Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

Radioactive decay is so astonishingly accurate that we make the most accurate clocks in history using that principle. Clocks that lose a fraction of a second over millenia.

Decay rates are absolutely accurate, they can be correlated with number of other factors. Take for example the use of radioactive decay to date the age of the earth - it is one of some nineteen different methods, all of which give the same result.

So next time you wonder how accurate radioactive decay dating methods are - just think of the Olympics. They time the races that way

JM2C

Just FYI, radio active decay as a dating technique is so astonishingly accurate that the same phenomenon is used to time the races in the Olympics.

You are talking about a contained environment radioactive decaying or a calculator, sure you could do that, but when you’re talking about those found in situ almost all of them are contaminated so it all now depends on when the radioactive isotopes or radioisotopes starts the “clock” on which no one can ever pinpoint the exact time or when the “clock” started.

IOW, in theory all they have are age assignments or estimates based on their skewed millions of years doctrines and not on standard studies.

 

[jonathan180iq]

So why people die if all this complex organism does not become simpler but become more orderly and complex as we age?

Huh? Things don't become more orderly and complex as we age. Things break down as we age...

Entropy - Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People should live forever if from inorganic to organic to man is the foundation of life or any life here on earth. Have you ever thought of that? Of course not!

No. The foundation of life has nothing to do with us. We are but one means in how life expresses itself. There are literally billions of other ways in which life expresses itself. For example, how alive would you and I be without plants? Short answer, we would all be dead. But life would not end just because there were no humans or land-animals, right?

And yes, I have thought about it... Don't make assumptions about people you don't know.

Just imagine a human being, while alive, has about 100 trillion living cells. Now, if man came from a single dead molecule and produced 100 trillions of living cells and as we age it becomes more orderly and complex, then why do we die? Was it because cells die? I thought they become more orderly and complex from a single dead molecule?

Perfect example! Although I never said that a human being came from a single dead cell... You today came from two single living cells when your parent's did the horizontal mombo, right? That's not magic - it's just gestation...

Also, ask yourself this, are the cells that make up your body today the same cells you have when you were born, or are they all reproductions of that long-dead cells from the beginning of your conception?

There are billions and billions of things alive in you and on you that will exist and continue to live well after you die.
JM2C will be long dead before the cells that exist all throughout your body get recycled back into the system of Planet Earth.

A single dead molecule does not have any information but gave life to 100 trillions of cells with information.

A single dead cell reproduced itself into multiple single living cells before it died, didn't it? Just like your children will live well past your death, so too do individual cells have offspring which live well past their parent's deaths.

It’s like a dead wood dummy teaching the ventriloquist how to talk, or a single dead molecule giving information to a living cell.

No, it's not...
The wood that become that dummy started as a single seed before spending 15-30 years growing in a forest. Then it was cut down, harvested, chopped into rails, sold at a lumber yard, taken by a craftsman, sawed to size, and then hammered and sanded into a puppet... The cells that exist in and on that puppet started as incredibly simple microscopic "things" falling randomly somewhere in the woods a long time ago. You're no different.

Have you seen something or anything that does not deteriorate in the orderly and complex world that you are living in?

No. All things die. Humanity will die. This planet will die. Our sun will die. This solar system will die. The Milky Way Galaxy will die. The entire Universe even, will die.

Entropy.

What “right conditions” was he talking about? Open system or closed system? Can you explain this?

For all we know this Universe is a closed system. Until we get better data, all we know is that this Universe exists alone. Thus, all matter and energy contained within this Universe is all there is. Because of that, because nothing can come in or go out, this Universe is destined to die a long and slow heat death.

