"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

[The pet whisperer]

I told you once before, but because you are only interested in what you have to say, you still don't know.

You cannot possibly know, with the US in the position it is in today.

[Mugwump]

The pet whisperer wrote:

I told you once before, but because you are only interested in what you have to say, you still don't know.
You cannot possibly know, with the US in the position it is in today.

Why don't you use the reply button if you are, you know replying to someone.

And if you have replied I don't recall - and am certainly not going to trawl back though months of posts.

So - again - your solution to what you view as a failed education system ? Disregard centuraries of scientific endevours and make shit up from scratch, then refuse to respond to arguments against it?

[Hidingfromyou]

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Innuendo is the most powerful or destructive sense one can place on the mind and it's reinforcements are virtually everywhere.
Teaching critical thinking and to think for oneself, is a founding quality of freedom,-- supposed democracy and humanity itself.
What in any post describes such?

Sorry, you dodged my question to you, which was your own question.

How were you taught critical thinking?

[Hidingfromyou]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, well the fact you copy-pasted total BS from Pathlights for one.(shrug)

He's already been shown to be a plagiarizer?

[Subduction Zone]

Chimney1, the heat released by Creationists claims would be even worse than what you stated. Just accounting for the time differential you would have an increase of 4,600 times. Many Creationist claims also require a higher speed of light to accomplish this change in radioactive rates. This idea shoots is an example of Creationists shooting themselves in the foot twice. The results of increasing the speed of light are even worse than the results of increasing the decay rate. To account for all of the galaxies that we can see they would have to increase the speed of light by over 10,000 times. The energy that comes from nuclear decay follows Einsteins e = mc^2. By multiplying the speed of light by 10,000 times the amount of energy released by radioactive decay during that period of elevated light speed would be 100 million times the heat of normal decay.

Yes, merely accounting for the increase in time and an increase of radiation given off would be 4,600 times greater. Taking time into account and the higher amount of radiation released per nuclear reaction would increase the energy rate by a factor of 460 billion. That would not only keep the Earth liquid, it would vaporize the entire Earth.

It can be fun to take creationists seriously and to deduct the consequences of their "theories".

[The Dude]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
He's already been shown to be a plagiarizer?

Yes, plagiarizer, liar, hypocrite, pseudo-science promoter, extreme egotist, ignorant, and somewhat mentally unbalanced. That's our Jimbo.

[Subduction Zone]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Um, well the fact you copy-pasted total BS from Pathlights for one.(shrug)

Jimbo is guilty of doing a copy and paste? Isn't he the one who always complains if someone backs up his claim with support from outside sources? Of course we tell who our sources are and even give links to them. I did not see the Pet Whimperer's post but I am betting that he did not give credit where credit is due.

I see why creationists and the ilk need the Ten Commandments. They don't know what is right and what is wrong on their own so they need an invisible friend to tell them. And even then they cannot keep them straight. Lying "for" God does not let you off the hook of the "thou shalt not bear false witness" order.

[The pet whisperer]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, you dodged my question to you, which was your own question.
How were you taught critical thinking?

Ask the brightest people in the country and see how they answer. Oh gosh, the brightest have stolen America's future and are still driving it further and further into debt and economic slavery for the vast majority.

Wow, those schools really know how to teach. Sarcasm off.

[The pet whisperer]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
OK.
The currently estimated age of the earth is 4.6 billion years.
That is 4,600,000,000 years.
The Biblical estimate is 6,000 years.
4,600,000,000 / 6,000 = 766,666
Therefore for the decay rate to have been sped up and account for 6,000 years instead of 4.6 billion, it would have had to have been 766,666 TIMES FASTER.
That means released its energy 766,666 TIMES AS FAST. Not to mention, 766,666 times as radioactive.
"Earth's internal heat comes from a combination of residual heat from planetary accretion (about 20%) and heat produced through radioactive decay (80%).[82]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
So about 80% of the internal heat of the earth today is due to radioactive decay. That is the heat you see in volcanoes etc.
If the rate of that heat production was more than 700,000 TIMES HIGHER, what do you think would happen to the Earth?
So, what if you claimed instead that the Earth was only 1 million years old? 4.6 billion / 1 million is STILL 4600. What do you think would happen to the Earth if radiation and heat was 4000 TIMES STRONGER than today? It would still melt the surface to molten rock.
Also, you made the claim about changing decay rates. You tell us what amount of change they actually claim to have found. See, you clearly do not care what facts MEAN. If the change is say 5%, that would mean the datings might be off by 5%. So 1 billion becomes 950 million, big deal! Its not going to affect the theories of evolution or geology enough to falsify them.

Are you talking argon or what? What's wrong moron, you can't get past your assertion? You have nothing but BS. Show is where science backs up your claims, so that I can show them wrong as well.

You got nuthin BS boy.

[Mugwump]

Subduction Zone wrote:

Chimney1, the heat released by Creationists claims would be even worse than what you stated. Just accounting for the time differential you would have an increase of 4,600 times. Many Creationist claims also require a higher speed of light to accomplish this change in radioactive rates. This idea shoots is an example of Creationists shooting themselves in the foot twice. The results of increasing the speed of light are even worse than the results of increasing the decay rate. To account for all of the galaxies that we can see they would have to increase the speed of light by over 10,000 times. The energy that comes from nuclear decay follows Einsteins e = mc^2. By multiplying the speed of light by 10,000 times the amount of energy released by radioactive decay during that period of elevated light speed would be 100 million times the heat of normal decay.
Yes, merely accounting for the increase in time and an increase of radiation given off would be 4,600 times greater. Taking time into account and the higher amount of radiation released per nuclear reaction would increase the energy rate by a factor of 460 billion. That would not only keep the Earth liquid, it would vaporize the entire Earth.
It can be fun to take creationists seriously and to deduct the consequences of their "theories".

