Evidence for God from Science

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

Later probably tomorrow I've something I have to finish writing
and a lot of reading to do.

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

I'd also be very interested in Audie telling me what my so called mistakes are. Audie is trying to provoke and inflame me by making nasty insinuations that are fabricated.

Mazzy wrote:
This is what I mean folks. This person Audie has no interest in responding to my posts and I am starting to think he is unable to.

He is a she.

Mazzy wrote:
Audie... Lover did not say I made mistakes. He was talking about the insults made that you are now continuing to make.

Lover is not Lover. It's 1over137. And Lover 1over137 is also a she. Her name is Hana.

Continue with the cat fight discussion.

Mazzy wrote:There are a plethora of reasons why I do not accept dating methods as valid. Here is just one. 146Sm is used to date the solar system. IN 2012 the half life was recalibrated and dropped by around a whopping 30%. Then our intelligence is insulted once more when these researchers suggest such a difference in half life over the supposed 5-6 billion years only changed the dating by an insignificant amount of time.

Do you know why the scientists say that a 30% recalibration of 146-Samarium's 100 million year half-life does not significantly change the 4.6 billion year estimated age of the solar system?

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

Later probably tomorrow I've something I have to finish writing
and a lot of reading to do.

Isn't it about time you fessed up to your mistake and admit that researchers indeed do suggest that a bacteria evolved over time to become a dinosaur? Yet a dog will never be bred the size of a dinosaur.

Isn't it about time that you fessed up to the fact that the reclibration of 146Sm's half life by a third is a great example of dating methods being non credible?

Mazzy wrote:

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

This is what I mean folks. This person Audie has no interest in responding to my posts and I am starting to think he is unable to.

Audie... Lover did not say I made mistakes. He was talking about the insults made that you are now continuing to make.

Isn't it about time you fessed up to your mistake and admit that researchers indeed do suggest that a bacteria evolved over time to become a dinosaur? Yet a dog will never be bred the size of a dinosaur.

Isn't it about time that you fessed up to the fact that the reclibration of 146Sm's half life by a third is a great example of dating methods being non credible?

Mazzy, please hold on. I think this your last post was really unnecessary. I started to believe we could have normal discussion here.

I understand people may get busy with other jobs. So we should give some time each other.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:There are a plethora of reasons why I do not accept dating methods as valid. Here is just one. 146Sm is used to date the solar system. IN 2012 the half life was recalibrated and dropped by around a whopping 30%. Then our intelligence is insulted once more when these researchers suggest such a difference in half life over the supposed 5-6 billion years only changed the dating by an insignificant amount of time.

Do you know why the scientists say that a 30% recalibration of 146-Samarium's 100 million year half-life does not significantly change the 4.6 billion year estimated age of the solar system?

I am not exactly sure why the age of the universe has only changed a little. However, 68 million as opposed to 103 million implies that many more half lives of 68my should have gone around to give the daughter elements counted. This appears to imply that the universe should be even older yet the change has made the universe only around 90my younger if I remember correctly. I looked for another article I read on it but can't find it quickly. It is weird maths and I would love someone to explain it further to me.

What I think these researchers do is recalibrate everything such as guestimated amount of Sm146 in the universe or the daughter count to keep the story alive as best they can. Reseasrchers do not want to loose their credibility.

1over137 wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

This is what I mean folks. This person Audie has no interest in responding to my posts and I am starting to think he is unable to.

Audie... Lover did not say I made mistakes. He was talking about the insults made that you are now continuing to make.

Isn't it about time you fessed up to your mistake and admit that researchers indeed do suggest that a bacteria evolved over time to become a dinosaur? Yet a dog will never be bred the size of a dinosaur.

Isn't it about time that you fessed up to the fact that the reclibration of 146Sm's half life by a third is a great example of dating methods being non credible?

Mazzy, please hold on. I think this your last post was really unnecessary. I started to believe we could have normal discussion here.

I understand people may get busy with other jobs. So we should give some time each other.

I think it is time to call a spade a spade. Audie has already spoken to some suggested mistakes that were not mistakes at all. I have given much information, backed it up with research or made comments related to common knowledge eg bacteria to dinos, and all Audie can do is insult me by insuating I make mistakes, requesting I mend them and not actually speaking to any point I have made. It is a very frustrating!

Here is another article on Samarium-146, or Sm-146.

http://75.101.140.165/releases/2012/04/120403140040.htm

This article says.....

"Samarium-146, or Sm-146, is unstable and occasionally emits a particle, which changes the atom into a different element. Using the same technique as radiocarbon dating, scientists can calculate how long it's been since the Sm-146 was created. Because Sm-146 decays extremely slowly -- on the order of millions of years -- many models use it to help determine the age of the solar system".

IOW during the time of modern science Samarium has not had the chance to emit even one particle as evidence of it's half life or to even establish if the decay is constant.

This article below suggests that perhaps decay rates for carbon 14 are not constant after all. I have yet to track down the published paper.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html

I am not a YEC, however I am very interested in their thinking and have to admit the validity of current dating methods is highly questionable.

