• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Modern man like footprints found, evolution theory in doubt.

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Regarding all of those other pieces of the puzzle, what the Christian and Muslim creationists fail to realize is that if evolutionary theory were ever falsified, there is still no place for a creator that wants to be known, loved, obeyed and worshiped.

The evidence for the theory of evolution preceding finding that precambrian rabbit doesn't go away, and needs to be explained by an alternate hypothesis even if the theory were falsified.

If we choose an intelligent designer hypothesis, it has to be designers whose purpose was to deceive us and hide from us - not the gods of those holy books. They're already ruled out by the existing data whatever else we add to it.
Strict adherence to creationism as described in the Bible places constraints on the belief in God to the point that evidence must be denied or ignored. If the literal story of the Bible is the only way, then why is there evidence literally in and under every stone that says evolution? What purpose would it serve to a God that treasures honesty to the point of commanding His people not to bear false witness at the price of their own immortal soul to populate the world those people live in with evidence against the Bible?

It's a good point. I can't see the answer being a trixter God. To me the most reasonable explanation is that the biblical stories are best viewed as an allegory. Stories written by ancient people in an attempt to understand God and not intended to define parameters in which God must exist or else.
 

dad1

Active Member
The challenge to established theories of human evolution presented here is not a refutation of the theory of evolution nor a refutation of human evolution. This is a single report regarding newly discovered evidence and this is only the beginning of the research and not the end. It may change our understanding of how long the evolution leading to our species took, where it occurred or where it started, but this doesn't withdraw evolution from the running. It is not unusual for those opposed to a position to selectively focus on something that seemingly supports there view. With this latest example I have seen it happen several times already where laymen have jumped at the the "challenges established theories" and read "refutes evolution".

What is presented here is evidence of human-like footprints, much older than expected, in a location that outside of the presumed center of origin of humankind--Africa. It is another piece of the puzzle of our origins. It may be the beginnings of an expansion of our understanding of our own evolution. This adds to our knowledge of human evolution and doesn't throw it out.

With regards to a flood, there is no evidence that a global flood--fitting the description of that found in the Bible--occurred anytime in the last 20,000,000 years. Even stretching our origins, with this new find, doesn't put hominin ancestry back that far and it certainly wouldn't be human since we have only existed between 200,000 to 300,000 years. Then consider also, that physics tells us that such a flood is not possible. The actual consequences would have resulted in temperatures and pressures that would have sterilized the earth of all living things. Not even a small boat would have survived it.

I read elsewhere on this thread and another poster mentioned Gilgamesh. This seems the most likely origin of the biblical flood story has become a common theme in Christianity. A story that most likely developed as an oral tradition about some catastrophic local or regional flood. It seemed like it enveloped the world to those that experienced it, because their world wasn't that big at the time in the sense of their perspective.

It will be interesting to see where this new evidence leads us. It has the potential to change our understanding of our own evolution, but it is not removing evolution from the picture.
The way they spin it it isn't. However if the prints were from humans, it would be a deadly blow. Who knows?
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
The site is underwater now. They flooded it. A little hard to go back and check the claims. The story of Oklo though does include the following claims.

"Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the

uranium 235 concentration, at less than

1 percent, is just too low.

1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]

But this isotope

is radioactive and decays about six times

faster than does uranium 238, which indicates

that the fissile fraction was much

higher in the distant past
. For example,

two billion years ago (about when the

Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must

have
constituted approximately 3 percent,

2

["Must have"??? Prove it]



The third important ingredient is a

neutron “moderator,” a substance that

can slow the neutrons given off when a

uranium nucleus splits so that they are

more apt to induce other uranium nuclei

to break apart



3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]



Cowan described, for example, how

some of the neutrons released during the

fission of uranium 235 were captured by

the more abundant uranium 238, which

became uranium 239 and, after emitting

two electrons, turned into plutonium

239.



4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?][prove there was a same state past and the great time needed first]



Although almost all this

material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,

has since disappeared (primarily

through natural radioactive decay),

5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was ever really here -they can't]



The

abundance of those lighter elements allowed

scientists to deduce that fission

reactions 'must have' gone on for hundreds

of thousands of years.

6

[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]



From the

amount of uranium 235 'consumed', [i.e. missing!] they

calculated the total energy released,

15,000 megawatt-years, and from this

and other evidence were able to 'work out'

the average power output,

7

[present state calculations][if the missing stuff existed it would have taken so many eons to disapear]


It is truly amazing that more than a

dozen natural reactors spontaneously

sprang into existence and that they managed

to maintain a modest power output

for perhaps a few hundred millennia.

8

[truly amazing indeed] [prove it]




Xenon

is extremely rare, which allows scientists

to use it to detect and trace nuclear

reactions, even those that occurred in

primitive meteorites before the solar system

came into existence.

To analyze the isotopic composition

9

[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd][as mentioned the whole site is underwater now, no one can recheck work]




We applied this technique to many

tiny spots on our lone available fragment

of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick

and four millimeters across.

10

[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]


The second epiphany was that the extracted

gas had a significantly different

isotopic makeup from what is usually

produced in nuclear reactors.

11

[so there was a difference...from what we now see]





'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon

136 and 134 that would 'certainly'

have been created from fission, whereas

the lighter varieties of the element were

modified to a lesser extent.

12

[large amount of missing stuff that golly gee must have created actual stuff]



For example,

measured with respect to the

amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion

of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass

units heavier) would have been

twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass

units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.

We did not see that pattern.



13

[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]



None of the xenon isotopes

we measured were the direct result

of uranium fission. Rather they were the

products of the decay of radioactive isotopes

of iodine, which in turn were

formed from radioactive tellurium and

so forth, according to a well-known sequence

of nuclear reactions that gives

rise to stable xenon.



14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]



xenon

136 began at Oklo only about a

minute after the onset of self-sustained

fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter

stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.

Then, some days after the start of fission,

xenon 132 and 131 came on the

scene. Finally, after millions of years,

and well after the nuclear chain reactions

terminated, xenon 129 formed.



15 [woulda coulda]



The

most likely mechanism involves the action

of groundwater, which presumably

'boiled away' after the temperature

reached some critical level.





16[same state speculation][any proof that a river ran through it that long geologically?]



very likely they pulsed

on and off in some fashion, and large

quantities of water 'must have' been moving

through these rocks—enough to

wash away some of the xenon precursors,

tellurium and iodine, which are

water-soluble.





17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion][not claimed because we know water did exist at this spot...but because they need it to have]




another—it is

unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals

were present before the Oklo reactors

began operating.



18[says who?]['billions of imaginary years ago before the reactors started, some stuff must have existed]





Instead those

grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'

formed in place through the action of the

nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled

to about 300 degrees Celsius.



19[speculation in the extreme]



During each active period of operation

of an Oklo reactor and for some

time afterward, while the temperature

remained high, much of the xenon gas

(including xenon 136 and 134, which

were generated relatively quickly) was

'driven off'.



20[missing stuff again with same state beliefs][in this case the stuff was 'driven off' ha]



incorporated into growing grains of aluminum

phosphate.



21[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]





Then, as more water

returned to the reaction zone
, neutrons

became properly moderated and fission

once again resumed, allowing the cycle

of heating and cooling to repeat. The result

was the peculiar segregation of xenon

isotopes we uncovered.


22[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]


It is not entirely obvious what forces

kept this xenon inside the aluminum

phosphate minerals for almost half the

planet’s lifetime
. In particular, why was

the xenon generated during a given operational

pulse not driven off during the

next one?

23[GIANT leap of faith]

Presumably it became imprisoned

in the cagelike structure of the aluminum

phosphate minerals, which were

able to hold on to the xenon gas created

within them, even at high temperatures.

The details remain fuzzy, but whatever

the final answers are, one thing is clear:

the capacity of aluminum phosphate

24[WTF?]


The Oklo reactor

we studied had switched “on” for 30 minutes

and “off” for at least 2.5 hours. [for eons]





. The more

important lessons may be about how to

handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,

serves as a good analogue for a long-term

geologic repository,


25 [dangerous false prophesy]



The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists

about possible shifts in what was

formerly thought to be a fundamental

physical constant, one called (alpha),

which controls such universal quantities

as the speed of light [see “Inconstant

Constants,” by John D. Barrow and John

K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].

26

[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]


For three decades, the two-billion-year old

Oklo phenomenon has been used to

argue against alpha having changed. But last

year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.

Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory

drew on Oklo to posit that this

“constant” has, in fact, varied signifi -

cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite

sense from what others have recently

proposed).

27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]

-------- this was from old notes,



The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor





I could also dig up where they claimed the site was miles under if you like. Then it came back to the surface.

Then there is the interesting fact that Cowan was in the Manhattan Project if I recall. I think he presided over different groups of people who knew nothing of each others work, so he is used to intrigue.

The observations were accounted for using current knowledge. If your mythical "past state" guff were true, that could not be done.
 

dad1

Active Member
I'm not participating in your stupid little game, where you take the position that because you believe in magic, no one can ever know anything for sure.
Me either, so shove your same state past belief out of sight.
 

dad1

Active Member
It challenges the story of human evolution that we understand now, based on the evidence. It doesn't challenge evolution, the theory or that humans evolved.
Except you HAVE no evidence of what man was like back then. If man did not leave fossils in the former nature, then we only have ones from the present nature.
 

dad1

Active Member
The observations were accounted for using current knowledge. If your mythical "past state" guff were true, that could not be done.
Yes the unknown was explained using the present laws and nature. We get it. Total bunk.
 

dad1

Active Member
The observations were accounted for using current knowledge. If your mythical "past state" guff were true, that could not be done.
? It would not be done using the present laws. Anyone can use beliefs to model.

"Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the

uranium 235 concentration, at less than

1 percent, is just too low.

1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]

But this isotope

is radioactive and decays about six times

faster than does uranium 238, which indicates

that the fissile fraction was much

higher in the distant past
. For example,

two billion years ago (about when the

Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must

have
constituted approximately 3 percent,

2

["Must have"??? Prove it]



The third important ingredient is a

neutron “moderator,” a substance that

can slow the neutrons given off when a

uranium nucleus splits so that they are

more apt to induce other uranium nuclei

to break apart



3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]



Cowan described, for example, how

some of the neutrons released during the

fission of uranium 235 were captured by

the more abundant uranium 238, which

became uranium 239 and, after emitting

two electrons, turned into plutonium

239.



