Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
And very much natural, from what I've read so far. What's the point?
Here's a paper on it. https://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf
Evolution discussion
- Thread starter One Brow
- Start date
And very much natural, from what I've read so far. What's the point?
Here's a paper on it. https://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/Files/Okloreactor.pdf
Believe that if you'd like, but nuclear reactors of that scale and precision simply aren't naturally occurring. From the Epoch Times article:
Faced with these findings, scientists consider the mine to be a “naturally occurring” nuclear reactor. However, Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, former head of the United States Atomic Energy Commission and Nobel Prize winner for his work in the synthesis of heavy elements, pointed out that for uranium to “burn” in a reaction, conditions must be exactly right. For example, the water involved in the nuclear reaction must be extremely pure. Even a few parts per million of contaminant will “poison” the reaction, bringing it to a halt. The problem is that no water that pure exists naturally anywhere in the world.
Besides, several specialists in reactor engineering remarked that at no time in the geologically estimated history of the Oklo deposits was the uranium ore rich enough in U-235 for a natural reaction to have taken place.
* * *
When new discoveries are made, they can be uncomfortable and controversial. There is likely to be natural resistance from others in the scientific community. However, if you look at evidence objectively, it cannot simply be dismissed, and to do so is subjective.
Because I don't regard it as true, but rather a subjective interpretation of data that may not lead to that conclusion
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
So that fella was in Gabon 1.8 Billion Years Ago? Everything that I read, which wasn't a newspaper article, rather a scholarly paper, state that there was absolutely zero evidence that those weren't anything but naturally occurring nuclear reactor. You know what else is a naturally occurring natural nuclear reactor? The sun. I hope you aren't going to argue that man made that.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
To paraphrase Indiana Jones, [Science] is the search for fact, not truth. If you want truth, start a philosophy thread.
In the 1880s and beyond there has been ample archeological evidence to draw Darwin's origin of species into question, if not into doubt altogether. However, such evidence has been suppressed and subjectively interpreted by some in a scientific community who are personally pre-invested in the Darwinian paradigm.
Telling me that such and such is a "well accepted" theory does not make it true, especially when there are reputable scientists who are willing to argue to the contrary even at the expense of their academic careers.
Also, posting two disparate pictures of dogs does not satisfy my question seeking evidence of intermediate organisms. There are glaring gaps in the fossil record across the entire spectrum of Darwin's proposed tree of evolution.
Telling me that such and such is a "well accepted" theory does not make it true, especially when there are reputable scientists who are willing to argue to the contrary even at the expense of their academic careers.
Also, posting two disparate pictures of dogs does not satisfy my question seeking evidence of intermediate organisms. There are glaring gaps in the fossil record across the entire spectrum of Darwin's proposed tree of evolution.
Fair enough. Yet certain objective facts render Darwin's 'origin of species' theory highly improbable.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Can you describe what glaring gaps you personally see? And as we all know very well there were millions of new fossils and discoveries since Darwin, so his proposed tree of evolution was adjusted numerous times in regards to those findings. See whale evolution video again.
The 'fella' is a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and former head of the Atomic Energy Commission. The uranium deposits were independently analyzed by an entire team and were determined to have been extracted and utilized. Such uranium deposits have never otherwise been found to be naturally occurring. They were dated to be 1.8bn years old. That leaves two choices: 1) believe that the reactor was intelligently designed and operated during that time frame, or 2) believe it was a natural geophysical phenomenon.
I'm taking door number 1. But doing so makes Darwin's vision of human evolution impossible.
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
Again, you'd have to back up that sort of claim. Why wasn't evidence against Lamarck's initial hypothesis on the origin of species suppressed if you think there's a scientific conspiracy about evolution?
And there's no evidence that you can provide. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity was modified in the face of new evidence. All the evidence you think exists doesn't pass scientific muster. It just doesn't. You HAVE to understand the basics of how evolution actually works and what it means before you can apply it to a 4 billion year timeline.
For humans, you have this from 12Mya
To this at 4.5Mya
To this around 3.8Mya
50,000 ya
25,000 ya
Last one is "modern" human, Cro-magnon.
MVP
Well-Known Member
I have very serious doubts that in 1860 or so accurate dating of fossils or geological beds was available or could be trusted. What proof we have that tools he found where really from Tertiary period? I guess none.
Okay, I'll go look up a chart of evolutionary development and start pointing out gaps.
In the meantime, why don't you explain how man-made tools were discovered in pristine and insulated Tertiary rock layers in California.
Then remind me to look up the trilobite fossils.
Go back and read the Abstracts from Michael Cremo on the prior page. It's his claim, and it's backed by reputable archeologists. It seems you're simply ignoring that.
Last edited:
You mean dating methods applied to the entire Tertiary layers of rock? You could apply modern dating techniques to that if you'd like. The Tertiary is an enormous time span ranging back to 65 million years ago, but all of it challenges Darwin.
MVP
Well-Known Member
Darkwing Duck
Well-Known Member
And they would be?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
....problem with that reasoning: "Given enough time" nothing is impossible is that "time" tends to cause deterioration rather than improvement of things! This is especially true if your trying to say or use mutations to prove evolution! Since 99 percent of all mutations are bad and make things LESS suitable for survival, your appeal to immense spans of time, millions or even billions of years does not change the picture! Machines left to themselves decay and inanimate matter tends downward, not upward! Time produces disintegration, erodes cliffs and even granite rock. It is destructive, not constructive!
MVP
Well-Known Member
I know what Tertiary is. What I am saying that in 1860 Ribeiro had no chance to prove that what he found was actually 20mil year old or 200.000 year old. Technology was not there. As I said it would be enough to find a single fossil and prove that it is not fitting into time line of it's previous discoveries to shatter evolution theory. Not a single was found. You would think country like USA where 60% of population reject evolution would publish such finding if it would be true to support creationism and God's will? Where is it? Show me hominid remains from Jurassic for example. Or any reptile from Cambrian. Or birds from Devon. Come on at least single one would be found if it would be true!?
carolinajazz
Well-Known Member
Hey I found this really creepy *** fake progression on the internet
I'm going to have nightmares.
......and then came the "Birdman".....I mean "Bird flu!" Plays for the Heat right now! I suspect he will end up with 6 legs and a couple of wings....if the ink poison doesn't kill him first!
Popular support for 'origin of species' seems to have started with Darwin. According to this cite, Lamarck was not well respected during his lifetime.
https://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html