Did God use evolution to create life

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

...
Like i said earlier, how do we know the velocity of decay rates and the initial starting values.

Because the decay rate is determined by one of the four fundamental forces that govern the way our universe behaves. To alter the decay rate or to even give the appearance that the decay rate has been altered you would have to fuse the rock sample, fossil or whatever at temperatures equivalent to the core of the sun.

That would destroy your sample material and render the whole question of its age moot. Suffice to say, if you have a recognizable sample or fossil or whatever - then the radio isotopes within your sample have been decaying at a constant rate since the time the sample was formed.

Johnson, Bill, 1993. How to change nuclear decay rates. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...cay_rates.html

[coadie]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Atomic "skid marks":

Half Lives for Radioactive Elements

Radioactive Parent

Stable Daughter

Half life
Radioactive Parent - Stable Daughter - Half life
Potassium 40 -- Argon 40 -- 1.25 billion yrs

Rubidium 87 -- Strontium 87 -- 48.8 billion yrs

Thorium 232 -- Lead 208 -- 14 billion years

Uranium 235 --- Lead 207 -- 704 million years

Uranium 238 -- Lead 206 -- 4.47 billion years

Carbon 14 -- Nitrogen 14 -- 5730 years

The findings attracted immediate attention because they seemed to violate two known basic facts of physics:

1. Radioactive decay is a constant

2. Neutrinos very rarely interact with matter and are hard to detect when they do.
For example: trillions of the neutrinos are zipping through your body right now. So why would they interact with radioactive elements in a more detectable way?

Here are the abstracts.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NIMPA.620..332J

This includes many wavelengths your eyes do not respond to.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One of the first things I do is a little consideration of the assumptions people make that are behind their claims.
I need to snag my sons graduate school math text books tonight Brush up on some equations.

If Hugh Ross could understand this, he would have a cow.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

The findings attracted immediate attention because they seemed to violate two known basic facts of physics:

1. Radioactive decay is a constant

2. Neutrinos very rarely interact with matter and are hard to detect when they do.
For example: trillions of the neutrinos are zipping through your body right now. So why would they interact with radioactive elements in a more detectable way?

Here are the abstracts.


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010NIMPA.620..332J

This includes many wavelengths your eyes do not respond to.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

One of the first things I do is a little consideration of the assumptions people make that are behind their claims.
I need to snag my sons graduate school math text books tonight Brush up on some equations.

If Hugh Ross could understand this, he would have a cow.

Just how big of variations were they finding? 1% or less?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Just how big of variations were they finding? 1% or less?

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

The point is that a 1% difference doesn't do anything to help you show that radioactive dating methods could put the earth in the 6000-10000 year range. In fact a 1% change won't even take the age of the earth out of the billions of years.

So, while some variation may occur, to use that to say the earth isn't billions of years old is deceitful. The amount of variation is an important observation to consider when determining what effect the said variation will have.

So assuming there is variation is there anyway to reduce the half-life of potassium to around 3000 years (a reduction of 99.9997%)? And if so what conditions would be required for the half-life to change that much?

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

Well, a 1% difference when describing a drive from Rhode Island to San Diego may make a difference of plus or minus 10 minutes. It wouldn't make a 40 hour trip into a 10 minutes one.

Your comparison to dog poop or water in airplane fuel is sort of nonsensical to put it mildly.

[coadie]

Discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson, Lucy is special because she lived so long ago (3.2 millions years) and because almost half of her skeleton was found. (Most fossil finds are just fragments -- sometimes a tooth or a piece of a skull.) Johanson named her after the Beatles' song, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/lucy.html

We have enough bones to fill a casket that are classified as bones between humans and apes during transformation. Of course there are books and books written on stories making claims how some apes had offspring that evolved into humans.

The deal killer is they have no actual DNA. They can't produce actual DNA but claim to know what it would be like. No proof. Just voodoo.
A lot of zealots are working hard to take a stab at proving a godless creation.

[pelathais]

coadie has asserted that the earth's magnetic field had at one time been so powerful that it would have "fried" all live that would have been present on the earth.

