A Bone for You Creationists!

by metatron 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Panda

    Metatron and JCanon, Balderdash and poppycock You spout this stuff as if it actually means something! Good grief. Get a hold of yourselves and read something scientific. Go to the national geographic web site and check out that article from last year about types of dating archeological materials. There is such a great amount of real science to study why spend time only on wishful thinking of pseudo-science .

    Science builds constantly on what we have learned previously. Just look at the marvels of quantum physics which built on Newton and Einstein. Even the speed of light is causing a buzz as theorists develope ideas about the age of the universe.

    And you're also mistaken about the total reliance on fossil fuels. NASA has a wonderful ion drive system which is powering the DeepSpace 1 exploration vehicle. While impractical for use on earth (gravity would cause drag and slow down the ion drive engine) this engine will enable more distant travel "out there." We often find that the developments by NASA eventually make their debut to the public. So someday, we won't use fossil fuels.

    Reality is more interesting than pseudo-scientific opinion.

  • onacruse

    meta, interesting question, particularly insofar as the possible affect of emf forces on radioactive decay, and thus on the reliability of radiometric dating techniques.

    Some straightforward calculations:

    1) The energy density of a 1 trillion volt electric field is about 1 Joule/cubic meter of space.

    2) The nuclear "binding energy" of Be-10 is about 1x10^-11 (0.00000000001) Joules (This binding energy is what keeps the protons in the nucleus from flying apart from each other)

    3) The volume of the Be-10 nucleus is about 2x10^-44 meters

    4) Thus, the nuclear binding energy density of the Be-10 nucleus is about 5x10^32 Joules/cubic meter

    Therefore, even a 1 trillion volt electric field is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000x less 'dense' than the nuclear binding energy. The numbers are similar for C-14.

    There is no physical evidence whatsoever that such an insignificantly small energy impact could somehow destabilize an atomic nucleus, or accelerate its radioactive decay rate.

    If this theory is a bone for creationists, it's only a bone hitting up-side the head.


  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    I know how to spell silicon.

  • JCanon
    Good grief. Get a hold of yourselves and read something scientific. Go to the national geographic web site and check out that article from last year about types of dating archeological materials.

    Hello? "Scientific"? True science is on the side of the Bible. And one thing that pseudo-science certainly is known for is "advancement" which usually means today's doctrines are tomorrow's outdated error.

    Science isn't perfected yet and they don't know all the secrets of nature so as to be that authoritative about that much. But the Bible IS reliable and therefore, if science comes up with something that contradicts the scripture, it is a sure test that they don't know what in the hell they are doing, which is COMMON!

    Now some people genuflect when someone says the word "scientific"....but I remain unimpressed. Call me when they get the chronology corrected and I'll start believing in "science".

    Now I'll admit that I'm Biblically arrogant, but I couldn't be that way if "science" really had their act together. The reason why I can be Biblically arrogant is because they don't! Like trying to tell us man was here for millions of years hobbing on all fours as hunters and gathers and then all of a sudden started reading and writing for the last 5000 years? Just about the time when the Bible claims mankind was created in God's image? Yeah....right!

    Don't you think if there were MILLIONS of years of subhumanity that there would be a vast abundance of some of those men in the fossile record? We have lots and lots of fossils of dynasaurs, where are the fossiles of prehistoric men to go with them?

    Where are they? I'll tell you where. They are NO WHERE! And that's because they never were there in the first place.

    So do I believe in science? No.

    Because I need to believe the Bible?

    No. Because science doesn't cut it.

    Guess what the irony is? You need more FAITH to believe the fantasies of science than you ever do to believe the Bible.

    Oh well...I'm either too dumb or too intelligent to believe in science (I'll let you decide which...)


  • onacruse
    Oh well...I'm either too dumb or too intelligent to believe in science (I'll let you decide which...)

    Well, since you asked, I'll use your own words...

    you're too dumb, as your last two posts clearly demonstrate.


  • metatron

    Nice theory, Craig

    I suspect that "there may be more things in heaven and earth that are

    dreamt of in your philosophy". Check the numerous papers on the site that

    report observations of this phenomena.

    Years ago, there was also the work of Anderson and Spangler at the University

    of Tennessee who claimed that radiocarbon decay rates could be electrically

    modified. Also the work of Horace Dudley, a professor of radiation physics

    writing back in 1975. (See Raptures of the Deep pg 191).

    Again, my interest here is energy. As to creation, I think both Darwinism

    and 'six-day creation' are myths created to satisfy different agendas. The

    real truth of creation will be seen when scientists accept the notion that

    intelligence and creative ability are distributed thruout nature and the

    universe. This is called the "Third Way". I never understood why evolutionists

    don't attack the "intelligent design" folks on the basis that they are suggesting

    a pantheistic creator - and not a fundamentalist one.


  • onacruse

    meta, re: alternative energy sources--I did look at the references on that website. I noticed 2 things in particular: 1) the most recent is from 1987; 2) there are no links, nor are abstracts provided. Makes it a bit difficult to determine just what those papers asserted. Furthermore, the descriptive content of that site itself suggests that this is still theoretical; for example:

    This goes against the conventional wisdom but has never been given a fair chance to be proven or disapproved. We intend to make this one of our first priorities upon completion of initial funding of our company. To date his theory has only received 2 tests and both confirmed his theory. We have contacted the Monolithic technology team at ORNL who have agreed in principle to provide a set of proofs of his theory after we have obtained initial funding.

    That patents have been issued proves nothing about the underlying validity of the theory, as you well know. That papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals also proves nothing--remember the Pons-Fleischmann debacle with cold-fusion (1989)? Their work was reviewed in literally hundreds of journals worldwide, only to be debunked as experimentally unsubstantiated. Investigation continues, but nothing 'concrete' has yet been developed.

    re: radiometric dating--emf-induced accelerated radioactive decay (ARD) is similarly only a theory. For example, see http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/37/37_1/chaffin/acceldecay.html , where creationists suggest that recently observed (though not fully substantiated) variations in the fine structure constant may tie in with the Kaluza-Klein 'hyper-geometry' model of Minkowski space and somehow 'explain' early-universe ARD. However, this remains a totally theoretical speculation. Also, http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/0321acc_beta_decay.asp , where creationists discuss bare-nucleus ARD; a perusal of their discussion shows that they nowhere discuss emf-induced ARD.

    I know that research on these issues continues, and the day will come when more definitive information is available. However, you're quite correct in suggesting that most of the 'players' here have an agenda; perhaps even a very simple agenda of "how can I get rich off of this?" ("We intend to make this one of our first priorities upon completion of initial funding of our company.")


  • JCanon
    Well, since you asked, I'll use your own words...

    you're too dumb, as your last two posts clearly demonstrate.


    It was a trick question. You fell for it....

    Anyway, no matter what the "scientists" come up with, as far as having the critical "answers" they will only provide us black-and-white outlines, no color, no moving pictures, no sound. Science is limited, therefore,and must be utilized in that capacity.

    Perhaps an oversimplication, but take for instance, ART. Art is something "science" can never appreciate. Take a painting: The Mona Lisa. You can send it off to the lab and they can probably tell us how many hues were used to make the painting, what the temperature of the canvas is, where the canvas came from, where the various paints came from, even the chemical components of the painting. But can it appreciate the artwork? No. It's a sharp too for detail but that's it.

    In the meantime we as humans are aware of the "beyond", the conceptual things, the artistic things, emotions, morality, etc. Are those not real because science cannot perceive them?

    This profound limitation of science is empirically what STAR TREK is often about. Spock, the scientist, the unfeeling logistician. Is limited. He's like a machine that only knows numbers and logic. In the first Star Trek movie an earth-launched satelitte (Voyager) had fallen into a black hole and somehow, after falling into a planet of superintelligence gained "intelligence" itself, yet was still limited since it had no human feelings. The ideal thing was to combine that machine with a human to give it the ability to (as Kirk said:...) "Leap beyond logic." To access the abstract.

    Coming back down to earth, therefore, it is not in the design of the atoms and natural laws that govern planetary movement or photosenthesis that we necessarily perceive "God", but in his ART. The combination of all things into a cohesive and beautiful WHOLE. Thus it is that perception given to us that we perceive there's a God, not through the microscope, though some aspect of him is there as well.

    The problem is, some are so impressed with "science" that they think it's the complete end-all and final picture, when it is not.

    I suppose we can learn something about God by analyzing the various gases imitting radioactively from the surface of the sun...but probably not as much as observing its light and affect on life here and basking in its warmth.

    So if you're looking for God, look at the complete picture. Science can't see god because it might be looking too closely through too small of a lens, thus the adage could aptly apply: "Can't see the forest for the trees"?

    If you asked science what a human was, it would print out a list of our various chemical components: mostly water, iron and some other elements. But, is that what we are? Would that list of chemicals help us to fully appreciate what the Creator is? Can the sum of your chemical parts reveal your personality? your passions? WHO you really are?

    I can perceive there is a god and what he must be like to some extent just by observing nature around me. The fact that science needs to ignore the obivous is not my fault. It's not just a matter of counting the dots; you have to connect them and then fill in the spaces with bountiful colors....


  • onacruse

    JC, I agree with your last post.

    Physical science doesn't answer, nor can it answer, such questions as "why are we here, what is our purpose in life?" It never intended to answer such questions. My only objection to those who purport to speak on scientific matters is when they betray a lack of personal knowledge of physical science. Best we not speak with authority on issues with which we have only a passing acquaintance, eh?

    Philosophy too raises more questions than it answers, and in fact that is its purpose: "fondness for wisdom" requires that one ceaselessly examine what we think we know, especially when the 'discovery of dialogue' demonstrates that we didn't know what we thought we knew. The dialectic is a process of discovery, not a compendium of answers.

    Aesthetics is what appeals most to the soul...the search for beauty and underlying harmony in our universe. It is at once the most satisfying, and yet most personal, perspective we can have. Aesthetics has no "proof."

    For myself, it's a combination of physical scientific principles, philosophical inquries, and aesthetic beauty that compels me to believe in god. And I'm very comfortable in that belief, knowing that I've approached it from every possible angle available to me at this point in my life.

    But here we vie very far afield from the topic of this thread.


  • Abaddon

    Nice science. Silly Biblebashers. Go read a book that wasn't written by a bronze-age goatherd.

    Hey, false Christ, yet again your ignorance shows you for what you are;

    Will something decay twice as fast in a warm climate than in cold?

    Yeah, like Jesus would really be as stupid as you?

    True science is on the side of the Bible.
    But the Bible IS reliable

    Okay, maybe you could ask your dad why the Mosaic Law contradicts human sexual biology? Whilst you are at it, maybe he can clue you in on why the spread of languages from Babel fails to fit into any possible theory of how languages spread? Why there is no evidence for a global flood? Why the Creation account is just as fanciful and contrived as all the other fictional creation accounts ancient people came up with.

    God help us if you are Jesus!

Share this