Ah Jeanie,

Quote
Jeanie: RAZD, it seems YOU are the one desperate to DISPROVE the creation. All I mean by variables is that you have no way of knowing what all may have happened between the flood and now which could change the environment.
But I don't need to disprove something for which there is no evidence. All I need do is show the evidence for evolution, for geological process, for physics processes that have been underway for hundreds of millions of years.

We see evolution. It happens. It is continuous, from Alaska to the South Pole, there are no species that are not undergoing change in hereditary traits from generation to generation.

Quote
RAZD, you also seem to be proving Russ's point that evolution is an emotional religious issue. You're letting your guard down...(and becoming more rude in the process).
Perhaps. Or I could be frustrated by a total lack of willingness to engage the issue and to wave hands and say "well what if something entirely different happened" in spite of the evidence that says, no, things have occurred pretty much this way for hundreds of thousands of years. The continual evidence of unchanging decay rates is just one little piece of this intellectual puzzle that should cause all people to question any claim of a young earth.

If you, CTD and Bex don't understand the relationships of alpha energy and decay rate then I suggest you learn them before you suggest pie in the sky alternatives that just don't work.

Certainly there are many highly educated christians in the various fields that have done this, and they find no conflict between the objective evidence of reality and their faith. Dr. Weins is just one example of many.

There are other problems with accelerated decay that would drastically alter the geological record from what it contains. The effect of accelerated decay is the same as purification of radioactive isotopes used to make bombs: more decay reactions contained in smaller spaces until the critical level is achieved. The purity of uranium mined today would be sufficient for all this uranium to have gone critical and caused run-away nuclear reactions.

We know from Oklo in Gabon (South Africa) that there were over 15 natural reactors about 2 billion years ago. These reactors behaved in exactly the same way that human designed ones do in the production of heat and daughter isotopes, and in being tempered by water. If the decay rate had been different this would not have been the case, but it would have been more like chernobyl with just a small increase in decay rate. To make it thousands of times faster (to condense hundreds of millions of years into a few thousand), would have been more like Hiroshima. Everywhere.

You just can't speed natural reactions up to suit the convenience of a belief without considering the consequences.

Instead, Oklo is more evidence that accelerated decay has not occurred and that the earth is old.

The evidence of reality, of god's universe, is that the universe is at least 13.7 billion years old and that the earth is at least 4.55 billion years old, and denial does not change the facts.

Quote
I don't see either what the big deal is with mutations and all that and how that would prove against the creation.
You'll have to ask CTD, as certainly mutations occur and have occurred, it is a part of nature. Certainly if one were going to design a system for life to deal with all sorts of changes and challenges, then one would include a means of introducing variations so that the successful ones could be selected. Computer algorithms based on evolution are now solving problems faster and simpler than programs designed by humans.

Quote
My husband told me the other day scientists are looking for the "God" gene. Does that mean...what?
Probably a reference to the susceptibility of people to believe in god\magic. Interestingly religious experiences can be induced in a lab. See the God Experience.
[Linked Image]


What would you think if it was found that belief was a chemically induced side effect of having a brain? Or is it a magical portal caused by design? Certainly when we look at religious experiences from all religions, we see that they share common elements. For me that is evidence of spiritual essence, while the commonality in all religions is evidence that none are exclusive repositories of spiritual knowledge, and most are probably incorrect in dogma that has accumulated around the essential experience, dogma such as a young earth and a global flood, things that have nothing to do with spirituality.

Quote
How do you explain that all the DNA looks the same and then differentiates for the individual organs?
Evolution, and the development of successful systems by trial and error and then building on the previous successes, the fact that organs operate just the way that colonial organisms can operate. Every organ can be found in more "primitive" forms in other organisms, and they show a clear path for development. Evolution as a whole is much more marvelous than just recombination.

Enjoy.