Spearthrower wrote:

The share of Americans who identify as atheists has increased modestly but significantly in the past decade. Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 show that 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 2% in 2009.

Four percent of US adults are atheist, yet somehow they're propping up the Democrat party!

No. I did NOT say atheists were propping up the Democratic party. That is YOUR exaggeration.

I DID say atheists mostly voted for open borders KNOWING it would bring more drugs and sex trafficking into the country.

And I STILL want to know why they did. Can you not answer this simple question?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... -religion/

Around a third of registered voters in the U.S. (34%) identify as independents, while 33% identify as Democrats and 29% identify as Republicans, according to a Center analysis of Americans’ partisan identification based on surveys of more than 12,000 registered voters in 2018 and 2019.

33% of registered US voters are Democrats.

Only 4% of US adults are atheist.

Yet Democrats are atheists, and atheists are Democrats, and both want more murder.

Someone's going to have to do the bigot mathematics for me, as I am not versed in that discipline.

truelgbt wrote:Still no scientific argument coming from a forum full of atheists.

Scientist =/= atheist
Atheist =/= scientist

If you weren't aware of this, now you might have a better shot.

My advice though would not to be to lie through your teeth if you try this shit with scientists as you'd look even more of a fool than you already do.

truelgbt wrote: Just cursing but no scientific information of any kind whatsoever.

Another lie.

truelgbt wrote:Threats, bullying, suggestions, but no scientific information is forthcoming.

Threats and bullying? Are you a member of the Sydney Amateur Dramatics Society?

truelgbt wrote:And please don't bring an answer from Talk Origins; that LYING website which all atheists use as a go-to reference guide. Please.

Don't cite things which contradict my lies, pweeeeeeZe.

Spearthrower wrote:

truelgbt wrote:
See? The OP does not take into account the fact that isotopes formed under a temp of 1 billion degrees K.

Citation, please.

Here is a quote from the thread, again:

"Extreme states of ionisation of this sort only occur in nature within the confines of extremely hot incandescent plasmas, with temperatures well beyond that required to turn elements such as rhenium into gases, and rhenium has the highest boiling point of all the elements, at a whopping 5,600°C (courtesy of Kaye & Laby again). Even this temperature isn't enough to strip 75 electrons off a rhenium atom, and the temperature required is more likely to be of the order of 65,000 Kelvins or beyond, which means that trying to invoke this mechanism as a means of "accelerating" nuclear decay involves heating the Earth's crust to temperatures more normally associated with the chromospheres of supergiant O class stars.

Apart from the fact that this mechanism requires ludicrously absurd conditions to have occurred in the Earth's crust in order for it to happen..."

As you can read, the OP does not take into account the fact that isotopes formed under a temp of 1 billion degrees K. The thread OP assumes the temp was much lower, which is wrong according to the UCLA Astro Dept.

The thread is based solely on lower temps, as expected. WRONG!!

Here is the UCLA Astro Dept. article again:

Article: Brief History of the Universe (UCLA Astrophysics, 2004) "This occurs when the temperature is around 10^27 to 10^28K at 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang." "Universe grows and cools until 100 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature is 1 billion degrees, 10^9 K. Electrons and positrons annihilate to make more photons, while protons and neutrons combine to make deuterons. Almost all of the deuterons combine to make HELIUM."

Where did earth get its helium (a radioactive isotope)? From the helium which formed under GREAT HEAT immediately after the very very hot Big Bang.

I did not say nor claim the earth was 1 billion degrees K. But the earth was formed by matter WHICH WAS EXPOSED TO THE HEAT AND FORMED UNDER HEAT such as radio-isotopes like Helium - just as the UCLA Astrophysics Department has written articles on. Where did the earth get its matter? From that which formed UNDER IMMENSE HEAT immediately following the Big Bang. The earth is composed of matter, including radio-isotopes which formed UNDER GREAT HEAT.

truelgbt wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

The share of Americans who identify as atheists has increased modestly but significantly in the past decade. Pew Research Center telephone surveys conducted in 2018 and 2019 show that 4% of American adults say they are atheists when asked about their religious identity, up from 2% in 2009.

Four percent of US adults are atheist, yet somehow they're propping up the Democrat party!

No. I did NOT say atheists were propping up the Democratic party. That is YOUR exaggeration.

I didn't say you said they were propping up the Democratic party; it is indeed my exaggeration written for comic effect, but it's an exaggeration which necessarily follows from the flatulent guff you just exuded.

truelgbt wrote:I DID say atheists mostly voted for open borders KNOWING it would bring more drugs and sex trafficking into the country.

Oh I know you said it - I also know that you saying it says nothing about its truth value, but says a whole lot (in concert with your other comments) about what vicious little bigotry motivates your presence here.

truelgbt wrote:And I STILL want to know why they did. Can you not answer this simple question?

I already answered your question: the question is being formed purely on the basis of your vicious little bigotry - it has no factual component in the real world. It's like asking whether unicorns have realized they have built in dildoes.

truelgbt wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

truelgbt wrote:
See? The OP does not take into account the fact that isotopes formed under a temp of 1 billion degrees K.

Citation, please.

Here is a quote from the thread, again:

"Extreme states of ionisation of this sort only occur in nature within the confines of extremely hot incandescent plasmas, with temperatures well beyond that required to turn elements such as rhenium into gases, and rhenium has the highest boiling point of all the elements, at a whopping 5,600°C (courtesy of Kaye & Laby again). Even this temperature isn't enough to strip 75 electrons off a rhenium atom, and the temperature required is more likely to be of the order of 65,000 Kelvins or beyond, which means that trying to invoke this mechanism as a means of "accelerating" nuclear decay involves heating the Earth's crust to temperatures more normally associated with the chromospheres of supergiant O class stars.

Apart from the fact that this mechanism requires ludicrously absurd conditions to have occurred in the Earth's crust in order for it to happen..."

As you can read, the OP does not take into account the fact that isotopes formed under a temp of 1 billion degrees K. The thread OP assumes the temp was much lower, which is wrong according to the UCLA Astro Dept.

The thread is based solely on lower temps, as expected. WRONG!!

Here is the UCLA Astro Dept. article again:

Article: Brief History of the Universe (UCLA Astrophysics, 2004) "This occurs when the temperature is around 10^27 to 10^28K at 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang." "Universe grows and cools until 100 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature is 1 billion degrees, 10^9 K. Electrons and positrons annihilate to make more photons, while protons and neutrons combine to make deuterons. Almost all of the deuterons combine to make HELIUM."

Where did earth get its helium (a radioactive isotope)? From the helium which formed under GREAT HEAT immediately after the very very hot Big Bang.

I did not say nor claim the earth was 1 billion degrees K. But the earth was formed by matter WHICH WAS EXPOSED TO THE HEAT AND FORMED UNDER HEAT such as radio-isotopes like Helium - just as the UCLA Astrophysics Department has written articles on. Where did the earth get its matter? From that which formed UNDER IMMENSE HEAT immediately following the Big Bang. The earth is composed of matter, including radio-isotopes which formed UNDER GREAT HEAT.

And here I will reply again.

1) Your quote mining is absurd - are you a Jehovah's Witness?
2) This thread has enough pap in it already - if you want to lie about science too, then start a new thread.

"Extreme states of ionisation of this sort only occur in nature within the confines of extremely hot incandescent plasmas...

What 'extreme states of ionization' are they talking about, chap? Explain.

truelgbt wrote:
The thread you reference does not take into account the extreme heat produced by the Big Bang, when radioisotopes began to form immediately after, according to the UCLA Astro Dept. The radioisotopes began to form at 1 billion degrees K.

Citation, please.

Spearthrower wrote:

truelgbt wrote:
See? The OP does not take into account the fact that isotopes formed under a temp of 1 billion degrees K.

Citation, please.

He meant to say, a bazillion-kajillion degrees. It's an industry term.