4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?][prove there was a same state past and the great time needed first]



Although almost all this

material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,

has since disappeared (primarily

through natural radioactive decay),

5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was ever really here -they can't]



The

abundance of those lighter elements allowed

scientists to deduce that fission

reactions 'must have' gone on for hundreds

of thousands of years.

6

[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]



From the

amount of uranium 235 'consumed', [i.e. missing!] they

calculated the total energy released,

15,000 megawatt-years, and from this

and other evidence were able to 'work out'

the average power output,

7

[present state calculations][if the missing stuff existed it would have taken so many eons to disapear]


It is truly amazing that more than a

dozen natural reactors spontaneously

sprang into existence and that they managed

to maintain a modest power output

for perhaps a few hundred millennia.

8

[truly amazing indeed] [prove it]




Xenon

is extremely rare, which allows scientists

to use it to detect and trace nuclear

reactions, even those that occurred in

primitive meteorites before the solar system

came into existence.

To analyze the isotopic composition

9

[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd][as mentioned the whole site is underwater now, no one can recheck work]




We applied this technique to many

tiny spots on our lone available fragment

of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick

and four millimeters across.

10

[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]


The second epiphany was that the extracted

gas had a significantly different

isotopic makeup from what is usually

produced in nuclear reactors.

11

[so there was a difference...from what we now see]





'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon

136 and 134 that would 'certainly'

have been created from fission, whereas

the lighter varieties of the element were

modified to a lesser extent.

12

[large amount of missing stuff that golly gee must have created actual stuff]



For example,

measured with respect to the

amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion

of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass

units heavier) would have been

twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass

units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.

We did not see that pattern.



13

[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]



None of the xenon isotopes

we measured were the direct result

of uranium fission. Rather they were the

products of the decay of radioactive isotopes

of iodine, which in turn were

formed from radioactive tellurium and

so forth, according to a well-known sequence

of nuclear reactions that gives

rise to stable xenon.



14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]



xenon

136 began at Oklo only about a

minute after the onset of self-sustained

fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter

stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.

Then, some days after the start of fission,

xenon 132 and 131 came on the

scene. Finally, after millions of years,

and well after the nuclear chain reactions

terminated, xenon 129 formed.



15 [woulda coulda]



The

most likely mechanism involves the action

of groundwater, which presumably

'boiled away' after the temperature

reached some critical level.





16[same state speculation][any proof that a river ran through it that long geologically?]



very likely they pulsed

on and off in some fashion, and large

quantities of water 'must have' been moving

through these rocks—enough to

wash away some of the xenon precursors,

tellurium and iodine, which are

water-soluble.





17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion][not claimed because we know water did exist at this spot...but because they need it to have]




another—it is

unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals

were present before the Oklo reactors

began operating.



18[says who?]['billions of imaginary years ago before the reactors started, some stuff must have existed]





Instead those

grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'

formed in place through the action of the

nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled

to about 300 degrees Celsius.



19[speculation in the extreme]



During each active period of operation

of an Oklo reactor and for some

time afterward, while the temperature

remained high, much of the xenon gas

(including xenon 136 and 134, which

were generated relatively quickly) was

'driven off'.



20[missing stuff again with same state beliefs][in this case the stuff was 'driven off' ha]



incorporated into growing grains of aluminum

phosphate.



21[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]





Then, as more water

returned to the reaction zone
, neutrons

became properly moderated and fission

once again resumed, allowing the cycle

of heating and cooling to repeat. The result

was the peculiar segregation of xenon

isotopes we uncovered.


22[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]


It is not entirely obvious what forces

kept this xenon inside the aluminum

phosphate minerals for almost half the

planet’s lifetime
. In particular, why was

the xenon generated during a given operational

pulse not driven off during the

next one?

23[GIANT leap of faith]

Presumably it became imprisoned

in the cagelike structure of the aluminum

phosphate minerals, which were

able to hold on to the xenon gas created

within them, even at high temperatures.

The details remain fuzzy, but whatever

the final answers are, one thing is clear:

the capacity of aluminum phosphate

24[WTF?]


The Oklo reactor

we studied had switched “on” for 30 minutes

and “off” for at least 2.5 hours. [for eons]





. The more

important lessons may be about how to

handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,

serves as a good analogue for a long-term

geologic repository,


25 [dangerous false prophesy]



The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists

about possible shifts in what was

formerly thought to be a fundamental

physical constant, one called (alpha),

which controls such universal quantities

as the speed of light [see “Inconstant

Constants,” by John D. Barrow and John

K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].

26

[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]


For three decades, the two-billion-year old

Oklo phenomenon has been used to

argue against alpha having changed. But last

year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.

Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory

drew on Oklo to posit that this

“constant” has, in fact, varied signifi -

cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite

sense from what others have recently

proposed).

27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]

-------- this was from old notes,



The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor





I could also dig up where they claimed the site was miles under if you like. Then it came back to the surface.

