Evidence for God from Science

Mastriani wrote:Thank you Bgood, seems a very pleasant forum at that.

You are proving to be a worthy cerebral protagonist, well met.

Where will you take the discussion from here?

Seems that this discussion has ended for the time being. There will be more I asure you.
=)

Ok, I see what your saying, it just looks old.
We can't assume that physical constants were constant in the past, right?

No, it only looks old in the mind of those who assume it was always physical only, and in a state of decay!
Physical laws apply to a physical only universe, which would not have existed when it was both physical and spiritual. The bible tells us of a time when the physical only heavens will be no more, but pass away, revealing the new eternal ones.
PO laws apply only to the Physical Only.

Mastriani wrote:...
The idea that both parent and daughter are present at origin is incorrect. It is the half-life decay of the parent that produces the daughter, and measuring the amount of new element present, with respect to known half-life measurements.

Now, yes, of course, it is produced that way, because there is decay. So, before the decay process existed, a process involving the same materials was in place, in this idea. For example, Uranium-238 - Lead-206. Before the split, the 238 would have been there, after the split, it is still there.

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation

And is nothing more than the assumption that it was physical only, and decaying for all time! A mere baseless, unsupportable belief. Get it?

[quote="BGoodForGoodSake]
This is understood, however they are arguing that the products of decay were present at the beginning of creation aprox ~10,000 years ago.

And by this argument that it is impossible to tell how much of the product is from actual radioactive decay and how much was present since the beginning of time.

That is why I posted that differential proportions of the players involved could lead us to determine how much of the lead must be the result of decay no matter what the initial proportions were.

Using this amount of lead and its proportion to the amount of Uranium-238 in the sample would give us the least amount of time the sample had to have existed, no matter how much lead was there from the beginning.[/quote] Not me, I never said that it all was present at creation 6000 years ago. I said there likely was a different process here, whereby the result was for things to last forever, not decay. The Uranium-238 was otherwise employed, than in it's present decay position.

Mastriani wrote:....
That begs the question: What makes for a comparative analysis of a "day" to an everlasting being? I should think that would resolve the issue, but nothing of human origin can answer that factually.

Plants were made before the sun was, regardless of how God might be able to view a day, plants have a limited time they can exist without the sun.

P.P.S. Actually the forum index name is "God and Science", which rather overtly, leaves the door open to more esoteric discourses.

Old age speculations cannot be claimed as science, that is false.

dad wrote:

Mastriani wrote:...
The idea that both parent and daughter are present at origin is incorrect. It is the half-life decay of the parent that produces the daughter, and measuring the amount of new element present, with respect to known half-life measurements.

Now, yes, of course, it is produced that way, because there is decay. So, before the decay process existed, a process involving the same materials was in place, in this idea. For example, Uranium-238 - Lead-206. Before the split, the 238 would have been there, after the split, it is still there.

Before the split elements were like little bells ringing as they dashed aroung.

dad wrote:

The mathematical expression that relates radioactive decay to geologic time is called the age equation

And is nothing more than the assumption that it was physical only, and decaying for all time! A mere baseless, unsupportable belief. Get it?

I get it... However your assertions seem equally baseless.

Science does not work if the rules are always changing. So whatever this is, it's not science.

dad wrote:

Mastriani wrote:....
That begs the question: What makes for a comparative analysis of a "day" to an everlasting being? I should think that would resolve the issue, but nothing of human origin can answer that factually.

Plants were made before the sun was, regardless of how God might be able to view a day, plants have a limited time they can exist without the sun.

No your wrong, because before the split plants created their own light to make sugar, they didn't need sunlight.

dad wrote:

P.P.S. Actually the forum index name is "God and Science", which rather overtly, leaves the door open to more esoteric discourses.

Old age speculations cannot be claimed as science, that is false.

Absolutely false?

I am absolutely certain you are perverting the term science.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:....I get it... However your assertions seem equally baseless.