As far as right conditions, it does't take too much once a planetary system has formed for the process of coalescence into abiogenetic life to take over. Gravity and matter are all you need for solar systems. A few organic compounds, which are formed in the bellies of collapsing stars are all that is needed for life to form on those planets... The early atmosphere of Earth was a strange mixture of Methane, Ammonia, some Oxygen, and just incredible amounts of Carbon Dioxide. (Just look at Venus...) From that early soup, life as we know it would not do very well. But, thankfully, life as we know it isn't what formed in that nasty mix. It started with a few amino acids (proteins) and then replicated itself in all sorts of weird ways, including producing Adenine, which is one of the bases of RNA. A few lucky breaks later we had Cytosine, Guanine, and Uracil, forming a complete RNA strand. From there, the rest is history... You are alive because some stuff that was not alive was able to bond chemically in a nasty soup of death. Simple mono-cellular organisms eventually produced multi-celled organisms which eventually produced more and more multi-celled organisms until your parents were born.

That's it. It's simple. It's dirty. It's elegant. It's beautiful and it's how you and I came to be.

 

[JM2C]

The Hippo's tail does only measure about 18 to 20 inches. That thick tail can be rigidly upright to swing it about like a tree.

Having a tail ' like a cedar ' does Not have to mean cedar in height or length but in thickness.

When you look at the Petronas Towers what is the first thing in your mind? The World Trade Center or the Twin Towers in NY. When God described the Behemoth’s tail, the first thing in His mind is the Cedar tree.

 

[jonathan180iq]

...Radiometric dating is not based on standard studies...

Please educate yourself a little more on the topic.

Reliability of Geologic Dating

 

[outhouse]

Actually Dr. Mary Schweitzer is not a creationist. If you google Dr. Mary Schweitzer and iron you should be able to find it.

Mary Higby Schweitzer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Schweitzer has also discovered that iron particles may play a part in the preservation of soft tissue over geologic time

No mystery here, and not one bit of here work changes anything against the current dating methods.

Fail on your part.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The known physics (which you misrepresent as an "assumption") says that argon will escape from rocks that were molten during the eruption. Inclusions that were not molten at that time will contain Argon that started accumulating when they were last molten, which is before the eruption.
If you date only the parts of the rock that was molten for known eruption dates that are far enough back for sufficient argon to be detectable then the dates match, especially when using the newer and more accurate Ar/Ar dating is now the preferred method for dating such rocks. Tests using Ar/Ar dating have matched know eruption dates such as Vesuvius in 79 C.E.
So yes K-Ar dating as accurate and so is Ar/Ar dating. Of course this is when it is used properly rather than perverted by creationists.

Interesting post ^above^, but what about dating things before the Deluge of Noah's day ?
Can such flooding have an effect on the rate of decay dating methods.

We know how accurate CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation ) dating is because of the accuracy of microwaves.
Thus, through CMBR we can know the accurate dating of the earth and universe, but just how far back can dating things on earth be with K-Ar /Ar/Ar ?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You don't think that man evolved from apes is what you mean? You accept evolution at least to some degree but just no with humans?

Right, man did Not evolve from apes, fish, etc. but created from the dust of the ground.
We see No evidence today of ape or fish being in any transition stage of evolving into human.
But we do see evidence of man returning to the dust of the ground as did father Adam - Gen. 3:19

Since the Bible is silent about lower forms of life, then yes, if God chose to have lower-life evolve that would be No problem for the Creator of all things. All living things however come from life. Life does Not come from non-life. Inanimate Adam only became a living person after God ' breathed the breath of life ' into created life-less Adam.- Genesis 2:7
Without or before God's ' breath of life' then Adam would have been like a life-less manikin doll.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I don't know what you are referring to specifically? I goggled it and all I found was some crazy creationist lady that was having some kind of meltdown at a museum and was throwing around what seemed to be misinformation and common intentional ignorance. Link perhaps?

I think I heard of the Statue of Liberty as being called the Iron Lady ?

 

[metis]

The fact that humans have gone though an evolutionary process is virtually indisputable except with those who prefer to use their religion as a set of blinders. All material changes over time, and genes are material, so common sense should tell anyone that humans and other life forms would have to evolve over time unless they go extinct.

It begs the question why there's so many people who will blindly accept what they read from sources written thousands of years old by people they don't even know, and then actually ignore both scientific evidence and common sense. How does that make one iota of sense?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why the Jews are observing the Sabbath on the 7th day if the “six creative days” is not literal? Let’s for example say that the “six creative days” are 6,000 years, is that mean the Jews would have to observed the Sabbath after 6,000 years?
YES ”mankind in NOT of animal”

Not literal 24-hour days, but literal unknown length-of-time days.
Where does Scripture say each of the creative days are of the same length of time ?
We do know, according to Hebrews 4 vs 4-11, that God's 7th-day rest was still on going in Paul's day.
Resting that is from further creative works - John 5:17

Mosaic Law Sabbath keeping ended for the Christan congregation at Pentecost.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

When you look at the Petronas Towers what is the first thing in your mind? The World Trade Center or the Twin Towers in NY. When God described the Behemoth’s tail, the first thing in His mind is the Cedar tree.

Thickness or width Not height. Not how long but how sturdy wide.

 

[jonathan180iq]

We see No evidence today of ape or fish being in any transition stage of evolving into human.

Life does Not come from non-life.

It can.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You mean Lucy to the Nebraska Man? I thought they were frauds.

I have no idea why you think Lucy is a fraud. As I've pointed out twice now, scientists have found the remains of more than 300 individuals of the Australopithecus afarensis species.

Nebraska man wasn’t so much a fraud as a misidentification that was never really accepted by the scientific community at large.

Huh?

The question I asked you when you provided Bible verses as evidence against evolution, which was:

Why should words from the Bible count as evidence, or hold any weight at all? Especially in light of empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

[SkepticThinker]

which part did I misquote?

Are you serious? That has been explained to you ad nauseam.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If that was too 'mined' I can expand the quote if it helps

In the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years (evolutionists are now dating the beginning of the Cambrian at about 530 million years), are the oldest in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.

No, it doesn't help to quote mine the same thing over and over in every thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

education and academia. Will you let go of these words please. The reason why you and I and the others are here is because we are not in school studying these things. Our main source of info is google and wiki so please stop pretending you went to school to study any of these things we are talking about.

I don't know about you, but I did actually study these things in school.

 

[David M]

Interesting post ^above^, but what about dating things before the Deluge of Noah's day ?
Can such flooding have an effect on the rate of decay dating methods.

We know how accurate CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation ) dating is because of the accuracy of microwaves.
Thus, through CMBR we can know the accurate dating of the earth and universe, but just how far back can dating things on earth be with K-Ar /Ar/Ar ?

No, even if it happened. such flooding cannot affect rates of radioactive decay. The only known type of decay that can be altered is electron capture, one type of Beta decay. That is because capture is slightly influenced by the energy states of electrons and the effects of pressure in forcing electrons and nuclei into closer proximity. However the change is still minor in the range of a few percent and that is when you reach temperatures and pressures never encountered on a planets surface (outside a handful of modern labs of course).

The big thing about suggesting that there are alterations to the rates of radioactive decay is that it releases energy, which is mostly transformed into heat when we are talking about decay inside the planet. For radioactive decay to have been accelerated to the levels required to support a dating change compatibly with a Noachian flood would mean the release of millions of years of energy every day, that would turn the earth back into a ball of molten rock.

Its the same with claims of rapid plate tectonics causing mountain building after a Noachian Flood. Tectonic movement involves massive amounts of energy when you consider the mass involved and rock does deform but only when the change is incredibly slow, when it happens quickly rock shatters. Rapid tectonic movement of the type needed to build high mountains post Noachian Flood would cause earthquakes on a truly massive, if not global, scale and would result in obvious amounts of evidence in the form of faulting and cracking. A similar situation arises with rapid volcanism, the Deccan Traps contain about 12,000 cubic miles of basalt, that level of eruption in a short period of time post Noachian Flood (rather than over the 5 million years it took to happen) would have probably wiped out all life on the planet.

Meteor impacts produce the same issues, there are a very large number of big surface craters around the world, that level of bombardment would again almost certainly wipe out all life, it would certainly be noticeable if it all happened post flood.

For both K/Ar and Ar/Ar dating the half-lives are over a billion years so both methods are suitable for dating ancient rock. For the oldest rocks there are also other dating methods. Its mainly very new rock that can only be dated with difficulty using methods such as K/AR, so little decay has happened that even the best instruments can't detect a date within the margins of error imposed by the technology.

 

[gnostic]

Not literal 24-hour days, but literal unknown length-of-time days.
Where does Scripture say each of the creative days are of the same length of time ?

No, the bible doesn't state 24-hour day.

No one here is claiming it was 24-hour day except you, so you have basically bludgeon this straw man to death.

But Genesis was very clear and explicit that one "creative day" is "evening and morning". So it does mean a day is equaled to light and darkness, or day and night:

4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

The same pattern of "And there was evening and there was morning...the ____ day." is repeated 5 more day in Genesis 1.

What does that tell me, URAVVIP2ME?

I don't know how I can make any clearer to you. Sure, it does say hours, or 24-hour, but "there was evening and there was morning", is not unknown measure of time.

It tell me that a "day" in Genesis 1, is just that - a day - and that "day" comprises of "evening and morning".

What It doesn't say the "evening and morning" is made of one year, one decade, one century or one millennium.

What is written in 2 Peter 3:8, about "one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day", which SOME Christians used to interpret Genesis 1, is nothing but apologetic BS. This verse by Peter has nothing to do with Genesis 1.

The correct way to interpret Peter's verse (3:8), is that one day and one thousand years have no meaning to this Lord, but it say nothing about creation. The theme about 1 Peter 3, and I am talking about the whole chapter, is that God is willing to wait for any amount of time for you to repent of your sin, whether that be 1 day from now, or 1000 years. It had nothing to do with Genesis 1.

Genesis 1 is very specific about each day, is nothing more than just one "evening and morning".

So your claim that it is "but literal unknown length-of-time days.", is BS, because it does say "evening and morning" in verses 1:5, 1:8, 1:13, 1:19 1:23 & 1:31. To say that "evening and morning" is "unknown" measure of time, only just show the absurdity of your dishonesty.

One of the reason why I didn't convert and become Christians, is people like you, trying to twist words around, to make the bible say what you believe it say, taking verses out of context. That's the sort of dishonesty, I wouldn't want to be associated with.

The chapter (Genesis 1) may not specify 24 hours, but it is very specific with the time frame for each day: "And there was evening and there was morning..."

2 Peter 3 was written from different time with different theme to Genesis 1, so you can't really them together, as if they are related when they are not.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually Dr. Mary Schweitzer is not a creationist. If you google Dr. Mary Schweitzer and iron you should be able to find it.

I didn't say she was. You stated something about the "Iron Lady". I don't know who that was. I already linked you to an article where Dr. Mary Schweitzer actually rebuttals the creationists claims of her work. Even your source material says your wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Right, man did Not evolve from apes, fish, etc. but created from the dust of the ground.
We see No evidence today of ape or fish being in any transition stage of evolving into human.
But we do see evidence of man returning to the dust of the ground as did father Adam - Gen. 3:19

Since the Bible is silent about lower forms of life, then yes, if God chose to have lower-life evolve that would be No problem for the Creator of all things. All living things however come from life. Life does Not come from non-life. Inanimate Adam only became a living person after God ' breathed the breath of life ' into created life-less Adam.- Genesis 2:7
Without or before God's ' breath of life' then Adam would have been like a life-less manikin doll.

Every single lifeform is a transitional form. There are no forms that are "non-transitional". We do see change and we have a strong DNA and Fossil record to provide evidence of human evolution. Are you simply not aware of the evidence or are you simply denying the evidence? If you deny the evidence please provide the reasoning as to why. Don't quote the bible.