Out of interest , I read a book by the grand foobar of whackjobs Gish years ago who claimed that the speed of light had indeed been much greater years ago, and had been decrease for the last 6k years... Coming to a constant around the mid last century - just when we developed the technology to measure it - stroke of luck OR WHAT!!!!

[Aura Mytha]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
He's already been shown to be a plagiarizer?

Jim "aka" the carpet whisperer is about as loopy as they come .

[Chimney1]

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking argon or something else?

Over 40 different radioactive isotopes are used in various forms of dating, so it would have to apply to all of them - they would all have to speed up by over 760,000 TIMES to accommodate biblical dating.

Since they all would have to, in perfect proportion, then what you are suggesting can only be an acceleration of all decay equally, including but not limited to argon. It would include uranium, potassium, radium, the whole lot of them.

The Earth would be superhot. Reducing the radioactive decay rate significantly enough to falsify the "old earth" therefore cannot be possible.

[Chimney1]

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you talking argon or what? What's wrong moron, you can't get past your assertion? You have nothing but BS. Show is where science backs up your claims, so that I can show them wrong as well.
You got nuthin BS boy.

Here we go again.

You are wrong, as a bit of simple arithmetic demonstrated.

80% of the earth's current heat comes form radioactivity. Thats already enough to keep the magma molten, drive tectonics, and cause plenty of volcanoes etc.

You want to speed that heat generation up by 700,000 times and claim its possible? You want to call me a moron for pointing out obvious realities that you could have worked out first, if you were actually able to think for yourself?

Be my guest, you will just look like an idiot (again).

[The pet whisperer]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Over 40 different radioactive isotopes are used in various forms of dating, so it would have to apply to all of them - they would all have to speed up by over 760,000 TIMES to accommodate biblical dating.
Since they all would have to, in perfect proportion, then what you are suggesting can only be an acceleration of all decay equally, including but not limited to argon. It would include uranium, potassium, radium, the whole lot of them.
The Earth would be superhot. Reducing the radioactive decay rate significantly enough to falsify the "old earth" therefore cannot be possible.

Show us where science makes your claim of speeding up by 760,000 times.

[KJV]

Unlocktheworld wrote:

<quoted text>I honestly think that no god may exist, I don't believe in the term "god" because we live in such a vast universe that if we found any other sort of life in the universe, it would contradict religion all together. as vast as the universe is there can't not be some other sort of life in the universe, and even if it was discovered it would probably be hidden because of the fact that it would cancel out religion and this planet survives off the thought of a god to worship, it gives meaning for people to live. Take that away and it could cause many of problems.

No where in the bible does it say God did not create life else where.

[It aint necessarily so]

Subduction Zone wrote:

Chimney1, the heat released by Creationists claims would be even worse than what you stated. Just accounting for the time differential you would have an increase of 4,600 times. Many Creationist claims also require a higher speed of light to accomplish this change in radioactive rates.

It can be fun to take creationists seriously and to deduce the consequences of their "theories".

Where is Jesus now?

Clearly, the bible writers thought that their god was in the air above their flat world, which is why why heaven has clouds, why Jesus is said to have ascended, and why he is expected to come down out of the sky.

Today, we have been to the clouds and seen that Jesus and the angels are not there, and so we know that Jesus didn't stop there. Where did he go?

A recent report form NASA informs us that they have inserted a probe into orbit around the asteroid Vesta. Early reports are that no angels or gods were spotted there, either :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8642...

Voyager passed Io and saw nothing, and is now departing the solar system. Still no Jesus anywhere in the solar system. So where is Jesus now?

Even at the speed of light, he has only gone 2000 light years, meaning that he's not only still in the Milky Way, he hasn't left his original arm of the spiral. Depending on what time of day he took off and what part of the cosmos was on his zenith at that moment, Jesus could be anywhere in a sphere with a 2000 ly radius. I doubt that heaven can be found in it.

What an idiotic thing to believe.

[The pet whisperer]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here we go again.
You are wrong, as a bit of simple arithmetic demonstrated.
80% of the earth's current heat comes form radioactivity. Thats already enough to keep the magma molten, drive tectonics, and cause plenty of volcanoes etc.
You want to speed that heat generation up by 700,000 times and claim its possible? You want to call me a moron for pointing out obvious realities that you could have worked out first, if you were actually able to think for yourself?
Be my guest, you will just look like an idiot (again).

Yes, obviously you are too stupid to read and understand English. Science pointed out 5 ways, but you only address heat. Then when I ask about argon specifically, you claim it concerns all 40 ways, when all 40 might not be affected by heat.

I asked about argon specifically. You seem to be avoiding it specifically. Many if not most of the 40 are not used, argon is their claimed, most reliable.

Tell us about argon and heat chney.

[Subduction Zone]

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Show us where science makes your claim of speeding up by 760,000 times.

It is really rather simple math that even you might be able to do. Take the actual age of the Earth, call it 4.5 billion years, divide that by whatever whacked out figure the creationists are using, since you aren't good with numbers let's say 10,000 years. With those two figures you would get a needed increase of 450,000. For his 760,000 times increase I believe he used Usher's guess on how old the Earth is.

[Aura Mytha]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
No where in the bible does it say God did not create life else where.

Yeah but it doesn't mention other planets and is very specific about this one. The only exception is the mention of a new heaven and a new Earth for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.

Your god is determined to destroy this one.

[Mugwump]

The pet whisperer wrote:

<quoted text>
Show us where science makes your claim of speeding up by 760,000 times.

It doesn't - the point is that is what the decay rates would have to increase by to produce radio metric dating results of 6k years

Did you not read the post by chimney ??