Comments on: Calling the Earth to Witness http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:52:13 +0000 By: Jim Baerg http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-32244 Jim Baerg Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:49:28 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-32244 To Wayne: We can create lots of isotopes using fission reactors or particle accelerators, & then measure the properties of those isotopes. That's where the information in a 'table of the nuclides' comes from. As for knowing that the isotope ever existed naturally in the solar system: In some cases it's based on observations & calculations on what happens in supernovas, that we expect a mix of *everything* to be made. In other cases we deduce this from odd ratios of stable isotopes in very old minerals. Eg: in some meteorites there are aluminum minerals with some magnesium in them that have an oddly high amount of Mg26 in the magnesium. Al26 decays to Mg26 with a half life of 740000 years. The best explanation for this is that the minerals in the meteor formed from elements made in a supernova that occurred less that a few million years before. This is part of the reason for thinking that the collapse of an interstellar cloud of dust & gas to form the solar system was triggered by a nearby supernova. To Wayne:
We can create lots of isotopes using fission reactors or particle accelerators, & then measure the properties of those isotopes. That's where the information in a 'table of the nuclides' comes from.

As for knowing that the isotope ever existed naturally in the solar system: In some cases it's based on observations & calculations on what happens in supernovas, that we expect a mix of *everything* to be made.

In other cases we deduce this from odd ratios of stable isotopes in very old minerals. Eg: in some meteorites there are aluminum minerals with some magnesium in them that have an oddly high amount of Mg26 in the magnesium. Al26 decays to Mg26 with a half life of 740000 years. The best explanation for this is that the minerals in the meteor formed from elements made in a supernova that occurred less that a few million years before. This is part of the reason for thinking that the collapse of an interstellar cloud of dust & gas to form the solar system was triggered by a nearby supernova.

]]> By: Wayne Essel http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-32241 Wayne Essel Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:11:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-32241 I can't seem to find in this thread how one calculates the decay rate of an isotope that is no longer detectable. Do you calculate it based on mass/particle ratios? How does one know that the isotope even existed? Just curious... I can't seem to find in this thread how one calculates the decay rate of an isotope that is no longer detectable. Do you calculate it based on mass/particle ratios?

How does one know that the isotope even existed?

Just curious...

]]> By: spaceman spif http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-31643 spaceman spif Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:34:37 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-31643 Late getting to this thread, but an excellent read. And an excellent counter to the "God created the universe this way" argument...if he really did create it 6000 years ago, but put in evidence that it's much older, then he put in evidence that he knew would be deceiving lots of people straight into hell. Not very nice! Late getting to this thread, but an excellent read. And an excellent counter to the "God created the universe this way" argument...if he really did create it 6000 years ago, but put in evidence that it's much older, then he put in evidence that he knew would be deceiving lots of people straight into hell. Not very nice!

]]> By: theistscientist http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-29922 theistscientist Sat, 05 Jan 2008 07:48:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-29922 I am not YEC, although God certainly could have done it that way. The same God capable of causing the first cause, creating first matter, and causing that matter to create more matter, then organizing it into such an intelligently designed Universe, could easily use "proces", including big bang, evolution(if he so chose)and /or a hybrid of both naturalistic and transcendental processes. The Bible indicates that our time on earth is a typology of process,testing and preparing us for eternity. I also know that ancient words for very large numbers often tend to be truncated or symbolic,eg (ten thousand thousands) (as many as the stars in the sky) I see no theological problem with a certain degfreee of flexibility here. Secular science, particularly cosmology is very flexible with itself I note also. I am not YEC, although God certainly could have done it that way. The same God capable of causing the first cause, creating first matter, and causing that matter to create more matter, then organizing it into such an intelligently designed Universe, could easily use "proces", including big bang, evolution(if he so chose)and /or a hybrid of both naturalistic and transcendental processes. The Bible indicates that our time on earth is a typology of process,testing and preparing us for eternity. I also know that ancient words for very large numbers often tend to be truncated or symbolic,eg (ten thousand thousands) (as many as the stars in the sky) I see no theological problem with a certain degfreee of flexibility here. Secular science, particularly cosmology is very flexible with itself I note also.

]]> By: heliobates http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28630 heliobates Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:56:34 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28630 <blockquote>Why does a "fully-grown Universe" have plenty of vanadium-50 and hafnium-174, but no curium-147 or lead-205? If God had created the cosmos with initially equal amounts of these isotopes 6,000 years ago, they'd all still be around.</blockquote> This, Logismous Kathairountes, is the crux of Adam's argument and the point you've deliberately avoided addressing. Put another way, if the anthropo- and ethnocentric version of history presented in the bible is true, then what's the point of the rest of the universe? If you answer "I dunno, God has his reasons" then you're abdicating a rational defense of your position. What I find interesting is the way in which believers expect their beliefs to be privileged. <i>That</i> you assert something as a belief seems to be all the work you're willing to do. We metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, feel the need to only hold justified beliefs and the justification is available evidence. The evidence supports an incomprehensibly old universe and a planet that formed in Deep Time. You may dismiss isotopes as insufficient to shake the foundation of your faith, but if you're also going to dismiss sea floor spreading, the geologic column, the speed of light in a vacuum, WMAP and cosmic background radiation and the genetic evidence for evolution, then the tenor of your "faith" has a very strong motif of "La la la I can't heeear youuu!"

Why does a "fully-grown Universe" have plenty of vanadium-50 and hafnium-174, but no curium-147 or lead-205? If God had created the cosmos with initially equal amounts of these isotopes 6,000 years ago, they'd all still be around.

This, Logismous Kathairountes, is the crux of Adam's argument and the point you've deliberately avoided addressing. Put another way, if the anthropo- and ethnocentric version of history presented in the bible is true, then what's the point of the rest of the universe? If you answer "I dunno, God has his reasons" then you're abdicating a rational defense of your position.

What I find interesting is the way in which believers expect their beliefs to be privileged. That you assert something as a belief seems to be all the work you're willing to do. We metaphysical naturalists, on the other hand, feel the need to only hold justified beliefs and the justification is available evidence.

The evidence supports an incomprehensibly old universe and a planet that formed in Deep Time. You may dismiss isotopes as insufficient to shake the foundation of your faith, but if you're also going to dismiss sea floor spreading, the geologic column, the speed of light in a vacuum, WMAP and cosmic background radiation and the genetic evidence for evolution, then the tenor of your "faith" has a very strong motif of "La la la I can't heeear youuu!"

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28625 Ebonmuse Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:11:39 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28625 For Logismous Kathairountes: <blockquote>The Universe we see is what a fully-grown Universe looks like - How is that deceptive?</blockquote> Because the universe we observe doesn't merely have an appearance of age, but an appearance of <i>history</i>. Based on the evidence, it looks as if it came into existence at a specific time and that certain things have happened at various times since then. If your beliefs are correct, then none of that history ever happened, and all this evidence was falsified and planted to deceive us. Why does a "fully-grown Universe" have plenty of vanadium-50 and hafnium-174, but no curium-147 or lead-205? If God had created the cosmos with initially equal amounts of these isotopes 6,000 years ago, they'd all still be around. The fact that long-lived isotopes still exist on Earth, but shorter-lived isotopes do not, indicates that the Earth has existed for at least several billion years. In other words, it indicates that the Earth has a history. We would not be able to draw that conclusion if all the isotopes I listed above still existed, or if the list was randomly distributed as to which ones existed and which ones didn't, rather than showing the clear pattern that you can see above. You mentioned that God created Adam "fully grown". But to make that analogy applicable, we'd have to assume that God created Adam with a bellybutton, an appendectomy scar, and a tattoo reading "Mom". That would be the state that a deity would have had to create the first human being in to be analogous to the state in which we find the universe. For Logismous Kathairountes:

The Universe we see is what a fully-grown Universe looks like - How is that deceptive?

Because the universe we observe doesn't merely have an appearance of age, but an appearance of history. Based on the evidence, it looks as if it came into existence at a specific time and that certain things have happened at various times since then. If your beliefs are correct, then none of that history ever happened, and all this evidence was falsified and planted to deceive us.

Why does a "fully-grown Universe" have plenty of vanadium-50 and hafnium-174, but no curium-147 or lead-205? If God had created the cosmos with initially equal amounts of these isotopes 6,000 years ago, they'd all still be around. The fact that long-lived isotopes still exist on Earth, but shorter-lived isotopes do not, indicates that the Earth has existed for at least several billion years. In other words, it indicates that the Earth has a history. We would not be able to draw that conclusion if all the isotopes I listed above still existed, or if the list was randomly distributed as to which ones existed and which ones didn't, rather than showing the clear pattern that you can see above.

You mentioned that God created Adam "fully grown". But to make that analogy applicable, we'd have to assume that God created Adam with a bellybutton, an appendectomy scar, and a tattoo reading "Mom". That would be the state that a deity would have had to create the first human being in to be analogous to the state in which we find the universe.

]]> By: MJJP http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28615 MJJP Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:57:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28615 "Like I said, I already believe that He created Adam and Eve fully-grown. I don't think He created them that way to trick them into thinking that they were once children. I think that He wanted some fully-grown human beings, and so He created some fully-grown human beings. Probably He just created an entire fully-grown Universe without having it pass through it's 'childhood' stages. The Universe we see is what a fully-grown Universe looks like - How is that deceptive?" Logismous K ============= It's deceptive in the fact that it contradicts everything we know to be correct when tested over and over. You are not reading what is in the original post or you fail to understand it. The elements listed above and found on earth have known decay rates and have decayed or are decaying based on their age. It is no different than the flood story. If there had been a worldwide flood as the bible implies WHY does the geologic strata defy the evidence? What purpose would God have of ordering such a calamity only to hide the evidence of such an event? "Like I said, I already believe that He created Adam and Eve fully-grown. I don't think He created them that way to trick them into thinking that they were once children. I think that He wanted some fully-grown human beings, and so He created some fully-grown human beings. Probably He just created an entire fully-grown Universe without having it pass through it's 'childhood' stages. The Universe we see is what a fully-grown Universe looks like - How is that deceptive?"
Logismous K
=============
It's deceptive in the fact that it contradicts everything we know to be correct when tested over and over. You are not reading what is in the original post or you fail to understand it. The elements listed above and found on earth have known decay rates and have decayed or are decaying based on their age. It is no different than the flood story. If there had been a worldwide flood as the bible implies WHY does the geologic strata defy the evidence? What purpose would God have of ordering such a calamity only to hide the evidence of such an event?

]]> By: MJJP http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28614 MJJP Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:49:06 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28614 "Evidence like this shatters, beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt, the religious dogmas of a 6,000-year-old cosmos. " ========= Why is it so hard to get the evangelicals and others both in the school systems and politics to understand these basic fundamental facts? What scares me in this upcoming political season is the recent report that Mike Huckabee accepts the Noahs Ark tale as fact. "Evidence like this shatters, beyond all possibility of reasonable doubt, the religious dogmas of a 6,000-year-old cosmos. "
=========
Why is it so hard to get the evangelicals and others both in the school systems and politics to understand these basic fundamental facts? What scares me in this upcoming political season is the recent report that Mike Huckabee accepts the Noahs Ark tale as fact.

]]> By: Mrnaglfar http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28613 Mrnaglfar Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:47:12 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28613 Logismous Kathairountes, <blockquote>If you want to shake my faith, you have to take as a premise an assumption that I already believe, and argue your way towards a conclusion that I don't believe.</blockquote> -Where does god come from in the bible? -There are two different versions of the same event in the bible when it comes to creation. -Also, from only creating two people, how do you end up with any kind of diversity? The most they could do is have children, and then out of people to sleep with. Rampant incest which would lead to everyone being a genetic identical twin of each other, provided people would survive with all the genetic deficiencies (probably deficiencies designed by god too) -The bible makes no mentions of dinosaurs, nor do any anicent civiliation. Yet we have tons of fossils of them. Thoughts? I think that's a good four to start with. Logismous Kathairountes,

If you want to shake my faith, you have to take as a premise an assumption that I already believe, and argue your way towards a conclusion that I don't believe.

-Where does god come from in the bible?
-There are two different versions of the same event in the bible when it comes to creation.
-Also, from only creating two people, how do you end up with any kind of diversity? The most they could do is have children, and then out of people to sleep with. Rampant incest which would lead to everyone being a genetic identical twin of each other, provided people would survive with all the genetic deficiencies (probably deficiencies designed by god too)
-The bible makes no mentions of dinosaurs, nor do any anicent civiliation. Yet we have tons of fossils of them. Thoughts?

I think that's a good four to start with.

]]> By: Jack http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28612 Jack Sun, 18 Nov 2007 05:35:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/11/calling-the-earth-to-witness.html#comment-28612 Logismous - You argue that God could have made the universe "fully formed". But I assume he could have created a universe without radioisotopes in the first place, a universe that would be both fully formed and without any "deceptive" evidence to its age. Or he could have radioactive elements decay in such a way that our detectors get the message in Morse Code "Don't be fooled - the universe is only 6000 years old". He could have even blocked man from discovering radioisotopes in the first place so as to prevent mankind from getting confused about whether or not the bible is true. The problem is that the bible seems to say that God wants everyone to believe (and will damn those who don't), and yet the universe as we observe it seems to indicate that the bible is faulty in its chronology. The problem isn't just limited to radioisotopes - there are scores of incidents in the old testament and new (like the exodus, the star at Jesus' birth, etc) that do not line up with astronomical or archaeological evidence. In light of those problems, can we REALLY say that god wants everyone to know him and the bible is his revelation? Logismous - You argue that God could have made the universe "fully formed". But I assume he could have created a universe without radioisotopes in the first place, a universe that would be both fully formed and without any "deceptive" evidence to its age. Or he could have radioactive elements decay in such a way that our detectors get the message in Morse Code "Don't be fooled - the universe is only 6000 years old". He could have even blocked man from discovering radioisotopes in the first place so as to prevent mankind from getting confused about whether or not the bible is true. The problem is that the bible seems to say that God wants everyone to believe (and will damn those who don't), and yet the universe as we observe it seems to indicate that the bible is faulty in its chronology. The problem isn't just limited to radioisotopes - there are scores of incidents in the old testament and new (like the exodus, the star at Jesus' birth, etc) that do not line up with astronomical or archaeological evidence. In light of those problems, can we REALLY say that god wants everyone to know him and the bible is his revelation?

]]>