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) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,01:55    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,22:53) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33) Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years   That is not responsive to my question. I'll repeat it. Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values? For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light. Is that your belief? Or maybe the other direction, where you'd be traveling at about 1.2 furlongs per fortnight? (Or 1.38e-4 m/s, if you like.) -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,06:58    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)   Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28) ? Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)           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) Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo. I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.     ? Quote Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays. Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.     ? Quote 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. You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion. (In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come). It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:       Quote Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??� radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead. (D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay). Emphasis in original. Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.       Quote It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.       Quote Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations. Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario. Still waiting for 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. But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links. Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____. And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate. Quote Second of all, cosmic rays can effect any radioistope and your own priests cry atmospheric contamination of all the coal and dinosaurs found with C14. Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption. Quote Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere. To say that science knows how to counter this is just more radiomagic hand waving because there is no way to calibrate carbon fluctuations that far back. Plus, atmospheric carbon ratios are not even the same everywhere . You mean mot, not mute. Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant). Quote Fourthly, the whole point of Isochron dating is the use of more thane one daughter isotopes. Geologists today observe the present proportions of parent and daughter isotopes in a sample and use those proportions to date the sample but isochron dating takes it a step further by measuring more than one type of daughter isotope You said more than one radioisotope. Remember? "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. " And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay. You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Quote Finally, not only does your Isochron dating (like with your Argon) dating suffer contamination from various sources before and during crystallization,... Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. Quote ... but igneous rocks have unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant? Quote Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios. What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,07:21    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:07)       Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,15:54) Wotta maroon!!             Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)             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) That quote does not appear in the linked page at T.O., nor does it appear in Strahler. What does appear at T.O. is:         Quote         Quote 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. (Strahler, 1987, p.158) 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. IOW, you can't even copy and paste. You mixed up Strahler's and Mason's words into one quote attributed to Strahler. Here's a more complete selection from Strahler:         Quote One authority from mainstream science, cited by Morris in support of the greater production than decay of C-14, is Richard E. Lingenfelter (Morris, 1975, p. 164). Lingenfelter states:         Quote On comparing the calculated value of the carbon 14 production rate, averaged over the last ten solar cycles, of 2.50 ± 0.50 C14 atoms per square centimeter per second with the most recent estimates of the decay rate of 1.8 ± 0.2 . . . and 1.9 ± 0.2 . . ., there is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 per cent. (1963, p. 51) (Note: Citations of sources given by Lingenfelter have been deleted from the above paragraph). What Morris does not tell the reader is that Lingenfelter continues his discussion by attributing the discrepancy between production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a subject we have explored in earlier pages. Lingenfelter's paper was written in 1963, before the cycles of C-14 variation we described had been fully documented. 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. As curves A and C in Figure 19.5 show, before about -3000 y., C-14 was decaying faster than it was being formed, with the result that the C-14 ages are too young. The creation scientists ignore this newer information, which is readily available to the public in published journals; it was available in 1974 when the creationist textbook was published. They have made their calculations from the unsupportable assumption that the C-14 production rate has always been greater than the decay rate by the percentage observed today. That is an untenable assumption in the light of evidence to the contrary. Creationists have used the same form of unsupported extrapolation that we found in creation scientist Barnes's calculation of a limiting age of the earth by assumed constant decay rate of the earth's magnetic field. And, of course, you ignored the many rrefutaions of your claims made in the T.O. article. Wotta maroon! And of coarse you did not reveal the link that you are accusing me of misquoting. Here it is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......14.html   The link has been previously posted. And, of course, you did misquote it. You were wrong. And you're still ignoring the refutations of your claims from that article.     Quote ..and proving yall's chronic fear mongering propaganda Sorry, I assumed you could find the page easily yourself. Obviously I overestimated your capability. Quote Moreover your article also seems dishonest about Tree Ring chronology when considering the following quotes. Rod A. Savidge Ph.D. says: "As a tree physiologist who has devoted his career to understanding how trees make wood, I have made sufficient observations on tree rings and cambial growth to know that dendrochronology is not at all an exact science. Indeed, its activities include subjective interpretations of what does and what does not constitute an annual ring, statistical manipulation of data to fulfill subjective expectations, and discarding of perfectly good data sets when they contradict other data sets that have already been accepted. Such massaging of data cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered science; it merely demonstrates a total lack of rigor attending so-called dendrochronology "research". . . It would be a major step forward if dendrochronology could embrace the scientific method." New York Times, November of 2002 Now there's a scientific and peer-reviewed reference! Let's see his evidence.     Quote "In almost all branches of science, other than tree-ring studies, there is a check on the validity of published research: other researchers can, and often will, independently seek to replicate the research. For example, if a scientist does an experiment in a laboratory, comes to some interesting conclusion, and publishes this, then another scientist will replicate the experiment, in another laboratory, and if the conclusion is not the same, there will be some investigation. The result is (i) a scientist who publishes bogus research will be caught (at least if the research has importance and is not extremely expensive to replicate) and (ii) because all scientists know this, bogus science is rare. Tree-ring studies do not have this check, because the wood that forms the basis of a tree-ring study is irreplaceable: no other researchers can gather that wood. Additionally, tree-ring investigators typically publish little more than conclusions. This is true everywhere, not just for Anatolia. Moreover, there is little competition among tree-ring investigators, in part”and this is crucial” because investigators in one region typically do not have access to data from other regions. The result is a system in which investigators can claim any plausible results and yet are accountable to no one." "The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?" Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a....04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.....02a.pdf ) Keenan's qualigfications have already been demolished. I'll just point that that tree-ring studies are regularly replicated correlated to other methods, e.g. U-Th disequilibrium dating of corals and lake varves. In addition to the references you're alredy ignoring, see How does the radiocarbon dating method work? by a conservative Christian physicist and former staff member of the ICR (he was too honest to last long there).     Quote From the "Symposium Organized By International Atomic Energy Authority", H. E. Suess, UCLA, "...presented the latest determinations... as adduced from the current activity of dendrochronologically dated growth rings of the Californian bristle cone pine....The carbon14 concentration increases rather steadily during this time… These results confirm the change in carbon14 concentration.... and indicate that the concentration increases..."  (Science, Vol.157, p.726) ROFL! You think that a quote with so many ellipses indicates anything? But, as presented it doesn't indicate any issues with the method.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,07:22    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,07:58) Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron. Oh, he doesn't give a good goddam. It's one of those times when you say "CAN'T TELL IF TROLLING OR RETARDED" then you realize for this asshole it's both -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,07:47    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 12 2011,07:22) Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,07:58) Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron. Oh, he doesn't give a good goddam. It's one of those times when you say "CAN'T TELL IF TROLLING OR RETARDED" then you realize for this asshole it's both Sorry dude, Keenan isn't good enough for here. There is no evidence he has any training in radiometric dating of any stripe.  There is no evidence that the article you quoted has been peer-reviewed.  There is evidence that Keenan's peer-reviewed work has been debunked. IOW: I really wouldn't pin my hopes on him.  But then, anything to support your cause right.  Just ignore the actual experts on radiometric dating (some of which are on this forum) and go with a financial services guy who has never been in a lab actually doing the work. BTW: What, exactly, exploded to cause the Big Bang... or have you abandoned that claim? There's the other big question. Where, is that flood discontinuity?  There are 26 locations on the Earth with full geological sequences.  It should be nearly trivial work (i.e. junior undergrad) to get all of those and find the layer that represents the flood.  I've already given you some hints on how to do it.  Go for it... or are you terrified at what you would find if you actually did the work? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,12:42    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03) Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22) For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built. Ooh, this is fun. Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes. I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think). I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives. What number do we come up with? 10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few. Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with: births per childbearing woman = 8 Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times). We get 23ish million people. Are these parameters correct, forastero? Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female. I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct). So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X Death Rates = A, B, C, D Birth Rate = Y Lets do this. -------------- 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

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,14:34    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)     Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28) ?   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)             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) Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo. I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.     ?   Quote Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays. Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.     ?   Quote 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. You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion. (In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come). It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:         Quote Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??� radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead. (D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay). Emphasis in original. Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.         Quote It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.         Quote Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations. Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario. Still waiting for 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. But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links. Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____. And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate. Again, look up cosmogenic radioisotopes and you will see that Ar40 and C14 are produced by cosmic radiation. Quote Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption. Look up quantum tunneling, which can be induced by cosmic rays. Plus, its common sense that if cosmic rays can produce radioisotopes, then surely they can also effect their fission decay Quote You mean mot, not mute. Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant). Funny that you wont mention them   Quote You said more than one radioisotope. Remember? "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. " And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay. Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html Quote I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it. "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee,  Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9) Quote You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant? "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."  Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32;  Geological Society of America   Quote What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron. 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.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,14:43    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)               Quote Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying. Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:           Quote Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?   How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?   Answer: it can't. Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't. {irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted} I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours. Quote First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies. Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.   Quote Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable. The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.     Quote Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it. Handwaving.   Quote Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes? No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results. That is why. -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,14:51    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03) Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)   Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22) For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built. Ooh, this is fun. Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes. I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think). I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives. What number do we come up with? 10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few. Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with: births per childbearing woman = 8 Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times). We get 23ish million people. Are these parameters correct, forastero? Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female. I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct). So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X Death Rates = A, B, C, D Birth Rate = Y Lets do this. I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it.

