Evidence for God from Science

gone

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.

I have contacted the website so that they may correct this error. Technetium is statistically absent in the Earth's Crust.

Jbuza wrote: well duh. I was pointing out that it was number 44 and 48 on that table, that claims to be listing elements in order of abundance.

This table is erroneous.

Jbuza wrote:

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.
Check my link it shows no curve.

See here,
http://www.webelements.com/webelements/ ... /geol.html
The abundance of elements fits very well with the theory which describes origins of elements. Let me know if you want to know more. Also good to note some of the elements out of order are primarily innate gasses.

Here's a table of actual abundance figures.
Refer to page 19, if you don't feel like reading the article.
http://quake.mit.edu/hilstgroup/CoreMan ... hCompo.pdf

Jbuza wrote:of elements below uranium (92), only promethium (61) has _not_ been detected on Earth occurring naturally:

Which of course doesn't mean it isn't here

The most stable isotope of Promethium has a half life of 17.7 years. Even you would agree that natural stockpiles would not exist at this point wouldn't you?

After 200 Years all traces of this element would simply decay away, leaving us with only neodymium.

gone

Jbuza wrote:not to sure the link does seem to indicate that techentium has been found occouring naturally. I suspect that promethium could still be occouring by readioactive decay of something, but not to sure.

Decay derived Promethium yes of course, but only in trace amounts. The original stockpile is no longer around.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:not to sure the link does seem to indicate that techentium has been found occouring naturally. I suspect that promethium could still be occouring by readioactive decay of something, but not to sure.

Decay derived Promethium yes of course, but only in trace amounts. The original stockpile is no longer around.

How can you possible know that there was even an original stockpile? Perhaps the only source of it is from decay.

Fine question, you seem to like science let us say that as far as we can tell only trace quantities are present today due to decay.
This assumption along with the other observations from this thread leads to the following questions.

Why wouldn't there be an original stockpile?

What caused the elements to be present in the quantities we find them today?

Why are they found in stars but not on Earth?

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: Why wouldn't there be an original stockpile?
What caused the elements to be present in the quantities we find them today?
Why are they found in stars but not on Earth?

Because it is the result of decay processes. I'm not saying there wasn't I don't think it is possible to know.

Perhaps, but what is more likely? What do the missing elements have in common?

Jbuza wrote:Creation

And why would God leave out certain elements? Also, are you saying this as a Scientist?

Jbuza wrote:Increased abundance of nuclear processes.

Exactly stars are creating fresh supplies of this element. In fact it is beleived that all elements are forged in the stars from hydrogen and its derivatives.

And the process by which this is theorized to occur fits very well with the abundance curve! Thus the status of scientific theory, for the origin of chemical elements.

gone

Jbuza wrote:I know it may shock you, but scientists can believe in God

Of course

Jbuza wrote:, and God can be a causal force within science.

No, I completely disagree, if you beleive in God he is the causal force of everything, science delves into a situation in more detail, a simple God is the cause still leaves it a mystery requiring scientific exploration.

Jbuza wrote:How hard do you want to work to show how stars can produce techentium? It could be that technetium exists because God created it less than 10,000 years ago. I know you may be revolted by this, but technetium within stars is just another of hundreds of anomolies that science cannot explain.

Again there are many things which science can't explain, that's the beauty of it, we are still learning.

We can produce technetium using a particle accelerator, I would imagine that there might be a mechanism which produces it in the stars as well.

Jbuza wrote: Please remeber that exotic theories are by definition less likely than the simplest theory that explains the observation.

In this case it is termed exotic because hereto forth it was not beleived that heavier elements were formed in stellar nucleosynthesis, but only in super novae.

Jbuza wrote:It very well could be that the stars were born with technetium and that they are less than 10,--- years old

Assuming that the stars are less than 10,000 years old opens up a whole can of worms.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:No, I completely disagree, if you beleive in God he is the causal force of everything, science delves into a situation in more detail, a simple God is the cause still leaves it a mystery requiring scientific exploration.

No I don't think so, I think wether or not God is a causal force is not provable, and science is only interested in the mechanisms whereby things happen. There is a difference between saying that God causes it to rain, and understanding the hydrological cycle, but understanding the hydrological cycle doesn't prove that God is not the cause.

You are contradicting yourself and repeating me here. Was this done intentionally to confuse me? A couple posts back you stated that "God can be a causal force within science."

Jbuza wrote:

Bgood wrote: Assuming that the stars are less than 10,000 years old opens up a whole can of worms.

I assume that stars are less than 10,000 years old.

Very well, for the time being I will ignore the can and continue with the discussion at hand.

Why is Technetium in the stars and Promethium and Technetium not present on Earth?

Jbuza wrote:Yes science progresses by proving that science is wrong.

Yet you insist that no matter what discoveries are made your worldview must be right.

Jbuza wrote:Many scientists have made these exotic, complex theories about nuclearsynthesis of heavy elements with stars because they are operating under tha assumption that the universe is very old. Look it has opened a can of worms.

It has but not in the way you imagine. It has led to a reconsideration of nucleosynthesis. There is too much evidence that the stars are old to reach the conclusion that Technetium in the stars means that the stars themselves are young.

Jbuza wrote:"Science is the only self-correcting human institution, but it is also a process that progresses only by showing itself to be wrong."---Astronomer Allan Sandage.

This is very true.

gone