Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[daws101]

Again, demonstrating your condescending bullshit.

It just never stops with you, but that is because you are too stupid to realize that you have lost.

it's not condescending or bullshit .
the stupidity is yours or willful ignorance. it's hard to tell with you guys.
the facts: modern dating are not for any practical purposes flawed.
there is no evidence for a young earth.
there is no proof for or against the existence of a god or thousands of them.
any theory that presupposes god is a false premise and not evidence.
faith in a god or gods is subjective and cannot and should not be argued as fact.

get it.

No, YOU don't get it. Dating can be flawed, and mistakes are often made that peer review fails to catch.

And there is evidence of God, but people determined to not recognize it can always come up with some hypothetical scenario to essplain things, from imaginary time to human beings just being lucky enough to win the Great Cosmic Dice Roll.

And in theology one starts with axioms or revelation as a starting point and it is no less rational than science is.

Short comings in scientific knowledge do not prove God, but the overwhelming 'fine tuned' nature of our universe make is not only plausible but highly probable.

But no doubt you can find some other essplanation that you would prefer; ANYTHING other than GAWD! Now that is irrational.

theology like belief in a invisible friend are by definition not rational..

 

[daws101]

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years?


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

Kyle Butt

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.
another non credible source (cue buzzer ) thanks for playing.

 

[daws101]

funny how the asshandie always says that to the ass hander.
please post were I have lied or twisted anything.
curiosity is why I post here..

Everyone saw our exchange plus many other times I just chose not to make you look like the fool you're and I am sure others have done the same thing as myself.

I love it when you have that hallucination. you've never made me look foolish. I realize you believe you did but as always, your belief is false.
the "others" you yammer about suffer from the same delusional thinking you do, so any judgment "they" make is as erroneous as yours..

 

[daws101]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

holy shit a testimony.... from a creationist site....how NOT evidence that is...
still have no clue what a false premise is, do you.

 

[daws101]

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years?


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

You are wasting your time with daws. He isn't looking for facts about anything; he already knows everything.

no not everything...just enough to point out the major flaws in deity belief.
in actuality i'm a the more you learn the less you know kinda guy.
you guys on the other hand.......

 

[Youwerecreated]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

holy shit a testimony.... from a creationist site....how NOT evidence that is...
still have no clue what a false premise is, do you.

I notice you didn't respond to his evidence nor did your buddy hollie.

 

[daws101]

experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response ...

go fuck yourself

When you are on your knees in church, do you let the priest put the flesh of his mangod right into your mouth or do you hold it in your hand ??

Do you swallow right away or do you let is get all soft in your mouth first?

kinda gives the term "taking the sacrament" a whole new dimension...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone saw our exchange plus many other times I just chose not to make you look like the fool you're and I am sure others have done the same thing as myself.

I love it when you have that hallucination. you've never made me look foolish. I realize you believe you did but as always, your belief is false.
the "others" you yammer about suffer from the same delusional thinking you do, so any judgment "they" make is as erroneous as yours..

Everyone saw how full of bullshit you were

 

[daws101]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

holy shit a testimony.... from a creationist site....how NOT evidence that is...
still have no clue what a false premise is, do you.

I notice you didn't respond to his evidence nor did your buddy hollie.

because it's not evidence..see false premise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years?


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

Kyle Butt

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.
another non credible source (cue buzzer ) thanks for playing.

It was the sources the man used

 

[daws101]

I love it when you have that hallucination. you've never made me look foolish. I realize you believe you did but as always, your belief is false.
the "others" you yammer about suffer from the same delusional thinking you do, so any judgment "they" make is as erroneous as yours..

Everyone saw how full of bullshit you were

right! lol! who the fuck is everyone?

 

[daws101]

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.

bhahahahahahahaha!

 

[Youwerecreated]

holy shit a testimony.... from a creationist site....how NOT evidence that is...
still have no clue what a false premise is, do you.

I notice you didn't respond to his evidence nor did your buddy hollie.

because it's not evidence..see false premise.

How is it a false premise him sending in rocks with a known age to see what age is placed on these rocks using these so called accurate dating methods ?

You really like making shit up.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone saw how full of bullshit you were

right! lol! who the fuck is everyone?

Everyone that saw you spin and lie to try and hide your ignorance.

 

[daws101]

Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

There are more than one assumption that is in error.



Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

There are more than one assumption that is in error.



Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.

We have been discussing the same exact things that is carried out by your side lol.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

There are more than one assumption that is in error.



Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.

Please point out the pseudoscience content and be specific.

 

[daws101]

right! lol! who the fuck is everyone?

Everyone that saw you spin and lie to try and hide your ignorance.

not an answer .who is everyone?
I have nothing to hide or lie about .
it's obvious who the ignorant poster is..

 

[daws101]

There are more than one assumption that is in error.



Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

edited for pseudoscience content.... and religious bias.

We have been discussing the same exact things that is carried out by your side lol.

only in your dreams...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good weekend everyone and you to cock breath.