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,15:03    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,15:34)     Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58)       Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15)         Quote (JonF @ Nov. 10 2011,13:28) ?         Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38)                 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) Yup. Like I said, the rate of production of 14C varies and is compensated for, and the rate of decay does not vary. Sometimes more 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time, and sometimes less 14C is produced per unit time than decays (at a constant rate) per unit time. No problemo. I have Strahler at home, I'll check those ellipses.     ?         Quote Btw, AR40 and C14 are cosmogenic radioisotopes produced by cosmic rays. Caught by my typo! 40Ar (your capital R is incorrect) is stable, the result of the decay of 40K. 38Ar and 36Ar are indeed cosmogenic, but that is irrelevant to the age of the Earth and fossils.     ?         Quote 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. You still don't have the faintest idea of how isochron dating works. When you figure it out, from the links I gave, maybe we can have a discussion. (In almost all the isochron methods, only one radioisotope is used. And you haven't a clue from whence samples come). It's worth noting that the vast majority of the many dates produced in the last two decades or so, including the oldest minerals and the oldest rocks found to date, came from U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Even the creationist RATE group acknowledges that the lead found in zircons and similar samples is all a result of the decay of uranium in-situ and the only explanation that might possibly work is vastly accelerated radioactive decay:             Quote Samples 1 through 3 had helium retentions of 58, 27, and 17 percent. The fact that these percentages are high confirms that a large amount of nuclear decay did indeed occur in the zircons. Other evidence strongly supports much nuclear decay having occurred in the past (Humphreys, 2000, pp. 335–337). We emphasize this point because many creationists have assumed that “old??� radioisotopic ages are merely an artifact of analysis, not really indicating the occurrence of large amounts of nuclear decay. But according to the measured amount of lead physically present in the zircons, approximately 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates—of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the alpha particles (the helium) that would have been emitted during this decay of uranium and thorium to lead. (D. R. Humphreys, S. A. Austin, J. R. Baumgardner, & A. A. Snelling, "Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay). Emphasis in original. Too bad for creationists that this AND would have subtle side effects, such as killing all life twice over from heat and radiation, and leaving the Earth's surface molten for millenia. See RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.             Quote It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it.             Quote Agendas further  verified by all the the recent  brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations. Ain't no brouhaha. Just scientists calmly doing science, turning up possible decay variations that are six orders of magnitude too small to support your scenario. Still waiting for 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. But it appears you're so afraid of reality you can't even acknowledge the existence of those links. Actually you insisted that my quote:"fluctuating strength of the magnet field effects those radioisotopes like C14 and Argon produced via cosmic rays." was bull____. And it was and is. You obviously meant the decay rate, not the production rate. Again, look up cosmogenic radioisotopes and you will see that Ar40 and C14 are produced by cosmic radiation.       Quote Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope, and only affect the production rate of a few. The fact that any 14C found in dinosaur bones or coal is contamination is well established by evidence, not by assumption. Look up quantum tunneling, which can be induced by cosmic rays. Yeah, quantum tunneling is well understood. Cosmic rays do not affect the decay rate of any radioisotope. You're just throwing words you don't understand hoping to snow somebody.   Quote Plus, its common sense that if cosmic rays can produce radioisotopes, then surely they can also effect their fission decay ROFL! No, it's not common sense to anyone who has a clue about how radioactive decay works. Common sense or not, it's not how the universe works. We've made measurements.   Quote   Quote You mean moot, not mute. Actually, there are well-known established ways to counter the effect of ?varying atmospheric 14C content. Your attempt to hand-wave that away is based on ignorance. See the figure above. And, yes, 14C content varies slightly with position, another effect that is well-understood and can be compensated for (although it's usually so small as to be unimportant). Funny that you wont mention them Be glad to ... when you've read and understood the links I gave you, and are capable of having a meaningful discussion. Quote   Quote You said more than one radioisotope. Remember? "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. " And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay. Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html Yup, which is exactly what I said. A "different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay" is not another daughter isotope, as you claimed. This is a technical field, you need to understand the technical terms and use them properly.   Quote   Quote I've seen this claim so many times, and never any data to back it up. You could get some if you wanted. There's a USGS lab in Menlo Park, California, that's been doing dating for decades. It's a government agency. Request their records of  lab tests, using the FOIA if necessary. Correlate those tests to publications. I've suggested this many times, but nobody's done it. "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Robert E. Lee,  Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, no. 3, 1981, p.9) Let's see his data.   Quote   Quote You haven't even attempted to show any problems with isochron dating. Or the more-widely-used U-Pb concordia-discordia dating. Which is detected and indicated by the method. Oh, and "contamination before crystallization", whatever that's supposed to mean, is irrelevant. WTF is this supposed to mean and why do you think it's relevant? "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."  Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32;  Geological Society of America So, WTF is "contamination before crystallization"? And in the vast majority of cases where initial isotope ratios vary, you don't get an isochron.   Quote   Quote What percentage of radiometric dating methods are practiced on sedimentary rocks? Still can't bring yourself to learn what's really going on, can you. Moron. 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 the solidifying, but doesn't cut through layer C and dates to 95 million years old, how old is layer B?

JonF Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,15:07    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,15:51) Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. Hey, doofus-brain, let's see the math showing exactly how changes in decay rates compound. Free clue: changes in decay rates, if there were any, do not compound and neither do the ages derived from them. The math is pretty simple.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,15:09    Forastero, Oh Caged Kong with the logos, you continue to have the cowardice of your convictions.   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,23:33) Actually, I believe its probably often much more than .05% and the perhaps weekly decay fluctuations accumulate to totally alter any reasonable measurement beyond 5000 years   How much more than 0.5%?   Is it your belief that sources of error such as the alleged 0.5% radiometric fluctuations (and all other alleged similar errors) are of sufficient magnitude to result in estimated ages, such as the age of the earth, that are 227,000x the actual values? For reference, a 0.5% error in my speedometer would result in a reading of 70 mph when I was actually traveling at 70.35 mph, while you are alleging errors of magnitude such that when my indicated speed is 70 mph I may in fact be traveling over 2% of the speed of light. Is that your belief? -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,15:23    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:51) Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)   Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)     Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22) For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built. Ooh, this is fun. Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes. I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think). I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives. What number do we come up with? 10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few. Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with: births per childbearing woman = 8 Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times). We get 23ish million people. Are these parameters correct, forastero? Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female. I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct). So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X Death Rates = A, B, C, D Birth Rate = Y Lets do this. I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Ummm... you do realize that compound interest is not the same as populations of living things.  The same formulas do not work. Here's a hint: My dollars do not die after 40-85 years.  My dollars are not eaten by leopards.  My dollars do not suffer from disentary, malaria, infant mortality and tribal warfare. Every dollar 'reproduces' in compound interest.  Every dollar survives indefinitely. But other than those things, they are exactly the same. BTW: What exactly exploded in the Big Bang? And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment? I'm really curious as to why you aren't answering major questions like these... especially since you brought up the topics in the first place.  Or are you willing to admit mistake, like I have in this very thread? But other than that, they are exactly the same thing. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,15:24    Oh forastero, So completely clueless.  So completely dishonest.  Why is it that creationists can never show their work?  My example was an actual example--you know where the work was shown and the formula was shown and the parameters were shown. Your um...example(?) did none of that.  