Anyway, you just have fun showing Cali where he's mistaken. You're sadly mistaken if you imagine I'm giving any effort to proving to you he isn't.

Regardless, he will happily accept being shown to be mistaken. You see, Cali realizes how disposable ideas are. Try to imagine that, if you can. What, exactly, would compel you to change what you think true?

Over to you.

The big bang can be demonstrated. The universe is demonstrably expanding right now. That's the Big Bang - it's still happening. So, the answer to "Were you there?" is yes - We're right in the fucking middle of it. Further the big bang isn't an origin theory - that's the usual vacuous strawman erected by dishonest cargo-cult peddlars.
Even if Einstein and Hubble and Hawking turned out to be balls out wrong, the "Big-um-giant-live-um-sky magicked it dere, oh yes he didded" Theory doesn't get to be right by default. We're still waiting for the working to be shown on that one. Breath-holding not recommended. lol

truelgbt wrote:The latest by the prophets is still focused on the sins of the church:

1) Unlike the early church which experienced many miraculous healings, the raising of the dead, etc. and huge numbers of people witnessing the miracles first-hand and getting born-again and saved in the process, the modern church by contrast, has been full of moral and spiritual compromise which has resulted in its powerlessness.

A bunch of scumbags then. That's a 'prophesy' is it?

2) Wolves disguised as pastors who are involved in child sexual abuse/pedophilia will be exposed. Church elders must stop tolerating such abominations and stop using the phrase "Do not touch the Lord's anointed" and remove these so-called pastors and have them arrested. Elders who ignore and cover-up for such pastors will themselves be held accountable by the Lord.

And water is wet and Kylie Minogue turned out to be girl all along. Any chance of prophesing something we don't know?

3) The Lord says to the church: 'Wake up, repent, turn to Me and live'.

And Cookie Monster said; 'COOKIEE!!!'

4) Denominational Boards will be shaken and several church denominations will dissolve completely.

Don't worry, some shyster will be back with all new denominations quicker than you can shit.

On this same topic of sexual abuse:

1) Free Masonry will topple when Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA), especially children subjected to sexual abuse, will be exposed within their ranks.

Aww! Did they blackball you? Aww!

2) Sex slave trafficking will be exposed among the world's elite: From the Crown of England to the Seat of Rome, from sheiks in the Arab world to Russian oligarchs to land barons in the USA, human trafficking exposure will bring down many from their positions of power.

Any land baron of the USA in particular?


Sooo... which particular prophet prophesied these? Got a name? A link? You may have misquoted him because they sound something like an incompetent bigoted half-wit would make up.

And finally, the USA is now 245 years old this year. In gematria, this reflects 2 consecutive terms for the 45th President of the USA.

Not how gematria works. You can't even get bullshit right.

BlackBart wrote:The big bang can be demonstrated.

Dear Blackbart,
Here is a brief breakdown of the Big Bang discussion which you failed to address, so here it is again:
1) Several atheists here stated their BELIEF that the age of the earth is 4.5 to 4.6 BILLION years old. Why do they BELIEVE this? Because that's what they have been TOLD to believe.

My response: They don't KNOW the age of the earth as a FACT.
Why? Because there is NO ACCURATE METHOD to determine the vast ages of fossils, planets, etc. For over 20 years, physicists/scientists have repeatedly stated that isotope decay rates are constant ONLY in ambient temperatures but NOT under high heat. Radioactive isotopes initially formed at a temperature of 1 billion degrees (K) after the Big Bang, causing increased kinetic energy & accelerated isotope decay rates from millions/billions of years down to hours or minutes. These already-decayed isotopes were later deposited on the earth's surface as the earth formed, giving the erroneous impression of vast ages. This principle has been repeatedly published in peer-reviewed science journals (Journal of Geophysical Research, Physics Magazine, etc.) with warnings against erroneous vast ages. Proof of this principle is MODERN-DAY volcanic eruptions only decades old are ERRONEOUSLY dated as being millions of years old - even at moderately high magma temperatures much lower than the Big Bang. Millions/billions of years is a MISCALCULATION which does not take into account accelerated isotope decay rates under high heat - and this according to scientists who specialize in isotope decay rates.

