Jump to content


Photo

Greetings


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#21 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 01:48 PM

I'm not trying to discredit or make fun of the supernatural. I'm asking for not only scientific evidence of the supernaural but how science can or does go about studying the supernatural? Where has the supernatural been verified within the world of science? I fail to see how and unanswered question about the natural world has a supernatural answer by default. There has to be some quantifiable and real world scientific evidence for that to be so.


You just claimed the the supernatural cannot fall within the scientific realms of the scientific method, did you not? So why ask a question that you already deem unanswerable? Because it allows you to state the same thing again. And what's even more ironic about the whole thing is that just about everyone in science disagrees with the supernatural so it's only logical to conclude that science will always be bias and make sure that the supernatural never get's tested.

But let's put one of your theories to the test that the supernatural is not testable and repeatable.
1) How many people over the years have accepted Christ as their savor? millions right?
2) How many people among that group will also say they had a supernatural experience? Millions right?

So by the people claiming the same thing and it being repeatable millions of times means what? It means that the process is:
1) Observable.
2) repeatable.
3) Can be experienced by the individual.
4) All the above means it's also empirical.

Also there are people from all faiths and walks of life that have had Near Death Experiences (NDEs) and once they got past their life flashing before their eyes, if they saw anything it was always the same thing. And these include:

1) People who never heard of Christ.
2) People who are against Christ.
3) And believers.

This has been repeated 1,000's of times with the same results. They either saw:

1) A place they would deem as Heaven full of love etc...
2) A place full of fire, torment, and hatred.

And because these things can be repeated in people who did not know, were against, or believed this makes it also empirical.

Now the only way you can reject this is out of a bias opinion that God does not exist and there is nothing I can say that will change that, right? So fore go the scientific method so that you can continue to disbelieve, it really makes no difference to me. You guys break those rules everyday so it's nothing new.

#22 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 29 February 2012 - 02:08 PM

Welcome Sasquatch! :)

I am glad to see that you didn't join immediately but took the time to "follow the forum". To me that is important. I did so too, and I think that it witnesses to your advantage. We are a little tired of all the atheists/evolutionists that just waltz in here and just think they know it all and only come here with the intention to "educate" us.

But anyway, let me just pick up on something you said here:

When one doesnt have an answer to a question regarding the "natural world" I do not feel that that the logical default answer to that question is a "supernatural" one


This is a common objection, and I can agree with you up to a certain point. But what makes these discussions so difficult is that, within science, there is no measurable point that we can agree apon that defines the boundary between what is "common sense" and "nonsense".

For example, there are probably countless examples of things that we "don't have an anser to", without necessarily invoking any "supernatural" explanation. But does that mean that there is no limits involved?

I think there is a boundary somewhere, beyond which we must ultimately ask ourselves whether a naturalistic explanation is "reasonable".

Is the linear/symetric patern in a snowflake enough to cover all the incredibly complex mechanisms and decision-making logic we can observe in the simplest form of life?

I have been working with complex logical systems for 27 years and I realize that anything complex can ultimately be reverse engineered and broken down into a number of simple binary instructions. But does reverse engineering explain how such complexity arose in the first place? Complexity, even incredible complexity, is easier to explain that logic!

Logic might be composed of complex elements. But the complexity of logic is not as easily broken down as complexity that lacks logic.

If anything in the natural world has the kind of logic that processes information, then that is an example of intelligence.

Either this intelligence arose internally, or externally. There is no other choice.

So how does something that lacks a brain know how to process information? Can intelligence somhow be splashed together without anyone with intelligence doing the splashing?

#23 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:14 PM

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 03:43 PM

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).


Problem is you do the very same thing. Leaving the only possibility for every explanation to only point towards the naturalistic view of evolution is basically saying: evolution did it and I don;t care what you say. Evolution did it or God did it same difference when there is only one possibility you will even ponder. So ironically what you accuse others of doing you do yourself,

Also about thinking for ourselves. Do you not belong to a group that does not allow people like myself to be a part of it unless I think like your group does? Same difference.

I'm going to church now but I'll be back later.

#25 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 29 February 2012 - 04:15 PM

I dont belong to a group, (unless you consider Rockabilly subculture) a group, but that doesnt apply here. I stand by what I say that God of the gaps is not a sound answer for what we do not know about the natural world. It is ludacris.

#26 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

I do find it ironic that creationists are hung up on the whole "goo to you thing" but somehow "dust to man" and the belief that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes if you telepathically accept him as your master or you will burn in hell for all of eternity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I dunno it's just odd IMO. But heck, believe what you want. I have a friend who thinks flying saucers have visited Earth. There's no way I can convince him otherwise.

#27 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 February 2012 - 05:55 PM

So my evidence of reduction, whereby science removes the potential of a non-designed method thus leaving a designed method... Is going to be ignored?....


Thus confirming what I said about evolutionists ignoring the biochemical when they discuss evolution...

#28 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:02 PM

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).



Atheists also claim to "have the answer" its just that the answer, (for them), is not God... How can they say its not God if they do not know the answer?

Perhaps you should judge your own worldview with the rules you judge others, if you really feel that no one has the answer then be an agnostic and be open to ANY answer, God or otherwise.

#29 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:07 PM

I'm not qualified to comment straight away Gilbo
Point me in the direction of a biology textbook or some real scientific research.(not links to creationist websites) and I'll be glad to look at it.

#30 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:10 PM

I will openly say I don't know Gilbo. My question is will you? Because in all fairness, you don't.

#31 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:29 PM

I'm not qualified to comment straight away Gilbo
Point me in the direction of a biology textbook or some real scientific research.(not links to creationist websites) and I'll be glad to look at it.


Read my post and respond to that

Look up anything to do with Biochemistry, one of the easier examples is cellular respiration.



I will openly say I don't know Gilbo. My question is will you? Because in all fairness, you don't.


So you're not an atheist?.... If you do not know then you should be an agnostic since that is their belief system, (whereas the possibility of God exists and we have no way of knowing which conclusion is correct)

If you read my post then you'd realize I do know, as I said its not hard logic, but may be hard to swallow.

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:40 PM


Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.



Welcome Sasquatch, I hope you have many good discussions here. And remember, just because someone disagrees with you, doesn’t mean they hate, or disrespect you. It’s not a personal attack (Ad Hominem abusive), but rather a disagreement with your statement, assertion (etc…).

For example, in your statement “I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural”, in no way means that you have no beliefs; what it means is that you ‘believe’, based upon your world-view, that there is NO “God/Gods or the supernatural”.

#33 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 February 2012 - 10:15 PM

I dont belong to a group, (unless you consider Rockabilly subculture) a group, but that doesnt apply here. I stand by what I say that God of the gaps is not a sound answer for what we do not know about the natural world. It is ludacris.

I do find it ironic that creationists are hung up on the whole "goo to you thing" but somehow "dust to man" and the belief that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes if you telepathically accept him as your master or you will burn in hell for all of eternity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I dunno it's just odd IMO. But heck, believe what you want. I have a friend who thinks flying saucers have visited Earth. There's no way I can convince him otherwise.


If that's your excuse for for disbelief it's quite weak. But let's test your belief and see if you use the god did it excuse of evolution or ignore it so you don;t get exposed.

1) In the natural realm and under natural laws. How does nothing create something?
2) How does first cause fit into naturalism?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed where did the first energy come from?
4) If origins and evolution were done out of processes that call for randomness, why do we see the Fibonacci numbers where ever we look? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1189
5) If the earth is as old as you guys claim, and the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Then how does Blood and tissue last that long?
An update: And not only is blood and tissue found in that one bone but now every bone they crack open has this.


http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225

6) And the blood and tissue find were as old as thought there would have been randomizing of amino acids to have right handed ones due to the break down over the millions of years. Problem is that randomizing does not exist.
7) And how about a lifeform that refuses to adapt to it's surroundings but instead makes it's surrounding adapt to it's needs. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200

But let's be honest. These things don;t matter because either evolution did it, or natural processes regardless if it can be seen. It just happens because you believe that it does. Like a god did it excuse except there is no god, right?

Also you believe that goo went to life yet that cannot be observed. You believed single cells organisms not only became multi-cells organism but some how knew how to design every system, every organ to create man. Even though that cannot be observe you believe that it's so.

And last but not least is your continuous attempts at making fun which I think is funny because it not only shows that you have no more science to support your claims, but you basically lost the debate here. Because if you had anything at all scientific to back up your claims you would have already presented it and there would be no need for all the other stuff. But as usual like every other atheist that comes in here. They have the inability to back up what they put up and get mad when we point that out. Then you whine and complain that things are not fair and that the creationists are the bad guys and loons. Which by the way proves nothing scientifically.

Only that your debate skills are weak and so are your claims. So basically insult us some more to prove this even more. Or put up the science to back up what you claim. Well?

#34 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 01 March 2012 - 01:02 AM

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view.


Where did I "fill in the blanks"????

I never assert that God exists simply because there is no explanation for why how life originated, but I still think it is a incredibly powerful indication that He did for the reasons I gave.

It is funny how athiests like to talk about what is rational and logical, but as soon as it comes to this question it is quickly shrugged off as though it was something trivial.

It takes more than a complex mixture of chemicals to produce intelligence. But suggesting that this intelligence was designed is, in your opinion, "ludicrous".

Why?

#35 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 04:02 AM

Where did I "fill in the blanks"????

I never assert that God exists simply because there is no explanation for why how life originated, but I still think it is a incredibly powerful indication that He did for the reasons I gave.

It is funny how athiests like to talk about what is rational and logical, but as soon as it comes to this question it is quickly shrugged off as though it was something trivial.

It takes more than a complex mixture of chemicals to produce intelligence. But suggesting that this intelligence was designed is, in your opinion, "ludicrous".

Why?


For the same reasons we aren't allowed to infer design when we look at irreducibly complex systems in Biochemistry which need all its parts functioning before a benefit for selection can occur, thus indicating the system arrived as a whole.

#36 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 08:41 AM

Read my post and respond to that

Look up anything to do with Biochemistry, one of the easier examples is cellular respiration.





So you're not an atheist?.... If you do not know then you should be an agnostic since that is their belief system, (whereas the possibility of God exists and we have no way of knowing which conclusion is correct)

If you read my post then you'd realize I do know, as I said its not hard logic, but may be hard to swallow.

theists like to insist that I am agnostic, because I cleary state that I have no idea if god(s) exist or not. But I am an atheist because I have no active belief in god(s) and won’t have until suitable evidence is brought forth. I have never bothered with god(s), just like I don’t with other extraordinary entities without extraordinary evidence like Bigfoot and the Pink Unicorn. Though I don’t believe in them, I don’t know if they exist or not. All of these entities are highly improbable. I don’t bother thinking about any of them. Unfortunately, I do have to bother about people who have god belief because they exist and can be quite problematic.Atheism is translated thusly: a=non, theism=belief in a theistic entity. I am an atheist, just like I am an ateapotist, an apinkunicornist, and an atoothfairyist. Give me extraordinary evidence for the existence of theistic entities, celestial teapots, and Bigfoot, and I will accept their existence. Doubt I would worship any of them though.

#37 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 09:56 AM

If that's your excuse for for disbelief it's quite weak. But let's test your belief and see if you use the god did it excuse of evolution or ignore it so you don;t get exposed.

1) In the natural realm and under natural laws. How does nothing create something?
2) How does first cause fit into naturalism?
3) If energy cannot be created or destroyed where did the first energy come from?
4) If origins and evolution were done out of processes that call for randomness, why do we see the Fibonacci numbers where ever we look? http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1189
5) If the earth is as old as you guys claim, and the dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Then how does Blood and tissue last that long?
An update: And not only is blood and tissue found in that one bone but now every bone they crack open has this.


http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=225

6) And the blood and tissue find were as old as thought there would have been randomizing of amino acids to have right handed ones due to the break down over the millions of years. Problem is that randomizing does not exist.
7) And how about a lifeform that refuses to adapt to it's surroundings but instead makes it's surrounding adapt to it's needs. http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=200

But let's be honest. These things don;t matter because either evolution did it, or natural processes regardless if it can be seen. It just happens because you believe that it does. Like a god did it excuse except there is no god, right?

