I see, is that we have to narrow down exactly what's happening and why. When we get there, then we can look at this process or influence and tweak the values such that the influence would great enough in the past to allow for a young earth. We would need to look at what the implications are for this scenario. If the implications are deadly to life on earth for example, then I think it would be rational to reject the argument that radiometric dating is so vastly flawed that a young earth is viable.

[ARGOSY]

 

In the past I have tried to contact experts directly and have received no response. When discussing these matters on science forums no one has ever given me a logical refutation. When any scientist starts seeing sense in what I'm saying in a public science forum, all the others have laid into that scientist with intense insults (not scientifically)  just as hard as they lay into me with insults , so I have no respect for the average member of the scientific community when they approach science in an unscientific manner.  I am not getting this information from creationist websites but from secular scientific studies. The relationship between penetration of the magnetic field and drops in decay is obvious, and therefore the relationship between past strength of the magnetic field and increases in decay rates in the past should be obvious too.

I think I know what you mean. There is a science forum that I came across in my exploration of this topic, but I think it was geared towards an atheistic worldview. There was an admin there addressing the topic of radio decay rates but the tone of the person was a little hostile [to creationist claims].

My current position on this issue is this, if creationists were trying to support a 4 billion year old Earth I'd say they might be onto something with this research. The issue I see, is that we have to narrow down exactly what's happening and why. When we get there, then we can look at this process or influence and tweak the values such that the influence would great enough in the past to allow for a young earth. We would need to look at what the implications are for this scenario. If the implications are deadly to life on earth for example, then I think it would be rational to reject the argument that radiometric dating is so vastly flawed that a young earth is viable.

 

 

Yes this makes sense. From a scientific point of view, the various relationships between the solar wind, cosmic rays, the magnetic field and decay of long-life isotopes needs to be exactly quantified, until then I'm just speculating based on logical projections.   

 

And of course the final conclusion would have to allow for life to exist under those conditions.

[Guest]

....Bill Nye just had a public debate with Ken Ham and I didn't see any backlash against him.

 

I know there were some who told him he's wasting his time but I don't know of any black eye whatsoever suffered by Nye. Michael Behe teaches at a public University and is a huge ID advocate.

 

So I can't say that I'm seeing what you're seeing.

 

Now I do see people laughing and mocking Ken Ham

 

but then he's not writing scientific journals or anything and if you watch the debate,

 

he was completely out of his element....

 

 

Of Course Beloved,

 

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

 

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

 

Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.

 

But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. John 15:18-21

 

And Yet It Is You And Bill Nye Who Are Both Completely Out Of Your Element

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

And Considering That Darwin's Suppositions Are Daily Falsified

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Darwin's unfalsifiable test of falsification

 

Darwin wrote in ‘Origin of Species’ that ‘if it could be shown that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have come about by numerous gradual changes then my theory would fail utterly’. He then went on to say with his customary smugness  ‘But I can find out no such case.’

 

This is often referred to as ‘Darwin’s test of falsification’, but can be easily discerned as a sly trick, designed to give the impression that the theory is falsifiable, when actually it isn’t. Of course Darwin could ‘find out no such case.’ of an organ that could not have arisen by natural selection acting on variation, because it was and is an imaginary process. Like C S Lewis, I have no difficulty in imagining a flying horse or a talking mouse. However, I make a distinction between fantasy and reality. Darwin had no difficulty imagining a bear evolving into a whale. But no such thing has ever been observed, and you cannot falsify a theory that is based on imagination.

 

Darwin is at pains to appear reasonable, but in fact is setting the reader up to be deceived. Nowhere does he explain what falsification of his theory would look like. That is because it was deliberately set up to be unfalsifiable. Nowhere does he give a single empirical observation of one animal or plant changing by more than cyclical variation within a species. Always the appeal to imponderables and ‘might have beens’. Read his book and see how often he uses the language of faith and imagination, expressions like 'I can hardly doubt' and 'it would be rash to say that this might not have happened'.

 

In my view, all known biochemical processes satisfy the test of falsification in that they could not have arisen gradually-since intermediate forms would have had no function so could not have existed. You cannot get from A to Z if you die at Q. The unrefuted Mike Behe sets this out in detail in Darwin’s Black Box. A couple of examples would include Krebs cycle, photosynthesis, blood clotting, the immune system and DNA check and repair. Each of these vital processes fails (utterly) if key components are missing, none can be credibly theorised to have arisen by natural selection acting on random mutation. Even if the mutations were incredibly lucky (and why would they be? real world mutations aren't) each stage of the process has to be (A) viable, (B) stable enough to be transferable to the next generation, and © a selective advantage at the level of the whole organism. Nothing like this has ever been observed, to create any biochemical process, nor given what we now know about biochemistry, is it theoretically credible. You can get from a fish to a bird by drawing cartoons showing the imaginary transformation, but you can't fudge the biochemistry that way. It's too unforgivingly precise.

 

Another good example of a mechanism which could not possibly have arisen Darwin style is DNA check and repair and DNA. Both systems are incredibly complex and depend utterly on each other, so what did one system do in the Darwinian dreamtime while its indispensable other half was evolving? Like climbing a ladder without rungs, it doesn’t work at all until it all works. The Darwinian can bluster, bombast and confabulate, appeal to authority, throw the smoke bombs of distraction tactics or the stink bombs of personal abuse, but can’t deal with these problems.

 

I may post some links to YouTubes which illustrate some of these irreducible complex systems which falsify Darwinism. Judge for yourselves.

 

http://darwindeception.blogspot.com/2011/08/darwins-unfalsifiable-test-of.html

 

Is Bill Nye's "Scientism"

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

Even Science?

 

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

 

~

 

If you were arguing for a 4 billion year old Earth I'd agree.

 

7000 years?

 

I don't even know where to begin with that.

 

~

 

You Can Begin With The Creator

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Or You Can Continue

 

If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 1 Corinthians 15:19-20

 

To Deny

 

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

 

Jesus

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

And Keep On Walking

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

~

 

Believe

 

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

Love, Joe

[Fez]

Time for a break. I see no further use for this post when it comes to our core values which is Ministry and pointing the lost to Jesus.