Question for non-YEC

[shunyadragon]

Maybe God rolled the dice too often and let us all down. This seems to be what Darwin believed.

Please cite Darwin properly, he believed no such foolish notion.

And I have a hard time believing that every radiation click on any type of geiger counter always means the transelementation of one atom. I find it interesting that Argon-40 is radioactive anyway, and that Potassium-40 has to be hit by a rapid neutron to turn into Argon-40, in itself not an easy thing. I don't have enough knowledge of physics to prove or to do a detailed study of it. I have been told the light problem is easier to solve.. radiation is simpler than atomics, I guess.

From a scientific perspective I have a hard time believing in this foolishness too. Where do you get such foolish notions you consider hard to believe? Not from science references for sure, maybe AIG?

Are you sure you are in the right thread? The above are one-liners only remotely related to the topic.

[yxboom]

Well, then we get to the differences between a Christian and non-Christian point of view. From a Christian OEC or TE point of view, your analysis above is consistent and workable: there is no sense trying to correct cultural misapprehensions when there are more important issues to discuss, such as the relationship between God and man, the problem of sin, and the redemption offered by Christ. This is the same understanding many OEC/TE Christians have about the phenomenological language of the Bible--there is no sense in correcting the "created in six days" culture story, when the relationship with God is a far more important topic to discuss.



Again, from a non-Christian point of view, the concept of he "Fall" is a myth, in its academic sense. The narrative of the "Fall" is a narrative that explains, within a theological and cultural context, phenomena that have always existed: pain, suffering, disease, death. In that, where the Hebrews had the "Fall," the Greeks had Pandora's Box. I attach no "truth" value to either tale, though I can certainly see how both of them are relevant within their separate cultures.

I have spent a little bit more time digesting this and I came across this by NT Wright

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church p. 95

“Evil then consists not in being created but in the rebellious idolatry by which humans worship and honor elements of the natural world rather than the God who made them. The result is that the cosmos is out of joint. Instead of humans being wise vice-regents over creation, they ignore the creator and try to worship something less demanding, something that will give them a short-term fix of power and pleasure. The result is that death, which was always a part of the natural transience of the good creation, gains a second dimension, which the Bible sometimes calls ‘spiritual death.’ In Genesis, and indeed for much of the Old Testament, the controlling image of death is exile. Adam and Eve are told that they would die on the day they ate of the fruit; what actually happened was that they were expelled from the garden. Turning away from the worship of the living God is turning toward that which has no life in itself. Worship that which is transient, and it can only give you death… Mysteriously, this out-of-jointness seems to become entangled with the transience and decay necessary within the good-but-incomplete creation.”

© source where applicable

In much of Wright's literature, he argues that natural death is part of the "good-but-incomplete creation". Sin enters in and death takes on another dimension as exile from God (A&E from the garden). So the OT story of A&E would be the story of Israel and their exile; whereas, Paul's application of the A&E narrative is all men Jew/Gentile are in spiritual exile from God (Adam=physical exile, Jesus= redeems us from spiritual exile). Thoughts?

[lao tzu]

[N.T. Wright} “Evil then consists not in being created but in the rebellious idolatry by which humans worship and honor elements of the natural world rather than the God who made them. The result is that the cosmos is out of joint. Instead of humans being wise vice-regents over creation, they ignore the creator and try to worship something less demanding, something that will give them a short-term fix of power and pleasure."

The cosmos is out of joint, because humans are imperfect? We're vice-regents over creation?

Allow me to suggest that Wright's ideas about the prominence of humans within the span of creation is itself seriously out of joint.

[N.T. Wright} “The result is that death, which was always a part of the natural transience of the good creation, gains a second dimension, which the Bible sometimes calls ‘spiritual death.’ In Genesis, and indeed for much of the Old Testament, the controlling image of death is exile. Adam and Eve are told that they would die on the day they ate of the fruit; what actually happened was that they were expelled from the garden. Turning away from the worship of the living God is turning toward that which has no life in itself. Worship that which is transient, and it can only give you death… Mysteriously, this out-of-jointness seems to become entangled with the transience and decay necessary within the good-but-incomplete creation.”

On the other hand, Wright does confirm my earlier suggestion that death in Genesis is a metaphor for exile to the Israelites. I'd be interested in an expansion on this from technomage myself.

As ever, Jesse

[shunyadragon]

I have spent a little bit more time digesting this and I came across this by NT Wright

Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church p. 95

“Evil then consists not in being created but in the rebellious idolatry by which humans worship and honor elements of the natural world rather than the God who made them. The result is that the cosmos is out of joint. Instead of humans being wise vice-regents over creation, they ignore the creator and try to worship something less demanding, something that will give them a short-term fix of power and pleasure. The result is that death, which was always a part of the natural transience of the good creation, gains a second dimension, which the Bible sometimes calls ‘spiritual death.’ In Genesis, and indeed for much of the Old Testament, the controlling image of death is exile. Adam and Eve are told that they would die on the day they ate of the fruit; what actually happened was that they were expelled from the garden. Turning away from the worship of the living God is turning toward that which has no life in itself. Worship that which is transient, and it can only give you death… Mysteriously, this out-of-jointness seems to become entangled with the transience and decay necessary within the good-but-incomplete creation.”

© source where applicable

In much of Wright's literature, he argues that natural death is part of the "good-but-incomplete creation". Sin enters in and death takes on another dimension as exile from God (A&E from the garden). So the OT story of A&E would be the story of Israel and their exile; whereas, Paul's application of the A&E narrative is all men Jew/Gentile are in spiritual exile from God (Adam=physical exile, Jesus= redeems us from spiritual exile). Thoughts?

I share the concept of the 'nature of spiritual death' instead of physical death in terms of what symbolically is represented by Adam and Eve as I said before. I do not believe in an 'imperfect Creation,' nor that the cosmos is 'out of joint' for any reason, I believe these concepts are in contradiction with the nature of God. IF God exists, than Creation is perfect, and functions very naturally and predictably as intended by God. We, are part of this vast Creation, which is obviously not the special center in this vastness. Our solar system, galaxy and likely our universe is likely physically little less than a dust bunny in proportion to our galaxy. It is spiritually we are significant, and possibly one of many spiritually significants in the vastness of our physical Creation

[OmniSkeptical]

Please cite Darwin properly, he believed no such foolish notion.

Then you cite him, since I merely don't know.

From a scientific perspective I have a hard time believing in this foolishness too.

Nuclear magnetic resonance is used to find the lambda of certain isotopic combinations, but you also get nuclear magnetic resonance from radioactive elements. Confusion of the two kinds, if there are two kinds, is very possible, but AiG isn't smart enough to know this.

[shunyadragon]

Then you cite him, since I merely don't know.

Then explain this . . .

Originally posted by OmniSkeptical
Maybe God rolled the dice too often and let us all down. This seems to be what Darwin believed.

. . . if you do not know.

Darwin nor any other scientist since proposed that God nor Mother Nature rolls dice often or ever.

Nuclear magnetic resonance is used to find the lambda of certain isotopic combinations, but you also get nuclear magnetic resonance from radioactive elements. Confusion of the two kinds, if there are two kinds, is very possible, but AiG isn't smart enough to know this.

OK, maybe, but what you said before doe not compute . . .

And I have a hard time believing that every radiation click on any type of geiger counter always means the transelementation of one atom. I find it interesting that Argon-40 is radioactive anyway, and that Potassium-40 has to be hit by a rapid neutron to turn into Argon-40, in itself not an easy thing. I don't have enough knowledge of physics to prove or to do a detailed study of it. I have been told the light problem is easier to solve.. radiation is simpler than atomics,

This is not clear and you are using old terminology, yes lose of electrons do result in change in isotopes over time called half-life of unstable isotopes, and radioactive elements like Uranium In general what you described above has been observed and measured repeatedly to determine the half life of unstable isotopes and elements over the last ~100 years or so. I am not sure what your problem is.

[JonF]

And I have a hard time believing that every radiation click on any type of geiger counter always means the transelementation of one atom. I find it interesting that Argon-40 is radioactive anyway, and that Potassium-40 has to be hit by a rapid neutron to turn into Argon-40, in itself not an easy thing. I don't have enough knowledge of physics to prove or to do a detailed study of it. I have been told the light problem is easier to solve.. radiation is simpler than atomics,

This is not clear and you are using old terminology, yes lose of electrons do result in change in isotopes over time called half-life of unstable isotopes, and radioactive elements like Uranium In general what you described above has been observed and measured repeatedly to determine the half life of unstable isotopes and elements over the last ~100 years or so. I am not sure what your problem is.

