• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

Status
Not open for further replies.
arthwollipot said:
Jerome, please answer a question for me. It appears to me that all you have done here is argue against. What in the blue frozen hells is your position? What are you arguing for?
Click to expand...
Now he will ask how you know that hell is frozen and blue.

Paul

:) :) :)

Oh, and that there are more than one.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Cosmic rays can change the rate?
Click to expand...

No, I clearly stated that cosmic rays can transform atoms into something else. Carbon 14 is made from cosmic rays producing neutrons and the neutrons hitting Nitrogen atoms. Once the carbon 14 is formed is will decay with a specific decay constant. That is why radioactive elements are good for dating stuff.

glenn
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
That the rate of decay is not consistently known. Science continues to learn new information.
Click to expand...
That's a vague conclusion.

What do you mean that rate of decay is not consistently known?
DO you believe that this data suggests a changing rate of decay for 209Po?
 
arthwollipot said:
Then you will never be open to a range of potential scientific discoveries. You are closing off all avenues of scientific investigation by saying that since there is no evidence of fairies, they absolutely positively do not exist.
Click to expand...

Science does not venture into the realm of the supernatural.

Jerome, please answer a question for me. It appears to me that all you have done here is argue against. What in the blue frozen hells is your position? What are you arguing for?
Click to expand...

My position is that we do not have enough scientifically derived information to make assertions as to the origin of life.
 
Hindmost said:
No, I clearly stated that cosmic rays can transform atoms into something else. Carbon 14 is made from cosmic rays producing neutrons and the neutrons hitting Nitrogen atoms. Once the carbon 14 is formed is will decay with a specific decay constant. That is why radioactive elements are good for dating stuff.

glenn
Click to expand...

Unless it changes.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I am suggesting that we do not build new ideas on known unknowns.
Click to expand...
You've become even more vauge.

WHat new Idea? and what Known unknown?

Does an innaccurate 209Po mean that all other known decay rates are equally innacurate? Having worked extensively with 125-I, 131-I and 51-Cr, I can say that their reported half lives are extremely accurate.
 
joobz said:
Does an innaccurate 209Po mean that all other known decay rates are equally innacurate? Having worked extensively with 125-I, 131-I and 51-Cr, I can say that their reported half lives are extremely accurate.
Click to expand...

Under the controlled circumstances with which you worked with them.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Under the controlled circumstances with which you worked with them.
Click to expand...
explain to me what variables I would control which would prevent a changing decay rate.
Now, going back to the paper you referenced. What were the author's conclusion as to why there was a discrepency in the half life report?
 
Paulhoff said:
Very interesting

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t1119.html

I see were this kind of thinking is coming from.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...

Interesting find. I used the term fairies because that and pink unicorns are common logical mocks presented in opposition to ID. As I am not a proponent of ID and find their logic failed I decided to use the same language to show evolutionists that their logic is proportionately failed. The fact that the evolutionists did not recognize their own language in reference to their logic is exceedingly revealing. My hypothesis that evolution is comparable in logic to ID is being confirmed daily.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Interesting find. I used the term fairies because that and pink unicorns are common logical mocks presented in opposition to ID. As I am not a proponent of ID and find their logic failed I decided to use the same language to show evolutionists that their logic is proportionately failed. The fact that the evolutionists did not recognize their own language in reference to their logic is exceedingly revealing. My hypothesis that evolution is comparable in logic to ID is being confirmed daily.
Click to expand...
Jerome, are you just anti-everything, or are there any ideas that you do support? This is the question I was trying to ask earlier.
 
Last edited:
arthwollipot said:
Jerome, are you just anti-everything, or are there any ideas that you do support? This is the question I was trying to ask earlier.
Click to expand...

Concerning the origin of life? I support the idea that life has always existed, as science, at this point, only evidences life coming from life. In addition I know that our western concept of time is derived from religion and as such I do not accepted it without evidence.
 
arthwollipot said:
Jerome, are you just anti-everything, or are there any ideas that you do support? This is the question I was trying to ask earlier.
Click to expand...
He wants to tell us want we already know. Most people who buy into ID aren't open to anything you say, they talk like he does. Gee within 5 minutes I found that PO209 BS was coming from ID'ers. They haven't a clue to how science works, just read that site, they talk like they don't cherry-pick their BS.

And once again, if one doesn't believe with the tons of evidence that the earth was not always here, live had to at least once come from something that was not quite alive, geeeeeeeeeee.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Concerning the origin of life? I support the idea that life has always existed, as science, at this point, only evidences life coming from life. In addition I know that our western concept of time is derived from religion and as such I do not accepted it without evidence.
Click to expand...
Let me attemt to understand where you're coming from here. You claim that life has "always" existed? Do you mean on this planet, or in the universe? And secondly, I would like to further understand what you mean by the "western concept of time". What do you mean by this?
 
arthwollipot said:
Let me attemt to understand where you're coming from here. You claim that life has "always" existed? Do you mean on this planet, or in the universe? And secondly, I would like to further understand what you mean by the "western concept of time". What do you mean by this?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Universe.

We have no evidence of linear time on the universal scale, we have no evidence of a beginning of time. Think eternity backwards as well as forwards.
 
joobz said:
explain to me what variables I would control which would prevent a changing decay rate.
Now, going back to the paper you referenced. What were the author's conclusion as to why there was a discrepency in the half life report?
Click to expand...
Jerome, you referenced the paper. What did the authors have to say about the study done in 1954 and why they think the half-lives are different?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom