i don't believe in creation of life by GOD, evolution is only a possibility about creation of life,to believe in that some supernatural power create all living being is not digestible but if we use word evolution of live by interaction of energy and matter then some sense come behind the idea of formation of life in universe and till date its the only idea which seem to be logical,i am not saying that it is the only possibility and Darwin was right i am just supporting idea of evolution and support it until some new research doesn't give new theory about creation of life.

People argue about human capability of thinking and support creation of life by god,what its mean that if a creature like human being can think,argue and give interpretation about anything in universe it mean some almighty god give him power of thinking, for me its again simply the reaction and action of matters with energy because every living being mostly consists of proteins and other biological matters and base of such complex compounds are the elements like nitrogen,hydrogen,carbon etc,if by series of evolution matter come in a stage where a creature which totally composed of matters get special capability of thinking on formation of matter itself than i think its only the great stage of evolution where a series of matter not only influencing but deciding the future of matter itself.

It doesn't look like neutrinos because this was not detected all around the world. It was only in isolated patches that there was a slowdown in decay. this is more consistent with the localized effect of muons.

Also neutrinos are consistently produced by the sun and therefore lose density with solar distance, whereas decay does not slow down with solar distance.

I honestly believe creation is just as empirically supported.

Solar winds interacting with the particles involved in radiometric decay would also interact with and strip away lighter elements from our atmosphere such as oxygen and hydrogen, oh yea and of course the molecules they form such as water . . .good thing metalwing is correct, not howsitz.

Coronal mass ejections would strip our atmosphere of life sustaining molecules without a magnetic field, and if the high energy particles are interacting with potassium-40, or Argon-40 inside of a rock in the earth to effect radiometric decay, they are definitely interacting with the atmosphere.

Any attempt to say this field was at one point absent or significantly weaker would have to explain how we have been able to keep our pristine life sustaining atmosphere where Venus could not, but balance that against the need for those particle to interact with our commonly used radiometric isotopes for your theory to have merit . . . Either our atmosphere is shielded, or its not, either the isotopes are being bombarded and decay rates increased, or not.

Nothing presented by howsit has helped his argument, it only ever complicates his theory and leaves more questions.

Creationist drivel is never intended to really explain anything, just keep those with weak or absent science educations interested.

MASSIVE FACE PALM.

Ahh stronger . . . as in better able to protect us from these high energy particles . . . btw also better shielding the argon-40 from increased decay rate due to energetic bombardment . . of which we know a lot because we do it in the lab . . .


yea, no . . . we physicists don't know a thing about it really. The creationists knows more about biology than biologists and more about physics than physicists! Pure GENIUS!

Physics is not your field. It is mine and a few others here. Your statements are consistently getting worse and worse to the point of just becoming meaningless nonsense.

Have you ever studied the concept of "Thou shalt not lie". I think you would gain more by some studies there.

MASSIVE FACE PALM.

Ahh stronger . . . as in better able to protect us from these high energy particles . . . btw also better shielding the argon-40 from increased decay rate due to energetic bombardment . . of which we know a lot because we do it in the lab . . .

yea, no . . . we physicists don't know a thing about it really. The creationists knows more about biology than biologists and more about physics than physicists! Pure GENIUS!


LOl! Once again you are more emotional than scientific.

The link I provided showed DECREASED decay with greater solar interaction, not increased decay. This is counter-intuitive because as you say sometimes radioactivity increases with increased particle bombardment.

That is why I am saying that if decay can slow down with increased solar activity as proven by Purdue University and the Israel Geological Survey, then it can increase through greater protection from solar activity and cosmic rays.

Your reading comprehension is terrible. Reread what I wrote.

I don't see where I misunderstood your post. I said "as you say sometimes radioactivity increases with increased particle bombardment."

The fact that increased solar activity is now also associated with reduced decay shows that , depending on the type of bombardment, decay can also reduce with increased particle bombardment.

(Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Argon 40 is a stable daughter isotope, and so not really sure how its relevant to radioactive dating, unless you were referring to Potassium 40)

Have you noticed how he slides effortlessly from one absolute statement to another even thought they are incompatible? And the connection between EM forces and neutrino particle physics ... Wow! If we only had a big magnet we could control the rate of radioactive decay!!!!

I just want to point out that the Scopes trial is over.

Yes, he does not see the relationship between particle interactions and the magnetic field, or in this case the lack of particle interactions due to the magnetic field.

It goes to show that when you have a vested interest that is anti-science it creates blinders which cannot be overcome with reasoning: Contra to what science IS!

It also shows that an actual education in a field is helpful. Cool sounding youtube sound bites and out of context web quotes don't get very far.

You know I think its more about context. When one knows that our understanding is new, undeveloped, and we are just getting our feet wet on these topics, then one knows to stay humble, and try to absorb as much as possible before coming to strong conclusions. From that context really anyone can learn science a bit at a time and never take university classes. However none of that is possible when an unreasonable belief is held outside the objective scrutiny of the methods of discovery.

He is crippled in his ability to understand due to his need to make the round peg of his beliefs fit into the square hole of reality.

Good point!

Gee I haven't put this link up in a while...
Everyone deserves a solid education on evolution
"so they can decide for themselves"



So enjoy nonetheless....



http://www.besse.at/sms/evolutn.html

At last! Some real science!

LMHO Gee that was a great link.

Creationism is a truckload of nonsense. Here's a link to a short E book explaining why from the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024

From this post I take it you argue for intelligent design. however, the universe does not breathe as singular entity in and of itself, so it cannot be live. It cannot think since it has no organs and without that no mind or consciousness, it isn't, therefore, a thing to be driven by intelligence.

So, why do you really think it does?