Then there is the interesting fact that Cowan was in the Manhattan Project if I recall. I think he presided over different groups of people who knew nothing of each others work, so he is used to intrigue.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member

dad1

Active Member
Part 1 reply

I will defend the proposition that the evidence for a very ancient earth (more than 4 billion years) is overwhelming in science and hence, based on the evidence, the only rational conclusion is that the earth is ancient.



Are the Laws of Atomic Physics Constant over time?

The truth that the laws of physics has been constant since the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago can be found in the fact of how successfully we can predict the various features of the universe from the processes that occurred just after the Big Bang using our current laws of physics.

No. There was no big bang. That is a faith based fable. The processes that were part of and subsequent to creation are simply misread by you.



1) Laws of atomic physics based on mathematics of quantum mechanics that successfully predict the outcome of experiments (like smashing of atoms) done on earth and by which nuclear power plants, CT scans and nuclear medicine technologies work (LINK)
Earth is not the issue. Here we have laws and forces in place.


2) Is also found to predict the elemental and star composition of galaxies and nebulae through nuclear processes that occurred from the early hours of the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

The sequence of steps:-

Equilibrium and Change: The physics behind Big Bang Nucleosynthesis — Einstein Online
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/BBN_phys You look at how atoms work on earth and devise scenarios about a godless popping out of the universe from nothing.



From your link, for example..



"In turn, a neutron can combine with a positron to give a proton and the electron-neutrino's antiparticle:



If we take all these reactions into account, the statistical formula that govern thermodynamic equilibrium give us a ready answer for the particle content of the very early universe, namely that there were about as many protons as neutrons.[/QUOTE] Just because we can make some things happen under extreme conditions does not mean that the universe came about that way!

1) the early universe was filled with a hot plasma consisting of radiation and elementary particles.
Prove it. That is science fiction, godless guesswork, and belief only.

Even the way they extrapolate backwards from a supposedly expanding universe,(to a ting hot soup) is all faith based nonsense. You do not know what redshift in deep space actually means. Then you reverse engineer this mistaken expansion to an absurd level, shrinking the universe into something too small to be seen with the naked eye at one imaginary time! Of course you have no clue where it came from or why! Total fairy tale. You use fishbowl earth to model all the universe. Our time, our space, our current laws, etc.



The various ingredients of this mixture were in thermodynamic equilibrium.

By definition, in thermodynamic equilibrium the energy is distributed evenly among all components of a system. For a simple gas, this would mean that, on average, all of the myriads of particles flying around have the same kinetic energy. For systems like the matter content of the early universe, there is an additional aspect: The particles are constantly involved in reactions in which one kind of particle is converted into another, or several other particles.
Speculative blather.



For such a system, thermodynamic equilibrium at a certain temperature corresponds to definite values for the relative abundances of the different particle species - how many particles of species A there should be, on average, for each particle of another species B. The relative abundances depend on the temperature, and as the temperature changes, so does the particle mix in the early universe.
You have never been away from the porch of earth and have no idea what temperature existed in the far past.

2)Let's trace the development starting at about a hundredth of a second and ending at three minutes cosmic time. At the beginning of this time period, the universe was filled with a plasma consisting of matter well-known to physics: protons and neutrons in about equal proportions constituting what physicists call baryon matter, as well as electrons, their anti-particles (positrons), neutrinos, and photons.....In this particular epoch, the most influential mediating forces responsible for the particle reactions were electromagnetic interactions and interactions via the so-called weak nuclear force (which is responsible for certain forms of radioactive decay)...via the weak nuclear force, protons were continually being converted into neutrons, and vice versa...If we take all these reactions into account, the statistical formula that govern thermodynamic equilibrium give us a ready answer for the particle content of the very early universe, namely that there were about as many protons as neutrons.



Electromagnetic interactions?? Prove there was any then in deep space? Nuclear force? You know this existed in furthest space, because....?



"

Electromagnetic energy is a term used to describe all the different kinds of energies released into space by stars such as the Sun. These kinds of energies include some that you will recognize and some that will sound strange. They include:




  • Radio Waves

  • TV waves

  • Radar waves

  • Heat (infrared radiation)

  • Light

  • Ultraviolet Light (This is what causes Sunburns)

  • X-rays (Just like the kind you get at the doctor's office)

  • Short waves

  • Microwaves, like in a microwave oven

  • Gamma Rays
All these waves do different things (for example, light waves make things visible to the human eye, while heat waves make molecules move and warm up, and x rays can pass through a person and land on film, allowing us to take a picture inside someone's body) but they have some things in common.



They all travel in waves, like the waves at a beach or like sound waves, and also are made of tiny particles..."



What is electromagnetic radiation?



Now any wave involves time. We know what time is like in the area around the solar system. So we know how waves move through here. If there were no time, or time was different, then these waves also would be different.



Man only sees waves...from anywhere...HERE! Here where time exists. Waves outside of the time and space we know and live in are something unknown. If we imagine our world and solar system area to be a grid where time exists, then all waves entering our 'grid' would start to behave a certain way once they entered here. What they would be like before they got here we have no way of knowing.