It's not really a question of old terminology, it's a classic example of meaningless word salad. ⁴⁰Ar is not radioactive. ⁴⁰K is radioactive. About 10.72% of its decays produce ⁴⁰Ar by electron capture, which "steals" an inner electron into the nucleus, transmuting a proton into a neutron and emitting a neutrino and a gamma ray. In the ⁴⁰K decay system there's no hitting by any kind of neutron.

And, of course, "radioactivity" is an umbrella term comprising three major and very different types of decay, each with a plethora of sub-types. I don't know exactly what Maggie means by "the light problem", but the radioactive decay rate problem is so difficult for YECs that none of them have ever made even a proposal for how fundamental physics could be changed so as to produce the results we observe today in a 6,000-ish year old universe. Some YECs (e.g. Humphreys) have proposed solutions to the various light problems that YEC introduces, but they've all been total failures so far.

[OmniSkeptical]

It's not really a question of old terminology, it's a classic example of meaningless word salad. ⁴⁰Ar is not radioactive. ⁴⁰K is radioactive. About 10.72% of its decays produce ⁴⁰Ar by electron capture, which "steals" an inner electron into the nucleus, transmuting a proton into a neutron and emitting a neutrino and a gamma ray. In the ⁴⁰K decay system there's no hitting by any kind of neutron.

Thinks for correcting which element of the isotope was radioactive. Are all decays, and changes associated with magnetic resonance? The concept is new to me. It sounds like the Schrodinger pattern has to be dramaticly changed for K-40 to become Ar-40: from a a reactive one to one which has fewer electron holes (through which an electron is shared). Yet you 10 percent it happening and you ignore possibly stray protons/neutrons in the magma which could easily be caused by heat. I have also seen non-isotopes in chains used for dating without explaination of what happens to the stray protons/neutrons.

"... I don't know exactly what Maggie means by "the light problem","

.... sorry not him, but the problem is supposedly light is not magnetic and doesn't travel; I can see why the light problem is easier than the isotope problem.

...but the radioactive decay rate problem is so difficult for YEC....

Not a change in physics; the official YEC scientists and physicists are so dumb that they can't challenge nuclear geology.

Some YECs (e.g. Humphreys) have proposed solutions to the various light problems that YEC introduces, but they've all been total failures so far.

Few consider c to speed of something else other than light. It is important to learn quantum mechanics, even if the standard model "sux". I have been told electrons approach this speed, but the legendary subproton seems to be the quicker of the particles.

[JonF]

Boy, that is some great YEC gibberish. You have about 5 years of study before you will be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of physics and be able to discuss.

[shunyadragon]

It's not really a question of old terminology, it's a classic example of meaningless word salad. ⁴⁰Ar is not radioactive. ⁴⁰K is radioactive. About 10.72% of its decays produce ⁴⁰Ar by electron capture, which "steals" an inner electron into the nucleus, transmuting a proton into a neutron and emitting a neutrino and a gamma ray. In the ⁴⁰K decay system there's no hitting by any kind of neutron.

And, of course, "radioactivity" is an umbrella term comprising three major and very different types of decay, each with a plethora of sub-types. I don't know exactly what Maggie means by "the light problem", but the radioactive decay rate problem is so difficult for YECs that none of them have ever made even a proposal for how fundamental physics could be changed so as to produce the results we observe today in a 6,000-ish year old universe. Some YECs (e.g. Humphreys) have proposed solutions to the various light problems that YEC introduces, but they've all been total failures so far.

Thank you for the clarification. I could not understand his description. It did not makes sense. I consider transelementation (transmutation) old terminology too

[OmniSkeptical]

Boy, that is some great YEC gibberish. You have about 5 years of study before you will be able to have a rudimentary knowledge of physics and be able to discuss.

And the light problem?

[JonF]

And the light problem?

Please be more specific: which of the many light problems?

[technomage]

I don't know exactly what Maggie means by "the light problem"

For YECs, the "light problem" means that there is light in the universe that is older (by several orders of magnitude) than the 6000 years allowed for in YEC cosmology.

[OmniSkeptical]

Like technomage said: the one where light and radiation is limited to a speed of c instead of particles.

[technomage]

light is not magnetic and doesn't travel

What? Light is most certainly a form of electromagnetic energy, and it most certainly does travel. (Or are you quoting a YEC argument?)