Let's try it again. Quote I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again Examples are worked out by those who give them, not the other way around.  Examples are teaching tools were the method is shown and explained.  What's the matter?  Can't you explain your own arguments? Quote Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. Not interested in decay rates.  Nice of you to try to change the topic.  Now, population on the other hand?  Let's talk.   Quote If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. Where do you derive your growth rate?  I told you where I got my numbers; is there some reason you can't tell me yours?  And, given that Noah and his sons are of different generations, shouldn't your calculation start with either 2 or 6?  Anyway, very interested in how you calculate your growth rate. Quote For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Drivel.  We can move on to examining this if you ever answer the above questions and concerns and actually work an example from scratch. -------------- 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

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,16:37    Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 12 2011,14:43) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,20:56)                 Quote Actually, radioisotopes have different decay events, sensitivities, and energy barriers that require a specific activation energy that reactants must surpass in order to nudge it into decaying. Allow me to quote what wikipedia says about alpha decay:             Quote Alpha decay, like other cluster decays, is fundamentally a quantum tunneling process. Unlike beta decay, alpha decay is governed by the interplay between the nuclear force and the electromagnetic force. How is the distance from the sun (10^8 of km) going to affect the strong nuclear force (range of only 10^-15 m)?   How does it affect the coulomb repulsion between the protons of the nucleus?   Answer: it can't. Observation from Cassini space craft: It didn't. {irrelevancies and other hand-waving deleted} I have only been talking about a claimed solar effect on radioactive decay, not any other environmental effects.  The fact that you do not understand this is not my problem, but yours.   Quote First of all, if you had really read about strong nuclear force you wouldnt be defending his disagreement to the fact that different radioisotopes have different sensitivities and binding energies. Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not.     Quote Secondly, strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces dont necessarily make an isotope the most stable. In fact, its the alpha decaying isotopes that are are usually the most unstable. The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.       Quote Thirdly, Quantum tunneling is actually what allows the reaction to proceed through the energy barrier and cosmic rays can induce it. Handwaving.     Quote Fourthly, why are you so uptight about alpha decaying radioisotopes when it seems logical that most fossils are dated with beta decaying isotopes? No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results. That is why. Quote Who the hell is "he"?  Was I not replying to you? http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y196896 Tracy, who was claiming that studies on a gold isotope proves the stability and or sensitivities of other isotopes. You claimed that my disagreement to that rationalization was handwaving Quote The link to wikipedia is for you to learn from, and base an argument on.  I already know about how radioactive decay works, you do not. The extent to which a radioactive decay rate is influenced by environment has NOTHING to to with how stable it is, dimwit.  Nor does the mechanism of alpha or beta correlate with stability.  [/quote] You now seem to be confusing reaction and decay.  You first asked how the sun could effect the strong nuclear binding force of a alpha decaying isotope and I told you that the force doesnt necessarily make them less vulnerable to reaction. In fact, alpha radioisotopes are often the most vulnerable to reaction. On the other hand if  protons and neutrons can be rearranged inside the nucleus by deuterium tunneling and if cosmic rays and/or quantum tunneling can greatly effect reaction rates of radioisotopes and fission, its logical that it can also effect decay rates. Quote Handwaving. Actually its called quantum physics. You and your sun god priests love fantasizing about mutationism but when someone talks logically about a mutation that can effect your scriptures, the whole congregation starts foaming at the mouth Quote No answer to why alpha decay should be affected, eh? This group seeing variation in decay rates is seeing variation in alpha and beta decay.  The fact that alpha should not be affected at all casts doubt that this is not just observational artifact for ALL the results. Radium decays alpha, beta, and gamma and Princeton and Purdue show that the decay rates do change

