The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.(John 10:10) NKJV
Ernest Rutherford realized that Darwin’s theory of evolution needed a sound experimental foundation. Unfortunately, evolution as conceived by Darwin is wishful thinking, and so a contrived foundation was the best that Rutherford could do.
One of the pillars in the mainstream science paradigm (SciPop) is radiometric dating. It’s dependent on assuming something called the decay constant to get “dates” from rocks which support the SciPop narrative of godless existence. The decay constant is combined with something called the half life rate law to generate the SciPop timescale of billions of years.
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.– Matty’s Razor
The half–life of a reaction is the time required to decrease the amount of a given reactant by one-half. The half–life of a zero-order reaction decreases as the initial concentration of the reactant in the reaction decreases.– Half life, definition.
The application of the half life rate law to nuclear decay is is an example of scientific sleight-of-hand. A chemical reaction (effect) is when two or more reactants are mixed together or come into contact such that they can react (cause). That’s not what’s happening when an atomic nuclei spontaneously decays. In a very real sense nuclear decay isn’t a reaction (effect) it’s an action (cause).
The rate of decay of a radioactive element is used to calculate an element’s half-life. The assumption necessary is that radioisotopes decay at a constant rate, and they always have. Clearly this is wrong because the experimental data it generates is off by millions or billions of years. It’s part of an elaborate system of circular reasoning required by the vast timescale of biological evolution. If evolution from primordial slime to humans would take billions of years, then we need to have a way of making it look like the Earth is billions of years old. That’s circular reasoning.
What do you really want out of life? Do you want to fool yourself with SciPop that there’s no hell so that you can live this fraught and miserable existence and end up in it? Or do you want to have a full, rich experience of a meaningful relationship with the Lord and then go on to have everlasting life? Do you want a half-life or a whole one?
One Reply to “Only Half a Life?”