Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:

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.

You seem to have a lot to say about what you think I think. Instead of Sm146 having 44 half lives it has had many more, around 60. You are welcomed to do the maths. So if the daughter count has remained the same the age difference should be significant.

"This half-life value implies a higher initial 146Sm abundance in the early solar system," This statement is from this research article. The researchers appear to have changed the estimate of 146Sm in the early universe as I previously stated. Scientists can only guesstimate if any daughter isotopes were present in the early universe to begin with. If you know any better then please enlighten me.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1109/1109.4805.pdf

You may also note that the Sm146 was initiated in a nuclear reactor, "We produced three independent 146Sm source materials by activating isotopically enriched 147Sm targets via the following nuclear reactions: etc etc", hence not naturally occuring.

As for your ground breaking question that will surely sort this all out in a moment, I believe I have answered your question. Scientists do not know what elements were in the early universe or solar system, nor the amounts and can guestimate as they choose. If you want to call there guestimating fraud, best guesses, biased tweaking, I don't care. The fact that I have not given you the answer you want, like or can slap me back with, is irrelevant.

This forum links to a YEC site. I am not a YEC and don't care if the universe is billions of years old. I am here because I at least can assimilate the information YECs have to offer and their refutes to dating methods. One thing for sure evolutionists have nothing to offer on How God creates.eg proteins first.

Mazzy wrote: ... "This half-life value implies a higher initial 146Sm abundance in the early solar system," This statement is from this research article. ...

Again, where in the paper, or in your imagination, is the link between a 30% error in 146-Samarium half-life and a roughly comparable huge error in scientists' estimation of the age of the solar system? Nothing in the paper seems to even remotely link the two.

As far as I can tell from reading the paper, the 30% correction in 146-Samarium half-life (although nice to know by itself) is useful for explaining small anomalies in the independent isochron datings of several meteorites.

Morny wrote:

Mazzy wrote: ... "This half-life value implies a higher initial 146Sm abundance in the early solar system," This statement is from this research article. ...

Again, where in the paper, or in your imagination, is the link between a 30% error in 146-Samarium half-life and a roughly comparable huge error in scientists' estimation of the age of the solar system? Nothing in the paper seems to even remotely link the two.

As far as I can tell from reading the paper, the 30% correction in 146-Samarium half-life (although nice to know by itself) is useful for explaining small anomalies in the independent isochron datings of several meteorites.

Don't keep being so nasty Morny, or I will happily give you a serve back which currently I am holding onto, next post. I am perfectly capable of reading and speaking to a science article without needing my imagination.

Here is another article on it. This article speaks to an error of 34% in samarium 146 dating. The solar system took a billion years longer to form meaning the final formation of the earth is 1 billion years younger ie 3.5, not 4.5. The problem is behind the wording. When did earth become earth? When it was whirling dust particles or when it 'formed'...... The point remaining, over 30% out is huge. I can also post inconsistency around Uranium dating not be constant, the problems with carbon dating etc etc, depending on how long posters want to evade the thread topic.

"The Sikhote-Alin meteorite from eastern Siberia, "offers us a snapshot of the original composition of the entire solar system before the planets formed," said Michael Zolensky, a scientist at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). "It tells us what the initial materials were like that went into making up the Earth, the Moon and the Sun.“ It is a carbonaceous chondrite, which accounts for only 2 percent of all meteorites, but they are rich in organic materials and this was dated at 4.5-billion-years-old. But if the half-life is 34% different, it may also be 34% younger and our solar system may have taken a billion years longer to form."

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/ ... form-89594

The earth should be at least 1 billion years younger at the time of it's coelescence and formation ie took longer to form. I still do not understand how one can count more half lives to get the daughter isotope count and get a younger date. It makes no sense to me. Another algorithmic insertion value has to change such as the guestimated amount of Sm146 around in the early solar system, which apparently has happened as per my previous posts.

