The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[McBell]

An infinite number but the span is just ONE.

Now try to plug that info into your post it is in reply to.
Give it an honest try.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Now try to plug that info into your post it is in reply to.
Give it an honest try.

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.
And he gave a simple falsification test that has yet been met. This test should be child’s play today. Not only can they not produce the granite with even one polonium 218 halo, they can’t even make that type of granite with the coarse grain.
How do you explain that?
Also he showed, using some polonium halos which are not primordial, that the rock layers are from the flood and laid down within a period of about 1 year.
If Gentry’s reasoning is correct, he has found direct evidence for the instantaneous creation of the Earth and of the worldwide flood.
There are many trillions and trillions of these halos in granite rocks all around the world.
I guess you have not read his book?
If you do you would know that Gentry faced a lot of censorship in many forms.

 

[ratiocinator]

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.

Yet again running away from the question posed and changing the subject. You really are terrified, aren't you?

Anyway, regarding this particular old creationist nonsense: "Polonium Haloes" Refuted

Now you can run scared from that and change the subject again...

 

[Polymath257]

You had no answer.

What was the first living creature and what features did it have?

Like I said, it was single celled. It certainly used both animo acids and RNA in its metabolism. It was strictly anaerobic.

The answer can then be analyzed and see if it even possible.

If the first living thing was just proteins, how did it ever get evolve to use RNA and DNA? They are irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

That is one of *your* assumptions. Why do you assume it needs to be perfect to function?

If it was just RNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use DNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

That is one of *your* assumptions. Can you prove it is irreducibly complex without using any assumptions?

If it was just DNA based, how did it to ever evolve to use RNA? It is irreducibly complex. You need all the parts to be working for it not to be destruction.

Again, another assumption *you* make. Can you show it is irreducibly complex without using any assumptions?

It is was any mixture of these, then how could it or DNA, RNA, or proteins have evolved at all?

We don't know specifics. And, since you don't want assumptions, that is all that can be said.

The problem for each of these scenarios is the same. A very large specific sequence of amino acids would not happen through natural processes. Here are the calculations.

That is one of *your* assumptions. Why would only a very specific sequence be required? Can you prove this without making any assumptions?

A first living creature would have to have had at least 100,000 amino acids in a particular sequence. This is extremely generous. The smallest free-living thing has over 1,300,000 base pairs. I also have not included having over 500 million other atoms in it.

Oh that is certainly an *assumption* you are making. Why would it have to be any specific sequence? How many sequences would work just as well?

Remember don't make any assumptions.

The odds against a sequence of 100,000 amino acids (20 types, 39 counting handedness) coming to be by random chance is (10 to the 160,000 power) to 1.

So you assumption is that it had to happen 'by random chance'? Why would you make that assumption? Scientists certainly don't.

That could never have happened anywhere in the universe over the supposed 13.7 billion years of its existence. It actually is impossible because no concentration of that amount of amino acids would happen by random chance.

Is that an assumption? if not, what assumptions does it rely on? You do realize there are 'concentrations' of amino acids found on asteroids, right?

There are other factors that make it impossible. It would be a miracle.

That is *your* assumption, not mine.

Where would such an amount of amino acids even occur in nature to even make a first creature?

Well, we *know* that amino acids *do* occur in nature. We have found them in the depths of space and on asteroids.

They must be in very near proximity to where the first creature came to be. In water they would immediately diluted and chemical reactions would destroy it. And above ground or in space, it would be destroyed by the the sunlight. So the first creature is impossible.

And those are more assumptions *you* have made. Given that amino acids on asteroids have NOT been destroyed by sunlight, why do you think they would have to be? Why would you assume they would be diluted in a pond that is drying up?

You are making a LOT of assumptions here.

If such a great miracle did occur, the poor creature will not survive long at all. It is not protected from its environment. Chemical reactions will begin to destroy it within seconds. Which is just another problem. It would take too long to assemble itself. Destruction will happen faster than construction.

Again with even more assumptions. Given that *life* is a complex collection of chemical reactions, and given the lipid membranes are *known* to form spontaneously, why do you assume things would be otherwise?

The poor creature cannot feed itself. It will also not be able to repair itself.

Why would you assume that?

It will not be able to have any offspring. So it could never exist. So even if it did come into existence, it would die quickly and could not have offspring

And, again, you make assumptions. Why would you think the first living thing was the same as the common ancestor? Why would you assume it only happened once?

And that is just to get to the first living thing. There would have to at least 1 trillion other miracles to produce all the living creatures by evolution. That would be about 70 miracles for each of the supposed 13.7 billion years.

And that is even more assumptions on your part. You assume that the changes required would have to be miraculous, as opposed to ordinary.

 

[Polymath257]

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.
And he gave a simple falsification test that has yet been met. This test should be child’s play today. Not only can they not produce the granite with even one polonium 218 halo, they can’t even make that type of granite with the coarse grain.
How do you explain that?

Course grain granite forms when the rock is solidifying *very* slowly, so the crystal grains have time to form. This takes a *very* long time. Much more than the 6000 years you would want.

Also he showed, using some polonium halos which are not primordial, that the rock layers are from the flood and laid down within a period of about 1 year.
If Gentry’s reasoning is correct, he has found direct evidence for the instantaneous creation of the Earth and of the worldwide flood.

If his reasoning is correct. But that is quite an assumption, don't you think?

There are many trillions and trillions of these halos in granite rocks all around the world.
I guess you have not read his book?
If you do you would know that Gentry faced a lot of censorship in many forms.

People showing where he did things incorrectly and misinterpreted things is NOT censorship. Showing where he made basic errors is NOT censorship. Refusing to publish his garbage is not censorship. He could, if he wanted, make his own publishing company and publish his garbage all he wants. Others can also publish his stuff so people like you can 'learn' it and use it even though it is garbage. It is clear that his stuff was NOT censored because you have clearly read about it and it is freely available on the web.

But it is also true that nobody who knows anything about polonium and its decay takes this stuff seriously.

You might want to read this link:

Origin of Polonium Halos | National Center for Science Education

INTRODUCTION It has been more than twelve years since we (Collins 1988, 1997b; Hunt and others 1992) discussed Robert Gentry’s hypothesis proposing that polonium (Po) halos and granite were created nearly instantaneously on Day Three of the Genesis Week (Gen 1:9–10; Gentry 1965, 19

ncse.ngo

 

[McBell]

Robert Gentry showed that parentless polonium 210, 214, and 218 radio haloes must be primordial based on the decay rates of the isotopes in the decay chain.
And he gave a simple falsification test that has yet been met. This test should be child’s play today. Not only can they not produce the granite with even one polonium 218 halo, they can’t even make that type of granite with the coarse grain.
How do you explain that?
Also he showed, using some polonium halos which are not primordial, that the rock layers are from the flood and laid down within a period of about 1 year.
If Gentry’s reasoning is correct, he has found direct evidence for the instantaneous creation of the Earth and of the worldwide flood.
There are many trillions and trillions of these halos in granite rocks all around the world.
I guess you have not read his book?
If you do you would know that Gentry faced a lot of censorship in many forms.

As interesting as that may be, it has nothing to do with the subject matter it is in reply to.
Perhaps you got my post confused with someone elses post?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

As interesting as that may be, it has nothing to do with the subject matter it is in reply to.
Perhaps you got my post confused with someone elses post?

So again you just parrot the misinformation of the deceived and do not look at all the information.
You seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Has Gentry’s challenge been met? No. So how do you say that granite forms that slowly as if that were they only way it ever happened? Gentry’s challenge shows that granite was created instantaneously at creation.
And the 2 types of polonium halos prove both 6 day recent creation and the flood.
And of course he suffered censorship because those deceived by evolution and billions of years cannot conceive how wrong they are.
The no God assumption leads to the no Satan assumption which allows Satan to deceive.

 

[ratiocinator]

So again you just parrot the misinformation of the deceived and do not look at all the information.
You seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What made the Big Bang happe?

 

[John53]

happé?

 

[ratiocinator]

What made the Big Bang happe?

Same as the last three of four times I answered the question. What's the point in giving you answers when you ignore them without even attempting to address them or say why you think they might be wrong?

You are clearly not asking questions in good faith.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Same as the last three of four times I answered the question. What's the point in giving you answers when you ignore them without even attempting to address them or say why you think they might be wrong?

You are clearly not asking questions in good faith.

Instead of saying that you answered the question why not just post the answer?

 

[ratiocinator]

Instead of saying that you answered the question why not just post the answer?

Because you keep on ignoring my answers. For example:

As I already said, and you ignored, it might not have 'come from' anything. A cause or origin for space-time itself is nonsensical.

Although some of the questions you ask do have answers, the concept you seem to be grappling with is a basic misunderstanding. According to the best theories we have, the whole space-time, and all its contents, are a four-dimensional manifold. Time is just a direction through it (an observer dependant direction, actually). Asking where the manifold "came from" is nonsensical as it is not itself embedded in time. The whole thing 'just is'.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So again you just parrot the misinformation of the deceived and do not look at all the information.
You seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Has Gentry’s challenge been met? No. So how do you say that granite forms that slowly as if that were they only way it ever happened? Gentry’s challenge shows that granite was created instantaneously at creation.
And the 2 types of polonium halos prove both 6 day recent creation and the flood.
And of course he suffered censorship because those deceived by evolution and billions of years cannot conceive how wrong they are.
The no God assumption leads to the no Satan assumption which allows Satan to deceive.

For those who like to see the other side as well:

Robert V. Gentry - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[McBell]

happé?

I believe it is French for a digital interface for parents and teachers who choose to opt in to support their children's health, growth, and success.

 

[McBell]

So again you just parrot the misinformation of the deceived and do not look at all the information.
You seem to be suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

Has Gentry’s challenge been met? No.

In the late 1970s, Gentry challenged the scientific community to synthesize "a hand-sized specimen of a typical biotite-bearing granite" as a test of his claims. The scientific response was dismissive. Geologist G. Brent Dalrymple stated:[11] "As far as I am concerned, Gentry's challenge is silly. … He has proposed an absurd and inconclusive experiment to test a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge."​

​

As for you worthless Bible claims, they are dismissed because you do not even know which Bible you use.

 

[McBell]

Instead of saying that you answered the question why not just post the answer?

How about instead of demanding answers from others you answer the questions posed to you?
You have loads of verses to present.
Not to mention showing your math to support your math claims.

 

[McBell]

Instead of saying that you answered the question why not just post the answer?

what is the point of reposting the answer each time you post the question?
I mean, it would be a different matter if you actually read the answers for comprehension, but you have flat out admitted you merely glance at the answers and hand wave them away because you do not understand them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

what is the point of reposting the answer each time you post the question?
I mean, it would be a different matter if you actually read the answers for comprehension, but you have flat out admitted you merely glance at the answers and hand wave them away because you do not understand them.

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

This is it in a nutshell.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

 

[ratiocinator]

All reasoning for evolution and billions of years is circular reasoning and not science.

False.

We know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and since we know evolution and billions of years are true (conclusion is the assumption) and such and such exists, it must have evolved because we know evolution and billions of years are true (restating the assumption as the conclusion).

Furthermore, any evidence that contradicts evolution and billions of years must be false because we know evolution and billions of years are true.

Misrepresentation of the facts, i.e. bearing false witness.