Did someone just say dissonance?
Darwinian Dissonance? Paul A. Dernavich (Internet Infidels)
FReegards!
Posted on 01/04/2019 1:17:59 PM PST by fishtank
Helium Retention in Zircons Demonstrates a Young Earth
BY VERNON R. CUPPS, PH.D. * | FRIDAY, DECEMBER 28, 2018
Zircons are tiny crystals of zirconium silicate (ZrSiO4) that originate in igneous rock, which forms when volcanic magma cools. It’s a very stable mineral that melts at 2550°C. Zircon is harder than quartz and almost as hard as diamond. Because of these characteristics, zircon is the mineral most frequently used in various radioisotope dating methods for dating rocks assumed to be at least a few hundred million years old. Its ability to retain impurities within its crystal lattice is very important in establishing the validity of these dating methods.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
How do you know that it is God's word?
Ping
Wrong.
You dismiss what you do not believe in as virtually impossible.
Then, you claim that “logic” dictates God.
What evidence supports your conclusion?
My point is, you take one theory and poke holes in it and put forth that the only alternative is a claim which has easily as many holes in it with no evidence to boot.
I’m all for those believing what they wish, but attempting to quash others beliefs with claims that have no supporting facts underlying them along with declaring your belief as the only alternative is simply “wrong”, IMO.
Perhaps both of you are right in some way, wrong in others.
That the He diffusion rate is low is a different problem. The author makes a point about the diffusivity of rock being a very very sensitive function of its temperature, e.g. a factor of 2 in inverse temperarture makes a difference between a 100 year time scale and a billion year time scale for diffusion. But he explains it away as follows:
that although approximately 1.5 billion years of U/Th decay at today’s decay rates occurred within the GT-2 borehole rock [e.g. the rock is actually 1.5 billion year old], helium generated by that decay had only been escaping for about 5,700 years, which is why large amounts of helium were still present in the zircons. This discrepancy can be resolved if there was a time in the past in which nuclear decay rates were much higher. This is strong observational evidence that at some time in the past, accelerated nuclear decay did occur.
In other words, the world is only 5,700 years old, but the first few years of that the clok was running so slow that it is the same as if it were 4.5 Billion years old. We bring biblical and geological time into sync by assuming a time warp. [this is what is called a coordinate change, but it is a fundamental law of physics that the laws of physics are immune to coordinate changes - e.g. we don't transform lead into gold or BS into philosophy by switching from English to metric units].
Because he said it is, and I trust his ability to preserve it.
Sherlock Holmes says he lives at 221B Baker Street in London.
It's right there in the book.
Ok, we had a time warp. For the first 4.5 years of the earths life, we slowed down our clocks to 1 billion years per year, so the half-life of various uranium isotopes went from a billion year time scale to a one year time scale. Then 5,700-4.5 years ago we switched our clocks to run at 1 year per year. You can play silly games like that, but it changes nothing. It's like announcing the first 8 innings of a baseball game standing on your head and then standing upright for the last inning. The world order wasn't reversed by this parlor trick.
When the “science” is about something far (by any reckoning, whether thousands or billions) in the past that cannot be re-run, models, paradigms and beliefs play a much bigger role than in a situation where an experiment can establish a repeatable effect.
What you miss is that in every era there are huge falsehoods held by essentially all experts. What everyone knows turns out to be wrong.
IF there was an era when everyone knew the earth was flat (which I think is a very poor example) then the correct analogy is to those who believe in evolution, billions of years, and something from nothing without an infinitely greater creator.
Again, in every era, a lot of what everyone knows is wrong.
Christians believe the Bible is 100% true and correct in everything it addresses. We are hip to everyone knowing stuff that is wrong, and are patient. We know there are plenty of counterexamples to the herd mentality, such as the article cited here. We don’t need these articles but find them refreshing, while the herd just digs its heels in harder and embellishes its models with more and more complexity.
The Biblical model doesn’t need to be modified with artificial complexity, but invokes some stunning paradoxes and demands faith. But it won’t change.
Yeah, right. Believe in absurdity all day every day. Sorry to tell you that you have been duped. It’s embarrassing to admit to yourself. “Closer to reality every day!” lol
What gets closer every day?
“It’s not at all uncommon for popular philosophy and science to be absorbed by church officials of every era.”
Ero the current Pope and his nutty climate change fixation.
There are no “holes”, only pigheaded insistence by Darwinists that what cannot be possible really is true. SCIENTISTS say so. Well, I am calling the emperor’s transparent bluff. If random mixing of atoms can do it, certainly the brightest minds in the world could copy what already exists! But of course, they can’t, and they are as far away today as they were a hundred years ago.
What I was getting at was that humblegunner’s post sounded similar to me to the “settled science” claim in the global warming debate. I was just trying to point out that true science should always be open to new facts or evidence, and therefore potentially subject to re-evaluation.
I understand your point about the difficulty of testing events that occurred long in the past, but there is still abundant evidence that can be examined to try to ascertain the probable age of the Earth. I’m not pretending to know the answer, but I do think it is a legitimately open question and credible evidence that appears to contradict current assumptions shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand just because it suggests that those assumptions might be incorrect. This is presuming, of course, that there still exist scientists that are capable of objectively evaluating evidence, instead of trying to fit it into their pre-conceived model (which goes for both sides of the debate).
As a Christian myself, and one who certainly believes that we were created according to God’s design, I nevertheless have no concerns about honestly pursuing facts and evidence wherever they may lead.
Did someone just say dissonance?
Darwinian Dissonance? Paul A. Dernavich (Internet Infidels)
FReegards!
And therefore you insist that your belief must be the only correct one?
I’d love to help you, but lack the time.
You can help yourself though and seek out the truth. If you look, you will find it.
Good answer. How did you know all that?
Reading? What is reading in the era of the internet.
Google is God I was told.
Random mixing it is not.
Only a very large energy like the sun is needed to create order. No magic involved. Provable and repeatable in a lab.
“I can’t believe that a solitary rational person could believe it.”
Yet you believe that morning and evening (day and night) were created before the sun ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.