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,16:50    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2011,15:23) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:51)   Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,12:42)   Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:03)     Quote (blipey @ Nov. 10 2011,14:27)     Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:22) For that population rate computation, keep in mind the number of people that had to be in Egypt at the time the pyramids were built. Ooh, this is fun. Given the FLOOD was 4500 years ago and the population of the world at the height of the Egyptian empire (2030 BC) was 23,000,000ish, lets see if that gibes. I plugged in modern day death rates (generous on my part I think). I used a birth rate of every woman of childbearing age having 4 children in their lives. What number do we come up with? 10,040 people.  We seem to be short a few. Well, people had lots and lots of children then.  And let's put in a more probable set of death rates.  Let's go with: births per childbearing woman = 8 Death rates: 1000, 6000, 3000, 7000  (Which I think is still very generous, 1% infant mortality and lots elderly still bopping about in ancient times). We get 23ish million people. Are these parameters correct, forastero? Lot of words but try an objective account with the formula and stats that "I" offered I'm sorry.  What were those?  I assumed a starting population of 2.  What were you thinking?  I gave the results of 2 runs: one with current day death rates and one with a second set of death rates.  The first run used 4 children per female and the second used 8 children per female. I asked you what the correct parameters were.  If you ere actually interested in carrying on a conversation you would have, at this point, given a set of parameters that you found to be more correct (or agreed that mine were correct). So, how about it?  What parameters should we use?  Starting population = X Death Rates = A, B, C, D Birth Rate = Y Lets do this. I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Ummm... you do realize that compound interest is not the same as populations of living things.  The same formulas do not work. Here's a hint: My dollars do not die after 40-85 years.  My dollars are not eaten by leopards.  My dollars do not suffer from disentary, malaria, infant mortality and tribal warfare. Every dollar 'reproduces' in compound interest.  Every dollar survives indefinitely. But other than those things, they are exactly the same. BTW: What exactly exploded in the Big Bang? And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment? I'm really curious as to why you aren't answering major questions like these... especially since you brought up the topics in the first place.  Or are you willing to admit mistake, like I have in this very thread? But other than that, they are exactly the same thing. Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,17:07    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 12 2011,15:24) Oh forastero, So completely clueless.  So completely dishonest.  Why is it that creationists can never show their work?  My example was an actual example--you know where the work was shown and the formula was shown and the parameters were shown. Your um...example(?) did none of that.  Let's try it again. Quote I gave the formula and two examples for you to work out. Here they are again Examples are worked out by those who give them, not the other way around.  Examples are teaching tools were the method is shown and explained.  What's the matter?  Can't you explain your own arguments? Quote Do a study on compound interest in investing and you will have a better understanding of accumulative effects in both population and fluctuating decay rates. Not interested in decay rates.  Nice of you to try to change the topic.  Now, population on the other hand?  Let's talk.   Quote If r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n, then after n years, the population produced by the eight survivors of the Flood = 8(1+r/100)n. Where do you derive your growth rate?  I told you where I got my numbers; is there some reason you can't tell me yours?  And, given that Noah and his sons are of different generations, shouldn't your calculation start with either 2 or 6?  Anyway, very interested in how you calculate your growth rate. Quote For the sake of argument, lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. On the other hand, evolutionists claim that mankind evolved from apes about a million years ago. If the population had grown at just 0.01% per year since then (doubling only every 7,000 years), there could be 1043 people today—that’s a number with 43 zeros after it. Drivel.  We can move on to examining this if you ever answer the above questions and concerns and actually work an example from scratch. My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates. The first example adds up to the present  population of the earth The second evolutionism one adds up to way to many especially if you consider erectus (logically fully human) is supposed to actually be here two years, I said one million years ago to represent H. antecessor What more do you need?

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,17:10    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,17:07) My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates. What, you mean this?   Quote lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. If that's a "formula" please tell me what the population figures were, say, 2500 years ago. 1000 years ago? 500? -------------- 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. 12 2011,17:19    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 10 2011,13:18) Quote Oh but thats right, you still think erectus heidelbergensis, antecessor, Neanderthal, etc.. were all apes Of course they were apes. So are we. Ah so thats how they finally solved the missing link. How convenient and please tell me why we and the apes are so different from head to toe?

