183d
2 edits
@KellyJay saidRadioactive elements decay into other elements; this process is known as a "decay chain." This takes time, and the times are known. For example, uranium decays into thorium. The half-lives of various isotopes vary from fractions of a second to billions of years. Below is a link to a table showing the half-lives of some isotopes:
You make a lot of assumptions.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066982/radioactive-elements-half-life/
U-238's half-life is is 4.470 billion years, for example.
If chemists are wrong about this, if they don't understand the process whereby radioactive elements change into other elements, if they are so wrong about the time it takes, then they are totally deluded about chemical processes in general, including the tensile strength of steel. It is simply not possible that chemists correctly understand the tensile strength of steel but somehow got it 4 billion years wrong about uranium. Why? Why can't they be right about steel and wrong about uranium? Because the chemical forces which bond atoms to other atoms covers all elements, not just some of them.
Now, if the Earth were only 6,000 years old, then bridges would be falling down and planes would be falling out of the sky. Why? Because if the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then chemists are totally deluded about how radioactive isotopes decay, and therefore also about atomic bonds in general, including the tensile strength of steel. You cannot have it both ways: you cannot have a young Earth and the Golden Gate Bridge standing up. It is one or the other.
183d
@Suzianne saidYes, of course. The Book of Genesis is not a geology text book; it does not explain how the universe came to be. It's part of a moral allegory, why we should treat people in a certain way. It's about mankind's wherefore, not his whence.
The Bible is not the wrong one. It doesn't address the age of the universe.
It's the religionists who try to back-engineer a date from Bible verses.
There was a lot of evolution (and even more cosmology) before humans showed up. Putting a date on it, which is exactly what they did, is a fool's errand.
But try explaining that to a literalist .... one runs up against a brick wall of incomprehension.
@moonbus said"Of course"? There are many things the Bible doesn't teach, talk about, or even refer to, but it does speak to some things quite clearly. Blowing it off simply because it isn't a geology textbook is much like many of your complaints, I don't talk about the age of the earth yet you bring it up as if I do bring it up and argue for it. Seems to me you only want an excuse to renounce what I do say without actually addressing those things I do bring up, and you do the same with scripture.
Yes, of course. The Book of Genesis is not a geology text book; it does not explain how the universe came to be. It's part of a moral allegory, why we should treat people in a certain way. It's about mankind's wherefore, not his whence.
But try explaining that to a literalist .... one runs up against a brick wall of incomprehension.
You want to call it a moral allegory even though later in the New Testament Jesus quotes much of it as historical. So your denial of scriptures puts you in the same spot you claim those who accept it are in, making yourself nothing but a brick wall of incomprehension. Using an argument that cuts the same way applied to both sides of a discussion doesn't bring any clarity toward figuring out who is correct if any are.
So the instructional information in life you know how it got there? Unlike you, I can say that every time we see that type of thing a mind is behind it. You cannot say the same thing about what occurred billions of years ago, you can declare it, nothing more. Even if you are correct on how much time there was, that adds nothing to the rest of all of the requirements. If it all isn't in place simultaneously, connecting correctly, in the proper order, in an environment that is life-friendly, not in the presence of anything that could hinder any of the chemical reactions, or pollute them no movement towards life is possible.
You want to promote an ongoing set of miracles of life starting and continuing to become more functionally complex through time going against what we see in nature in decay. It is even laughable that you also suggest all of that can happen through chance and necessity in a continuing string of fortunate happenstance over billions of years nonstop as if that were the simple answer, is ludacris.
183d
@Suzianne saidDecay destroys the products produced in chemical reactions no different than anything else. It isn't like once you get something over time it will remain that way, time changes things. If you are attempting to move to life-friendly reactions those reactions even if they are properly connected early on, will in time change. Chemical reactions don't have a stop mechanism once life-friendly occurs, all chemical reactions continue until they cannot do anything else.
Shelf life issues?
What??
183d
@moonbus saidAny yet you think decay doesn't alter chemical reactions moving toward life-friendly directions over billions of years?