Onde_cisaillement_impulsion_1d_30_petit.gif
 

dad1

Active Member
Part 2
3)In the early universe, the external conditions were constantly changing as the universe expanded and cooled down. The particle mixture at a given point in time depended on the race between reactions establishing the temperature-dependent equilibrium and the change of this very temperature due to cosmic expansion....when the temperature had fallen below a hundred billion Kelvin (corresponding to an energy of 10 MeV per particle), things began to change: At this temperature, the reaction rates for weak interactions between neutrinos and the electromagnetic radiation field are so small that the two kinds of matter effectively "decouple" and cease to interact at all. In addition, most of the electrons and positrons annihilated, while the electromagnetic radiation had cooled down too far to produce new electron-positron pairs. The result was a heating-up of the radiation field (but not of the neutrinos, which had decoupled). A slight imbalance in the number of electrons and positrons led to a small surplus of electrons being left behind - those are the electrons we still find in the cosmos today.
Finding electrons today in NO way means they came from your fantasy!!

4)While, at the beginning of this new epoch, neutrons and protons were still present in ratios of 1 neutron for every 6 protons, which is close to the equilibrium value at this particular temperature, this equilibrium could not be maintained. The expansion changed the cosmos much faster than these reactions could keep up equilibrium - just such a race between cosmic expansion and specific reaction rates as was mentioned above: the weak reactions "froze out". As a result, almost the only weak reaction that still took place at a significant rate was the decay of neutrons into the slightly lighter protons, which is in fact independent of temperature..... Fortunately, however, the universe expanded (and cooled) slowly enough to give another type of reaction time enough to occur: reactions in which neutron and protons combined to form light atomic nuclei. The universe entered the phase called Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (often abbreviated to BBN).
You really think reciting the endless fable helps you? Show us proof some weak reaction was all that happened, and the universe heated and cooled precisely as you need for your story etc?

6)

Considering the relevant time scales for the expansion of our universe and for nuclear reactions, it turns out that hardly any protons will have had time to join existing nuclei and transform into neutrons. On the other hand, reactions in which existing protons and neutrons join to form nuclei were fast enough to ensure that all helium-4 nuclei that can form in this way would indeed have formed.
Now we need your super fast expanding little fantasy universe that popped out of nothing for chemical reactions!! Then, you look at what we actually have today, and say that such a fantasy could or would have produced what we see! Circular religion. You look at what we see and try to explain it with your magic universe from nothing fable!

Finally, as mentioned above, we know that, at the beginning of nucleosynthesis, the ratio of neutrons to protons was one to seven - seven protons for each neutron.
No, you know squat actually. That might be true in a lab today, but you know nothing of any early universe nucleosynthesis.



With this information, the estimate is straightforward: Consider 16 nucleons, of which 2 are neutrons and 14 are protons (this is precisely the near-equilibrium ratio of 1:7). Out of these one can build only one helium-4 nucleus (as each such nucleus consists of two neutrons and two protons). It has an atomic mass of 4. What remains are 12 protons or, put differently, 12 nuclei of hydrogen atoms, each of which has an atomic mass of 1. The mass ratio of helium-4 to hydrogen is therefore 4/12, in other words: by mass, 75% of matter in our universe is hydrogen and 25% is helium-4. This is a rather simple and solid prediction based on no more than equilibrium physics in a well-known temperature regime. There were a few other elements formed in lower concentrations
WE are supposed to be impressed?? IF a magic sweet nothing popped out a universe for no apparent or known reason, and it expanded as fast as you claim with NO proof at all, THEN we could have made what we see...blah blah religious blah.



Testing the predictions

1) The direct observation of the early abundance can be had from the cosmic microwave background radiation, which comes from the hot plasma itself
What if creation produced the plasma and etc? What would not also match?? After all the creation of stars was all done in a day, so creation was fast!!! You seek to steal and claim credit for what we see by inventing some fast godless chain of events!



. As shown the predictions match EXACTLY with observations of element abundance in the microwave radiation. The lines are the theory and the circles are the data points. They match beautifully.

WMAP Big Bang Elements Test
Great so the best name for the background radiation we see is Creation Background radiation.

Thus it is seen that the laws governing the atomic decay and fusion of nucleus have remained constant from Big Bang...
Nope. Constant since creation! Besides what we see 'work' here in our world and solar system area may not represent the far universe as you assumed anyhow.



Thus the first step is done, I have shown that the laws of physics relevant to radioactivity worked for the last 13.8 billion years and have not changed at all with time.



Not at all. The rapid event was probably creation and that was 6000 years ago! The radioactivity we see here may be just the way things work here for all we know also! Whatever we see from the far universe is only seen HERE, remember!



Hoo ha.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member
Except you HAVE no evidence of what man was like back then. If man did not leave fossils in the former nature, then we only have ones from the present nature.
I have no idea what you mean by former and present nature? We have fossils of hominins stretching over several million years in the past up to modern humans. That sounds like evidence to me.
 

