Evidence for God from Science

Yehren wrote:You're trying to tell us the sky isn't blue.

It isn't. Neither is a blue-jay feather.

Jbuza wrote: I don't think it is any more absurd to say that it is there than to say that Technetium doesn't exist on Earth. We don't know, and will likely never be able to take samples from 47 miles below Everest.

True, we don't "know". But given what we do know of star formation, the earth's geologic history, ore and mineral formation and distribution, properties of Tc, etc, it is a pretty good bet (assuming that one accepts old earth and main stream science) that there isn't. [And depending on how large a mass you postulate, it may be possible to get some evidence consistent with its presence.]

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.

Jbuza wrote:

Yehren wrote:On Technetium

Also there is a huge resevoir 47 miles under MT Everest.

Could you give us a link for that?

NO there isn't one. Can you provide a link that shows that it is not there? I don't think it is any more absurd to say that it is there than to say that Technetium doesn't exist on Earth. We don't know, and will likely never be able to take samples from 47 miles below Everest.

LOL
As I said earlier we would expect the abundance of technetium to be comparable to that of silver. It simply isn't.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: We use the natural means to extract this element from nuclear reactors, however they do not occur naturally in the Earth.

From what authority do you decree that the element doesn't occur naturally?

I answered this already. Please refer below.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: As I said earlier we would expect the abundance of technetium to be comparable to that of silver. It simply isn't.

Why? Do you expect the abundance of silver to be equal to hydrogen? Do you expect as much gold and platinum in the earth as Iron and Nickel?

No.
Why must I continually repeat myself?
The reason follows.

BGood wrote:The abundance of elements on earth follows a pattern with elements lower on the periodic table being more than those higher, yet these elements are far less abundant than would be predicted by this curve.

Which answers the first question, the distribution of material appears to be random. The distribution of Technetium should be comparable to that of Silver.

But, we have yet to come accross naturally occuring Technetium.

This element would also be detectable due to its radioactivity if a large deposit existed, but no natural sources have been detected.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:IT simply is untrue that technetium hasn't been found on earth, it is often found in the same ores that contain uranium.

I beleive I qualified this with trace amounts.

BGood wrote:Why would there be only minute trace ammounts of Uranium 236 and Technetium 99?

Also their presence their can be explained by the decay of the aforementioned Uranium.

Jbuza wrote:I doubt that a sample 47 miles below the crust could be distinguished from the background radiation. It could exist, and your decree that it doesn't is meaningless.

Then lets examine this hypothesis.
1. Why would one element not be present in the Earth's crust, is it more likely that it is located 47 miles below the earth's surface or that it is not present because this element is radioactive and has long since decayed.
2. If it is present 47 miles below the Earth why is this particular elements distribution so different from all other elements found in the Earth?

Jbuza wrote:As to the whole idea of technetium and silver being equal, there is no reason to assume they would be.

Then why is this particular element missing in the Earth's crust?

Jbuza wrote:See the following list of top ten elements in the earth's crust by abundance. Element number, Element name, percentage of crust. Over 99% of the crust of the earth is made of the following ten elements. 20 elements make up more than 99.9 % of the crust, and that means that the other 89 elements together make up less than 1 tenth of 1%.

LOL This list ignores the elements with which Technetium is comparable too.
1 tenth of 1 % may seem like a small number. But apparantly there's enough silver and gold in this 1 tenth of 1% to prevent the claim that it is located 47 miles below the Earth.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote:I beleive I qualified this with trace amounts.
Then why is this particular element missing in the Earth's crust?

It isn't missing. If you had gone to the link you would have found that the list doesn't ignore the thechnetium. Was there some point to you mistakenly saying that technetium doesn't exist?

Duh, not only did Bgood point out that trace amounts of Tc (from radioactive decay) are found, you have apparently misread the link you provided. The elements are listed O through Ni by per cent abundance (weight % ?, number of atoms % ?, it's a pretty sloppy table which doesn't specify). After that, the elements are listed by atomic number, not per cent abundance.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:Did you read the link? IT says that the earth's crust is 46.71% oxygen, and goes down from there.
[from prior post] Did you check the link? Technetium is #44 on the list and silver is #48.

Did you have anything useful or did you just feel the need to attack me and then attack the link I posted?

Why do you feel that my pointing out your mistake is a personal attack? You said technetium is more common than silver. That's utter nonsense.