Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > forastero's thread

Pages: (51) < ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... >

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,22:36    Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21) Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE This is the Table of Nations descended from Ham, Japheth, and Shem http://ldolphin.org/ntable.....le.html Btw, read these quotes from the great Biblical archaeologists" Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting." William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. "Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. "Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Scientific explorer Edward Robinson. identified the location or ruins of literally hundreds of biblical towns palaces and monuments of the very kings recorded in the Scriptures. Some even contained accounts of military campaigns that matched the Bible’s as well as carvings depicting the actual battles. (See "The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust,") Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,22:36    or ?????????????????????? -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2011,23:08    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,23:02) Actually, if you had took the time to read up on the word pyrolysis, you'd have understood that it can explain the molten metals and heat without the use of micronukes (popular with truthers). How fascinating (yawn) (glances at watch). Oh, Hey fistarooster: 1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege? Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old?  By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction? Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%, so you've a long way to go. 2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth? The baby Jesus wants you to tell the truth. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,06:21    Quote "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement." All that's left then is proof of Mary's virginity and the historicity of the gospel's gallery of persons. The possibility of differing views on what constitute 'proper understanding' may of course be assumed non existent. Things become much clearer then. ETA: typo fix. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,08:27    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50) Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort. As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11 1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me). 2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't). 3) They are not my scriptures.   4) Quote exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism citation please 5) Quote all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. citation please please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years? And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata? Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong? So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center? LOL the gift that keeps on giving. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,08:31    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:19) The same the Flood piled up over 2200 feet in Carboniferous Texas THE MISSISSIPPIAN BARNETT FORMATION: A SOURCE-ROCK, SEAL, AND RESERVOIR PRODUCED BY EARLY CARBONIFEROUS FLOODING OF THE TEXAS CRATON http://www.beg.utexas.edu/resprog....ter.pdf So, 2200 = 17,000? So, are you claiming here that the strata that is the flood is from the carboniferous? So, we should start looking for 17,000 feet worth of coal somewhere in the carboniferous period? While, we're talking, please discuss the Green River Formation and the annual layers that result in 6 million years of history in that one formation. I'd like to know if that is a pre-flood, flood, or post-flood strata. Thanks -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,08:42    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:36) Quote (MichaelJ @ Nov. 14 2011,02:21) Unfortunately the Table of Nations was written in the seventh century BCE as a post-hoc explanation of the nations of the time. A good clue that this section was written at this time is that while some of the nations mentioned only recently appeared in the 8-7 centuries and certainly weren't started at around 2000BCE This is the Table of Nations descended from Ham, Japheth, and Shem http://ldolphin.org/ntable.....le.html Btw, read these quotes from the great Biblical archaeologists" Sir Frederic Kenyon mentions, "The evidence of archaeology has been to re-establish the authority of the Old Testament, and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting." William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history. "Millar Burrows of Yale states, "On the whole, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. "Joseph Free confirms that while thumbing through the book of Genesis, he mentally noted that each of the 50 chapters are either illuminated or confirmed by some archaeological discovery, and that this would be true for most of the remaining chapters of the Bible, both the Old Testament and the New Testament.Scientific explorer Edward Robinson. identified the location or ruins of literally hundreds of biblical towns palaces and monuments of the very kings recorded in the Scriptures. Some even contained accounts of military campaigns that matched the Bible’s as well as carvings depicting the actual battles. (See "The Mighty Assyrian Empire Emerges From the Dust,") Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement." So, what you are saying here is that the movie "Titanic" was exactly 100% historically correct... because the Titanic did, indeed, exist.  Got that thanks. Perhaps, you should look up the genre "historical fiction" and apply that to your discussion.  Another good one would be "myth".  I mean, Athens exists right?  So there, incontrovertible proof that Zeus exists. Argument... FAIL -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:00    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)       Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)         Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.     Quote Your link dont work because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you? [snip]     Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation. I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).   http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this. Quote Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….   Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism. You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from? Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant. Quote and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon. We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false. You just keep on going and going, don't you?

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:09    oh i am sure he has plenty more where that came from!  anything to avoid answering RB's question! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:13    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. And what you said said was wrong. Quote Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation. Such as what, and what references say this?   Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton and Radiometeric Dating Does Work!.   Quote Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27: Quote Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate. Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on. Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B? And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:35    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:27) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50) Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort. As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11 1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me). 2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't). 3) They are not my scriptures.   4)   Quote exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism citation please 5)   Quote all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. citation please please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years? And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata? Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong? So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center? LOL the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....iferous The map in the above link shows the the great Carboniferous coalfields of the U.S. quite well ...but for those actually interested in science, I'd suggest  Googling Carboniferous and any of the key words that I mentioned and you find I speak the truth but the following has quite a bit of it As for the WTC, I was referring to the molten and carbonated balls of what-not

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:42    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35) Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old. If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:44    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)   Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)         Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)         Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.       Quote Your link dont work because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you? [snip]     Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation. I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).   http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.   Quote Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….   Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism. You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from? Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.   Quote and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon. We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false. You just keep on going and going, don't you? Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours. Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k "

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,10:47    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35) Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old. If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have? Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:01    forastero, you do understand that after a time your non-response itself becomes a response, shouted from mount Ararat: "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION." Which, both for me and other interested readers, accomplishes as much as any answer you can supply. Given this non-answer/answer, the question indicts your position, and your previous sciencey lip service, as empty babbling. You might want to try to control that impression by actually supplying a relevant response. Otherwise, I've accomplished a lot of what I set out to accomplish, which anyone can see. (No sleeve-muttering, please). -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:06    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,08:44) Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k " What does this have to do with argon? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:09    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)     Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)       Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. And what you said said was wrong.   Quote Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation. Such as what, and what references say this?   Most Ar isotope decay either alpha or beta radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_argon Most  Sr isotopes decay beta, alpha, or electron capture radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium   Most Nd isotopes  decay beta radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......odymium Most Ba isotopes  decay beta or Isomeric radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._barium Most Hf isotopes that almost always decays beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......hafnium Most Ne isotopes decay beta  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......of_neon Most Os isotopes decay beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._osmium Most U isotopes decay beta or fission  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uranium Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:09    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:47) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35) Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old. If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have? Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live Look, why don't you just tell me that Jesus loves me and call an end to this? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:10    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:09) Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay The great thing about Wikipedia is that you can correct any errors yourself. Why don't you go and do that? If you can support your arguments then the edits will remain. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:21    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)   Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton and Radiometeric Dating Does Work!.   Quote Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27: Quote Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate. Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on. Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B? And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B? All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks? What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons?

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:29    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,15:08) Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,15:23)   Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05) Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by: Where lambda is the decay constant. If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is: (see Radiometric Dating to see how the second equation is derived from the first). Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample: we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%. (How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.) This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth: which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda. The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head. Of course. He hasn't a prayer. I don't know of any dating methods, isochron or not, called "U-Pb-He" or "Ne-Ne" or "U-U". There is (U-Th)/He which results in a stable 4He isotope and is not an isochron method. There is cosmogenic exposure dating involving the radioisotope 21Ne, but that's not an isochron method. I suppose there could be U-U disequilibrium dating, but that wouldn't be an isochron method. The only radioisotope daughter product in his list is U. And it appears that three of the methods in his list are not isochron methods, which is the class of methods under discussion. U-U http://www.inqua2011.ch/?a=prog....onid=85 (U-Th)/He                                                                       http://www.mendeley.com/researc....-ages-9 http://europa.agu.org/?uri=....article "U-Pb/ He" http://www.icr.org/article....g-world   ?

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:31    One of the things that continually befuddles me about creationists is their apparent belief that in their own  profound --and oftentimes admitted-- ignorance they believe that learned, experienced people  are not aware of, and haven't considered, the bloody obvious. ETA: Typo -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:38    Hey forastero, I noticed that you still have absolutely no idea where your growth rate comes from.  I find it hard to believe that a rational person could stand behind an equation that includes variables that he does't even understand. Fortunately, you aren't a rational person.  However, you could take a first step in that direction by tell us how you derived THE GROWTH RATE IN YOUR POPULATION EQUATION. Thanks. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:48    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,11:44)   Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:00)     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,22:39)       Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,15:40)         Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:56)             Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)             Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Oh, dear, cut and paste IDiot strikes again!  Ar-40 is not cosmogenic.  From the very page which your quoted material is from.           Quote Your link dont work because the software added the period at the end of the sentence to the link.  Not much of a problem-solver, are you? [snip]         Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above I think a person who can't even tell if isotopes are stable or not and can't handle "formula-waving" are incapable of having a discussion of a technical paper that would require a critical appraisal of petrography.  The key concept which I am sure you never heard of is fractionation. I was referring to the other 90% of Argon isotopes, which are radioactive, because I had been reading on the more popular Ar40/39Ar isochron; which btw also involves two radioisotopes 39K and 39Ar ( made by cosmic rays from 40Ar).   http://www.ees.nmt.edu/outside....ml#Prin If you read the links I provided long ago, you would understand how the Ar-Ar method (which is another atypical isochron method, and seldom considered as an isochron method) compensates for this.       Quote Oh and did you know that cosmic rays also produce 39K, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, 39Ar, and 41Ar, etc.. etc….   Fascinating. Most people that frantically Google to try to find information about dating at least come up with facts, even if those facts belie creationism. You, OTOH, come up with lies. Where are you getting this crap from? Right off the top of my head I can tell you that 40K is not cosmogenic. The other isotopes you mention, cosmogenic or not, are not relevant.       Quote and I wouldn’t be surprised if the mysterious excesses of Ar40 was actually via cosmic rays too Reality doesn't care what surprises you. 40Ar is not cosmogenic. The fact that so many K-Ar dates agree with other methods that are not sensitive to the initial amount of daughter isotope, and studies of modern-day lavas, proves that "excess argon" in quantities sufficient to be significant is a rare phenomenon. We have a claim that isochron methods involve multiple radioisotopes... false except for Pb-Pb, which is a special case. We have a claim that the daughter products used in 99% of isochron methods are themselves unstable... false.  Now a claim that parent and daughter isotopes used in isochron dating are cosmogenic... false. You just keep on going and going, don't you? Oh so my isochrons are atypical. Again, the A-A isochron that I listed is now more popular than yours. Oh and go to google and do this: " cosmogenic 40k " Ar-Ar is a very widely used dating technique, and the results  can be plotted on an isochron diagram, but they seldom are. Ar-Ar is not typically thought of as an isochron method. If you do think of it as an isochron method it's an atypical isochron method, for several reasons you don't know and obviously can't learn. I have no idea what you mean by "more popular than yours". Although Ar-Ar is widely used, and K-Ar isn't used much since the availability of Ar-Ar increased and its cost came down, U-Pb concordia-discordia is by far the most widely used method currently. That's not an isochron method. The results almost always agree with isochron method results. I already googled "cosmogenic 40K". Got any relevant examples? (I.e. terrrestrial.)