Dan From Smithville

The Flying Elvises, Utah Chapter
Staff member
Premium Member

dad1

Active Member
I have no idea what you mean by former and present nature? We have fossils of hominins stretching over several million years in the past up to modern humans. That sounds like evidence to me.
Ok, in Noah's day the bible records trees growing in weeks, and man living 1000 years. I assume the nature and laws at the time were different It is not like that today! In THAT time, evolution had to be rapid also, because we know about when the flood was, and all species had to come from the kinds on the ark! So evolving was rapid in that day also. There is reason to suspect that man could not slowly decay away after death and leave fossil remains either. From dust..to dust we went at that time probably. No fossils expected from man. Not till later, when THIS state or nature started. So the fossils we do see are only from that time.

The millions of years claim is also based on believing that the same laws always applied, such as radioactive decay. If there was none in the former state, then the ratios of isotopes we see now were NOT caused by radioactive decay! (except the bit that did come from decay in the last 4300 years since this state started.)
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Part 2
Finding electrons today in NO way means they came from your fantasy!!

You really think reciting the endless fable helps you? Show us proof some weak reaction was all that happened, and the universe heated and cooled precisely as you need for your story etc?

Now we need your super fast expanding little fantasy universe that popped out of nothing for chemical reactions!! Then, you look at what we actually have today, and say that such a fantasy could or would have produced what we see! Circular religion. You look at what we see and try to explain it with your magic universe from nothing fable!

No, you know squat actually. That might be true in a lab today, but you know nothing of any early universe nucleosynthesis.



WE are supposed to be impressed?? IF a magic sweet nothing popped out a universe for no apparent or known reason, and it expanded as fast as you claim with NO proof at all, THEN we could have made what we see...blah blah religious blah.



What if creation produced the plasma and etc? What would not also match?? After all the creation of stars was all done in a day, so creation was fast!!! You seek to steal and claim credit for what we see by inventing some fast godless chain of events!



Great so the best name for the background radiation we see is Creation Background radiation.

Nope. Constant since creation! Besides what we see 'work' here in our world and solar system area may not represent the far universe as you assumed anyhow.







Not at all. The rapid event was probably creation and that was 6000 years ago! The radioactivity we see here may be just the way things work here for all we know also! Whatever we see from the far universe is only seen HERE, remember!



Hoo ha.
Posting your Emotional reactions to reading my post is NOT a reply. Please use your diary for that purpose. What I demonstrated in the post is quite simple

1) Scientists predicted the existence, shape and the characteristics of the cosmic microwave background radiation 20 years BEFORE it was discovered and it's characteristics could be observed.

2) Scientists predicted the ratio of elements in the universe 30 years before it could measured.

3)These and other predictions, made decades before actual observations, have all been confirmed by these observations.

4) These predictions were made using the Big Bang theory and uniformity of laws of physics through time.

5) The confirmation of these predictions decades after they were proposed demonstrates the truth of Big Bang Theory and the uniformity of the laws of physics through time.

6) Your "theory", in contrast, predicts nothing and tells nothing about what new features or phenomena to expect as we continue to study the universe.

So, on the one hand we have a scientific theory of the reality that predicts new and interesting features of the universe and the world that are subsequently verified by observatiobs; and on the other hand we have an ad hoc, wild, after the fact contortions to somehow fit a fanatically held belief in an obsolete myth.

"Laws of physics were different!" And making up new fantastical laws in the past every day to desperately try to explain observations that show the myth is wrong.

"The past vanished without a trace!" To explain why no evidence or trace exists of this supposedly different realm of the past.

"Humans who did not look like humans and left no evidence whatsoever of their presence." To explain why no modern human remains have ever been found from that "past" or to claim demonstrably non human footprints were actually "humans" from that past!

One can easily see how bankrupt, ludicrous and pathetic your stance is. You have no excuse left in your delusional denial of truths anymore.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ok, in Noah's day the bible records trees growing in weeks, and man living 1000 years. I assume the nature and laws at the time were different It is not like that today! In THAT time, evolution had to be rapid also, because we know about when the flood was, and all species had to come from the kinds on the ark! So evolving was rapid in that day also. There is reason to suspect that man could not slowly decay away after death and leave fossil remains either. From dust..to dust we went at that time probably. No fossils expected from man. Not till later, when THIS state or nature started. So the fossils we do see are only from that time.

The millions of years claim is also based on believing that the same laws always applied, such as radioactive decay. If there was none in the former state, then the ratios of isotopes we see now were NOT caused by radioactive decay! (except the bit that did come from decay in the last 4300 years since this state started.)
While it's pointless, it easy to demonstrate that ancient trees did not grow in a day, and moreover, the sun worked the same way as today.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...reveals_sunspot_activity_in_the_early_Permian

In Germany, there exists a petrified forest full of fossil coniferous tree trunks that had been buried under a volcanic eruption. Volcanic minerals seeped into the wood, mineralizing it and making it easy to use radioactive dating to set the date of all the trees to 290 million years ago. So, according to your theory, these trees are supposed to grow in a day while in our theory, they will grow over the many years the same way conifers grow today. Is there a way to determine which is true? Yes. One simply has to look if they have tree rings of conifers.

