What is the origin of earth's radioactive elements?

[Idolater]

Again... you made no argument. You expressed your assumption.

Which is your error.

Watch the video that I posted.

Never. Set out the argument. I'm not going to wade through a theory that even at first blush seems unlikely, improbable, and frankly delusionally conspiratorial. Demonstrate the particular part of the idea that addresses the creation of radioactive elements.

You ASSUME that God created them as part of the creation of the earth.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Radioactive elements are in the earth. You want to argue that radioactive elements were not part of creation, so make your case. So far we only have JR saying that they are "harmful" so I guess therefore, they must be from God's curse on creation rather than from the first week. He can't explain how uranium e.g. is harmful but water, wood, and rocks aren't, even though they are all quite capable of injuring or killing men, along with serving useful, arguably very good purposes.

You have no evidence of this and have made no argument whatsoever. You just keep starting your opinion.

Do please lead the way then, by example, and answer why uranium is not very good.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Maybe instead of claiming that radioactive elements were made during the flood, you should argue that we used to be protected against radioactive elements but now since the curse we are susceptible? Just a thought.

And what would do you suppose would be the mechanism that would protect us from radioactive elements in the crust of the earth?

(Hint: It can't be the atmosphere)

 

[Idolater]

Once again... neither of us know whether radioactive elements existed before the flood.

I know that but your burden of proof is lighter because if they did not exist before the flood, there seems like there should be some evidence of their sudden appearance in the earth, rather than zero evidence of this. After all they are very distinctive materials, I would expect them to leave a definitive "mark" of some sort, that is physically discoverable if not measurable. All I'm asking for is what this evidence would be---I'm not even asking you to produce it, just tell me what would support your claim, if it were found.

You do NOT have evidence that they did and I do not have evidence that they didn't.


Please educate yourself on the THEORY that they were created during the flood. Then we have something to discuss, instead of just your opinion based on nothing.

And I repeat, please tell me what the theory is. You're the one who's representing that he knows this theory, so prove it. I'm not going on what appears to me to be a wild goose chase, so make it not appear like a wild goose chase, and tell me the theory. If it's interesting, then maybe I'll venture into this theory but right now, at first blush, it seems like a waste of my valuable time.

 

[Idolater]

And what would do you suppose would be the mechanism that would protect us from radioactive elements in the crust of the earth?

I have no idea! This is your work, not mine; your claim, not mine.

(Hint: It can't be the atmosphere)

Stop bluffing like you know something nobody else does. Hint you don't. Just engage with the content and put your bluster aside.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Never. Set out the argument. I'm not going to wade through a theory that even at first blush seems unlikely, improbable, and frankly delusionally conspiratorial.

How would you know? You won't even watch the video...

Refusing to consider your opponent's position is like plugging your ears and yelling "BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH" repeatedly while someone tries to tell you something.

Demonstrate the particular part of the idea that addresses the creation of radioactive elements.

The video does this.

Oh, but wait, you're not interested in the evidence, just your own opinion, which you'd rather not be dissuaded from...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Yes. And?

Radioactive elements are in the earth.

Yes. And?

You want to argue that radioactive elements were not part of creation, so make your case.

You want to argue that radioactive elements WERE part of creation. So make YOUR case.

So far we only have JR saying that they are "harmful" so I guess therefore, they must be from God's curse on creation rather than from the first week.

I didn't say that at all.

I said that God wouldn't create something that would harm the creatures that He made.

RD is the one who mentioned the curse, which occurred, if you remember, immediately after Adam and Eve fell. The flood happened about 15-1600 years AFTER the fall.

He can't explain how uranium e.g. is harmful but water, wood, and rocks aren't,

Well, no, of course I can.

If you hold a plate, and on that plate is a kilogram of uranium, for one hour, you will have done significant amounts of damage to your cells and your DNA.

Hold a glass of water, or block of wood, or a rock, for the same period of time, and at worst your arms will be tired.

even though they are all quite capable of injuring or killing men, along with serving useful, arguably very good purposes.

Of course they are.

Do please lead the way then, by example, and answer why uranium is not very good.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have no idea! This is your work, not mine; your claim, not mine.
Stop bluffing like you know something nobody else does. Hint you don't. Just engage with the content and put your bluster aside.