Radioactive elements decay into other elements; this process is known as a "decay chain." This takes time, and the times are known. For example, uranium decays into thorium. The half-lives of various isotopes vary from fractions of a second to billions of years. Below is a link to a table showing the half-lives of some isotopes:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1066982/ ...[text shortened]... ways: you cannot have a young Earth and the Golden Gate Bridge standing up. It is one or the other.
Decay like every process can be affected, it can be slowed or sped up, adding to or taking away various catalysts even the speed of life can be affected by what the light passes through or near.
Assumptions about the length of time due to rates assume quite a bit, you may be right about the age, again, I don't argue age, but processes.
183d
@josephw saidOne theory is the Big Bang.
If the universe has an age, then it had a beginning. When was that?
However in an a universe which expanded from a singularity time itself becomes extremely elastic relative to localised mass and the relative velocities of mass expanding. So it’s impossible or at least very difficult to use our measure of the passing of time and apply it to all areas of the universe.
Kellyjay says he believes in a young earth but doesn’t seem to want to say why. Some Christians point to the various geologies as being literal representations of years back to to Adam and from that extrapolate a 6,000 year history from Adam till now.
182d
@KellyJay saidYou're dodging the question, not even artfully. The rate of radioactive decay has not changed. The speed of light has not changed. If it had, there would be a 'photonic boom' visible in the universe. A God who arbitrarily alters laws of physics has not created a coherent universe--He has imprisoned us in an insane schizo-verse.
Any yet you think decay doesn't alter chemical reactions moving toward life-friendly directions over billions of years?
Decay like every process can be affected, it can be slowed or sped up, adding to or taking away various catalysts even the speed of life can be affected by what the light passes through or near.
Assumptions about the length of time due to rates assume quite a bit, you may be right about the age, again, I don't argue age, but processes.
How old do you think the universe is? Roughly? Within an order of magnitude. I'm not asking for a date. Thousands or billions of years?
182d
@moonbus saidMaybe if I repeat myself for the thousandth time, I don’t care how old you think the earth and universe are. I don’t know so I will defer to any date according to any method you trust.
You're dodging the question, not even artfully. The rate of radioactive decay has not changed. The speed of light has not changed. If it had, there would be a 'photonic boom' visible in the universe. A God who arbitrarily alters laws of physics has not created a coherent universe--He has imprisoned us in an insane schizo-verse.
How old do you think the universe is? Roughly? Within an order of magnitude. I'm not asking for a date. Thousands or billions of years?
Your problems are not age but a host of other issues that you are ignoring, still! Moreover if you misinterpreted data with incorrect assumptions about foundational points the greater all the things you believe could be incorrect.
181d
@KellyJay saidDo you accept the scientific explanation of gravity as laid out in the video in your own OP?
Maybe if I repeat myself for the thousandth time, I don’t care how old you think the earth and universe are. I don’t know so I will defer to any date according to any method you trust.
Your problems are not age but a host of other issues that you are ignoring, still! Moreover if you misinterpreted data with incorrect assumptions about foundational points the greater all the things you believe could be incorrect.
172d
@KellyJay
So you think gravity is something we should be thankful to god for in spite of the fact we pretty much know how and why it works and you are not satisfied with us knowing how it works without acknowledging it all came from the grace of god inventing the laws allowing us to exist.
Isn't that the bottom line of your POV?
172d
@sonhouse saidWe can predict effects due to gravity, but we don't know what it is. There are many things like that in life, including life itself. You blow God off as if He is meaningless to you and as far as you are concerned He is pointless to you, but that is only how you view Him. He created everything, and holds it all together by the power of His Word your every breath is a gift from Him weather you acknowledge Him or not.
@KellyJay
So you think gravity is something we should be thankful to god for in spite of the fact we pretty much know how and why it works and you are not satisfied with us knowing how it works without acknowledging it all came from the grace of god inventing the laws allowing us to exist.
Isn't that the bottom line of your POV?