Tree Rings - What they Are and Why they Vary

Each tree ring marks a line between the dark late wood that grew at the end of the previous year and the relatively pale early wood that grew at the start of this year. One annual ring is composed of a ring of early wood and a ring of late wood.
  • When a tree grows quickly, the xylem cells are large with thin walls. This early wood or springwood is the lighter-colored part of a tree ring.
  • In late summer, growth slows; the walls of the xylem cells are thicker. This late wood or summerwood is the darker-colored part of a tree ring.
When conditions encourage growth, a tree adds extra tissue and produces a thick ring. In a discouraging year, growth is slowed and the tree produces a thin ring.

Thus, if trees grow in a day, we would expect one or two enormous tree rings or even none. But if these ancient trees grows seasonally over many years, we would see tree rings similar to conifers of today. And what do we find?

011317_TS_tree-ring_main.jpg


Tree rings in 290 million old trees just like today!

As the paper says, 43 best preserved trunk specimens were selected from this petrified forest and the width of 1917 rings were measured. Individual trunks had up to 77 rings in them. Not only the rings showed correlated growth in the trees (a good year had thicker rings in all trees while a dry year had thinner rings in all trees showing higher or lower yearly growths) but the observed patter of decadal sunspot cycle that cause variations in growth pattern in trees from year to year was also observed. 6 complete sunspot cycle was determined over a 79 year period of growth. The average sun cycle was determined to be 10.6 years which is in excellent agreement with today's 11 year period.

Thus it is demonstrated that 290 million year old ancient conifers grew in the slow yearly way through tree rings just like today showing the effects of good years and bad years as well as changes due to decadal sunspot cycle just like today. The past physical, biological and cosmological patterns of growth and cycles were quite similar to today.




 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
? It would not be done using the present laws. Anyone can use beliefs to model.

"Today even the most massive and concentrated uranium deposit cannot become a nuclear reactor, because the

uranium 235 concentration, at less than

1 percent, is just too low.

1[so they assume that differences existed..proof?]

But this isotope

is radioactive and decays about six times

faster than does uranium 238, which indicates

that the fissile fraction was much

higher in the distant past
. For example,

two billion years ago (about when the

Oklo deposit formed) uranium 235 must

have
constituted approximately 3 percent,

2

["Must have"??? Prove it]



The third important ingredient is a

neutron “moderator,” a substance that

can slow the neutrons given off when a

uranium nucleus splits so that they are

more apt to induce other uranium nuclei

to break apart



3[so we need water every few hours for millions of years?]



Cowan described, for example, how

some of the neutrons released during the

fission of uranium 235 were captured by

the more abundant uranium 238, which

became uranium 239 and, after emitting

two electrons, turned into plutonium

239.



4[after being kissed by the tooth fairy?][prove there was a same state past and the great time needed first]



Although almost all this

material, which has a 24,000-year halflife,

has since disappeared (primarily

through natural radioactive decay),

5[ah, the case of the missing stuff-prove it was ever really here -they can't]



The

abundance of those lighter elements allowed

scientists to deduce that fission

reactions 'must have' gone on for hundreds

of thousands of years.

6

[missing stuff forces same state past conclusion!]



From the

amount of uranium 235 'consumed', [i.e. missing!] they

calculated the total energy released,

15,000 megawatt-years, and from this

and other evidence were able to 'work out'

the average power output,

7

[present state calculations][if the missing stuff existed it would have taken so many eons to disapear]


It is truly amazing that more than a

dozen natural reactors spontaneously

sprang into existence and that they managed

to maintain a modest power output

for perhaps a few hundred millennia.

8

[truly amazing indeed] [prove it]




Xenon

is extremely rare, which allows scientists

to use it to detect and trace nuclear

reactions, even those that occurred in

primitive meteorites before the solar system

came into existence.

To analyze the isotopic composition

9

[attribute all this gas to same state causes...absurd][as mentioned the whole site is underwater now, no one can recheck work]




We applied this technique to many

tiny spots on our lone available fragment

of Oklo rock, only one millimeter thick

and four millimeters across.

10

[all this fable based on a teensy fragment. wow]


The second epiphany was that the extracted

gas had a significantly different

isotopic makeup from what is usually

produced in nuclear reactors.

11

[so there was a difference...from what we now see]





'seemingly' lost a large portion of the xenon

136 and 134 that would 'certainly'

have been created from fission, whereas

the lighter varieties of the element were

modified to a lesser extent.

12

[large amount of missing stuff that golly gee must have created actual stuff]



For example,

measured with respect to the

amount of xenon 132 present, the depletion

of xenon 136 (being four atomicmass

units heavier) would have been

twice that of xenon 134 (two atomic mass

units heavier) if physical sorting had operated.

We did not see that pattern.



13

[IF physical sorting of the present kind existed...who says it did? so now we need to look at sorting in the former state as a possible cause rather than reaction]



None of the xenon isotopes

we measured were the direct result

of uranium fission. Rather they were the

products of the decay of radioactive isotopes

of iodine, which in turn were

formed from radioactive tellurium and

so forth, according to a well-known sequence

of nuclear reactions that gives

rise to stable xenon.



14 [this became that and that became this and on and on in a same state dream fest]



xenon

136 began at Oklo only about a

minute after the onset of self-sustained

fi ssion. An hour later the next lighter

stable isotope, xenon 134, appeared.