Why should I argue for something that isn't my position?

You're the one who suggested an alternative to my position. The onus is on you to support it.

 

[Idolater]

So so far itt we have one hidden or secret argument supporting the claim that radioactive elements did not exist until the flood (part of the "hydroplate" theory?), another that claims that they are part of the curse recorded in Genesis, and mine which is that God created the earth with radioactive elements. I have set out my argument for my claim, though two users here claim that I haven't made any argument at all, and we haven't seen any argument for the other claims, with the exception that JR says that because uranium is harmful to touch, that it is part of the curse. But fire evidently is also part of the curse then according to this criterion, and even moreso since fire will harm you way faster than uranium will, so idk where that leaves that particular argument.)

Is this basically accurate so far? I'm just trying to keep score so we're not missing anything.

 

[Right Divider]

Which is your error.

Nope.

Never. Set out the argument. I'm not going to wade through a theory that even at first blush seems unlikely, improbable, and frankly delusionally conspiratorial.

Great job of "discussion"... The video is not that long and is extremely informative.

Demonstrate the particular part of the idea that addresses the creation of radioactive elements.

If you won't open your eyes and watch that video, there's nothing going to change your mind.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Radioactive elements are in the earth.

Yes, they are almost all in the CRUST of the earth. There's a reason for that.

You want to argue that radioactive elements were not part of creation, so make your case.

Watch the video. It will be informative for you.

So far we only have JR saying that they are "harmful" so I guess therefore, they must be from God's curse on creation rather than from the first week. He can't explain how uranium e.g. is harmful but water, wood, and rocks aren't, even though they are all quite capable of injuring or killing men, along with serving useful, arguably very good purposes.
Do please lead the way then, by example, and answer why uranium is not very good.

Uranium is neither good nor bad.

 

[Right Divider]

I know that but your burden of proof is lighter because if they did not exist before the flood, there seems like there should be some evidence of their sudden appearance in the earth, rather than zero evidence of this. After all they are very distinctive materials, I would expect them to leave a definitive "mark" of some sort, that is physically discoverable if not measurable.

There are many evidences... but you will not even attempt to learn what they are.

All I'm asking for is what this evidence would be---I'm not even asking you to produce it, just tell me what would support your claim, if it were found.
And I repeat, please tell me what the theory is.

The theory is that natural forces that occurred during the flood created these element through well known and experimentally verifiable physical processes.

You're the one who's representing that he knows this theory, so prove it. I'm not going on what appears to me to be a wild goose chase, so make it not appear like a wild goose chase, and tell me the theory. If it's interesting, then maybe I'll venture into this theory but right now, at first blush, it seems like a waste of my valuable time.

If you will not investigate the theory, then you are chasing geese.

 

[Right Divider]

So so far itt we have one hidden or secret argument supporting the claim that radioactive elements did not exist until the flood (part of the "hydroplate" theory?), another that claims that they are part of the curse recorded in Genesis, and mine which is that God created the earth with radioactive elements. I have set out my argument for my claim, though two users here claim that I haven't made any argument at all, and we haven't seen any argument for the other claims, with the exception that JR says that because uranium is harmful to touch, that it is part of the curse. But fire evidently is also part of the curse then according to this criterion, and even moreso since fire will harm you way faster than uranium will, so idk where that leaves that particular argument.)

Is this basically accurate so far? I'm just trying to keep score so we're not missing anything.

That is FALSE... I was simply stating that the creation is under a curse. So it is NOT identical to the creation BEFORE the curse.

I did NOT say anything about the creation of radioactive elements BECAUSE of the curse.

Try to pay attention.

Since you remain WILLFULLY ignorant of the hydro-plate theory and how it explains the creation of radioactive elements, you are in no position to judge the theory that you know NOTHING about.

 

[Idolater]

The theory is that natural forces that occurred during the flood created these element through well known and experimentally verifiable physical processes.

OK we're getting somewhere. What physical processes?

 

[Idolater]

the creation is under a curse. So it is NOT identical to the creation BEFORE the curse.

I already agree with that.