Our laws are nothing more than what we see as normative actions in the universe none of them explain the universe's beginning, or much of it. Everything in the universe, both material and immaterial, is part of the whole that had a beginning and only God can account for it all. Every other explanation has giant holes in what they can explain without God, I've asked which came first the immaterial or the material removing God from the equation all you got are insults and acknowledgments of how much we don't know as if that were something that could be used to dismiss any point of view you dislike.
171d
@KellyJay
All well and good but till a god comes flying down telling us how it is and we better worship said god, I'll go with science, and yes I know it is not finished but we know we will know more tomorrow than we did yesterday and that is good enough for me.
I don't have to be forever worshipping a god I don't think either exists or if it does exist doesn't give a rats ass about humans, the fact if a god exists like the one you worship, it would not have let us build atomic bombs and now fusion bombs a thousand times more powerful than the ones that hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, firecrackers compared to the monsters we build now.
So that is MY POV and accept it, I accept you will always worship what you think is your god.
So be it.
171d
1 edit
@sonhouse saidGod has come down, Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh. Not sure what you think suggesting science is giving you something that can tell you what is and is not important. With the universe, since you have no clue as to how it all started or why, you may have some small clue about some small pieces but nothing more and you most certainly cannot connect all of the mechanisms within life to give an account of why. If you are not connected to the source of life you are not connected to the source of life and not unlike a branch of a tree that has been cut off, it has a little life still in it but will die. Being grateful or ungrateful is up to us, we can judge others and condemn them for the things we are also doing, we just show we are aware of right and wrong and don't care because we feel we are above such things.
@KellyJay
All well and good but till a god comes flying down telling us how it is and we better worship said god, I'll go with science, and yes I know it is not finished but we know we will know more tomorrow than we did yesterday and that is good enough for me.
I don't have to be forever worshipping a god I don't think either exists or if it does exist doesn't give a rat ...[text shortened]... hat is MY POV and accept it, I accept you will always worship what you think is your god.
So be it.
171d
@KellyJay
The universe and the fate of the universe has ZERO to do with our lives here on Earth, the universe has been around a LOT longer than our sun, it was some ten billion years old already when our sun coagulated out of the dust of previous novae and will be around when our sun has grown to the size of the orbit of Mars and has totally consumed Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars and is by then heating up the moons of Jupiter so all those multi billion year episodes that we see has already played out all over the universe, the birth and death of stars just like our sun in multi billion year time frames, has no bearing on our lives, we got along for hundreds of thousands of years more or less quite fine and we knew ZIP about the real world, when the only thing on the table was getting things on the table to eat and finding shelter from storms.
The only thing bothering us about the universe right now is the possibility of another huge asteroid hit like the one that may have ended the age of dinosaurs and we know now in I think the year 2030 there is a 70 odd % chance of a huge one actually hitting Earth so plans are in place to deal with it, we already did the experiment of nudging an asteroid with a direct hit by a probe and saw the orbital mechanics change, it is not in the same orbit it was so we have a good chance of deflecting the one they think will actually hit Earth.
That aside, there is nothing in the Universe threatening us and we will live or die as a species on our own petards not by worshipping a deity.
A big asteroid hit will not be deflected by your god, in fact if it is destined to hit the argument could be made that is exactly what this god WANTED, maybe to get rid of the humans ruining this clear jewel of a planet we are hell bent on destroying.
Maybe your god has already made the determination we don't DESERVE to live on this planet we are treating like it is in infinite resource we can do anything we like to.
171d
@sonhouse saidYou make claims you cannot prove about time and processes, and even if the age statement is true that does not speak to how it all started, that would only mean it started long ago nothing more. The rest is beyond the scope of a purely materialistic world, the material the universe is made of didn't create itself out of nothing.
@KellyJay
The universe and the fate of the universe has ZERO to do with our lives here on Earth, the universe has been around a LOT longer than our sun, it was some ten billion years old already when our sun coagulated out of the dust of previous novae and will be around when our sun has grown to the size of the orbit of Mars and has totally consumed Mercury, Venus, Earth a ...[text shortened]... o live on this planet we are treating like it is in infinite resource we can do anything we like to.