Then, some days after the start of fission,

xenon 132 and 131 came on the

scene. Finally, after millions of years,

and well after the nuclear chain reactions

terminated, xenon 129 formed.



15 [woulda coulda]



The

most likely mechanism involves the action

of groundwater, which presumably

'boiled away' after the temperature

reached some critical level.





16[same state speculation][any proof that a river ran through it that long geologically?]



very likely they pulsed

on and off in some fashion, and large

quantities of water 'must have' been moving

through these rocks—enough to

wash away some of the xenon precursors,

tellurium and iodine, which are

water-soluble.





17[large quantities of water must have...must have ..must have...same state religion][not claimed because we know water did exist at this spot...but because they need it to have]




another—it is

unlikely that aluminum phosphate minerals

were present before the Oklo reactors

began operating.



18[says who?]['billions of imaginary years ago before the reactors started, some stuff must have existed]





Instead those

grains of aluminum phosphate 'probably'

formed in place through the action of the

nuclear-heated water, once it had cooled

to about 300 degrees Celsius.



19[speculation in the extreme]



During each active period of operation

of an Oklo reactor and for some

time afterward, while the temperature

remained high, much of the xenon gas

(including xenon 136 and 134, which

were generated relatively quickly) was

'driven off'.



20[missing stuff again with same state beliefs][in this case the stuff was 'driven off' ha]



incorporated into growing grains of aluminum

phosphate.



21[remember they said it was unlikely that aluminum was there before the 'reactions' they don't really know]





Then, as more water

returned to the reaction zone
, neutrons

became properly moderated and fission

once again resumed, allowing the cycle

of heating and cooling to repeat. The result

was the peculiar segregation of xenon

isotopes we uncovered.


22[The result of what? The result of the water they imagine 'HAD to' be there for millenia and in the right time and amount]


It is not entirely obvious what forces

kept this xenon inside the aluminum

phosphate minerals for almost half the

planet’s lifetime
. In particular, why was

the xenon generated during a given operational

pulse not driven off during the

next one?

23[GIANT leap of faith]

Presumably it became imprisoned

in the cagelike structure of the aluminum

phosphate minerals, which were

able to hold on to the xenon gas created

within them, even at high temperatures.

The details remain fuzzy, but whatever

the final answers are, one thing is clear:

the capacity of aluminum phosphate

24[WTF?]


The Oklo reactor

we studied had switched “on” for 30 minutes

and “off” for at least 2.5 hours. [for eons]





. The more

important lessons may be about how to

handle nuclear waste. Oklo, after all,

serves as a good analogue for a long-term

geologic repository,


25 [dangerous false prophesy]



The Oklo reactors may also teach scientists

about possible shifts in what was

formerly thought to be a fundamental

physical constant, one called (alpha),

which controls such universal quantities

as the speed of light [see “Inconstant

Constants,” by John D. Barrow and John

K. Webb; Scientifi c American, June].

26

[fables like Oklo form basis of alpha now?]


For three decades, the two-billion-year old

Oklo phenomenon has been used to

argue against alpha having changed. But last

year Steven K. Lamoreaux and Justin R.

Torgerson of Los Alamos National Laboratory

drew on Oklo to posit that this

“constant” has, in fact, varied signifi -

cantly (and, strangely enough, in the opposite

sense from what others have recently

proposed).

27 [so - opposite now of what they said then]

-------- this was from old notes,



The Workings of an Ancient Nuclear Reactor





I could also dig up where they claimed the site was miles under if you like. Then it came back to the surface.

Then there is the interesting fact that Cowan was in the Manhattan Project if I recall. I think he presided over different groups of people who knew nothing of each others work, so he is used to intrigue.

"Must means conformance with current knowledge. Using that knowledge, the phenomena can be accounted for.

U-235 decays more rapidly than U-238, so its proportion decreases over time.

You know, your wild contortions to support your old superstition are hugely amusing.\
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I read elsewhere on this thread and another poster mentioned Gilgamesh. This seems the most likely origin of the biblical flood story has become a common theme in Christianity. A story that most likely developed as an oral tradition about some catastrophic local or regional flood. It seemed like it enveloped the world to those that experienced it, because their world wasn't that big at the time in the sense of their perspective.

Nice to see you on the threads again, Dan.

Although you might be correct, I's like to offer a different speculation regarding the origin of the flood story. Remember, it refers to the submerging of all land, not just widespread flooding. I don't think such a thing was likely ever witnessed - no dry ground anywhere. I've long suspected that it was the discovery of marine fossils - shells, body impressions - on mountaintops made from upthrusting of former ocean floors.

How would you account for that without the benefit of the modern understanding of orogeny? I'm sure that I would have agreed that those finding meant that the water had once risen to exceed the height of those mountains.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It challenges the story of human evolution that we understand now, based on the evidence. It doesn't challenge evolution, the theory or that humans evolved.

It also contradicts biblical creationism. The prints are clearly not the same as those modern man would leave. There is no place in the Genesis creation story for an almost-man who was an ancestor that has now evolved into modern man, or was a cousin on a branch whose line went extinct without leaving descendants. That's what evolution predicts that we should find, and something that biblical creationism has no place for.
 
Top