noncarborundum Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,17:32    Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58) You mean mot, not mute. Or possibly "moot".     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)         Quote You said more than one radioisotope. Remember? "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. " And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay. Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result. -------------- "The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

paragwinn Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,17:46    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:50) Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time forastero must be Robert Byers'  "smarter" brother. forastero, You provided a formula in this format: 8(1+r/100)n where, in your words, "r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n". maybe there's a formatting problem here but the formula could be interpreted like this: 8 x (1+R/100) x n. Did you mean this: 8 x [(1+r/100) exponent n]? -------------- All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11 F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11 Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:04    Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 12 2011,17:32) Quote (JonF @ Nov. 12 2011,06:58) You mean mot, not mute. Or possibly "moot".     Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:34)           Quote You said more than one radioisotope. Remember? "Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. " And you're still wrong. ?One radioisotope, one daughter isotope, one stable isotope of the daughter isotope. Not "more than one type of daughter isotope". Daughter isotopes are produced only by radioactive decay. Your own site that you keep telling me to read says: “Isochron dating requires a fourth measurement to be taken, which is the amount of a different isotope of the same element as the daughter product of radioactive decay. (For brevity's sake, hereafter I will refer to the parent isotope as P, the daughter isotope as D, and the non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter, as Di). In addition, it requires that these measurements be taken from several different objects which all formed at the same time from a common pool of materials. (Rocks which include several different minerals are excellent for this.)” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......ng.html The reading comprehension is not strong in this one, is it?  Either that, or the ability to look up "radioisotope" in any convenient dictionary and understand the result. Thats three radioisotopes in that quote. A parent isotope can decay to different daughter or even granddaughter isotopes To make it easy on you look at these isochron parent to daughter isotope dating techniques. I-Xe, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd Ar-Ar, La-Ba, Pb-Pb, Lu-Hf, Ne-Ne, Re-Os, U-Pb-He, U-U.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:07    Quote (paragwinn @ Nov. 12 2011,17:46) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,14:50) Not only did you willfully misinterpret the analogy but you fail to realize that the average dollar bill has a life span of only about 18-22 months Likewise, no one knows what formula you are talking about and the age old formula that I provided wont get you to that answer unless you messed up big time forastero must be Robert Byers'  "smarter" brother. forastero, You provided a formula in this format: 8(1+r/100)n where, in your words, "r = % rate of growth per year, and the number of years of growth = n". maybe there's a formatting problem here but the formula could be interpreted like this: 8 x (1+R/100) x n. Did you mean this: 8 x [(1+r/100) exponent n]? Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should

Wolfhound Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:09    I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.   Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE! TARD. -------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:13    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2011,17:10) Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,17:07) My gosh. Im giving you the formula and  very conservative growth rates. What, you mean this?   Quote lets say the Flood occurred 4500 years ago. It needs less than 0.5% per year growth.6 That’s not very much. If that's a "formula" please tell me what the population figures were, say, 2500 years ago. 1000 years ago? 500? Here I will make it easy  but mind you that this calculator only shows  exponential growth. http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias....ion.php ....and whata ya know, it even provides our compound interest analogy

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:13    So, forastero, are you saying that every 18-24 months, all the money that was in my investment account at the beginning of that time span is GONE?  And, that after 18-24 months, the only thing left in my investment account is the compound interest on the money that accumulated in those 18-24 months? Because, that is what you are saying and the sheer stupidity of that statement is truly staggering. Dollars =/= dollar bills.   I don't know how to say this any easier... YOU CANNOT USE SIMPLE COMPOUND INTEREST FOR POPULATIONS OF ORGANISMS. I'm sure that was an attempt to bolster your use of Keenan, but it was an utter failure. Now, we see that you know nothing about money and biology and physics and likely chemistry and definitely geology. Now, I still have two outstanding questions and I will continue to point out that you are too chicken to answer them until either A) you do answer them or B) admit that your position was wrong on them.  You are too intellectually chicken to admit you were wrong, so your only choice to not look like a complete wimp is to answer the questions. 