Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[LuisDantas]

Read your previous posts again, then.

 

[Sonofason]

Read your previous posts again, then.

Your disillusionments are not my concern.

 

[serp777]

Lol, garbage, because it degrades your extremist-like faith in evolution.

Evolution doesn't need faith, it has evidence.

 

[Sapiens]

Evolution not only doesn't need faith, knowledge of it only grows via skepticism, which is encouraged.

 

[serp777]

Evolution not only doesn't need faith, knowledge of it only grows via skepticism, which is encouraged.

Right, you would be the most popular scientist alive if you were able to disprove evolution. All evolutionary biologists would love to disprove evolution; it would make them famous beyond belief. There is so much motive for disproving evolution that it makes no sense as a conspiracy theory with made up evidence.

 

[dust1n]

All of them, not just carbon.

Haha, are you sure you took chemistry?

Well, you certainly cannot prove that radioactive isotopes decay at the same rates over time. You cannot say with any certainty that Uranium isotopes decay at the same rate today as they did 2 billion years ago. You just can't do it. It is impossible for you to know that. It is impossible for anyone to know it. You can't even say they decay today at the same rate they did 10 thousand years ago.

It's impossible to know anything was absolute certainty. That doesn't mean you've presented any plausible or useful suggestion as to how or why anything in the universe is occurring, while scientists do a pretty damn good job utilizing half-lives of objects for all sorts of purposes.

Considering you don't even consider universally accepted principles about atoms, I can't really see how a discussion about how the Sun came before the Earth could ever even move forward.

I guess the whole world will have to keep looking at all these lies perpetuated by public universities across our country, like:

Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ionizing radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a good one.

 

[dust1n]

List of radioactive isotopes by half-life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sapiens]

All of the radioactive elements decay. They decay at know set rates that can be used to cross calibrate each other and that agree with outside data-sets, such as tree ring data and magnetic pole reversal data when it is available. If you CHOOSE to IGNORE these facts, knock yourself out, but please stop pretending that there is a rational reason like, " You can't even say they decay today at the same rate they did 10 thousand years ago." I sure as hell can say that and it has been demonstrate using both outside data-sets and other elements, so get over it and find another hobby horse.

 

[Parsimony]

Well, you certainly cannot prove that radioactive isotopes decay at the same rates over time. You cannot say with any certainty that Uranium isotopes decay at the same rate today as they did 2 billion years ago. You just can't do it. It is impossible for you to know that. It is impossible for anyone to know it. You can't even say they decay today at the same rate they did 10 thousand years ago.

Gamma ray measurements from the supernova SN 1987A demonstrate that the half-life of radionuclides did not differ significantly at the time of the supernova from what they are today:

The explosion of SN 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud was a great opportunity for gamma-ray line astronomy. For the first time, a supernova explosion occurred close enough to be in reach of available gamma-ray telescopes. During core collapse, substantial amounts of 56Ni and 57Ni are produced which subsequently decay under gamma-ray lines emission to 56,57Co and finally to 56,57Fe (cf. Table 1). The production of these isotopes in supernova explosions has been indirectly inferred from lightcurve characteristics, reflecting the respective decay times. The direct observation of gamma-ray lines from 56Co [23] and 57Co [19] in SN 1987A was a brilliant confirmation of this interpretation.

Given that SN 1987A occurred 168,000 light-years away, we know that the rate of radioactive decay has been fairly constant for about 168,000 years (the metric expansion of the Universe is not a significant factor for an object that close to us, so the 1 light-year away = 1 year ago standard is pretty accurate here).

I've read that the same has been confirmed of a supernova detected ~60 million light-years away, but I am not well-versed enough in the literature to confirm it at this point in time.

 

[Looncall]

Well, you certainly cannot prove that radioactive isotopes decay at the same rates over time. You cannot say with any certainty that Uranium isotopes decay at the same rate today as they did 2 billion years ago. You just can't do it. It is impossible for you to know that. It is impossible for anyone to know it. You can't even say they decay today at the same rate they did 10 thousand years ago.

All of this is barefaced lies.

I am constantly amazed by the destructive effect of religion on human morality.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Great, so you agree with me. How brave of you.

Yes. I agree. But do you agree with me? And all of its implications? If not then how do you reconcile those implications?

 

[LuisDantas]

Your disillusionments are not my concern.

Of course not.

All the same, I hope you realize that you are not exactly earning our attention with that attitude.

 

[LuisDantas]

All of this is barefaced lies.

I am constantly amazed by the destructive effect of religion on human morality.

One would expect to get used to it, but it is just so huge.

 

[Sonofason]

Evolution not only doesn't need faith, knowledge of it only grows via skepticism, which is encouraged.

For most people, it takes a great deal of faith to believe that evidence. I know it's hard to understand, but until you do, just have faith that it's true.

 

[Sonofason]

I don't even need to comment here. I'll just embolden the problems with what you have just said.

Haha, are you sure you took chemistry?



It's impossible to know anything was absolute certainty. That doesn't mean you've presented any plausible or useful suggestion as to how or why anything in the universe is occurring, while scientists do a pretty damn good job utilizing half-lives of objects for all sorts of purposes.

Considering you don't even consider universally accepted principles about atoms, I can't really see how a discussion about how the Sun came before the Earth could ever even move forward.

I guess the whole world will have to keep looking at all these lies perpetuated by public universities across our country, like:

Radioactive decay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ionizing radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Have a good one.

 

[gsa]

I don't even need to comment here. I'll just embolden the problems with what you have just said.

Looking at your last couple of posts, are you promoting a kind of extreme skepticism that doesn't allow for any kind of working knowledge about the world? Isn't that just solipsism?

 

[columbus]

For most people, it takes a great deal of faith to believe that evidence. I know it's hard to understand, but until you do, just have faith that it's true.

That just isn't true. I have no faith in the evidence. I have trust in the people who explain it. I can see the evidence for myself.
I trust them far more than anyone telling me about God because I have found them to be worthy of trust. When the true answer is "I don't know" that's what they say. When they disagree they look for more information. Religious people cannot be trusted that much. They tell me things that are obviously untrue and tell me I'm the one at fault for not believing.

Tom

 

[Sonofason]

All of the radioactive elements decay. They decay at know set rates that can be used to cross calibrate each other and that agree with outside data-sets, such as tree ring data and magnetic pole reversal data when it is available. If you CHOOSE to IGNORE these facts, knock yourself out, but please stop pretending that there is a rational reason like, " You can't even say they decay today at the same rate they did 10 thousand years ago." I sure as hell can say that and it has been demonstrate using both outside data-sets and other elements, so get over it and find another hobby horse.

Why are you making stuff up?

You do not know that the decay rates that we see today correspond with the decay rates of the past. That is pure speculation at best.

 

[Sonofason]

Gamma ray measurements from the supernova SN 1987A demonstrate that the half-life of radionuclides did not differ significantly at the time of the supernova from what they are today:



Given that SN 1987A occurred 168,000 light-years away, we know that the rate of radioactive decay has been fairly constant for about 168,000 years (the metric expansion of the Universe is not a significant factor for an object that close to us, so the 1 light-year away = 1 year ago standard is pretty accurate here).

I've read that the same has been confirmed of a supernova detected ~60 million light-years away, but I am not well-versed enough in the literature to confirm it at this point in time.

If you can't confirm it, and I can't confirm it, how can we conclude that it is true?

 

[Iti oj]

If you can't confirm it, and I can't confirm it, how can we conclude that it is true?

I can't confirm biblical events