My friend, my original question stands: "Which fundamentalist church?"
ICR is NOT a fundamentalist church. It is a research think tank supported by many people including non-Christians. Heck, some of their more senior researchers are non-Christians. They are just honest, open-minded researchers who want to get to the truth. Also, it's funny my friend that you parrot your speculations of variable decay rates so strongly here in vortex and then turn around to cite an article that mocks that very same mechanism you believe in. My friend, you need to find better articles to support your point of view. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Saturday, August 16, 2014 12:27 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL PS. Exactly which "fundamentalist church" dumped or is dumping money into variable nuclear decay rate research. Pray tell. http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/creationism-and-variable-radioactive-decay-rates/ Snip Okay. That’s interesting indeed. But even more interesting is the effect this is having on creationists. We found a most amusing reaction at the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. They give their impression of the news in this article at their website: The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us: Many scientists rely on the assumption that radioactive elements decay at constant, undisturbed rates and therefore can be used as reliable clocks to measure the ages of rocks and artifacts. Most estimates of the age of the earth are founded on this assumption. However, new observations have found that those nuclear decay rates actually fluctuate based on solar activity. Then they get carried away. Here it comes: If the assumption of a constant rate is incorrect, then conclusions built upon that assumption are suspect, including certain dates assigned to artifacts and earth materials. Right! The entire enterprise of science is in chaos! Here’s their conclusion: The implications of inconsistent decay rates in radioactive elements are vast. And those inconsistencies are real, calling into question evolutionists’ adamant assertions of an ancient age for the earth. So there you are, dear reader. The earth really is only 6,000 years old. Once again, the creationists turn out to have been right all along. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: My friend, herein lies the problem. Your first comment betrays a stereotype that you would do well to shed. Your implication is that a religious person like me is never interested in true science and discovery. Let me just remind you, that true science is never incompatible with a belief in God. Only pseudo-science like Darwinism and psychology and other crap are. Let me also remind you that many pioneers of modern science, rightly considered to be "fathers" in their respective fields are men of God before they were men of science. Take Isaac Newton - the father of modern physics; Michael Faraday - the father of modern electromagnetism; or Louis Pasteur - the father of modern microbiology. These men were more religious first before they were scientists. Newton wrote more than twice the number of pages of Bible commentaries than all his scientific writings. Regarding Nuclear decay rates... there is in fact evidence that decay rates were never constant, that it slowed down. It started faster and then slowed down. But that is not the main objection many have to radionecleotide dating methods used to prove an old earth. It is the inherent unreliability and irreproducibility of the methods themselves that is causing a lot of controversy. Egregious examples like a piece of leather from a shoe made in the 1800's dating to 600,000 years ago; really are the reasons why radionucleotide dating techniques can not trusted. I am not opposed to radionecleotide dating techniques because I am religious. Au contraire, I am opposed to it because it is so unreliable. Jojo PS. Exactly which "fundamentalist church" dumped or is dumping money into variable nuclear decay rate research. Pray tell. ----- Original Message ----- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 11:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL As a fundamentalist, you should be interested in how nuclear decay rates may vary and what makes them vary. The fundamentalist church as dumped a ton of money into variable nuclear decay rate research. This branch of religious belief want to overture the radioactive dating proofs offered by science that the world was not created in 6,000 years. LENR has the same agenda it proof variable decay rates. IMHO. Fixed decay rates are gospel in nuclear physics. If we understand how variable nuclear decay rates happen then we will understand how LENR works. I suggest that you undertake a study of this subject. We can explore the exciting question together. On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Jojo Iznart <[email protected]> wrote: Is Axil a Physicist? I thought he claimed to be a systems engineer. And since we don't even know if he is truly a systems engineer, how do we evaluate what he is saying? A lot of things he says goes over my head; and I'm an engineer (a real degreed, bonafide, practicing Electrical Engineer). We see an emperor with no clothes but are afraid to admit it. We do not understand half of what Axil speculates but remain mum lest we should appear to be less knowledgeable than we would like people to believe. Hence, Axil's outrageous speculations goes unchallenged and gains a level of credibility it is not worthy of. I've challenged Axil to provide explanations to my fundamental objections to his theory but has received no satisfactory answer, except "read it again". That is a "cop out". Essentially he is saying, I am not smart enough to understand what he is saying. I keep wondering how many others also don't understand but don't mention it. On the other hand, when somebody like Ed Storms comes along and offers a theory, backed by much personal experimental data and exhaustive research, I think people ought to take heed much more than the unfounded, unsupported and unbridled speculations of a ""systems engineer????". I've always wondered why that is seldom the case here in vortex. Have vorticians acquired a fundamentally anti-science attitude - an attitude that we are always quick to lament in others? I think the first thing we need to know is who Axil really is, and what his qualifications are. Then we can properly evaluate the merits of what he is saying. A kid (with the help of wikipedia) can always appear to be a cancer specialist behind a screen, especially to a roomful of spectators afraid to point out that the emperor has no clothes. Heck, anyone can offer unsupported speculations all day long and appear to be a physicist all along. Am I the only one who can see this? Please tell me how I'm wrong. Jojo ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Gluck To: akira shirakawa ; Arik El Boher ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS ; Dagmar Kuhn ; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian ; Gary ; Haiko Lietz ; jeff aries ; Lewan Mats ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter Mobberley ; Pierre Clauzon ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; Steven Krivit ; Sunwon Park ; Tsirlin, Mark ; vlad ; VORTEX Sent: Friday, August 15, 2014 9:58 PM Subject: [Vo]:a new guest editorial by AXIL Dear Friends I have just published: http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2014/08/fundamental-causation-mechanisms-of-lenr.html It would be very risky saying that AXIL is an open-minded and anti-dogmatic physicist (he really is!) because - I tell it from experience- all physicists claim(ed) to be so- even our late arch-enemy John Huizenga (RIP!) However, AXIL represents the New Wave in LENR physics and it is increasingly obvious (for me) that only a New Tsunami would be able to remove the obstacles in the way of a realistic and useful LENR complex of theories. Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
