Jenny Collins
Active Member
Something to do with the radiation being changed! By the way, what is your expertise?
a
-
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!
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
- Thread starter Jose Fly
- Start date
I have seen a number of cases proposed by creationists that were all done incorrectly. Whether they were simply ignorant or actually lying is the issue. In any case, give particulars and I will show how the procedures were violated.
I am a mathematician and a physicist.
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Yes, I was using the reply button! I was deleting people's comments after using the button and that is why it appeared I didn't
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Internet claim, but if you are truthful, than you are not entitled to an opinion because evolutionists always dismiss the scientists that I quote and say they are the wrong kind! You are not an evolutionary biologist so are not entitled to an opinion about evolution according to that reasoning! If you say you are entitled to an opinion, than I would have to point out the scientists that differ from you!
Fair enough. Thank you for keeping them. They significantly help.
I am currently not talking about evolutionary biology. I am talking about radioactive decay, which is definitely in my purview.
Last edited:
Jenny Collins
Active Member
sayak, Where do you think I looked it up? I am sitting in front of a computer! The internet has good sources and bad sources! Why don't you "look it up" yourself and argue with them, not me!Looked up where?
There are only two radioactive atoms whose decay rates are mildly sensitive are Beryllium 7 and rhenium-187, none of which are important in dating anything. The reason why these and only these show environmental effects and why others do not are explained below,
How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates
A recent claim that decay rates depend somewhat on neutrino flux (which if it did would overturn extremely well validated physics) has been decisively refuted. There was experimental error that led to the spurious claim.
https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Well other "experts" in your field disagree with you! I was just reading how fossil fuels are interfering with radiocarbon dating! Go to Smithsonian dot com! My period symbol doesn't work, hence my writing dot
Jenny Collins
Active Member
By the way, why do you believe in evolution? You aren't an Evolutionary Biologist! They are the only ones entitled to an opinion, and how do we know if they are leveling with us if we don't understand what they are talking about? It is all over our heads
Jenny Collins
Active Member
People might be more willing to listen to you if you changed your avatar picture! Yelling, angry people aren't calm and don't listen to reason! They are carried away by angry emotion! So when I see the picture and see your saying "If you don't want to be called stupid, don't be stupid" then I think "This guy is a hot head! An angry Archie bunker type" and I question your ability to think calmly, listen and mull things over! Those are qualities needed by logical, science minded people! Think of it this way! Would you rather get in a plane piloted by Sully, the guy who saved all of those people and landed the plane so well, on the Hudson Bay! He wasn't all angry and panicked but calm and composed! If you want to be taken seriously, you should change your avatar to the statue by Rodin, called the Thinker! He has his hand on his head and appears to be reflecting and pondering! Just a suggestion, no ill will meant!
You don't get to call it a belief when there's enough verifiable evidence to show that it actually does happen as a matter of fact. The theory of evolution might be shaky, and even then not as shaky as people with your agenda seem to think. But evolution as an observable phenomenon happens, as a fact.
Also: There's evidence for it. But there isn't evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is entirely upon you if you make empty unsubstantiated claims. Evolution is to a very large degree substantiated no matter how hard you try to believe it isn't.
You might have different ways into absorbing said facts into your beliefs, but you can't get around them by hand-waving and imagining that those facts don't exist.
/E: Let's do the rest of your post too.
Firstly, it's only over your head if you don't understand it. Second: Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's just that some peoples' opinions are more informed than others'. You don't need to be an evolutionary scientist to understand it, but being one is obviously a good plus... That being said: They say evolution isn't a belief.
Last edited:
I have already provided the information and the reasons physicists consider radioactive decay to be constant in all but Beryllium 7 and Rhenium. Saying you looked up something different from the internet is hardly a refutation. Anyone can write anything in an internet. What is your source, what are the credentials of the source, what are the argument. Link it so that we can see and assess its strengths and weaknesses. I have done it for mine in all cases.