1) What, exactly, exploded to cause the big bang.   2) And, where, in the geologic column should we expect to find Flood Sediment? Just admit that your position on these two topics is totally wrong and you will have generated some small measure of respectability.  Continue to not answer and we will continue to point others to this thread as further evidence of the complete inability of creationists to answer even simple questions about their own position. Do you know, forastero, how people become famous in science?  I promise you it is not through constantly attacking others' positions.  It is only through positive evidence that supports your own position. Your position is not that science is wrong.  Your position is that of a literal Bible and Young Earth Creationism.  This battle has been fought for longer than either of us has been alive and at no point in the entire history of the YEC movement has a single bit (in the literal definition) of positive, supporting evidence for the YEC position ever been presented. You know how we know there is none.  Because if there was some, you people would never shut up about it.  That evidence would be blasted on the Christian radio networks 32 hours every day.  The simple fact that you are too chicken to even state your position, much less support it, is proof of the utter vacuousness of your notions about the Earth, the Universe and everything. In some 27 pages, you have not only failed to make a positive case for your position, you have failed to make a single argument that disputes any known science, and you have completely failed to both learn and understand what you are arguing about. Keep flailing, it's funny.  But never think for a moment that you are even playing the same game that scientists are. You have two questions to answer... I predict that you much, much too chicken to even acknowledge they exist, much less answer them. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:15    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:07) Yeah sorry my exponents aren't coming out where they should Hey, what does it matter. You believe the earth is younger then the age of some of the living things on it. List_of_long-living_organisms   Quote Pando is a Populus tremuloides (Quaking Aspen) tree or clonal colony that has been estimated at 80,000 years old,although some claims place it as being as old as one million years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies" the above ground trunks remain connected to each other via a single massive underground root system. Whether it is to be considered a single tree is disputed, as it depends on one's definition of an individual tree. The Jurupa Oak colony is estimated to be at least 13,000 years of age, with other estimates ranging from 5,000 to 30,000 years. A huge colony of the sea grass Posidonia oceanica in the Mediterranean Sea could be up to 100,000 years old. King's Lomatia in Tasmania: The sole surviving clonal colony of this species is estimated to be at least 43,600 years old. A box huckleberry bush in Pennsylvania is thought to be as old as 13,000 years of age. Eucalyptus recurva: clones in Australia are claimed to be 13,000 years old. Quercus palmeri: a clonal oak shrub near Riverside in California, isolated for centuries from the rest of its species, is dated at around 13,000 years old. King Clone is a creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) in the Mojave desert estimated at 11,700 years old. Another creosote bush has been said to be 12,150 years old, but this is as yet unconfirmed. A Huon Pine colony on Mount Read, Tasmania is estimated at 10,000 years old, with individual specimens living to over 3,000 years. A colony of Norway Spruce in Sweden, nicknamed Old Tjikko, includes remnants of roots that have been carbon dated to 9,550 years old. An individual of the fungus species Armillaria solidipes in the Malheur National Forest is thought to be between 2,000 and 8,500 years old. It is thought to be the world's largest organism by area, at 2,384 acres (965 hectares). So what's some, or even all exponents in such crazyness? -------------- 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

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:25    Hey forastero, here's a reply, also published in Radiocarbon to your Keenan article. http://dendro.cornell.edu/article....02c.pdf I'll just add that Manning et. al. has another (minimum) 15 peer-reviewed articles published specifically discussing radiocarbon dating AFTER 2002.  Further, if you go to Manning's home page, there are at least three articles discussing radiocarbon calibration, at least two discussing the tree-ring dating and radiocarbon dating, and one article discussing what we know and don't know about radiocarbon dates.  Most of these were also published in Radiocarbon. Feel free to read them all and learn what's going on from an actual scientist, but do start with the response to Keenan's paper. Enjoy. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

forastero Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:25    Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09) I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.   Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE! TARD. Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,18:35    Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,18:25) Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 12 2011,18:09) I'm sorry, but the fact that this clown (my apologies to Blipey) believes (or at least claims to believe, for the sake of trolling) in Teh Flud tells us all that we need to know about his stupidity and credulity.   Of course, chew toys ARE fun, so dance, little I-Didn't-Come-From-No-Monkey, DANCE! TARD. Hey it was those unromantically rude dudes who  doubted Troy, Babylon, Atlantis, Nineveh, and Nimrud too But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes....XcRY5Rg -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (51) < ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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