I did NOT say anything about the creation of radioactive elements BECAUSE of the curse.

I didn't say it was you.

Since you remain WILLFULLY ignorant of the hydro-plate theory and how it explains the creation of radioactive elements, you are in no position to judge the theory that you know NOTHING about.

I haven't done that. I have instead said that the book's cover looks like it is a delusional conspiracy theory, I've said nothing about the theory itself because you won't tell me what's in the book.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I already agree with that.
I didn't say it was you.
I haven't done that. I have instead said that the book's cover looks like it is a delusional conspiracy theory, I've said nothing about the theory itself because you won't tell me what's in the book.

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

 

[Right Divider]

OK we're getting somewhere. What physical processes?

Watch the video.

I'm not going to try to describe every detail of the theory in this thread.

 

[Right Divider]

I already agree with that.

Good

I didn't say it was you.

Who else?

I haven't done that. I have instead said that the book's cover looks like it is a delusional conspiracy theory, I've said nothing about the theory itself because you won't tell me what's in the book.

You can't judge a book by its cover.

Watch the video. It's pretty short and will explain the issue to you.

 

[Idolater]

Watch the video.

I'm not going to try to describe every detail of the theory in this thread.

Oh my goodness, I'm asking for a proposition from you, a sentence, about the theory that claims radioactive elements were created during the flood. Make it more intriguing than it currently sounds to me, do a little bit to persuade me to spend my valuable time watching it. I don't have any reason---because you haven't given me one!---to doubt that God made the earth with radioactive elements.

 

[Right Divider]

Oh my goodness, I'm asking for a proposition from you, a sentence, about the theory that claims radioactive elements were created during the flood. Make it more intriguing than it currently sounds to me, do a little bit to persuade me to spend my valuable time watching it. I don't have any reason---because you haven't given me one!---to doubt that God made the earth with radioactive elements.

The earth's crust created the radioactive elements by natural and well known mechanisms during the flood.

The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity

SUMMARY: As the flood began, stresses in the massive fluttering crust generated huge piezoelectric voltages.⁴ For weeks, powerful electrical surges within Earth’s crust—much like bolts of lightning—produced equally powerful magnetic forces that squeezed (according to Faraday’s Law) atomic nuclei together into highly unstable, superheavy elements that quickly fissioned and decayed into subatomic particles and various isotopes, some of which were radioactive.

Each step in this process is demonstrable on a small scale. Calculations and other evidence show that these events happened on a global scale.⁵ To quickly understand what happened, see “Earthquakes and Electricity” on page402, and Figure 6 on page 394.

Evolutionists say Earth’s radioactive material evolved in stars and their exploded debris. Billions of years later, the Earth formed from that debris. Few of the theorized steps can be demonstrated experimentally. Observations on Earth and in space support the hydroplate explanation for Earth’s radioactivity, but refute the evolution explanation.

 

[Jonahdog]

The earth's crust created the radioactive elements by natural and well known mechanisms during the flood.

Are there radioactive elements on the other planets or elsewhere in the universe? If so, how did they get there?

 

[Clete]

The earth's crust created the radioactive elements by natural and well known mechanisms during the flood.

RD,

I've only skimmed through portions of the thread but I think I get the gist of it. Let me know if I say something that makes you think I've missed something important.

Your argument, I'm sorry to say, is not valid.

First of all, the question you begin the thread with and thus your implied argument could be asked about the existance of any specific mineral you wanted to name. How do you know diamonds existed before the flood? Why the focus on radio active elements?

Second, the idea that the presense of radio active elements is not an inherent attribute of the earth is just as much an opinion as the reverse. In other words, your claim that they did not exist prior to the flood is suseptible to the same "that's just your opinion" argument as you make toward those who say that they have always been here. The fact is that they are here and that there is no evidence that they haven't always been here.

Further, even if the stresses that occured in the Earth during the flood created radio active elements, which I do not dispute by the way, then that would not prove that ALL of the Earth's radio active elements were created during the flood. TNoah's Flood did not extend to the Moon or Mars and they've found radio active elements in both places.

 

[Right Divider]

Are there radioactive elements on the other planets or elsewhere in the universe? If so, how did they get there?

Are there?