I had also provided you with the mathematical derivations showing that earth or atoms never expanded with the expansion of space. I have alse provided you with links that have the physical derivations, the theoretical results and the experimental validations of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis that proves that the laws of physics have not changed since the Big Bang and the first moments of the Big Bang produced the lighter elements of H, He, Li according to the laws of physics in the ratio that is predicted by them.
These all refute the arguments you have been making with actual physical derivations, data and observations. How do you respond?
Relevant posts
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/why-do-some-creationists-think-evolution-atheism.195716/page-19#post-513r3223
The derivation of the decay constants requires some familiarity with quantum mechanics but I can go through them if you are genuinely interested,
http://www.umich.edu/~ners311/CourseLibrary/bookchapter13.pdf
Last edited:
Well, you could read and find out. Go to standard textbooks, research journals, learn some math perhaps, and see if you can actually find flaws with the official analyses. In other words, learn about the subject *before* you pontificate about it.
I have read extensively about biology, evolution, genetics, anatomy, etc. I am NOT an expert, but I am a educated layperson. That means I can at least tell when BS is being promoted or a significant misunderstanding of biology is underway.
I don't know whether punctuated equilibria or neutral drift or standard darwinian processes will be the best explanations. But I *do* know that anyone who claims the universe, or even the Earth, is less than a billion years old can be dismissed outright because they are deeply misunderstanding how things are. I can *attempt* to point out where they are wrong, but often they will ignore such advice because of their dogma. And it is usually a religious dogma that they are clinging to in the face of the evidence.
So you're saying that photons were the first particles, even before fermionic matter? Where did these photons come from? What emitted them?
"In the beginning there was nothing. God said,‘Let there be light!' And there was light. There was still nothing, but you could see it a whole lot better." - Ellen DeGeneres
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Wha
So what is my agenda exactly? The burden of proof is not on me! Those who introduce a conjecture such as evolution have the burden of proof! And it is not factual and can't be proven! No matter how hard you want to believe that evolution is true, it isn't and repeating it yourself and others, over and over will not magically make it become trueYou don't get to call it a belief when there's enough verifiable evidence to show that it actually does happen as a matter of fact. The theory of evolution might be shaky, and even then not as shaky as people with your agenda seem to think. But evolution as an observable phenomenon happens, as a fact.
Also: There's evidence for it. But there isn't evidence for your claims. The burden of proof is entirely upon you if you make empty unsubstantiated claims. Evolution is to a very large degree substantiated no matter how hard you try to believe it isn't.
You might have different ways into absorbing said facts into your beliefs, but you can't get around them by hand-waving and imagining that those facts don't exist.
/E: Let's do the rest of your post too.
Firstly, it's only over your head if you don't understand it. Second: Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It's just that some peoples' opinions are more informed than others'. You don't need to be an evolutionary scientist to understand it, but being one is obviously a good plus... That being said: They say evolution isn't a belief.
Evolution is an observed fact. People who come to conclusions after examining the data can see this.
People who come to conclusions before examining the data will have different conclusions, and will subsequently evaluate the evidence differently, rejecting whatever contradicts their faith-based beliefs. It's not a method for deciding what is true that I can endorse or would trust.
You can't convince a skeptic to adopt your faith based approach to deciding what is true. Faith is antithetical to rational skepticism and empiricism.
Jenny Collins
Active Member
You have not presented proof that Radiocarbon dating is good! I have just been all over the internet, going to reliable sites that say it IS NOT good, but you seem to think that because you SAY it is, that that someone overrides what the experts say!
Jenny Collins
Active Member
Mac
Macroevolution cannot be observed, so it is not an observed fact! You will claim that processes can be observed that give credence to it, but that is YOUR interpretation! And as far as my "faith based beliefs" influencing my point of view, I do not think that my belief in God is as useless as you do! That said, there have been scientists who have defected from evolution, solely based on the fact that it made no sense! Some have been atheists, so they were not influenced by their faith
What was your larger point? That what you call "macroevolution" has to be observed for it to be true?
Why would we expect to observe a process that encompasses at least thousands of years if not millions?
Science is based on what can be observed and explaining it, not on what cannot or has not been observed. The observations are well accounted for by assuming evolution over deep time.