Also you believe that goo went to life yet that cannot be observed. You believed single cells organisms not only became multi-cells organism but some how knew how to design every system, every organ to create man. Even though that cannot be observe you believe that it's so.

And last but not least is your continuous attempts at making fun which I think is funny because it not only shows that you have no more science to support your claims, but you basically lost the debate here. Because if you had anything at all scientific to back up your claims you would have already presented it and there would be no need for all the other stuff. But as usual like every other atheist that comes in here. They have the inability to back up what they put up and get mad when we point that out. Then you whine and complain that things are not fair and that the creationists are the bad guys and loons. Which by the way proves nothing scientifically.

Only that your debate skills are weak and so are your claims. So basically insult us some more to prove this even more. Or put up the science to back up what you claim. Well?


I'm pretty sure this has been debunked already. If this was real, where is the DNA from it? If a living dinosaur tissue was found, there would have been DNA, and that would have been all over the news for a long time. Sweitzer says herself that Creaionisss have hijacked and misrepresnted her work for their own fundamental agenda. Her's something from the same researchers who discovered the fossil in question:
"We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. "
Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein
http://www.sciencema...content/316/58…

And more about soft tissue (which is becoming increasingly common now that we know to look for it:

Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs
http://www.plosone.o...rticle/info:do…

Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin
http://rspb.royalsoc...blishing.org/c…

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.

#38 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:10 AM

Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.


I'll leave the rest for Ike, just thought it was amusing that this post is evidence of the belief that, you can't have a discussion with an atheist without the obligatory insult.


What makes you claim with such certainty that the Earth is older than 6000 or so years?



Its also interesting that my Biochemistry evidence has been ignored :(

#39 Sasquatch

Sasquatch

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 31 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Chicago

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:38 AM

I'll leave the rest for Ike, just thought it was amusing that this post is evidence of the belief that, you can't have a discussion with an atheist without the obligatory insult.


What makes you claim with such certainty that the Earth is older than 6000 or so years?



Its also interesting that my Biochemistry evidence has been ignored :(

No insult intended. As I said Gilbo I'm not well versed in the subject of bIochemestry so I'd rather not comment now. Also various disiplines of mainstream science show Earth to be more than 6000 years old. Question, are there any non-creationists or Atheists that believe that Earth is 6000 years old? The reason I ask is that it seems pretty clear that the foundation for this belief is rooted in the bible and not science.

#40 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 01 March 2012 - 10:54 AM

No insult intended. As I said Gilbo I'm not well versed in the subject of bIochemestry so I'd rather not comment now. Also various disiplines of mainstream science show Earth to be more than 6000 years old.


No probs, though saying people who believe X needs to get their head examined is an insult regardless of your intent. (I could say the same of people who believe everything came from literally nothing, whereby no space, no time, no energy, no laws of physics, Nothing... However I won't).


There are also various forms of data that support a 6000-10,000 year old Earth.



16. Eve's Mitochondrial DNA:
Mitochondrial DNA is different from nucleus DNA in that it has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..." 90 It is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, 90,91,92,93 or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago.90,91,92 This story was widely reported in the press. A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.94 This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000. This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve. Unfortunately for those who want the whole truth, this didn't make the headlines. See also: "The Demise of Mitochondrial Eve" and Mapping Human History: Discovering the Past Through our Genes.



17. Population Growth:
Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years. If we assumed only half of the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population. 95,96,97 See Population Statistics for more on this.


22. Zircons:
Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals. They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old." Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner, and Snelling have written a paper on this subject as well, and in their summary they said that:

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible." 106 Emphasis Added



http://www.earthage.org/youngearthev/evidence_for_a_young_earth.htm




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users