In science, neither can have a basis. That is the point. The study and testing and observation of the natural world cannot be extended into the future or far past, except in imagination and belief! Therefore, stop teaching your beliefs as science, and robbing innocent children of a good chance at faith in a creator, instead of your dreamland.

Science does not work if the rules are always changing. So whatever this is, it's not science.

Whatever science does, has nothing to do with your old age claims! It also has nothing to do with being at all able to refute mine.
All you can say is something like
'Ok kids, if the past was physical only as the present, then we think there is no God, or creation, and the universe came from a speck, and all life from a little magically appearing first lifeform'.

[quote="BGoodForGoodSake]....No your wrong, because before the split plants created their own light to make sugar, they didn't need sunlight.

Plants did not create light, neither the bible nor science can save your wild fibbing here. There was light before the sun was made, so I guess they did all right. You really do need either science, the bible, or both on your side. Since science can't go there, you must limit yourself to the box of the physical only present, or leave it as unknown.

Absolutely false?

I am absolutely certain you are perverting the term science.

You are dead wrong. Old age speculation, which is all physical only based speculation and belief cannot be evidenced, abd certainly is not science. It is science, falsely so called!

Why do YE's prefer to assume that decay rates (seemingly a basic property) vary with time when apparently there is evidence of other sources of neutrons which can generate 14C underground?

Jbuza wrote:"The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation." (perhaps we should start a thread for anomolies, because evolution has a wealth of them)

This is the most telling sentence in that page. It loudly proclaims the bias of researchers. In spite of the high degree of accuracy in 14C dating (Lacks precision though) they simply through it out because they don't want to see the evidence.

This isn't science this is story telling. We must explain it away, because if coal is less than 50,000 years old, than we are doomed. It isn't an anomoly it is an observation that nearly all fossil fuel (this is the first page I have seen that says that some fossil fuel is 14C dead, so I will look in to that further) contains 14C. This is as much proof that coal is very young as rediometric dates are proof of anything.

Again throw out this and there is no need to move further, because it will be plain that these dating techniques explain away what they don't want and claim loudly what they want.

1) Part of the problem is viewpoint. Just as you sitting in a red chair regard a stray blue fiber as coming from elsewhere, I might regard a stray red fiber in my blue chair as the oddity. It is clear that what different people see as problems depends on a lot on their worldviews or perspectives (young-earth vs old-earth).

2) What's wrong with assumptions ? [Almost everyone makes them.] The natural world is a very complex place and in dealing with difficult new problems with many parameters, it is often very helpful to make assumptions. The important thing is whether experiments justify the assumptions (at least in the cases studied). An assumption can be just viewed as a hypothesis which is accepted for the time being. The way science works is to come up with a model, test the model, reject or adjust the model in accordance with experiment. For example, consider Newtonian physics. It works fine as long as speeds do not approach the speed of light. [It seems to me perhaps that you are unhappy with the scientific mechanism ?]


Let's consider carbon 14 dating. Tell me what you think of the following:

a) fact: neutrons from cosmic rays can change 14N into 14C.
b) fact: living things exchange carbon with the environment.
c) assumption: the decay rate of 14C is constant.
d) assumption: the only 14C on the earth is generated in the upper atmosphere.
e) assumption: the 14C produced is in equilibrium with the rest of the carbon used by living things.
f) assumption: exchange of C essentially stops when an organism dies.
g) assumption: the percentage of 14C is constant over time.
h) more facts and assumptions


test:
i) carbon radiometric dating of historical objects works pretty well most of the time.

ii) carbon radiometric dating of trees (also dated by tree rings) displays slight discrepancies (a minor quibble).
OE response: (reject assumption g) the production of 14C is not constant or the worldwide carbon total changes (model adjustment - accept consistent tree rings and make calibration curve).
YE response: to be supplied by others.

iii) living mollusks can be radiodated to thousands of years old.
OE response: (reject assumption e) Some molluscs live in water in which the 14C is not in equilibrium. Support: measure 14C levels in sources available to molluscs, C mixing is much slower in water (especially layered) than in the turbulent atmosphere (or else we would all suffocate in our CO2 exhaust).
YE response: to be supplied by others.

iv) coal can be dated to various too recent dates.
OE response: (reject assumption d) Find another source of neutrons which can react with the 14N in coal to produce 14C. Support: measure levels of radioactive materials which produce neutrons, correlate amount with age, N content, etc.
YE response: (reject assumption c) Support ? to be supplied by others.

