Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[Revelation Man]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

The RATE project concluded that the only way to fit the evidence to their particular interpretation of scripture, is to have radioactive decay happen at a much, much higher rate in the past.   The greatest difficulty with that assumption, comes not from geology or biology, but from physics.

Problems with Accelerated Radioactive Decay

1. In DeYoung's discussion of how accelerated decay can solve the age issue, he presents a simple example (pg 42). An important point in this mechanism is that it requires that all isotopes have their decay rates accelerated by the exact same numerical factor, for all types of decay if it is to mimic the behavior of assumed constant decay rates.
2. Using Humphrey's model for accelerated radioactive decay (pg 357-364), we can show that for a given difference in pion mass, the change in alpha-decay rate will not be the same for all elements or all isotopes of the same elements.

   In this graph, we plot the ratio of decay rates for different parent isotopes (Sm-147, Th-232, U-235, U-238) with a changing pion mass. The vertical line at a pion mass 0.749325 times the current value accelerates the U-238 decay rate by a factor of 750,000.0, the amount of acceleration Humphreys requires. We see that with this pion mass, Sm-147 experiences a rate increase of only 28,200, less than 4 percent of the required value. This means that for a given sample, the Sm-147 ages should be significantly less than U-238 ages. https://crankastronomy.org/rate/index.html There's more; including some comments on basic errors in the RATE document.   Another problem is the fact that greatly accelerated rates of decay would fry all living things on Earth. And there's the problem of uranium deposits.  If the rate of decay was much greater in the past, they would have markedly decayed to show this.  We know this, because there was at least one site where enough radioactive isotope was concentrated naturally for this to happen with the observed rates of decay: A fossil natural nuclear fission reactor is a uranium deposit where self-sustaining nuclear chain reactions have occurred. This can be examined by analysis of isotope ratios. The conditions under which a natural nuclear reactor could exist had been predicted in 1956 by Paul Kazuo Kuroda.[1] The phenomenon was discovered in 1972 in Oklo, Gabon by French physicist Francis Perrin under conditions very similar to what was predicted. Oklo is the only known location for this in the world and consists of 16 sites at which self-sustaining nuclear fission reactions are thought to have taken place approximately 1.7 billion years ago, and ran for a few hundred thousand years, averaging probably less than 100 kW of thermal power during that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

This has nothing to do with what my post stated. The quote is not even mine, GO FIGURE.

[Revelation Man]

6 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You have more in common with a daisy, than things by which you differ.   All eukarotes evolved from a common eukaryote ancestor.   Genetic analysis shows this.

 

That is because everything is created by a COMMON DESIGNER, God, not some random evolutionary process.

[The Barbarian]

You have more in common with a daisy, than things by which you differ.   All eukarotes evolved from a common eukaryote ancestor.   Genetic analysis shows this.

12 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

That is because everything is created by a COMMON DESIGNER, God, not some random evolutionary process.

No, that won't work.  If that were true,bats would genetically more like birds and whales would be genetically more like fish.

And "Common designer" doctrine falls apart when we find humans constructed of modified quadruped parts and whales constructed of modified land animal parts.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

18 minutes ago, Revelation Man said:

This has nothing to do with what my post stated. The quote is not even mine, GO FIGURE.

Just showing why creationist rationalizations for data from radioisotope testing don't work.

 

[The Barbarian]

4 hours ago, David1701 said:

Oh good grief!  How is that going to work?  Please explain how you think Eve is the mother of us all, in a spiritual sense.  This should be good...

It makes sense in that while God made our bodies the same way he made those of other animals, our spirits are directly of God.   Hence the first two humans to be made living souls would be the parents of all of us.    And since all living humans today are descended from those two, Eve would be the mother of all living.

 

[David1701]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It makes sense in that while God made our bodies the same way he made those of other animals, our spirits are directly of God.   Hence the first two humans to be made living souls would be the parents of all of us.    And since all living humans today are descended from those two, Eve would be the mother of all living.

 

His claim was that Eve is the mother of us all spiritually, but not physically.  This does not nothing to support his assertion.

[one.opinion]

9 hours ago, David1701 said:

Oh good grief!  How is that going to work?  Please explain how you think Eve is the mother of us all, in a spiritual sense.  This should be good...

You are becoming increasingly combative and rude. If you want to continue to dialogue, then you are going to have to take a few minutes to breathe deeply before you respond and see if you can be civil.

If I am correct, and God chose Adam and Eve as the first two recipients of His image, then they were the first to receive spirits. Jesus taught us that God is Spirit. For future humanity, there are two most-likely options. One, this spiritual aspect was spread to all biological children, and now, all humans. Second, the spiritual aspect was bestowed on all other humans, but only after Adam and Eve were the first recipients.

Edited August 30, 2020 by one.opinion

[David1701]

1 hour ago, one.opinion said:

You are becoming increasingly combative and rude. If you want to continue to dialogue, then you are going to have to take a few minutes to breath deeply before you respond and see if you can be civil.

I would rather that you did not continue to post your anti-biblical false teachings; but, as long as you do, I hope that I, or someone else, will correct you and help to prevent anyone being led astray by you.

Is that combative?  Yes, deliberately and rightly so.  I don't really care whether or not you consider it rude, since it is right to deal with false teaching robustly.  The fact that you don't seem to realise that it is false teaching, or the seriousness of it, makes it highly likely that a hardening of the heart has occurred.

Here is what I am doing on this thread.

2 Tim. 2:2-4 (KJV)

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Evolution is a man-made fable.

Quote

If I am correct, and God chose Adam and Eve as the first two recipients of His image, then they were the first to receive spirits. Jesus taught us that God is Spirit. For future humanity, there are two most-likely options. One, this spiritual aspect was spread to all biological children, and now, all humans. Second, the spiritual aspect was bestowed on all other humans, but only after Adam and Eve were the first recipients.

Adam was created directly from dust.  Eve was made from Adam's rib.  They were the first humans (no others were created in the creation week) and all other humans are descended from them.

We inherited from them biologically, as all descendants do, and we inherited the corrupted image of God that they had, due to the Fall.

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, David1701 said:

Is that combative?  Yes, deliberately and rightly so.  I don't really care whether or not you consider it rude, since it is right to deal with false teaching robustly. 

So you are being an intentional jerk for the sake of your false Gospel of "If you don't believe in 144 hour creation, you are are calling God a liar". You should be very proud of yourself.

 

6 minutes ago, David1701 said:

We inherited from them biologically, as all descendants do, and we inherited the corrupted image of God that they had, due to the Fall.

Do you think the inheritance of fallen humanity is physical? What chromosome do you think it is encoded on?

[David1701]

2 hours ago, one.opinion said:

So you are being an intentional jerk for the sake of your false Gospel of "If you don't believe in 144 hour creation, you are are calling God a liar". You should be very proud of yourself.

 

I'm dealing with someone who is promoting falsehood, so who is being the "jerk"?

Quote

Do you think the inheritance of fallen humanity is physical? What chromosome do you think it is encoded on?

There was an "and" in my post.  The inheritance of fallen humanity is both physical and spiritual.  It's where death, disease and suffering originated, as well as moral corruption and separation from God.

Edited August 30, 2020 by David1701