Post Any Evidence For God Here

[crispybits]

What is off topic about that if it's stuff directed at you from page 86 that you've done little to nothing to address? Is creation and evolution not more relevant as to whether or not He exists than how fast dust accumulates on the moon? And the quotes or whatever might represent me in a moon dust discussion well enough for the basis of a cc forum discussion at least so how about address them or we move on?

A valid point, if you hadn't agreed that we were going to deal with one thing at a time, and then turned down your choice to pick any argument and let me pick the moon dust one. We can do evolution next if you want, but we're doing one thing at a time now remember.

[Lionz]

Mets,

Where's a radiometric dating method that does not assume both a starting point and a constant rate of decay? Who knows where anything started if He created things out of nothing and who knows what has changed in regards to rate of decay if the earth has gone through one or more major change in a relatively short period of time?

Paste from page 81?

It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7

When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

[Metsfanmax]

Lionz, scientists are aware that the isotopic ratio has not been constant in time. So, what they do is calibrate carbon dating based on independent methods of dating (which, incidentally, show that the Earth is more than 6000 years old as well). When they do this, they are able to accurately reconstruct the age of a specimen, and they also find out that the error in assuming a constant ratio is on the order of 10% (which is not enough of an error to include the possibility of a young Earth). Either way, modern dating doesn't actually use the old approximation, so to indict it on that basis simply misses the point.

[Lionz]

What can tree rings and coral and ice cores do to help us date preflood things if they are from after the flood and any corresponding change within the atmosphere that would have occurred from it? And what shows the earth is older than 6,000 years and isn't based on circular reasoning?

viewtopic.php?p=3855493#p3855493

[crispybits]

Where did Metsfan say anything about tree rings or coral?

And when do you plan on sorting out your moon dust argument?

[Metsfanmax]

What can tree rings and coral and ice cores do to help us date preflood things if they are from after the flood and any corresponding change within the atmosphere that would have occurred from it? And what shows the earth is older than 6,000 years and isn't based on circular reasoning?

viewtopic.php?p=3855493#p3855493

Well, you don't need tree rings from "before the flood" in order to calibrate the curve. Also, there are plenty of independent dating techniques that extend back further than 6000 years, even if the trees aren't that old.

None of this is circular except insofar as science itself requires particular assumptions about the way the world works (e.g. there is no evidence for a global flood, so we ignore such a possibility). If you want to completely neglect the usefulness of science in understanding the world, that's fine. But consider this -- the speed of light is known with high precision. We know also that there are stars and galaxies more than 6,000 light-years away from us. In order for this all to be consistent, God would have had to set up photons traveling in just such a way as to delude us into thinking that there are stars and galaxies at such great distances. Why would he do this to us?

[Lionz]

Crispy,

What was referred to by Mets if not another radiometric dating method with assumptions of it's own? And how about address what was already said and we move on if I already suggested you quoted stuff that represented me in a moon dust discussion well enough for the basis of a cc forum discussion?

Mets,

What can postflood tree rings do to help us calibrate if the biosphere just prior to the Flood had 500 times more carbon in living organisms? And how about respond to these if you want to discuss whether or not there is evidence for the flood and whether or light speed has always been constant?

viewtopic.php?p=3860589#p3860589

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lightspeed-99a.html

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html

http://www.arrivalofthefittest.com/slid ... de0961.htm
(Click through slides at this one?)

[Symmetry]

What can tree rings and coral and ice cores do to help us date preflood things if they are from after the flood and any corresponding change within the atmosphere that would have occurred from it? And what shows the earth is older than 6,000 years and isn't based on circular reasoning?

viewtopic.php?p=3855493#p3855493

Well, you don't need tree rings from "before the flood" in order to calibrate the curve. Also, there are plenty of independent dating techniques that extend back further than 6000 years, even if the trees aren't that old.

None of this is circular except insofar as science itself requires particular assumptions about the way the world works (e.g. there is no evidence for a global flood, so we ignore such a possibility). If you want to completely neglect the usefulness of science in understanding the world, that's fine. But consider this -- the speed of light is known with high precision. We know also that there are stars and galaxies more than 6,000 light-years away from us. In order for this all to be consistent, God would have had to set up photons traveling in just such a way as to delude us into thinking that there are stars and galaxies at such great distances. Why would he do this to us?

