forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,11:40) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,12:09) | Thank you very much for the TalkOrigins Archive that dismisses the arguments of your colleagues like JonF below. That is, the fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays.
What your article fails to realize is that the discrepancies that I mentioned earlier are also based upon measurements already inside the earth's atmosphere. |
Like pretty much everything you've said, that's bullshit. The T.O. article acknowledges that the production of 14C in the atmosphere is affected by changes in the cosmic ray flux, which I already mentioned (and how that is compensated for). The rate of 14C decay, the rate of Ar40 decay, and the amount of Ar40 anywhere in the Universe, or the decay rate of any radioactive isotope, is not affected by cosmic rays, and the linked T.O. article does not claim otherwise. Which facts I already pointed out.
How about some thanks for the links I posted from which you could actually learn something before regurgitating fourth-hand fundy BS? Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective, Isochron Dating, and The age of the Earth (pages 109-124, although the rest of it is well worth reading as well). When you understand isochrons, Ar-Ar, U-Pb, and Pb-Pb methods than you may be qualified to have an opinion. |
Yeah, Cosmic Ray Flux and these quotes that you somehow missed.
“The point is that fluctuations in the rate of C-14 production mean that at times the production rate will exceed the decay rate, while at other times the decay rate will be the larger. ….Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. “ (Strahler, 1987, p.158)
Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays.
Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination. It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. Agendas further verified by all the the recent brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations.
|