There is no evidence to support this supposition. coadie makes reference to Young Earth Creationist claims (debunked in detail here) that take the strength of today's magnetic field, its rate of decay and extrapolate that back billions of years. The result is a magnetic field so strong that it would be a hazard to life. But does this even make sense?

To get a field that strong we would need to increase the mass of the earth exponentially. No system of energy generation can produce more energy than allowed by the total mass of the system. coadie knows this, on his "good days." To get a magnetic field sufficient to satisfy the YEC demands the size of the earth along with its iron-nickel core would need to be as large as Jupiter.

Jupiter does produce a magnetic field that is injurious to life if exposed long enough. However, if Earth had Jupiter's mass magnetism would be the least of our worries. The crushing gravity of such a mass would certainly inhibit life. Also, a planet that big would hold onto a tremendously dense atmosphere - one like Jupiter's current atmosphere.

But, the earth was never the size of Jupiter, so this model fails. Another problem with the YEC methodology is that it ignores the dynamics of earth's REAL magnetic field.

Rather than being injurious, the earth's magnetic field actually helps to protect life from the sun's harmful radiation.



What about the decay coadie mentioned? This is a natural CYCLE that the earth has gone through for at least the past 200 million years (the oldest sea floor crust that we use to measure this cycle is "just" 200 million years old - about 225 million - the older parts having been recycled through Plate Tectonics).



As the Atlantic sea floor spreads and pushes the Americas further away from Europe and Africa (at about the rate of two inches per year), new molten lava is deposited along the undersea Atlantic Ridge. While still molten, the iron in this iron rich basaltic rock aligns itself according to the current alignment of the magnetic poles.

We can see from the alignment of the iron along the sea floor that the magnet poles have shifted and varied at differing rates that at first appeared random. However, with further studies a complex pattern was discerned that related to the "Levy Distribution" found in probability statistics.

The bottom line? The underlying presumption of the Young Earth Creationists that the earth's magnetic field is a stable phenomena that has decayed at a steady and given rate is simply wrong. As wrong as anyone could be about something. Just look at the evidence.

[coadie]

I just laugh so loud when an evolutionist says i need an interpretor to read the book of Genesis. When they say it can't be taken litterally, I ask for them to write some verses that are correct and can be taken literally. All the cowards can't. The words in the chapter are simple. the numbers are small.
I have the main Mormon scriptures. At Least Joseph smith put his special revelations in writing.

History of the creation.

1 And it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Behold, I reveal unto you concerning this heaven and this earth; write the words which I speak.

2 I am the Beginning and the End; the Almighty God. By mine Only Begotten I created these things.

3 Yea, in the beginning I created the heaven, and the earth upon which thou standest.

4 And the earth was without form, and void; and I caused darkness to come up upon the face of the deep.

5 And my Spirit moved upon the face of the waters, for I am God.

6 And I, God, said, Let there be light, and there was light.

7 And I, God, saw the light, and that light was good. And I, God, divided the light from the darkness.

8 And I, God, called the light day, and the darkness I called night. And this I did by the word of my power; and it was done as I spake. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

9 And again, I, God, said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters; and it was so, even as I spake. And I said, Let it divide the waters from the waters; and it was done.

10 And I, God, made the firmament, and divided the waters; yea, the great waters under the firmament, from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so, even as I spake.
This is the boldest verse in the first chapter.

27 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

I just laugh so loud when an evolutionist says i need an interpretor to read the book of Genesis. When they say it can't be taken litterally, I ask for them to write some verses that are correct and can be taken literally. All the cowards can't. The words in the chapter are simple. the numbers are small. ...

You're whistling in a graveyard coadie. (BTW, I am honored to be quoted in your sig line).

I never said YOU needed "an interpreter." I said that YOU needed to get some fresh air.

And it's odd to see you talk about "cowards" who don't respond to your challenges. You haven't answered a single thing I have ever asked you in the past year. You haven't even responded to my explanations of Genesis. You just go on, calling names, calling me a "liar" for stating well accepted scientific facts, whining when I point out the whoppers you tell... Do try and get some air. I noticed that you became a bit more lucid after I recommended that. Something's working!