“Five Biblical reasons I am not a Young Earth Creationist”

[JustPassingThru]

26 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I'm pointing out you were fooled.   As you see, stalagtites from concrete form much, much faster than those from limestone, because the chemical reactions are not the same.   

Oh..., thank you for pointing that out for me, ...apparently I wasn't the only one that was fooled!

I guess the "experts" that did the dating didn't know the difference between concrete and limestone!!!

That means their dating process incorrectly dated concrete as being 25 to 150 million years old, ...makes me wonder what other "mistakes" have they made in dating?

A couple hundred years is a long way from 25 to 150 million years, ...that not a minor, inconsequential "mistake," ...now is it?

And are these are the same "experts" ya'll are believing?

Question: ...how do we tell the difference between the correct "experts" and the "fooled" experts what is true???

Like I said, ..I chose to believe the the Word of God...

Bye!

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

The time frames are under dispute due to the many reasons brought up in this thread and many more reasons. 

You don't want to discuss the "many reasons" why the time frame is wrong, yet you continue to use it as an argument. That's.... interesting...

4 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

1) where's your phylogenic analysis. Can you refer me to any studies where they have confirmed links between any particular Ediacaran small Shelley and a particular early Cambrian athropod

Since you seem to really want to see it, I would suggest going to Google Scholar and typing "ediacaran phylogeny". This looks like a good article to start - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534708003066

If you are genuinely interested, you could request the article from interlibrary loan. However, I somehow get the feeling you really aren't that interested in looking at the evidence.

11 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

2) Ediacaran small shellies also lack fossil precursors, that's the main problem

No, the main problem is your previous claim - "I'm just saying that all those species appeared in the Cambrian explosion, yet without any sign of fossil ancestry." The existence of these shellies (and other Ediacaran organisms) contradicts this statement. Yet, you are completely unwilling to admit error.

I don't know of any fossil precursors for the shellies, and that is likely (I'm not a paleontologist, so I won't claim to have the answers) a legitimate puzzle. Is that a problem for the theory of evolution? Absolutely not. Is the existence of Ediacaran organisms millions of years prior to the Cambrian explosion a problem for Young Earth Creationism? Absolutely.

19 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

3) even if you find that one Cambrian organism has a fossil precursor in the Ediacaran, what about the other millions of organisms? You still have a huge problem. 

Nope, still not a problem for the theory of evolution. As one might imagine, finding fossils of soft-bodied ancestors to Cambrian animals that are about 600 million years old might be rather challenging. However, the evidence for the existence of a single life form (and there are many more) prior to the Cambrian period is devastating to Young Earth Creationism.

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, JustPassingThru said:

Oh..., thank you for pointing that out for me, ...apparently I wasn't the only one that was fooled!

I guess the "experts" that did the dating didn't know the difference between concrete and limestone!!!

That means their dating process incorrectly dated concrete as being 25 to 150 million years old, ...makes me wonder what other "mistakes" have they made in dating?

A couple hundred years is a long way from 25 to 150 million years, ...that not a minor, inconsequential "mistake," ...now is it?

And are these are the same "experts" ya'll are believing?

Is there documentation of this mistake in stalactite dating that is not simply hearsay? I'd be interested to see it.

[ARGOSY]

12 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

You don't want to discuss the "many reasons" why the time frame is wrong, yet you continue to use it as an argument. That's.... interesting...

Since you seem to really want to see it, I would suggest going to Google Scholar and typing "ediacaran phylogeny". This looks like a good article to start - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534708003066

If you are genuinely interested, you could request the article from interlibrary loan. However, I somehow get the feeling you really aren't that interested in looking at the evidence.

No, the main problem is your previous claim - "I'm just saying that all those species appeared in the Cambrian explosion, yet without any sign of fossil ancestry." The existence of these shellies (and other Ediacaran organisms) contradicts this statement. Yet, you are completely unwilling to admit error.

You obviously do not know what a precursor is. I don't deny that organisms like early bacteria, early eukaryotes and small shelleys existed before the Cambrian. I do not deny that. They however are not precursors of the Cambrian organisms. 

PRECURSOR: a person or thing that comes before another of the SAME KIND

The link confirms they come before, no one denies that, but it does nothing to show that Ediaran fossils are in any manner of the same kind.  

I don't see how faulty timeframes prove evolution.  We are looking at a creation event, followed by radiations from niche environments (Eg Siberia) whenever conditions change. This explains the fossil record in a better manner. 

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

This is speculation, without any supporting evidence. I think you will find it rather difficult to find evidence that radioactive decay rates were significantly different in the past. The creation scientists that spent a few million dollars on the RATE project sure did. They couldn't offer anything other than speculation, either.

You obviously were not following our discussion. 

He was claiming that if decay was faster in times past, that would be dangerous for life. I responded by saying that logic is not correct. If everything decayed rapidly as fast as iron, there would still be an equilibrium whereby the radioactivity that is produced is equal to the decay (radioactivity lost). This is common sense, even if not understood by many. 