Contamination can throw any dating method out of whack, even if the method has some validity. Contamination from a previous star that went supernova to form our solar system as well as contamination from nearby supernova could give incorrect readings. Any algorithm insertion value can only be a guestimate. The below paper suggests contamination. I can also find papers that suggest different scenarios. IOW, researchers have no clue but plenty of guesses and fancy algorithmic modelling.

http://www.space.com/16943-supernova-ex ... ation.html

All in all I am an OEC. This conversation started because Audie was speechless on the discussion I was having in relation to the OP, and decided to zone out on some loose comment I made about not having alot of faith in current dating methods. I love seeing posters grabbing onto any aside they can find when they can't speak to the thread topic!!! The age of the universe, solar system or earth has nothing to do with my discussion on the thread topic.

1over137 wrote:You mentioned Mazzy made mistakes.

May I ask what are they?

Sorry to take so long. As you said, people have other things to do!

here is some of what was said, by M, in bold:


what happened on Pangea billions of years ago.


My comment was...Your date for Pangea is off by an order of magnitude and is unrelated to the timing for the Biblical flood.


Indeed, I am not off by any magitude as I contest current dating methods as fictitious and many believe the flood occured on Pangea.

You said 'billions of years" for Pangea; false.


I asked,
Why do you think they are fiction?[/i]



M
I never said geologists THEORIES were fiction.

Changing the story.



I am claiming such theories to explain what is observed in strata are theories that are backed by flawed science and then passed off as if they are incontestable facts.

Nothing in science is presented, or "passed off" as incontestable anything.


Biblical creationists actually have evidence within physics for the theoretical assertion that God,

There is simply no such thing as a theoretical assertion, not in science. It makes no sense. Theories and assertions are essentially opposites.



Data suggests all humans alive today are the decendants from one male and one female

This is a misreading of science, no geneticist would say such a thing.



. These so called 'facts' change like flavours of the month,

The only time a scientist would use the word "fact' would be in connection with a sentence like "it is a fact that these are my data points". Facts do not change.


and yet a bacteria supposedly evolved into a dinosaur.

Not true. This is a misreading of science, no such statement is made.


You have already admitted you know nothing about physics

This is a lie.

Secondly, most certainly evolutionists believe that a single celled organism evolved through variations to become a dinosaur

Changing the story from when it was "a bacteria". (sic)

yet evolutionists would have us believe that a single celled organism such as bacteria evolved over time into a dinosaur.

Another change in the story.


Why would he/she suggest I meant that a bacteria evolved directly into a dinosaur without any intermediate species then ask me to fix my mistake?

Nothing I said remotely suggests such a thing; this is a fabrication.


If either the evolutionary or creationist paradigm was scientifically 'proven'

Nothing is science is ever proven.

Audie wrote: You sure dont speak as someone who likes science, but maybe I am misunderstanding something.

Nobody says dinosaurs evolved from bacteria, btw. If you wish to find fault with evolution, thats fine, but use real examples if you have any, arguing against a position that the other does not hold is known as a 'strawman" areumbet.

Anyway, Im curious if you can see a couple of mistakes you made, one about bacteria-dinosaurs, and the other about "incontestible".

Audie..As you see in the above quoted post, my accusation against you of using ridiculous examples of these supposed 'mistakes' I have made is demonstrated in bold. Indeed in simplified terms, evolutionists do suggest that a single celled life form such as bacteria, evolved over time, from species to species, into a dinosaur. A simplification is not a mistake.

I am pleased to see that your long post just above this reply has not cited one 'mistake' on my part. You have basically done no more than reiterate conversation, sometimes incorrectly. Indeed you did say you know little about astrophysics and if you wish I will repost that comment as well. You also chose to hit on some terminolgy, 'contestible', in desperation and hope of avoiding the substance of my post.

Indeed if all life evolved from a single cell, then this first cell withthe ability to duplicate must have contained all the genetic information that was ever to exist. All life therefore can only be multiplications, rearrangements, and deletions of this material with the occasional horizontal transfer of similarly varied information. Mutations are only rearrangements or deletions of existing information.

In line with the thread topic, I will reiterate my stance, there are proven and observed physics that attest that a huge amount of energy/light, which God is, can make matter in an instant.

In line with the thread topic I argue that all theoretical hypothesis in relation to abiogenes are not plausible given that DNA, RNA and the current one, proteins first, require a host. Host first, not some imagined 'primitive' cell. IOW life arising without the hand of God, or life arising by natural processes that do not require a designer that created a life form as a host first, appears to be impossible. There are no instances where a protien exists outside a host.