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,11:52    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09) Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56)       Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 15 2011,12:16)         Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,10:29) It doesnt mater how much formula waving you do because all that a reasonable person needs to do is look up anyone of the isochron daughter isotopes at wikipedia to see that 99% are known to radioactively decay, which makes them a radioisotope. Only a very few are still undetermined Here they are again: K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U. Formula waving (LOL) deleted, handwaving retained. Anybody could look up your first example K-Ar and see that the daughter is stable, such as at http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton........3.html.  Which means that if 99% of isochrons have unstable daughter isotopes, you need to list 99 more isochron methods at a minimum, AND all the daughters have to have measurable half-lives in those 99 examples.   Maybe they are written on a staff somewhere. Cosmogenic isotopes like Argon "arise from the collision of highly energetic cosmic ray particles with stable elements in the atmosphere and in the ground." Your link dont work but if these fossil bearing rocks must contain more than one type of the very few so called stable isotopes of a radioisotope, then isochron dating must be very rare.  Like I said said, almost all radioisotope daughters are known to be unstable. And what you said said was wrong.     Quote Heck, even the few so called stable isotpes in isochron dating are known to be stable but are then referred to as some anomalous deviation. Such as what, and what references say this?   Most Ar isotope decay either alpha or beta radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......f_argon Most  Sr isotopes decay beta, alpha, or electron capture radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium   Most Nd isotopes  decay beta radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......odymium Most Ba isotopes  decay beta or Isomeric radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._barium Most Hf isotopes that almost always decays beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......hafnium Most Ne isotopes decay beta  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......of_neon Most Os isotopes decay beta, alpha, Isomeric, or electron capture  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._osmium Most U isotopes decay beta or fission  radioactivity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......uranium Oh and you can also see that some of the isotopes that correspond to the so called stable isotopes actually decay I'm talking about the isotopes used in radiometric dating. The tables to which you referred are excellent resources and show that the daughter isotopes used in isochron radiometric dating are stable. 40Ar (K-Ar and Ar-Ar) 87Sr (Rb-Sr) 143Nd (Sm-Nd) 138Ba (La-Ba) 206Pb, 207Pb (Pb-Pb, which does involve multiple radioisotope parents but the final daughters are stable) 176Hf (Lu-Hf) 187Os (Re-Os)

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:09    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21)   Quote (JonF @ Nov. 16 2011,10:13)       Quote Plus you are still ignoring the following: Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32 Abstract: "The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the initial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages. Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron. Independent age determinations and critical appraisal of petrography are needed to evaluate isotope data. If initial isotope ratio variability can be demonstrated, however, it can be used to constrain petrogenetic pathways." And those independent age determinations almost always result in confirming the isochron age. E.g. Radiometric Ages of Some Early Archean and Related Rocks of the North Atlantic Craton and Radiometeric Dating Does Work!.       Quote Now consider the fact that sedimentary layers, which contain 99% of all fossils, are even more mixed and contaminated than the igneous contamination described above You still haven't figured out how sedimentary layers are dated. Repeating myself from page 27:     Quote Well its not usually your so called stable alpha decaying isotopes.  Anyway though please do finally teach us why you think the radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is so accurate. Sure. After you read my references and figure out what's going on. Here's a hint. If sedimentary layer B is above igneous layer A which is 100 million years old and layer B is also below igneous layer C which is 90 million years old, and there's no signs of disturbance after deposition or solidification, how old is layer B? And if igneous layer D cuts through all layers A and B, obviously by seeping into cracks and then solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B? All you are doing is "saying" the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately, which doesnt make it so. Do you at least agree that sedimentary rocks would have a lot more mixing and isotope contamination than igneous rocks? What references did you ever give on Sedimentary isochrons? Wotta maroon. Can't even read a simple paragraph and extract the meaning. No, I'm not just saying the sedimentary rocks are uncontaminated and dated accurately. I'm not saying that they are uncontaminated, contamination of sedimentary rocks doesn't matter. I'm saying they are dated accurately for the reasons I explained twice. "Mixing and isotope contamination" in sedimentary rocks is irrelevant although mixing is likely to be less in sedimentary rocks and isotopic contamination is probably about the same as in igneous rocks. Few if any isochrons are available for sedimentary rocks, because most sedimentary rocks are dated by stratigraphic position relative to igneous rocks, as I already explained twice. Once immediately above. I dug up one example of directly dating sedimentary rock by an isochron method: Sm-Nd isotopic dating of Proterozoic clay material: An example from the Francevillian sedimentary series, Gabon. I'm saying the igneous rocks are dated accurately, for reasons explained in detail in the references I've given you so many times. Contamination and initial daughter are accounted for in modern methods.  