Spearhead asked for a reference article specifically stating that a known decay rate of an isotope can no longer be used for age-dating/geochronology purposes. This is the article I gave him:

Article: Nuclear structure of 176Lu and its astrophysical consequences. Ref: Physical Review C/Covering Nuclear Physics C44/2839: "On the basis of the improved level scheme of 176Lu it is demonstrated that the stellar s-process production as well as the stellar beta decay rate of that nucleus DEPENDS STRONGLY ON TEMPERATURE. This behavior results from the completely different half-lives of the ground state and the isomer; since these states are coupled by induced transitions in the hot stellar photon bath, the effective half-life of 176Lu is DRASTICALLY REDUCED. Consequently, 176Lu CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS A CHRONOMETER for the age of the s process."
N. Klay, F. Käppeler, H. Beer, and G. Schatz, Phys. Rev. C 44, 2839 – Published 1 December 1991

You did get that statement: "...CAN NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED AS A CHRONOMETER...."

There are several other articles from other peer-reviewed Physics journals which I have provided in previous posts here. These studies have been published multiple times in multiple peer-reviewed journals by multiple physicist teams since the late 1980s.

Someone here mentioned the articles are old. So what? The main idea is that heat increases kinetic energy (like it does in all substances) and therefore, increases the decay rate of isotopes (when compared to ambient temps).

Now, the question is, were the isotopes found on our planet exposed to a high-enough heat to significantly accelerate their decay rate? The UCLA Astrophysics Department gave us the answer which is Yes. The UCLA Astrophysics Dept. stated that radioisotopes began forming almost immediately after the Big Bang when temps were upwards of 1 billion degrees K. See this article:
Article: Brief History of the Universe (UCLA Astrophysics, 2004) "This occurs when the temperature is around 10^27 to 10^28K at 10-35 seconds after the Big Bang." "Universe grows and cools until 100 seconds after the Big Bang. The temperature is 1 billion degrees, 10^9 K. Electrons and positrons annihilate to make more photons, while protons and neutrons combine to make deuterons. Almost all of the deuterons combine to make HELIUM."

So where did earth get its helium (a radioactive isotope)? From the helium which formed under GREAT HEAT immediately after the very very hot Big Bang.

I NEVER said the earth got that hot. Neither did the article I quoted from. UCLA Astrophysics Dept. said isotopes were formed immediately following the Big Bang but the earth had not formed at that time. However, the earth was eventually formed from materials such as isotopes which had already formed under great heat. You do realize that kinetic energy and its associated acceleration in isotope decay rates have ranges on a continuum. This is why isotopes found in igneous rocks (the earth's mantle can be 4000 degrees K - much less than Big Bang temps but still hot enough to increase kinetic energies) also read in the millions of years old even when the eruption was very recent.

The decay rates under high heat can bring down the half-lives from the millions/billions of years down to days, even minutes. See following table:

Accelerated Decay Rate Table: Radiometric decay times are NOT constant. When heated up to plasma temperatures, the half-life of elements decrease from billions of years down to minutes. This PROVES Radio-isotope dating methods cannot reliably be used to calculate the ages of fossils, planets, or anything else.
Article: Accelerated Radioactive Decay Rates, Ref: Proceedings of the Cosmology Conference 2003, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Columbus, Ohio.
If the following materials are heated up to 15.4 billion degrees Kelvin, the half-life changes as follows (the Big Bang is theorized to have been 1 billion degrees Kelvin or more - much hotter than our sun and plenty hot to accelerate radioactive decay).
(1) Uranium 238 decreases from 4.5 billion years to 2.08 minutes
(2) Thorium 232 decreases from 14 billion years to 15.6 minutes
(3) Samarium 147 decreases from 106 billion years to 1.56 minutes
(4) Rubidium 87 decreases from 47 billion years to 2.46 minutes
(5) Potassium 40 decreases from 1.2 billion years to 5.87 minutes.