I'd be interested if you, Audie, accept any current theory on abiogenesis, as a way God created, ie theistic evolutionist or variation.

No, Mazzy, I dont do third chances. That post was not addressed to you. There is no discusdion between us.
Please refrain from addressing me tn the future

Audie wrote:No, Mazzy, I dont do third chances. That post was not addressed to you. There is no discusdion between us.
Please refrain from addressing me tn the future

You do not get to offer me chances. You have given up your chance to regain credibility in face of lying about me, regardless of whom you address. You appear to be totally unable to address the thread topic. Neither have you identified one so called 'mistake' I have made. Your ridiculous accusations against me have come down to mindless raving in some attempt to save face on forum.

BTW, while you speak about me and continue to insult me, I will continue to remind you that you are legless and repay in kind!

Audie wrote:No, Mazzy, I dont do third chances. That post was not addressed to you. There is no discusdion between us.
Please refrain from addressing me tn the future

Seriously Audie why are you here. I could be wrong but the way it looks to me you have no intention of ever having a conversation.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:No, Mazzy, I dont do third chances. That post was not addressed to you. There is no discusdion between us.
Please refrain from addressing me tn the future

Seriously Audie why are you here. I could be wrong but the way it looks to me you have no intention of ever having a conversation.

Audie's is now using Lover137. I think it is very rude to be speaking about me with someone else. I wonder if I can request further posts to be removed by a mod.

Perhaps we could ignore the childish behaviour and just carry on with a discussion.

Has anyone here got something to add to the thread topic?

RickD wrote:

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.

No fight. I am trying to follow the rules as they are written, and will not
indulge any invitation to go against the rules.

Im sorry to see so few here try to be civil. Im not one to run from a fight, I like a fight
or I'd not go to law school.

But I simply am not going to engage in a cat fight here. Maz or anyone else
can say as they like, I wont be goaded into it.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:No, Mazzy, I dont do third chances. That post was not addressed to you. There is no discusdion between us.
Please refrain from addressing me tn the future

Seriously Audie why are you here. I could be wrong but the way it looks to me you have no intention of ever having a conversation.

You said you wanted to resume a conversation; I said I didnt know a lot on the subject but would
listen. This is the first I've heard from you since.

A respectful conversation with M appears to be impossible. Im not here to break your rules and be kicked
out as the "typical atheist" as your mod "K" called me.

Read your own rules, speak to me with some ordinary human respect, I am not asking much.

Is that "K" referring to Kenny or me as a mod? I'm not a mod. At least not anymore.

They removed me because I used up all my chances.

Kurieuo wrote:Is that "K" referring to Kenny or me as a mod? I'm not a mod. At least not anymore.

They removed me because I used up all my chances.

That was you. I just broke my no-3 rule. I will blame you.

I really dont like this unpleasantness! How can I help it stop?

This is like when I was the nerdy kid with thick glasses and a funny
accent walking into an American classroom!

Maz, B, I dont want to fight!!!!

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Is that "K" referring to Kenny or me as a mod? I'm not a mod. At least not anymore.

They removed me because I used up all my chances.

That was you. I just broke my no-3 rule. I will blame you.

I really dont like this unpleasantness! How can I help it stop?

This is like when I was the nerdy kid with thick glasses and a funny
accent walking into an American classroom!

Maz, B, I dont want to fight!!!!

Cool, now I can be mean again and use up my third chance!
*jokes* (in case it wasn't obvious)

Audie wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Is that "K" referring to Kenny or me as a mod? I'm not a mod. At least not anymore.

They removed me because I used up all my chances.

That was you. I just broke my no-3 rule. I will blame you.

I really dont like this unpleasantness! How can I help it stop?

This is like when I was the nerdy kid with thick glasses and a funny
accent walking into an American classroom!

Maz, B, I dont want to fight!!!!

If you don't want to fight then stop acting like a child, and respond in line with the thread topic. You are peeving off the entire forum, blaming everyone but yourself for it, and then you pretend to wonder why. My name is Mazzy, child, not M. This forum is not about you, it is about How God creates.