There's a heresy in Christianity called Necessitism, and while I agree with you mostly (I disagree that there's a point to arguing with Lionz, who is, as far as anyone can tell, a troll- good luck with his next set of random pictures and demands that you explain them), Necessitism is weirdly unavoidable.

Basically, it goes along the lines of "God is all powerful, He could have made it look that way. Why? God's motivations and reasons are either unknowable or only dimly comprehensible."

Ruling that out as a possibility is the heresy. Also the foundation for much of modern Christian apologetics.

[Lionz]

Whether or not light is constant and always has been... would it be wrong to create Adam in an adult body surrounded by fruit bearing trees that were less than a week old?

[Metsfanmax]

What can tree rings and coral and ice cores do to help us date preflood things if they are from after the flood and any corresponding change within the atmosphere that would have occurred from it? And what shows the earth is older than 6,000 years and isn't based on circular reasoning?

viewtopic.php?p=3855493#p3855493

Well, you don't need tree rings from "before the flood" in order to calibrate the curve. Also, there are plenty of independent dating techniques that extend back further than 6000 years, even if the trees aren't that old.

None of this is circular except insofar as science itself requires particular assumptions about the way the world works (e.g. there is no evidence for a global flood, so we ignore such a possibility). If you want to completely neglect the usefulness of science in understanding the world, that's fine. But consider this -- the speed of light is known with high precision. We know also that there are stars and galaxies more than 6,000 light-years away from us. In order for this all to be consistent, God would have had to set up photons traveling in just such a way as to delude us into thinking that there are stars and galaxies at such great distances. Why would he do this to us?

There's a heresy in Christianity called Necessitism, and while I agree with you mostly (I disagree that there's a point to arguing with Lionz, who is, as far as anyone can tell, a troll- good luck with his next set of random pictures and demands that you explain them), Necessitism is weirdly unavoidable.

Basically, it goes along the lines of "God is all powerful, He could have made it look that way. Why? God's motivations and reasons are either unknowable or only dimly comprehensible."

Ruling that out as a possibility is the heresy. Also the foundation for much of modern Christian apologetics.

Yep, I had actually never talked with Lionz on the religious/scientific front before, although his legacy precedes him; I'll not soon be doing it again

[crispybits]

Right forgive me for requoting but this was like nearly 30 pages ago so just getting an easy baseline back.

The Moon's Dust

Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year. At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon. The astronauts, however, found a layer only 1/8 to three inches thick. Three inches would take only 8000 years. Even evolutionists believe the moon is the same age as the earth, giving the earth's age as only 8000 years.

Concerning the moon and dust?

If you figure there is going to be a bunch of dust on something based on how old you think it is and how fast you think dust is collecting on it and you come to find there is barely any dust on it at all, is it more logical to assume the dust gathered alot slower than you thought than to consider a possibility that the something is younger than you thought?

Even if Snelling and Rush came forward and claimed that one or more thing was consistent with a current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale, was there not very real concern about moon dust in the 1950s and 1960s? Just how much would an estimate be off even if the moon has less gravitational pull than the earth? Do you think 4,300,000 tons is a number came up with by some random guy trying to pick up moon dust with his hand on a mountain without considering differences between the sun and moon if Isaac Asimov actually published stuff in Science Digest? And what was simply Asimov?

"I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight. Isaac Asimov, “14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, J-nuary 1959, p. 36."

"Lyttleton felt that dust from only the erosion of exposed Moon rocks by ultraviolet light and x-rays “could during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it several miles deep.” Raymond A. Lyttleton, The Modern Universe (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1956), p. 72."

"Thomas Gold proposed that thick layers of dust accumulated in the lunar maria. [See Thomas Gold, “The Lunar Surface,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, Vol. 115, 1955, pp. 585–604.]"

"Fears about the dust thickness lessened when instruments were sent to the Moon from 1964 to 1968. However, some concern still remained, at least in Neil Armstrong’s mind, as he stepped on the Moon. [See transcript of conversations from the Moon, Chicago Tribune, 21 July 1969, Section 1, p. 1, and Paul D. Ackerman, It’s a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 19.]"
-http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes79.html

"Moon Dust
I have right here on the floor—since I am in my home city here—I have an actual porthole from a space capsule. It is so pitted, you can hardly see through it. Now, we have added a few more scratches through the years hauling this thing around. But, it was all pitted when they first took it out of the space capsule because out of space is full of dust. Imagine blasting off with all that! The reason it is pitted is because outer space is full of dust. And when they are traveling around at 18,000 miles an hour, they run into the dust and it hits the glass. Well, the earth and the moon are running around together—they’re running around the sun at about 66,000 miles an hour. So the earth and the moon are running into all this dust in space. Kind of like your windshield collects bugs certain times of the year, and it gets thicker and thicker on the surface of the moon and on the earth, this dust does, because it is running into it. The problem is, on earth we have air, which makes wind and water and any dust that lands here gets mixed in. Once in awhile you will see a little bit on your furniture from time to time. How many have seen [some] of that before? This cosmic dust coming in from outer space generally gets incorporated into soil. But on the moon they have no wind and no water. So any dust that lands on the moon is going to be undisturbed.

I've highlighted 2 bits in colour, which I'll pull out here:

Premise 1: Interplanetary dust and meteors is depositing dust on the moon at the rate of at least 14,300,000 tons per year.

Where do you get this figure from? The only place I can find this figure is from measurements made by a man called Hans Petterson. His experiement went as follows:

He climbed a mountain with a device designed to measure smog levels, and used that device to meaure the amount of nickel the device measured in the atmosphere.

He then assumed that the only source of atmospheric nickel was cosmic dust, and further assumed that a certain percentage of cosmic dust was nickel.

Note that last line. He made 2 very big assumptions there that he had no data to back up. Nickel can be contained in some atmospehric pollutants from indutrial/domestic sources.

Combustion of coal and other fossil fuels leads to release of nickel to the atmosphere. Other sources of atmospheric nickel include emissions from mining and refining operations, steel production, nickel alloy production, electroplating, and municipal waste incineration. Sources of nickel in water and soil include wastewater from municipal sewage treatment plants. Nickel oxide has been identified in residual fuel oil and in atmospheric emissions from nickel refineries.

Source: http://www.environment.gov.au/atmospher ... ickel.html

The second assumption, that a proportion of cosmic dust was nickel, was pure guesswork. I can't find his exact assumption, and it may have actually been close to the truth or it may not. But it wasn't based on any actual data.

His figure that he arrived at was around 15 million tonnes/year, but even he said in his own paper that this seemed extraordinarily high and was probably down to some sort of experimental flaw, and that he believed a far more likely figure was in the region of 5 million.

Shortly after this experiment more data was available through analysing data collected by satellites, with no possibility of any earthly contamination. Those measurements placed the amount of dust falling to earth at more like 18-25,000 tonnes a year. That's approximately 1/800th of the 15 million tonnes figure. This figure has also been verified by looking at chemical markers that we know are only present in cosmic dust within sediment layer son earth. The two figures are consistent with each other within this range, and measurable completely separately, so we have independent confirmation from two distinct sources of this figure.

Premise 2: At this rate, if the moon were 4.5 billion years old there would be at least 440 feet of dust on the moon

Firstly, as shown, we have to adjust this "440 feet" figure down to around 1/800th to match the figures we have found, then there will only be around 6-7 inches of dust on the moon.

Secondly, dust doesnt just sit on the moon, it's exposed to cosmic radiation and the like, and a lot of it clumps together to form something texturally more like soil than dust.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That concludes both premises being demonstrably shown as false, and therefore the argument fails.

Over to you

[crispybits]

Yep, I had actually never talked with Lionz on the religious/scientific front before, although his legacy precedes him; I'll not soon be doing it again

I'm only doing it by keeping it to one topic at a time so he doesn't have reason to post a massively long chain of pictures and videos. If he goes off on one of those again rather than having a sensible debate one issue at a time I'll just stop responding to him and he gets nowhere any more. The choice is his.

[Metsfanmax]

I don't mind debating about multiple things, it's just that a forum is such an inefficient and exhausting place to have a conversation like this. I'd much rather have it face to face.

[Symmetry]

Yep, I had actually never talked with Lionz on the religious/scientific front before, although his legacy precedes him; I'll not soon be doing it again

I'm only doing it by keeping it to one topic at a time so he doesn't have reason to post a massively long chain of pictures and videos. If he goes off on one of those again rather than having a sensible debate one issue at a time I'll just stop responding to him and he gets nowhere any more. The choice is his.

Not really, he feeds off of this stuff. You'll never get a decent argument from him, he'll never read any of your posts, and he'll always ask you to explain random stuff he's picked up from a crazy conspiracy site.

[Symmetry]

I don't mind debating about multiple things, it's just that a forum is such an inefficient and exhausting place to have a conversation like this. I'd much rather have it face to face.

Alright- I'm gonna give up trying to convince you guys that he's blatantly trolling you, and let you figure it out for yourselves when you reach an exhaustion point.

[crispybits]

I was here the last time he was active 30 pages ago Symmetry - I know exactly what he's about.

While he remains sensible I'll engage. As soon as he goes all "crazy conspiracy" then that's proof to any rational person he's lost the argument anyway and I'll stop and he won't get any fun from it at all. Like I said the choice is his.

[Symmetry]

I was here the last time he was active 30 pages ago Symmetry - I know exactly what he's about.

While he remains sensible I'll engage. As soon as he goes all "crazy conspiracy" then that's proof to any rational person he's lost the argument anyway and I'll stop and he won't get any fun from it at all. Like I said the choice is his.

He'll never be sensible, but it's up to you. Don't feed the troll.

[Lionz]

14,300,000 tons*

Crispy,

14,300,000 is a questionable number and there is a weak creationist moon dust argument that answersingenesis itself does not hold as a good one and I should have never sent stuff in the first section perhaps, but what is truly a more reliable estimate than 14,300,000 if the moon moves at about 66,000 mph and a space capsule got a pitted porthole to the point of barely being see through while moving no faster than about 18,000 mph?

Symmetry,

What comes across to you as trolling and what good do ad hominem attacks do whether I come across to you as a troll or not? Did I attack something you have some deep emotional investment in?

[crispybits]

You posted the argument. And you seem to be standing by the argument. Or am I mistaken about your 66,000mph/18,000mph moon/porthole sentence?

[Lionz]

Not that 14,300,000 is necessarily a good estimate, but how much time would it really take for a 0.5-inch layer of cosmic dust to accumulate on the moon if you claim it's billions of years old? Do you have a source concerned with cosmic dust turning into something other than cosmic dust and a proposed rate of how fast that would occur? How about we not fall into a logical fallacy of cherry picking even if moon dust is something I should have never brought up in the first place?

[crispybits]

For half an inch - around 350-400 million years going by scientifically observed rates of dust accumulation both on satellites and in chemically unique cosmic isotopes measured in sedimentary layers.

Why is the question even what you or I think is reasonable? Are either of us trained in cosmic dust science?

The source regarding moon dust becoming more like soil is here:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article ... 43,00.html

I'll admit at this point I misunderstood my previous source, which was highly scientific. I found this link when looking for a more plain english explanation. The dust is still dusty, but it has electromagnetic qualities that mean it can clump together and there are beads within it caused by melting during meteoric impacts. So while I was wrong about it being texturally more like soil, I was correct that it can clump together in a way and is not identical to a layer of dust like if you sprinkled talcum powder on a table.

I said we will deal with all of your claims. I gave you the chance to choose first, you said I could. Until the moon dust issue is resolved then that's what we're talking about, but we'll get to the other things too, so I'm not cherrry picking, I'm just taking it one argument at a time.

Now, either the scientific measurements are wrong (and they come from two distinct and unrelated sources and point to the same 18,000-26,000kg/year figure), or there is something else going on that hasn't been accounted for yet, or the moon dust theory is flawed and is proof of exactly nothing. Which is it?

[Lionz]

Is 350-400 million years not more than a little low if the moon is almost 5 billion years old? And what happened to the space capsule?

[crispybits]

Are you going to answer every single question I ask with another question?

Are you ever going to post an independent verifiable and credible source for your hypotheses like you ask me to do?

[Lionz]

I'm not sure what you want a source for. Not that I have not already given credible sources.

[crispybits]

That 14,300,000 tonnes is a more accurate figure than 18,000-26,000kg maybe.

Regardless, you're not answering my questions:

Now, either the scientific measurements are wrong (and they come from two distinct and unrelated sources and point to the same 18,000-26,000kg/year figure), or there is something else going on that hasn't been accounted for yet, or the moon dust theory is flawed and is proof of exactly nothing. Which is it?

From this point on, you ask a question, then I ask a question, or this isn't a debate it's an interrogation. So answer that and I'll answer one of yours in return.