- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsUntil someone shows me a molten rock holding gaseous daughter elements in (gaseous
How should I know? They are unknown. The initial condition of rock is unknown.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmjzE9wHBUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb8uiOD01sU
being the key word), and a cooled rock releasing daughter elements, I think it's safe to
assume that these things never happens.
As for the decay rate, it's the result of the atom nucleus being too heavy for the weak
nuclear force to hold it together. For a six thousand year old sample to appear as billions of
years old the weak force would have to have been so much weaker than today that all
elements would start to decay in rapid succession, in essence behaving like a massive
bomb, blowing all of creation into oblivion. Well, we're still here, so I'm inclined to yet again
make an assumption.
In other words, your too many two unknowns are not exactly unreasonable assumptions.
Claiming the opposite however, is just down right silly.
1 edit
Originally posted by C HessYou know I can't do that. However, here is a video from a geologist that gives eyewitness testimony.
Until someone shows me a molten rock holding gaseous daughter elements in (gaseous
being the key word), and a cooled rock releasing daughter elements, I think it's safe to
assume that these things never happens.
As for the decay rate, it's the result of the atom nucleus being too heavy for the weak
nuclear force to hold it together. For a six thousan ...[text shortened]... not exactly unreasonable assumptions.
Claiming the opposite however, is just down right silly.
Radioisotope Dating of Rocks part 1
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
Originally posted by RJHindsEyewitness to what exactly? Creation going bye-bye, gases not behaving like
You know I can't do that. However, here is a video from a geologist that gives eyewitness testimony.
gases or rocks releasing daughter elements? I'm not gonna sit through thirty
minutes of creationist geology class, if it's something I can refute from the top
of my head.
Originally posted by C HessHere is the 2nd part in which he shows the charts (Not from creationists) in the scientific literature that shows violations in the 2nd and 3rd assumptions. So he just proves that the dating problem is well known among non-creationists as well.
Eyewitness to what exactly? Creation going bye-bye, gases not behaving like
gases or rocks releasing daughter elements? I'm not gonna sit through thirty
minutes of creationist geology class, if it's something I can refute from the top
of my head.
Originally posted by KingOnPointFor some reason I believe C Hess only cares about trying to destroy our faith in Christ.
C Hess,
It should not take a lifetime to learn Greek in the New Testament when it relates to Christ and Apostles telling humans how to be saved.
Whatever the case, I care that you have eternal life.
Originally posted by RJHindsDisobedience, disobedience, disobedience.
There are a couple things wrong. God makes the man responsible and threatens death for disobedience of one specific command. Both the man and women disobey that command after the women is decieved by Satan, one of the leaders of the spirit realm, who speaks to her by possessing the body of a serpent. This disobedience and doing evil is called sin.
God ...[text shortened]... and make new heavens and a new earth and take away all memory of evil from the minds of mankind.
Disobedience is the privilege of the Free.
Religions across the globe started with superstitious spirit worship but became means for the ruling class to maintain control. It's man-made.