The Barbarian Posted March 8 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 8 (edited) Natural reators like Oklo show us that the decay rates have been constant over billions of years. 14 hours ago, dad2 said: No Your denial doesn't mean much, given what physicists know about radioactive decay. And, as you learned, if they had been faster in the past, the increase ionizing radiation would have killed all living things on Earth. No way to get around that. 14 hours ago, dad2 said: Different does not mean faster. That's why it won't work for you. If it was slower in the past, then the Earth would be older than the evidence indicates. Which would just make your beliefs less likely. On the other hand, if it was significantly faster, ionizing radiation would have killed all life on Earth. Rock and a hard place. But it didn't. That site moved with the rest of the plate. If you would bother to learn a little about this, you wouldn't be messing up like this. 14 hours ago, dad2 said: Support the claim that the whole plate submerged and resurfaced? Didn't have to. Because you don't understand how it works, you keep hitting walls in making up new stories. 14 hours ago, dad2 said: Of course your link says nothing about what plates moved how or why etc. Convection currents in the mantle. Which are easily observed by seismic means. Again, because you have no idea how any of this works, you keep making simple mistakes. And it wasn't that far. For the reaction to go, there had to be water to slow down the particles enough to continue the reaction. So it boiled off all the water, and then shut down until more water came back in and restarted the reaction. Evidence suggests a three-hour cycle, so not such a deep movement as you probably thought. Edited March 8 by The Barbarian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 8 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 8 Quote The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. No problem whatsoever and not even worthy of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 8 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 8 (edited) Quote Natural reators like Oklo show us that the decay rates have been constant over billions of years. Your denial doesn't mean much, given what physicists know about radioactive decay. Supporting you claims does not consist of telling other posters they deny something that you failed to support. Quote And, as you learned, if they had been faster in the past, the increase ionizing radiation would have killed all living things on Earth. No way to get around that. Perhaps you are getting your threads mixed up, because no one here even mentions some 'faster' decay in the past but you. Quote But it didn't. That site moved with the rest of the plate. If you would bother to learn a little about this, you wouldn't be messing up like this. Specifics? Name the plate and evidence that it was dunked for the precise times the recipe needed to work? Ha Quote Convection currents in the mantle. Which are easily observed by seismic means. Again, because you have no idea how any of this works, you keep making simple mistakes. Explain what 'the mantle' has to do with Gabon and the specs you claim that were dunked? You don't just get to say the word mantle as if it supports your fairy tale Quote And it wasn't that far. For the reaction to go, there had to be water to slow down the particles enough to continue the reaction. In other words you need it to be so! There 'had to be' certain things. Seriously?? Quote So it boiled off all the water, and then shut down until more water came back in and restarted the reaction. Evidence suggests a three-hour cycle, so not such a deep movement as you probably thought. I didn't think anything, I cited articles dealing with the Oklo reactor. One example is here "If uranium can be so easily dissolved in oxygenated groundwater, how can the Oklo uranium deposit have survived intact for almost two billion years? The geologists told us that the basin containing the Oklo sediments apparently sank to a sufficient depth to protect the uranium ore from re dissolution over most of its geological history. Only in recent time, within the past few million years, has the ore horizon approached the surface where normal prospecting efforts could succeed in identifying it, Thus the series of special circum stances necessary to the discovery of the Oklo phenomenon includes not only the processes which produced a natural critical mass of uranium but the unusual geophysical and geochemical conditions which preserved the ore body for nearly half the lifetime of the planet and finally brought it to the surface" https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib-www/la-pubs/00394162.pdf In other articles I read it was many thousands of feet under. They basically claim whatever is needed to produce a natural reaction today. Hilarious. "He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface." https://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html hahahaha Edited March 8 by dad2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted March 18 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18 The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. On 3/8/2024 at 3:09 PM, dad2 said: No problem whatsoever Not for someone who takes scripture as it is. For those who want to revise the Flood to be worldwide, it's an unsolvable problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted March 18 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 18 On 3/8/2024 at 3:48 PM, dad2 said: Perhaps you are getting your threads mixed up, because no one here even mentions some 'faster' decay in the past but you. The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. On 3/8/2024 at 3:48 PM, dad2 said: Specifics? Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) Convection currents in the mantle. Which are easily observed by seismic means. Again, because you have no idea how any of this works, you keep making simple mistakes. Middle school science. C'mon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 18 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 18 7 hours ago, The Barbarian said: The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. Not for someone who takes scripture as it is. For those who want to revise the Flood to be worldwide, it's an unsolvable problem. As mentioned, the fact the flood covered the world and killed everyone is not debatable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 18 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 18 Quote The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. Shorten IN this nature and physics. Irrelevant. Quote Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) No one asked how tectonics happen. You claimed the sites in Gabon specifically were dunked miles under and resurfaced as needed and that this was known and supportable. Posting a cartoon pic does not even address the issue. Quote Convection currents in the mantle. Which are easily observed by seismic means. Again, because you have no idea how any of this works, you keep making simple mistakes. Show the specs got Gabon. (otherwise I might have to) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted March 19 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 19 49 minutes ago, dad2 said: As mentioned, the fact the flood covered the world and killed everyone is not debatable That is an addition to scripture believed by a minority of the world's Christians. In fact, the adherents of this man-made doctrine debate it constantly. The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. 47 minutes ago, dad2 said: Shorten IN this nature and physics. You imaginary different physics is irrelevant. The evidence shows that God made physics right the first time and kept it. Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) 49 minutes ago, dad2 said: No one asked how tectonics happen. You clearly didn't know. So I told you. Don't bother saying "I knew it all the time." 50 minutes ago, dad2 said: You claimed the sites in Gabon specifically were dunked miles under and resurfaced as needed That was your story. I merely noted what the evidence shows. You tried to cover up by pretending God changed physics to make your story fit. 55 minutes ago, dad2 said: Show the specs got Gabon. (otherwise I might have to) The 2-Ga Eburnean Orogeny in Gabon and the opening of the Francevillian intracratonic basins: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163107131630092X#fig0010 It only had to be down enough for water to filter down to it. It is in water permeable sandstone, but underlaid by impermeable granite upthrust eastward, putting it low enough in the slope for water to moderate the reaction: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 19 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 19 (edited) Quote That is an addition to scripture believed by a minority of the world's Christians. In fact, the adherents of this man-made doctrine debate it constantly. No. It was worldwide, clearly. Not a serious debate issue. Quote The rocks show a given amount of radiation. Shorter time, more radiation in any given time. Which, if shortened from billions of years to thousands, would have killed everything. Foolishness. How about no radiation as we know it? Not like you have the ability to know. How would we know? You just look at the present and assume it all got here in this nature, which is religious quackery and not knowledge based. Quote You imaginary different physics is irrelevant. The evidence shows that God made physics right the first time and kept it. What evidence? You are making stuff up Quote Posted a link for you. You don't know enough about the subject to even read it, do you? Make a point, and use links as support, not a reading project. Quote (wants to know how plate tectonics happens) Why repeat a falsehood that is not even relevant? I never asked how it worked. I asked what evidence YOU have for a claim it happened in Gabon to the sites in question. Quote The 2-Ga Eburnean Orogeny in Gabon and the opening of the Francevillian intracratonic basins: A review https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S163107131630092X#fig0010 It only had to be down enough for water to filter down to it. They claimed it was miles under in the previous link I posted. It also does not matter what you think 'had to be'! What matters is what you can prove was. Provide some sentence or place in your link where it talks about the submerging and resurfacing of the site? Ha Quote It is in water permeable sandstone, but underlaid by impermeable granite upthrust eastward, putting it low enough in the slope for water to moderate the reaction: ? Are you now disputing their claim it went deep under the earth and later resurfaced at the right time?! You seem confused. Being is sandstone could be related to the flood of course. The uplifting probably later on near the time of the tower of Babel in the days of Peleg. No one needs your fable because there is sandstone there. You really have nothing it seems. Edited March 19 by dad2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RV_Wizard Posted March 20 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 773 Content Per Day: 0.83 Reputation: 327 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/22/2021 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1962 Share Posted March 20 On 3/18/2024 at 11:11 AM, The Barbarian said: The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. Not for someone who takes scripture as it is. For those who want to revise the Flood to be worldwide, it's an unsolvable problem. Moses produced the book of Genesis around 1415 BC. This, to the Barbarian, is a new story. He also contends that quoting the Scriptures is unscriptural; something I've yet to figure out. Genesis records the flood this way: And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. Now normal people, reading that, would conclude that when it says that All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died, that the flood was sufficient to wipe out all of life on earth. To the Barbarian, though, it is a local flood. Any interpretation to the contrary is false doctrine. He cannot, of course, justify his outrageous claims with anything from the Bible. His defense is, "It doesn't say what it says." In the end we have to choose whether to believe him or the word of God. And yet he wonders why we don't choose his claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts