Did God use evolution to create life

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You are absolutely wrong about "mental illnesses" "Not showing up in the stool" or blood tests.

Long term sufferers of Chagas have high levels of brain toxicity which leads to all types of impairment.

As I pointed out before (and as you ignored) most researchers have settled upon Chagas as the disease Darwin suffered from after his return from the Beagle voyage and throughout the rest of his life.

Coadie, evidently you and Pelathais have a long-running feud going. From a strictly objective point of view, can I just observe that you were knocked out in the first round a long time ago?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

...
Like i said earlier, how do we know the velocity of decay rates and the initial starting values.

Because the decay rate is determined by one of the four fundamental forces that govern the way our universe behaves. To alter the decay rate or to even give the appearance that the decay rate has been altered you would have to fuse the rock sample, fossil or whatever at temperatures equivalent to the core of the sun.

That would destroy your sample material and render the whole question of its age moot. Suffice to say, if you have a recognizable sample or fossil or whatever - then the radio isotopes within your sample have been decaying at a constant rate since the time the sample was formed.

Johnson, Bill, 1993. How to change nuclear decay rates. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...cay_rates.html

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is an interesting article.http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is another article.http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by BroGary

Here is another interesting video -

KIRK CAMERON MAKES ATHEIST DOUBT DARWINISM

Seemed to me that Cameron caused to "atheist" to doubt whether or not Kirk himself was even sane!

Kirk simply lies with his statement that "no transitional fossils have been found." He plays the same dishonest game coadie and BroGary are playing here. I gave a list of 173 transitional fossils and asked that you guys debunk just 10% of them.

****** SILENCE ******** was the only response.

I then debunked Jason Lisle's book (and the videos BroGary keeps reposting). Gary has not even responded! He just keeps reposting the Lisle videos.

What are you guys afraid of? Why don't you respond? You play the same pathological game Kirk ("Camera On") Cameron does. You will never see Kirk and his sock puppet (what's his name? with the mustache) actually engaged in a public discussion.

They always hide in front of their own camera men in their own production studios.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Here is an interesting article.http://creation.com/how-long-were-the-days-of-genesis-1

Nothing new here, Scotty. Same worn out mantra as what thinking people have already rejected.

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

Here is another article.http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/youngearth.html

This site does a good job of evaluating the "Young Earth" claims. I'd stay on this site for a bit.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by coadie

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

The point is that a 1% difference doesn't do anything to help you show that radioactive dating methods could put the earth in the 6000-10000 year range. In fact a 1% change won't even take the age of the earth out of the billions of years.

So, while some variation may occur, to use that to say the earth isn't billions of years old is deceitful. The amount of variation is an important observation to consider when determining what effect the said variation will have.

So assuming there is variation is there anyway to reduce the half-life of potassium to around 3000 years (a reduction of 99.9997%)? And if so what conditions would be required for the half-life to change that much?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by jfrog

The point is that a 1% difference doesn't do anything to help you show that radioactive dating methods could put the earth in the 6000-10000 year range. In fact a 1% change won't even take the age of the earth out of the billions of years.

So, while some variation may occur, to use that to say the earth isn't billions of years old is deceitful. The amount of variation is an important observation to consider when determining what effect the said variation will have.

So assuming there is variation is there anyway to reduce the half-life of potassium to around 3000 years (a reduction of 99.9997%)? And if so what conditions would be required for the half-life to change that much?

Despite his attempts at confusing folks with his educational claims, coadie has never really shown that he possesses the faculties needed to understand the math. Hence his "1% of dog poop" response.

The scientific community is simply being honest when they express things as existing within a particular time frame of "plus or minus" whatever. I think that's what baffles coadie the most. Honesty.

[Fiyahstarter]

32 Pages in...

Still trying to reconcile science to Bible???

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by coadie

1% is a massive amount short period of time.

You wouldn't mind flying an airplane with 1% water in the fuel?

A batch of brownies with 1% dog poop.

Well, a 1% difference when describing a drive from Rhode Island to San Diego may make a difference of plus or minus 10 minutes. It wouldn't make a 40 hour trip into a 10 minutes one.

Your comparison to dog poop or water in airplane fuel is sort of nonsensical to put it mildly.