[ARGOSY]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If it slowed down, the world would look much younger than it is.   So if you're right, the world is a lot older than radioisotope dating would suggest.    Do you understand how this works?

The planet is not "producing a steady flow of radioactive igneous rocks."    The decay is ongoing, even in melted rock.  The only reason we can date rocks is that the daughter isotopes are trapped in rocks in certain cases, allowing an analysis to take place.

But it's a moot point, since the isotopes we use do date rocks don't vary by more then a tiny fraction, even under conditions that would have killed all living things on Earth.

 

 

The world only seems old because they are comparing current slow rates of decay, to the relative ratios of parent/daughter isotopes. If decay actually was a lot faster during the time most of the daughter isotope was forming, then we would be overestimating the age of the earth. 

I don't think you understand my point about equilibrium. Unstable parent isotopes are formed when igneous rock forms, if this was all decaying rapidly, or slowly, the net decay would always be the same rate as the formation of the unstable isotopes. The same. Not dangerous at all. 

[one.opinion]

15 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

PRECURSOR: a person or thing that comes before another of the SAME KIND

Yes, like an Ediacaran shelly and similar organisms in the Cambrian. My point in including the other organisms (like I explained yesterday) is that it makes a 144-hour creation period very difficult to defend.

15 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

You obviously were not following our discussion. 

You are correct, I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read your assertion that radioactive decay has slowed down.

Quote

I'm not saying decay will be speeded up, I'm saying decay slowed down. 

There is no evidence that decay of radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques has slowed down. Barbarian has noted there has been some evidence of slight fluctuations in decay rates for other isotopes in conditions not encountered on earth, but these are not relevant to radiometric dating.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

7 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, like an Ediacaran shelly and similar organisms in the Cambrian. My point in including the other organisms (like I explained yesterday) is that it makes a 144-hour creation period very difficult to defend.

You are correct, I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read your assertion that radioactive decay has slowed down.

There is no evidence that decay of radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques has slowed down. Barbarian has noted there has been some evidence of slight fluctuations in decay rates for other isotopes in conditions not encountered on earth, but these are not relevant to radiometric dating.

 

Once again you are missing the logic of the conversation. We are discussing theoretical  scenarios, not proving scenarios in this particular discussion:

He claimed that if decay has slowed down it would cause the earth to look younger. I am saying that it would make the earth look older. I dont think he follows how they apply the current rate of decay to the parent/daughter isotopes to get dates. 

In our other discussion, also theoretical, he claimed if decay was faster in the past, life would die of radiation. I am saying that fast or slow decay would reach the same equilibrium over time. 

[ARGOSY]

18 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Yes, like an Ediacaran shelly and similar organisms in the Cambrian. My point in including the other organisms (like I explained yesterday) is that it makes a 144-hour creation period very difficult to defend.

You are correct, I didn't read the entire discussion, but I did read your assertion that radioactive decay has slowed down.

There is no evidence that decay of radioactive isotopes used in dating techniques has slowed down. Barbarian has noted there has been some evidence of slight fluctuations in decay rates for other isotopes in conditions not encountered on earth, but these are not relevant to radiometric dating.

 

 

The only study im aware of  that showed similarity specifically said "superficial" similarity. Superficial means not meaningful, just surface. Kindly repost a link if I somehow missed anything. 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

The world only seems old because they are comparing current slow rates of decay, to the relative ratios of parent/daughter isotopes. If decay actually was a lot faster during the time most of the daughter isotope was forming, then we would be overestimating the age of the earth.

As you saw, if the rate of decay was significantly faster in the past, the huge increase in radioactivity (which is proportional to the rate of decay) would have killed off all living things.   You can't speed up decay, without an increase in radiation.   That's how radiation happens.     If decay was a lot faster in those times, we'd not be here to talk about it.

Because radioactive decay is tied to other constants, like the speed of light, that would bring in further complications; what we see in the night sky would not be possible, if the rate was much faster in the past.

Note that most changes to the half-life of radioactive materials are very small. Furthermore, large changes to a half-life require elaborate, expensive, high-energy equipment (e.g. particle accelerators, nuclear reactors, ion traps). Therefore, outside of specialized labs, we can say that as a good approximation radioactive decay half-lives don't change. For instance, carbon dating and geological radiometric dating are so accurate because decay half-lives in nature are so close to constant.

https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/04/27/can-the-decay-half-life-of-a-radioactive-material-be-changed/

2 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I don't think you understand my point about equilibrium. Unstable parent isotopes are formed when igneous rock forms, if this was all decaying rapidly, or slowly, the net decay would always be the same rate as the formation of the unstable isotopes. The same. Not dangerous at all. 

No.  Unstable parent isotopes were formed in the explosion of a supernova.   Every element on Earth, except hydrogen, helium, and a little lithium, came from a supernova.    No other way to make them.  We observe this process going on in stars, right now.

Melting rocks does not in any way produce more unstable atoms.    But the existing radioactive atoms would, if they were breaking down rapidly, produce a much higher level of ionizing radiation, that would kill living things.