How do you know God isn't dead?

[pocaracas]

Sometimes, I feel like only replying in broad strokes... then I see all the wrong in your replies.... and I have to go at it one by one...

---

And you miss the option where this bending was done over a long time and that is why it's not broken.

Well that’d be plausible if the top layers were not also bent, but they are, so that indicates the bending happened after all of the layers were deposited, even the top ones. I would have to look it up but I believe they also find crystalized structures in a lot of this sedimentary rock that are only formed by intense heat and pressure, which would not form under very gradual bending.

LOL, you could if the bending came after the crystallization process.

Water contaminates radioisotopes causing them to show a more advanced decay than they should?

Water can violate the assumption of a closed system, yes.

Are you implying that the flood water carried isotopes from older rock into younger rock, thus making it look older?... and managed to implant them in the material in such a way that is equivalent to our particle accelerators? Water can accelerate ions and implant them in the material?
Water... bah... dude.... no way that is credible.

Oh, notice the conservation of angular momentum of the Earth-moon system... as the moon comes closer, the Earth rotates faster, as well as the moon, thus "decelerating" the moon as it comes closer to the Earth (with time moving backwards).

No, that’s backwards, the moon’s recession would have been faster in the past due to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum because the energy that is lost on Earth through tidal friction must be gained by the moon.

Remember the 70% sun output, which leaves water on Earth in the frozen solid state?... tidal friction has no effect... moon stays put in standard orbit.

With each reply, a new "creationist scientific fact" appears...
When I google "helium retention rates", all I get are creationist websites... And the first one shows exactly how unbiased this study was

Well the measurements were done by secular labs, that’s more unbiased than any study you can point me to, your side never has creationists do their measurements for them in order to remain unbiased now do they?

The measurements yes, the interpretation of those measurements... no.

Oh, but I don't even need to find the rebuttal in non-creationist sites... http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/original.html

I’ll stick to the actual peer-reviewed study; most of those objections have been addressed by Humphrey’s and are easily accessible.

Yes, indeed.... and the address has, in turn, been objected to again.

Samples collected by a team devoted to proving a point.... and then they do prove that point...
Smells fishy.
And, since the first results were from 2005, I'd expect them to have found other zircons where the helium retention was also supporting the 6000 year old model... Sadly, I see no such thing, Only references to that original research site.... mighty fishy.

Even Archeopteryx has been discovered in several sites!

Science keeps evolving... if one method is found to have some downsides, then its scope becomes reduced.

Wasn’t one of your justifications for the method the fact that all of the different radiometric methods allegedly agree with one another? Well do they or don’t they?

They all tend to agree, but, clearly, not always.... we try to understand why is that and then catalog the boundaries of each method.

You don't use a mercury thermometer to measure oven temperature, do you?

As you may have noticed in that Helium retention fiasco, each rock can be dated by more than one radioisotope... if one fails, then scientists try to find out why. They discover that, under some conditions the K-Ar method is not reliable... and promptly came up with another more reliable method.

If you do not already know the age of the rocks beforehand then how do you know which method is failing and which one is yielding accurate results?

There are more than 2 isotopes which get measured... if all agree, except one, then something is awry with that one in particular... like the case with the helium in zircons...

Perhaps there are some special conditions in which those strands of DNA can last that long

What, like a time machine?

Like... I don't know. I don't study the thing...
And apparently, not even those who do study the thing know... let them study before jumping to conclusions.

Science is not based of unsubstantiated claims.

Yup, but good science makes successful predictions, and this was a big one for the Creation model.

Predictions based on wishful thinking that come true are very frowned upon... And require lots and lots of checking until they're accepted.

I missed the part where it's a problem...

Sub-freezing global temperatures = no abiogenesis.

And no tidal moon drift too!

Errr.... you are aware of thermal gradients... At the vent it may be too hot... but a bit further out.... just enough to keep the water from freezing... let's say, above zero degrees Centigrade.

Now you’ve got no catalyst for the reaction. You’d be better served not trying to defend abiogenesis, it’s a fool’s errand my friend.

Oh I don't?
Which catalyst would that be? Do you know how to make life from lifelessness?

If the sun is 5 billion years old, then the Earth and all planets in the solar system must be less than that. And what do you know?... they are!

Yes, 6,000 is less than 5.0 * !0^9

AHAHAH... can't say I wasn't expecting that...

4.5*10^9 is also less than 5*10^9.
Any number below 5*10^9 is less than 5*10^9.

Wait... do you mean that the Sun may be 5 billion years old, but not the Earth?... was the sun not part of your creation myth?

---

TLDR... or not.
Well, Stat, I have to thank you. Thanks for making me research on about these things and learning the state of the art in the scientific knowledge of these fields... even so, what I've learned is very lacking, compared to all that's been done by scientists... but I have a rough idea of how the solar system came into being, then the Earth-moon system... and a good deal more solid notion on radiometric dating mechanisms.

As it stands.... circa 5 *10^9 years ago, our sun ignited. Materials from the nebula where it ignited orbited around it and gathered in to clumps, then into proto-planets. At some point, more than 4.5*10^9 years ago, the 3rd and 4th proto-planets collided and resulted in a larger proto-planet, the Earth, and a smaller one orbiting it, the moon. At this moment, the rotation speed of the whole system was fast, each day taking about 2 hours. Then both proto-planets cooled off from their magma state and this is when the radioisotopes froze into place. The moon cooled quicker so it has no discernible magma, at the moment. The Earth is still cooling, but clearly the surface has cooled enough.
In the beginning, the water at the surface of the earth froze, because the internal heat from the planet wasn't reaching the surface and the heat from the sun was about 70% of what it is now, not letting the planet's surface reach a temperature high enough for water to be in liquid state.
However, there were a few conduits from the core to the surface, which, in contact with this ice, melted it and produced the required soup, as well as temperature to form proteins, later amino-acids, and later yet, life.