Originally posted by RJHinds"The heavy elements probably came from water. " you say. Then how?
The heavy elements probably came from water. And heavy metal came from a mixture of rock, blues, and jazz with increased volume.
Are you so out of your mind? Or is it just creationistic blabber?
The rest you wrote is just Alzheimer talking. Nonsensical.
09 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasI am not going to give away all the secrets of the universe.
"The heavy elements probably came from water. " you say. Then how?
Are you so out of your mind? Or is it just creationistic blabber?
The rest you wrote is just Alzheimer talking. Nonsensical.
The Near Genius
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would be because you are talking out your ass. You have no idea how heavy elements came to be, you just think Godidit and that's that.
I am not going to give away all the secrets of the universe.
The Near Genius
You don't want to hear about the fact we have CREATED heavy elements in atom smashers and we know EXACTLY how much energy it takes and where that energy abounds, heavy elements are made and that energy abounds in spades inside exploding stars.
But you, in your vast array of self induced ignorance, probably will even deny that stars blow up.
You are pathetic, don't even WANT to know the real world, instead, just stick your head in the sand and repeat goddidit godidit godidit godidit.
I can't hear you I'm sticking my fingers in my ears Nya Nya Nya Nya.
Godidit, godidit, godidit is your mantra.
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseWater also has atoms, doesn't it?
That would be because you are talking out your ass. You have no idea how heavy elements came to be, you just think Godidit and that's that.
You don't want to hear about the fact we have CREATED heavy elements in atom smashers and we know EXACTLY how much energy it takes and where that energy abounds, heavy elements are made and that energy abounds in spa ...[text shortened]... u I'm sticking my fingers in my ears Nya Nya Nya Nya.
Godidit, godidit, godidit is your mantra.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you actually believe that any heavy element can be created from the light elements from water alone? Without the goddidit nonsense?
I am not going to give away all the secrets of the universe.
The Near Genius
Let me tell you, Science has already the answer to that question. And that exclude the 6000 old universe crazyness.
10 Jun 14
Originally posted by FabianFnasScience is still in the speculation phase on that point.
So you actually believe that any heavy element can be created from the light elements from water alone? Without the goddidit nonsense?
Let me tell you, Science has already the answer to that question. And that exclude the 6000 old universe crazyness.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe funny thing about RJH class creationists is that they say science is wrong but they don't have anything better themselves.
Real scientists have refuted ALL your creationist buddies' claims but that doesn't stop them from bringing them up again and again in different video's which is not science, it is politics like I have said before.
Example:
Instead of accept the age of the moon, they say that water cooled it down within its 6000 years lifespan. 🙄
Instead of accept the age of the grand Canyon, they say that it has the same process as MtHelen of carving out the landscape in order to make it happen within 6000 years. 🙄
Instead of accepting that heavier elements were produced inside stars, they say that metals is made out of water so the older stars than 6000 years are not needed. 🙄
They use their goddidit so they don't have to explain. Some creationistic science, huh.
I'm happy I'm not a creationist.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are really in a fantasy world of your own making since you are officially self lobotomized.
Science is still in the speculation phase on that point.
Heavy elements are created in the giant atom smashers all the time so they in fact are way beyond speculation about how heavy elements come about.
They can SEE heavy elements streaming off stars.
I don't suppose you have ever heard of the science of spectrometry, right?
I suppose in your infinite wisdom that too is a bogus science.
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe don't say science is wrong. We say the theory of evolution and making up wild dates of millions and billions of years is not science. It is all speculation and not proven by observable and testable science. It is basically just a belief system that is different from my belief system.
The funny thing about RJH class creationists is that they say science is wrong but they don't have anything better themselves.
Example:
Instead of accept the age of the moon, they say that water cooled it down within its 6000 years lifespan. 🙄
Instead of accept the age of the grand Canyon, they say that it has the same process as MtHelen of carving ...[text shortened]... they don't have to explain. Some creationistic science, huh.
I'm happy I'm not a creationist.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou forget that I believe the earth and water and light came before the stars, so seeing heavy elements streaming off stars proves nothing to me.
You are really in a fantasy world of your own making since you are officially self lobotomized.
Heavy elements are created in the giant atom smashers all the time so they in fact are way beyond speculation about how heavy elements come about.
They can SEE heavy elements streaming off stars.
I don't suppose you have ever heard of the science of spectrometry, right?
I suppose in your infinite wisdom that too is a bogus science.
Originally posted by RJHindsObjects with ages considerably older than 6,000 years have been observed both on earth and across the universe. The dating methods are quite rigorous. For the most ancient rocks uranium lead ratio testing has an error of the order of 1%, so for a 3 billion year old rock there is an error of the order of 30 million years.
We don't say science is wrong. We say the theory of evolution and making up wild dates of millions and billions of years is not science. It is all speculation and not proven by observable and testable science. It is basically just a belief system that is different from my belief system.
The problem is that you assess a theory based on whether it is consistent with the Bible. This rules out the whole of modern science. The theories these dating methods are based on have been tested and passed the tests. So you do not believe in any science.
13 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe % accuracy apparently has to do with the ratio of the isotopes because that is all that can be determined from the spectrometer results. The calculations for age is based on assumptions that everyone knows and therefore can not give a reliable age to the rocks.
Objects with ages considerably older than 6,000 years have been observed both on earth and across the universe. The dating methods are quite rigorous. For the most ancient rocks uranium lead ratio testing has an error of the order of 1%, so for a 3 billion year old rock there is an error of the order of 30 million years.
The problem is that you asse ...[text shortened]... re based on have been tested and passed the tests. So you do not believe in any science.
Originally posted by RJHinds
The % accuracy apparently has to do with the ratio of the isotopes because that is all that can be determined from the spectrometer results. The calculations for age is based on assumptions that everyone knows and therefore can not give a reliable age to the rocks.
The calculations for age is based on assumptions that everyone knows and therefore can not give a reliable age to the rocks.Can you please explain to me why everyone knowing something would make it unreliable? I think that's come out garbled and you need to repost.
14 Jun 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes, maybe I should not have said everyone knows. It was just an expression of exaggeration.The calculations for age is based on assumptions that everyone knows and therefore can not give a reliable age to the rocks.Can you please explain to me why everyone knowing something would make it unreliable? I think that's come out garbled and you need to repost.
I posted several assumptions that must be made in radiometric dating somewhere on this forum or maybe it was the Spirituality Forum. It might have been the ones on the age of the earth that were moved from this forum. However, anyone that read that should know.