Conclusion: Scientific study of nature is an extremely complex undertaking. There usually aren't simple answers.

sandy_mcd wrote:Why do YE's prefer to assume that decay rates (seemingly a basic property) vary with time when apparently there is evidence of other sources of neutrons which can generate 14C underground?

I don't assume this myself, I assume they were constant since things began to decay! This would be about 4000+ years ago. Before that, a different universe, that had the spiritual and physical together, and no decay. The decay began as the spiritual was temporarily seperated from the physical.

The important thing is whether experiments justify the assumptions

Right. No experiment can go into the unknown future or past. Stick to the observable, and testable, things of the present. Science cannot tell us the past was physical only, or that it was not. This means all assumptions of old age are belief only, not science.

a) fact: neutrons from cosmic rays can change 14N into 14C.
b) fact: living things exchange carbon with the environment.
c) assumption: the decay rate of 14C is constant.
d) assumption: the only 14C on the earth is generated in the upper atmosphere. [Now, but not in the unknown past]
e) assumption: the 14C produced is in equilibrium with the rest of the carbon used by living things.
f) assumption: exchange of C essentially stops when an organism dies.
g) assumption: the percentage of 14C is constant over time. [ No ]
h) more facts and assumptions

test:
i) carbon radiometric dating of historical objects works pretty well most of the time. [Long as it goes back no more than 4400 years, the time of split ]

ii) carbon radiometric dating of trees (also dated by tree rings) displays slight discrepancies (a minor quibble). [Growth rates different in past anyhow, neuters this method]....

dad wrote:Right. No experiment can go into the unknown future or past. Stick to the observable, and testable, things of the present. Science cannot tell us the past was physical only, or that it was not. This means all assumptions of old age are belief only, not science.

This is ludicrus.
How can any experiments be conducted unless there is an assumption that certain fundamental conditions are constant.
How can any observations be of any use if tomorrows observations may have nothing to do with todays?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:...This is ludicrus.
How can any experiments be conducted unless there is an assumption that certain fundamental conditions are constant.
How can any observations be of any use if tomorrows observations may have nothing to do with todays?

We can observe the present, and even use it to know about the future and the past, but only within a narror window! It seems the seperation or split of the spiritual from the physical happened aprox 4400 years ago. Also, the new heavens will appear in a little over a thousand years. Within that window, you can observe, and make physical only suppositions, thus far, but no further.
Remember, no science on earth now or ever will support a physical only past beyond that time, so it is not science.

dad wrote: We can observe the present, and even use it to know about the future and the past, but only within a narror window! It seems the seperation or split of the spiritual from the physical happened aprox 4400 years ago. Also, the new heavens will appear in a little over a thousand years. Within that window, you can observe, and make physical only suppositions, thus far, but no further.
Remember, no science on earth now or ever will support a physical only past beyond that time, so it is not science.

I think the correct statement is,
"You will not support a physical past beyond that time."

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

dad wrote: We can observe the present, and even use it to know about the future and the past, but only within a narror window! It seems the seperation or split of the spiritual from the physical happened aprox 4400 years ago. Also, the new heavens will appear in a little over a thousand years. Within that window, you can observe, and make physical only suppositions, thus far, but no further.
Remember, no science on earth now or ever will support a physical only past beyond that time, so it is not science.

I think the correct statement is,
"You will not support a physical past beyond that time."

OK, fair enough, you will not do that, and that is what all, I repeat all old ages are based on! And it can't be supported! Astounding.