We conclude from theory and experiment that decay rates are sufficiently constant as to not cause any significant errors.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:21    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:29) Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,15:08)   Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 14 2011,15:23)     Quote (JonF @ Nov. 14 2011,13:05) Here, forastero, I'll make it simple for you. We know that, in any radiosotope, the number of atoms that decay per unit time is proportional to the number of atoms present. If there are N radioisotope atoms present and "t" is time, then the change in the number of atoms per unit time, dN/dt, is given by: Where lambda is the decay constant. If we start counting time from whatever point the process started, and there were N0 atoms at that time, the number of atoms present at time t is: (see Radiometric Dating to see how the second equation is derived from the first). Now, a moron might say that, since there is exponentiation involved in both this equation and the compound interest equation, then changes in the decay constant lambda will compound. but lambda and time "t" appear in the exponent. So when we solve for "t", the age of the sample: we see that the relationship between "t" and lambda is hyperbolic, not exponential. A change in lambda results in a inversely proportional change in the calculated age, but if you increase the change in lambda the effect on "t" decreases as the change in lambda increases. A 0.5% change in lambda at t=0 (the best case for you, applying the changed rate throughout the entire process) changes the calculated age of the sample by 0.4975%. (How we determine N0 is interesting but is outside the scope of this discussion. N and lambda are, of course, measured in the present.) This equation applies to simple-accumulation methods, such as K-Ar. The more advanced age-diagnostic methods are governed by more complex equations, but the relationship between "t" and lambda is always inversely proportional. For example, the Pb-Pb isochron which is the way we find the total age of the Earth: which is not solvable analytically, but can be solved using a computer. Note that "t" appears in the exponent multiplied by lambda, so we know that as in the above example "t" is inversely proportional to lambda. The sound you just heard was that of this post going right over forastero's head. Of course. He hasn't a prayer. I don't know of any dating methods, isochron or not, called "U-Pb-He" or "Ne-Ne" or "U-U". There is (U-Th)/He which results in a stable 4He isotope and is not an isochron method. There is cosmogenic exposure dating involving the radioisotope 21Ne, but that's not an isochron method. I suppose there could be U-U disequilibrium dating, but that wouldn't be an isochron method. The only radioisotope daughter product in his list is U. And it appears that three of the methods in his list are not isochron methods, which is the class of methods under discussion. U-U http://www.inqua2011.ch/?a=prog....onid=85 (U-Th)/He                                                                       http://www.mendeley.com/researc....-ages-9 http://europa.agu.org/?uri=......article "U-Pb/ He" http://www.icr.org/article....g-world   ? OK, I made a mistake, (U-Th)/He can be an isochron method. And I'm interested to see that the possible U-U disequilibrium method I mentioned dooes actually exist. But still no Ne-Ne or U-Pb-He. (The RATE group's zircon work is not a dating method; it just plain doesn't work. I'm somewhat of an expert on RATE's zircon work and could discuss it in detail. It appears that Humphreys' analysis depends solely on three very suspect data points, which the evidence available indicates are probably instrument noise. Humphreys has refused to release the lab report, even though he's been explicitly asked to do so and he released an earlier lab report. Very suspicious, and not the way scientists act.) See Assessing the RATE Project, RATE (Radioactivity and the Age of The Earth): Analysis and Evaluation of Radiometric Dating: Helium Diffusion in Zircons, and especially Expanding on Helium in Zircons: Are the key three or four data points in the 2003 experiment valid? which will be publised on the ASA site in a day or two.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:32    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2011,08:27)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,14:50) Again, you are not listing any of these so called 26 geologic columns. Nor are you mentioning your Big Bang theory and probably because you found that the Big Bang bigwigs call it an explosion of some sort. As for the Flood, your own scriptures reveal some Biblical stratigraphy of the Carboniferous ecology. I mean, we have a veritable paradise with exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism; but that was also being interrupted by some sort of mysteriously and perhaps sinful perturbations. Then all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. Today, we call this the "Carboniferous rainforest collapse" where huge amounts of  hydrocarboned fossil-fuels were produced via hydrothermally flooded organic matter. Hmm come to think about it, a microcosm of the event could be the horrendous pyrolysis witnessed at the bottom of the Twin tower on 9/11 1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me). 