So, since the earth contains isotopes which were already partially decayed following the Big bang and its subsequent heat, we cannot rely on them to determine the age of the earth using calculations involving ambient temp half-lives of those isotopes... or any other calculations.

So far, as you can see from the responses above, there are no rebuttals using SCIENTIFIC DATA - only cussing, cursing, insults, and accusations - which is an immediate red flag telling us those individuals do not have any SCIENTIFIC DATA to offer.

Now, are you going to provide us with some SCIENTIFIC DATA which shows us otherwise?

How to deal with a Gish Gallop.

Dismiss it. Done.

You can't evade the demolition of all your prior claims by introducing an entirely irrelevant topic.

This thread is about your febrile delusions regarding god mandating Trump as president.

If you want to use your antiquated mythology as a means of attacking empirical science: start a new thread.

BlackBart wrote:

truelgbt wrote:The latest by the prophets is still focused on the sins of the church:

1) Unlike the early church which experienced many miraculous healings, the raising of the dead, etc. and huge numbers of people witnessing the miracles first-hand and getting born-again and saved in the process, the modern church by contrast, has been full of moral and spiritual compromise which has resulted in its powerlessness.

A bunch of scumbags then. That's a 'prophesy' is it?

2) Wolves disguised as pastors who are involved in child sexual abuse/pedophilia will be exposed. Church elders must stop tolerating such abominations and stop using the phrase "Do not touch the Lord's anointed" and remove these so-called pastors and have them arrested. Elders who ignore and cover-up for such pastors will themselves be held accountable by the Lord.

And water is wet and Kylie Minogue turned out to be girl all along. Any chance of prophesing something we don't know?

3) The Lord says to the church: 'Wake up, repent, turn to Me and live'.

And Cookie Monster said; 'COOKIEE!!!'

4) Denominational Boards will be shaken and several church denominations will dissolve completely.

Don't worry, some shyster will be back with all new denominations quicker than you can shit.

The point is that it is very GOOD NEWS that God will clean the church out of all the hypocrites, pedophiles, abusive individuals involved in criminal activities behind the scenes but call themselves born-again Christians, pastors, elders, etc. but are not.

truelgbt wrote:
The point is that it is very GOOD NEWS that God will clean the church out of all the hypocrites, pedophiles, abusive individuals involved in criminal activities behind the scenes but call themselves born-again Christians, pastors, elders, etc. but are not.

News is concerned with real things that actually happen.

Spearthrower wrote:How to deal with a Gish Gallop.

Dismiss it. Done.

You can't evade the demolition of all your prior claims by introducing an entirely irrelevant topic.

This thread is about your febrile delusions regarding god mandating Trump as president.

If you want to use your antiquated mythology as a means of attacking empirical science: start a new thread.

Quite - Looks like it's degenerated into religious troll-bot time. He either didn't read what I wrote or is exceptionally slow on the uptake.

Spearthrower wrote:

truelgbt wrote:
The point is that it is very GOOD NEWS that God will clean the church out of all the hypocrites, pedophiles, abusive individuals involved in criminal activities behind the scenes but call themselves born-again Christians, pastors, elders, etc. but are not.

News is concerned with real things that actually happen.

So.. that'll be alot of empty buildings with useless pointy towers then? Good news for the real estate industry I suppose.

Spearthrower wrote:Has anyone ever comprehensively looked at why Creationists are inevitably drawn to quote-mining?

Because it would be impossible for them to maintain their “argument” and still seem rational without it.

Spearthrower wrote:Perhaps those alleged atheists voting for laws which notionally may result in an increase in crime do so because they know that the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.

Perhaps those alleged atheists are motivated by such un-Christian-like sympathies as loving thy neighbour as thyself, extending charity to those in need, and assuming good will among their fellow humans.

I have a feeling some beardy dude in history may have said something to this effect. Probably an atheist!

Ironically, if crime is increasing in a time of high immigration, it’s because non-immigrants are more than making up for the fact that crime rates amongst immigrant populations are lower than average