Dating methods are about "When" God created. Another point I'd like to make about how God creates, on top of the fact that it has been proven that a huge source of energy can create matter instantly is around how life was created.

A recent comment I made was in relation to abiogenesis and current thinking that has evolved from DNA/RNA first to proteins first.

Proteins cannot exist outside of a host and begin to deteriorate away from the host. Protein, not even speculated short stranded proteins, have ever been observed to exist outside a host let alone floating around in water, the sea or stuck to a rock.

Now that we can peer into the genome and found that even a single celled life form is a complex factory of reproduction all the more is the case for instant creation of life forms by a grand designer supported.

Mazzy wrote: I think it is time to call a spade a spade. Audie has already spoken to some suggested mistakes that were not mistakes at all. I have given much information, backed it up with research or made comments related to common knowledge eg bacteria to dinos, and all Audie can do is insult me by insuating I make mistakes, requesting I mend them and not actually speaking to any point I have made. It is a very frustrating!

I once had a friend who was highly intelligent and a strong proponent for evolution, and we argued for a whole week about creation v's evolution, in the end he had no argument, but I nearly lost a friend. From that day forward I never argued with anyone person to person over the issue of evolution. That was 30+ years ago.

Sometimes people will hold onto a system of thought simply because it is a distraction from being unable to face what life has hit them with. As I got to know my friend, I found out that he had a shocking upbringing, and was suffering abandonment and incredible loneliness underneath a tough exterior. So we never know why people are strongly opinionated or why they have a fragile sense of self that needs to be boosted by some exterior success, like wining an argument, having knowledge or whatever gives them self assurance. The same applies to my motives which need to be addressed as well.
I am not saying this applies to either you or Audie at all, it's just an example of an extreme situation where someone can be misjudged by their exterior. Evolution is a system of many connecting logical conclusions. so is creationism. The only difference is that one does not consider the opinions or findings of man the ultimate criterion.

It's a bit of a paradox, because you don't want to be passive about truth, but at the same time we need tact, as Paul said "As subtle as a serpent and as harmless as a dove." I like both Audie's and your contributions to the thread, not because I agree with everything said, but because there are logical conclusions on both sides judged by the material accepted by the writer.

Starhunter wrote:

Mazzy wrote: I think it is time to call a spade a spade. Audie has already spoken to some suggested mistakes that were not mistakes at all. I have given much information, backed it up with research or made comments related to common knowledge eg bacteria to dinos, and all Audie can do is insult me by insuating I make mistakes, requesting I mend them and not actually speaking to any point I have made. It is a very frustrating!

I once had a friend who was highly intelligent and a strong proponent for evolution, and we argued for a whole week about creation v's evolution, in the end he had no argument, but I nearly lost a friend. From that day forward I never argued with anyone person to person over the issue of evolution. That was 30+ years ago.

Sometimes people will hold onto a system of thought simply because it is a distraction from being unable to face what life has hit them with. As I got to know my friend, I found out that he had a shocking upbringing, and was suffering abandonment and incredible loneliness underneath a tough exterior. So we never know why people are strongly opinionated or why they have a fragile sense of self that needs to be boosted by some exterior success, like wining an argument, having knowledge or whatever gives them self assurance. The same applies to my motives which need to be addressed as well.
I am not saying this applies to either you or Audie at all, it's just an example of an extreme situation where someone can be misjudged by their exterior. Evolution is a system of many connecting logical conclusions. so is creationism. The only difference is that one does not consider the opinions or findings of man the ultimate criterion.

It's a bit of a paradox, because you don't want to be passive about truth, but at the same time we need tact, as Paul said "As subtle as a serpent and as harmless as a dove." I like both Audie's and your contributions to the thread, not because I agree with everything said, but because there are logical conclusions on both sides judged by the material accepted by the writer.

I agree with much of what you have said. If either the evolutionary or creationist paradigm was scientifically 'proven' then one stream of thought would no longer be a theory. It would be a 'fact' just like we know the earth is more or less circular, not flat.

However, you may note I give my scientific reasons for my stance. Another debater then has the opportunit to challenge my reasoning or supports or offer the best they have in support of an opposing view. That forms the basis of debate and/or discussion.

Too often I hear the pleading of the majority view. This is of course is useless because the majority view has been falsified time and time again. For example, all the fossil evidence demonstated that mankind had a knucklewalking ancestry to a common ancestor akin to a chimp. Less than 15 years later the same fossil evidence with one new specimen, Ardi, now demonstrates mankind did not have a knucklewalking ancestry and the common ancestor was a biped that was nothing like a chimp. Of course I am still wondering where all the chimp and gorilla fossils are given they have little to no fossil history. Having no chimp ancestry back to a common ancestor means one entire half of the evolutionary story from the chimp/human common ancestor is sadly missing.

As for the thread topic there is evidence that supports instant creation from a high energy source, good evidence that neither DNA, RNA or proteins can exist outside a host. These support my stance on how God creates. My stance ay be challenged by Big Bang theory that falls apart at the singularity or the current proteins first paradigm that is even more non plausible.

Any one here can challenge my thoughts or put forward their best ideas or scientific supports. Telling me I make mistakes and offering nonsense as the example is just a waste of time and frustrating to those that are seeking an intelligent discussion.

Mazzy wrote:

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:There are a plethora of reasons why I do not accept dating methods as valid. Here is just one. 146Sm is used to date the solar system. IN 2012 the half life was recalibrated and dropped by around a whopping 30%. Then our intelligence is insulted once more when these researchers suggest such a difference in half life over the supposed 5-6 billion years only changed the dating by an insignificant amount of time.

Do you know why the scientists say that a 30% recalibration of 146-Samarium's 100 million year half-life does not significantly change the 4.6 billion year estimated age of the solar system?

I am not exactly sure why the age of the universe has only changed a little. However, 68 million as opposed to 103 million implies that many more half lives of 68my should have gone around to give the daughter elements counted. This appears to imply that the universe should be even older yet the change has made the universe only around 90my younger if I remember correctly. I looked for another article I read on it but can't find it quickly. It is weird maths and I would love someone to explain it further to me.

What I think these researchers do is recalibrate everything such as guestimated amount of Sm146 in the universe or the daughter count to keep the story alive as best they can. Reseasrchers do not want to loose their credibility.

Your answer to my question above seems to be "no", i.e., you don't know why scientists claim to have significantly recalibrated 146-Samarium's half-life without significantly changing their estimate of the age of the solar system. The 1st sentence of your response above seems to agree with my assessment.

So as far as you know, new measurements for Samarium's half-lives could change significantly without significantly changing the basis for estimating the solar system's age.

Correct?

I'm tentatively assuming that you don't really mean your last sentence of your response above, viz., that scientists are consciously or subconsciously fudging data so as to avoid losing their credibility.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote:There are a plethora of reasons why I do not accept dating methods as valid. Here is just one. 146Sm is used to date the solar system. IN 2012 the half life was recalibrated and dropped by around a whopping 30%. Then our intelligence is insulted once more when these researchers suggest such a difference in half life over the supposed 5-6 billion years only changed the dating by an insignificant amount of time.

Do you know why the scientists say that a 30% recalibration of 146-Samarium's 100 million year half-life does not significantly change the 4.6 billion year estimated age of the solar system?

I am not exactly sure why the age of the universe has only changed a little. However, 68 million as opposed to 103 million implies that many more half lives of 68my should have gone around to give the daughter elements counted. This appears to imply that the universe should be even older yet the change has made the universe only around 90my younger if I remember correctly. I looked for another article I read on it but can't find it quickly. It is weird maths and I would love someone to explain it further to me.

What I think these researchers do is recalibrate everything such as guestimated amount of Sm146 in the universe or the daughter count to keep the story alive as best they can. Reseasrchers do not want to loose their credibility.

Your answer to my question above seems to be "no", i.e., you don't know why scientists claim to have significantly recalibrated 146-Samarium's half-life without significantly changing their estimate of the age of the solar system. The 1st sentence of your response above seems to agree with my assessment.

So as far as you know, new measurements for Samarium's half-lives could change significantly without significantly changing the basis for estimating the solar system's age.

Correct?

I'm tentatively assuming that you don't really mean your last sentence of your response above, viz., that scientists are consciously or subconsciously fudging data so as to avoid losing their credibility.

It appears you know about as much as me as you have not explained why a 30% error in half life estimates can give anything less than a 30% increase in dating, rather than a decline. Correct????

The point I made is that a 30% error is huge and nothing to be handwaved away, sufficient time has not passed for even one instance of a daughter cell to be measured. What a joke, and hardly convincing...... More precise intruments to measure what? That which may pop up once in a million years?

Scientists saving their credibility is what it is. We all want to know so they try their best. I believe the buzz explanation was around their guestimate of samarian in the initial solar system has changed... and viola, the status quo is only tweaked slightly.... Indeed even in dating via meteorites these researchers have to guestimate the amount of lead in the early universe and make it all agree. How convenient it all is!!!!!They can basically make inital quantities of anything what ever is convenient in upholding the status quo and pass that off as science, given they actually have no clue what initial quantities of any element was in the early universe or solar system.

I have seen some YEC supports and read the refutes to their work. The refutes for most generally use alternative assumptions as evidence for refute.

I am not even I YEC and this thread is not about dating, it is about how God created. Have you got anything better to offer than Proteins first and TOE?

Mazzy wrote:The point I made is that a 30% error is huge and nothing to be handwaved away, sufficient time has not passed for even one instance of a daughter cell to be measured.

Why do you seem to think that a 30% error in 146-Samarium half-life should correspond to a roughly comparable error in scientists' estimation the age of the solar system? You already seem to have admitted to not knowing how scientists compute these ages.

Not sure why you keep avoiding an answer to my simple question.

Mazzy wrote:Scientists saving their credibility is what it is.

At least I now know the level of your understanding of scientists.