2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't). 3) They are not my scriptures.   4)     Quote exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism citation please 5)     Quote all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. citation please please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years? And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata? Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong? So are you claiming that there is now coal at the bottom of the World Trade Center? LOL the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous The map in the above link shows the the great Carboniferous coalfields of the U.S. quite well ...but for those actually interested in science, I'd suggest  Googling Carboniferous and any of the key words that I mentioned and you find I speak the truth but the following has quite a bit of it As for the WTC, I was referring to the molten and carbonated balls of what-not Perhaps you could... answer the questions... I know, silly me.  Why answer questions that you know will totally destroy your personal woldview.  Reality being totally inconsequential to that world view. Let me repeat, because of your non-answers (again). Quote 1) It's not my job to do your work for you.  You want to create positive evidence, then do so.  It should be trivial for you to prove me wrong, if indeed these 26 locations with complete geologic columns from precambrian to present exist.  All you have to do is show that they don't (they do, but you don't know that, which is hilarious to me). 2) YOU claimed that the Big Bang was an explosion.  You say that many scientists agree with you.  It should be trivial then for you to tell me what exploded.  Please do so and quit trying to pin this on me.  It's YOUR claim, you support it (or admit that you can't). 3) They are not my scriptures.   4)     Quote exceedingly rich oxygen levels that allowed all kinds of giganticism citation please 5)     Quote all the sudden there is massive flooding, volcanism, worldwide rifting, tectonics, an ice age and a mass extinction represented by the quick and high pressure burial of rainforests all over the world. citation please please DEFINE "Sudden"  1 year?  100,000 years?  42 million years? And we're back to the Cambrian explosion again.  You've already admitted that these things occurred many, many times.  So, what exploded, when, and how long did they last? So, now, where, EXACTLY should I be looking for the flood strata?   Seriously, if you think the Carboniferous is the flood deposits, then you need some serious help. This link (http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/wcsb_atlas/a_ch14/ch_14.html) shows a Carboniferous layer in Canada that includes some 600 feet of Dolostone overlain by another 200-300 feet of carbonates.  And (as a cheery on top) a nice layer of various anhydrites, which, given the name, you should realize does not form in water.  That is then overlain by another 100 feet of silt/sandstone layers that do not form in turbulent water. Or you can go here: Here's an interesting clue... in what era do the largest minable coal seams in the US belong? The worldThe Carboniferous of the World and learn about the 4000 meters (about 13,000 feet) of TERRESTRIAL Carboniferous deposits, which, I can assure you, do not form in water. Heck, read the whole book. So, are you going to lay your claim (regardless of the age of the formations, we'll get to that) that the Carboniferous (all of it) is the flood deposit? yes or no if no, then what is? edit: quote goof. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:36    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 16 2011,12:01) forastero, you do understand that after a time your non-response itself becomes a response, shouted from mount Ararat: "I HAVE NO FUCKING IDEA HOW TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION." Which, both for me and other interested readers, accomplishes as much as any answer you can supply. Given this non-answer/answer, the question indicts your position, and your previous sciencey lip service, as empty babbling. You might want to try to control that impression by actually supplying a relevant response. Otherwise, I've accomplished a lot of what I set out to accomplish, which anyone can see. (No sleeve-muttering, please). OH shit he done tripped a nuke wire.  when RB starts dick joking you YOU ARE FUCKED -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2011,12:37    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,12:09) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:47) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 16 2011,10:42)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,10:35) Thank you for encouraging me to uncover any facts from your scriptures myself. Ah here are some lines to read between. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......iferous But why would you bother reading that when the very first line talks about millions of years, and you flatly deny that the earth is in fact millions of years old. If the first line is wrong, according to you, what value can the rest possibly have? Because when the Nazis controlled and manipulated  science and art and food, etc... etc..., people still wanted to live Look, why don't you just tell me that Jesus loves me and call an end to this? it's all the stain has left you know -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Pages: (51) < ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard