forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,08:42) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,01:14) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:34) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:56) | 87Sr is stable. It does not change back int 87Rb or or into any other isotope of Sr.
85Sr is not used in Rb-Sr isochron dating.
Irrelevant. Not terrestrial. |
You said the following was an excellent table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr
85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? Quote | Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes |
Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating |
Yeah see table 1. 85Sr <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Broken link. Simple. You don't have a clue and you can't read for comprehension.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
Notice the label above the second column? 87mSr is an excited state which requires significant energy input to achieve. Once it is created, it decays with a half-life of 2.815 hours. It almost always decays back to 87Sr but occasionally decays to 87Rb.
Does this happen in nature? I don't know. But:
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Sr has no effect on the isochron age.
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Rb would increase the numerator of the X coordinate and decrease the numerator of the Y coordinate in the isochron diagram, which would decrease the indicated age, which is derived from the slope. IOW, if you want to argue that this excitation happens in nature, you're arguing that Rb-Sr isochrons underestimate the real age.
- Finally, if you are going to argue that this happens in terrestrial nature, you need to provide evidence for it and an explanation for why Rb-Sr isochrons agree with so many other methods. And "They're all lying" isn't an explanation.
Quote | Here are a few cosmogenic isotopes used in isochron dating 39K, 39Ar, 10Be, 26Al, 3 He, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, and 41Ar
Here are just a few quick searches
http://www.ajsonline.org/content....bstract |
Interesting. I didn't know about that one. But in that case it's known that the isotopes are cosmogenic and the method takes advantage of the fact. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error. Gee, another interesting one. But again, they are taking advantage of the cosmogenic nuclide to determine an age. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error.
So I have to modify my statement. Cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes in a manner that cause errrors in isochron dating. No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides. Quote |
http://books.google.com/books?i....e> id='postcolor'> No mention of cosmogenesis or cosmogenic nuclides. Yeah, as it says an Ar-Ar isochron can be constructed. It seldom is; an age spectrum diagram is far more common: Quote | The series of ages from an incremental heating experiment are most often plotted as a function of the percent of the 39Ar released. This type of diagram is called an age spectrum or an Ar-release diagram. For an ideal, undisturbed sample, the calculated ages for the successive gas increments are all the same, and the age spectrum is a horizontal line at the value corresponding to the age of the rock (Fig. 3.11a). These same data can also be plotted on an 40Ar/39Ar isochron or correlation diagram (Fig. 3.11b) and will fall on a straight line whose slope is equal to the ratio 39Ar/40Ar in Equation 3.20 and whose intercept is the 39Ar/40Ar ratio of nonradiogenic, or air, Ar. The only difference between the age spectrum and isochron diagrams is that the isochron treatment does not require any assumption about the composition of nonradiogenic Ar; otherwise, the two diagrams are just two methods of visually displaying the same data. |
Dalrymple, G. Brent. "The Age of the Earth". Stanford University Press, 1991, p112. Quote | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
No, you tell me how 40K is cosmogenic on Earth. In space there's a tremendously different intensity and energy distribution of radiation. Buried rocks are shielded to some extent, even more than solar wind/magnetosphere/atmospheric shielding. You made the claim, let's see your support. |
Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f
Hey now dont go shifting goal posts again
I was merely showing you how cosmogenic isotopes like 39K, 36 Ar, 39Ar, etc... etc... are used in isochron dating.
Here is a more direct study http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive....132.pdf
Oh and as far as 87mSr and 87Sr, thanks but thats about what I was saying
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 19 2011,12:23) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,00:14) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:34) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:56) | 87Sr is stable. It does not change back int 87Rb or or into any other isotope of Sr.
85Sr is not used in Rb-Sr isochron dating.
Irrelevant. Not terrestrial. |
You said the following was an excellent table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr
85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? Quote | Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes |
Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating |
Yeah see table 1. 85Sr <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a>
and for 87Sr explain the two versions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium
Here are a few cosmogenic isotopes used in isochron dating 39K, 39Ar, 10Be, 26Al, 3 He, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, and 41Ar
Here are just a few quick searches
http://www.ajsonline.org/content....bstract http://authors.library.caltech.edu/13066......6....66 http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article....011.htm http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
Why little bunny, that would depend on the mechanism, and intensity of cosmic rays (charged particles), whether they are primary or secondary, a simple list would suffice to support the claim that you made, and how you get that AR-40 into the rock being dated. EPIC FLAIL. :O |
Thats a small start but that I aint buying
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | 85Sr is used in isochron dating[/quote] Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? |
Hmm..I cant get the link to work but you can google
The Eocene bimodal Piranshahr massif of the Sanandaj–Sirjan Zone, NW Iran: a marker of the end of the collision in the Zagros orogen Table 1.
ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 19 2011,16:14) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2011,07:59) | Outstanding questions for forastero:
RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? Run Bun-Bun run. |
Also, RE: Math Exactly how much larger is the growth rate in the formula P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N when compared with P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N? Show your work. |
It looked like another of his vague but sneaky illusions
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:24) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,08:42) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,01:14) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:34) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:56) | 87Sr is stable. It does not change back int 87Rb or or into any other isotope of Sr.
85Sr is not used in Rb-Sr isochron dating.
Irrelevant. Not terrestrial. |
You said the following was an excellent table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr
85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? Quote | Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes |
Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating |
Yeah see table 1. 85Sr <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Broken link. Simple. You don't have a clue and you can't read for comprehension.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
Notice the label above the second column? 87mSr is an excited state which requires significant energy input to achieve. Once it is created, it decays with a half-life of 2.815 hours. It almost always decays back to 87Sr but occasionally decays to 87Rb.
Does this happen in nature? I don't know. But:
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Sr has no effect on the isochron age.
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Rb would increase the numerator of the X coordinate and decrease the numerator of the Y coordinate in the isochron diagram, which would decrease the indicated age, which is derived from the slope. IOW, if you want to argue that this excitation happens in nature, you're arguing that Rb-Sr isochrons underestimate the real age.
- Finally, if you are going to argue that this happens in terrestrial nature, you need to provide evidence for it and an explanation for why Rb-Sr isochrons agree with so many other methods. And "They're all lying" isn't an explanation.
Quote | Here are a few cosmogenic isotopes used in isochron dating 39K, 39Ar, 10Be, 26Al, 3 He, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, and 41Ar
Here are just a few quick searches
http://www.ajsonline.org/content....bstract |
Interesting. I didn't know about that one. But in that case it's known that the isotopes are cosmogenic and the method takes advantage of the fact. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error. Gee, another interesting one. But again, they are taking advantage of the cosmogenic nuclide to determine an age. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error.
So I have to modify my statement. Cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes in a manner that cause errrors in isochron dating. No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides. No mention of cosmogenesis or cosmogenic nuclides. Yeah, as it says an Ar-Ar isochron can be constructed. It seldom is; an age spectrum diagram is far more common: Quote | The series of ages from an incremental heating experiment are most often plotted as a function of the percent of the 39Ar released. This type of diagram is called an age spectrum or an Ar-release diagram. For an ideal, undisturbed sample, the calculated ages for the successive gas increments are all the same, and the age spectrum is a horizontal line at the value corresponding to the age of the rock (Fig. 3.11a). These same data can also be plotted on an 40Ar/39Ar isochron or correlation diagram (Fig. 3.11b) and will fall on a straight line whose slope is equal to the ratio 39Ar/40Ar in Equation 3.20 and whose intercept is the 39Ar/40Ar ratio of nonradiogenic, or air, Ar. The only difference between the age spectrum and isochron diagrams is that the isochron treatment does not require any assumption about the composition of nonradiogenic Ar; otherwise, the two diagrams are just two methods of visually displaying the same data. |
Dalrymple, G. Brent. "The Age of the Earth". Stanford University Press, 1991, p112. Quote | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
No, you tell me how 40K is cosmogenic on Earth. In space there's a tremendously different intensity and energy distribution of radiation. Buried rocks are shielded to some extent, even more than solar wind/magnetosphere/atmospheric shielding. You made the claim, let's see your support. |
Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Still broken. This board mungs URLs all the time. Try making it small at http://tinyurl.com/....url....url.com
Quote | Hey now dont go shifting goal posts again
I was merely showing you how cosmogenic isotopes like 39K, 36 Ar, 39Ar, etc... etc... are used in isochron dating. |
Well, it certainly seemed to me that you were implying that cosmogenic isotopes cause errors in isochron dating. If you weren't, well, then it appears you don't have a point or any suggestion of a mechanism for errors in dating.
Quote | Oh and as far as 87mSr and 87Sr, thanks but thats about what I was saying |
IOW you were babbling about radioactive 87Sr for no reason whatsoever.
Do you have any evidence that 87mSr or 40K are formed in terrestrial conditions?
Do you understand the effect if 87mSr is formed in terrestrial conditions?
So do you have a point about radiometric dating? Do you accept the results? Or do you reject the results for any rational reason?
Have you figured out how sedimentary layers are dated?
Do you still think Rb-Sr isochron dating is the most widely used method?
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:26) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 19 2011,12:23) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,00:14) | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
Why little bunny, that would depend on the mechanism, and intensity of cosmic rays (charged particles), whether they are primary or secondary, a simple list would suffice to support the claim that you made, and how you get that AR-40 into the rock being dated. EPIC FLAIL. :O |
Thats a small start but that I aint buying |
No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites?
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:31) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | 85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating?[/quote] Hmm..I cant get the link to work but you can google
The Eocene bimodal Piranshahr massif of the Sanandaj–Sirjan Zone, NW Iran: a marker of the end of the collision in the Zagros orogen Table 1.
<a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
All I get is the abstract, with no mention of 85Sr.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,17:31) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:26) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 19 2011,12:23) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,00:14) | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
Why little bunny, that would depend on the mechanism, and intensity of cosmic rays (charged particles), whether they are primary or secondary, a simple list would suffice to support the claim that you made, and how you get that AR-40 into the rock being dated. EPIC FLAIL. :O |
Thats a small start but that I aint buying |
No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites? |
You mean one article and it doesnt seem to favor your argument. Plus with your attitude no one will ever investigate it
"It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. "
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry
|
|
|
Richardthughes
Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:44) | It looked like another of his vague but sneaky illusions |
The only one with a track record of dishonesty here is you. I think i'll write that on my staff so future generations will know.
-------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,17:24) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:24) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,08:42) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,01:14) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:34) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:56) | 87Sr is stable. It does not change back int 87Rb or or into any other isotope of Sr.
85Sr is not used in Rb-Sr isochron dating.
Irrelevant. Not terrestrial. |
You said the following was an excellent table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr
85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? Quote | Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes |
Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating |
Yeah see table 1. 85Sr <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Broken link. Simple. You don't have a clue and you can't read for comprehension.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
Notice the label above the second column? 87mSr is an excited state which requires significant energy input to achieve. Once it is created, it decays with a half-life of 2.815 hours. It almost always decays back to 87Sr but occasionally decays to 87Rb.
Does this happen in nature? I don't know. But:
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Sr has no effect on the isochron age.
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Rb would increase the numerator of the X coordinate and decrease the numerator of the Y coordinate in the isochron diagram, which would decrease the indicated age, which is derived from the slope. IOW, if you want to argue that this excitation happens in nature, you're arguing that Rb-Sr isochrons underestimate the real age.
- Finally, if you are going to argue that this happens in terrestrial nature, you need to provide evidence for it and an explanation for why Rb-Sr isochrons agree with so many other methods. And "They're all lying" isn't an explanation.
Quote | Here are a few cosmogenic isotopes used in isochron dating 39K, 39Ar, 10Be, 26Al, 3 He, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, and 41Ar
Here are just a few quick searches
http://www.ajsonline.org/content....bstract |
Interesting. I didn't know about that one. But in that case it's known that the isotopes are cosmogenic and the method takes advantage of the fact. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error. Gee, another interesting one. But again, they are taking advantage of the cosmogenic nuclide to determine an age. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error.
So I have to modify my statement. Cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes in a manner that cause errrors in isochron dating. No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides. No mention of cosmogenesis or cosmogenic nuclides. Yeah, as it says an Ar-Ar isochron can be constructed. It seldom is; an age spectrum diagram is far more common: Quote | The series of ages from an incremental heating experiment are most often plotted as a function of the percent of the 39Ar released. This type of diagram is called an age spectrum or an Ar-release diagram. For an ideal, undisturbed sample, the calculated ages for the successive gas increments are all the same, and the age spectrum is a horizontal line at the value corresponding to the age of the rock (Fig. 3.11a). These same data can also be plotted on an 40Ar/39Ar isochron or correlation diagram (Fig. 3.11b) and will fall on a straight line whose slope is equal to the ratio 39Ar/40Ar in Equation 3.20 and whose intercept is the 39Ar/40Ar ratio of nonradiogenic, or air, Ar. The only difference between the age spectrum and isochron diagrams is that the isochron treatment does not require any assumption about the composition of nonradiogenic Ar; otherwise, the two diagrams are just two methods of visually displaying the same data. |
Dalrymple, G. Brent. "The Age of the Earth". Stanford University Press, 1991, p112. Quote | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
No, you tell me how 40K is cosmogenic on Earth. In space there's a tremendously different intensity and energy distribution of radiation. Buried rocks are shielded to some extent, even more than solar wind/magnetosphere/atmospheric shielding. You made the claim, let's see your support. |
Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Still broken. This board mungs URLs all the time. Try making it small at http://tinyurl.com/....url....url.com
Quote | Hey now dont go shifting goal posts again
I was merely showing you how cosmogenic isotopes like 39K, 36 Ar, 39Ar, etc... etc... are used in isochron dating. |
Well, it certainly seemed to me that you were implying that cosmogenic isotopes cause errors in isochron dating. If you weren't, well, then it appears you don't have a point or any suggestion of a mechanism for errors in dating.
Quote | Oh and as far as 87mSr and 87Sr, thanks but thats about what I was saying |
IOW you were babbling about radioactive 87Sr for no reason whatsoever.
Do you have any evidence that 87mSr or 40K are formed in terrestrial conditions?
Do you understand the effect if 87mSr is formed in terrestrial conditions?
So do you have a point about radiometric dating? Do you accept the results? Or do you reject the results for any rational reason?
Have you figured out how sedimentary layers are dated?
Do you still think Rb-Sr isochron dating is the most widely used method? |
Are you actually saying that it wouldnt effect isochron dating if true
I am telling you that things aint as stable as you think and are probably getting more unstable as are so many of the world's cycles. Besides, your and Tracy's insistence that cosmic rays have different powers in different places only strengthens that argument.
I didnt realize that the dating sedimentary rocks via igneous rocks were so extensive and these debates have left me even more suspicious of it .
Sb-Sr is definitely the most popular for sedimentary rocks but I do agree with you now that its not the most popular for other rocks
As for the link below, there is a full PDF on google
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:44) | Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 19 2011,16:14) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 19 2011,07:59) | Outstanding questions for forastero:
RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? Run Bun-Bun run. |
Also, RE: Math Exactly how much larger is the growth rate in the formula P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N when compared with P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N? Show your work. |
It looked like another of his vague but sneaky illusions |
You skipped a bunch of questions in there dude.
That's OK, I know those questions scare the hell out of you and you cannot answer them.
Actually, the only way you can answer them is to appeal to miracles... just proving that you aren't interested in science. But we already knew that.
Go ahead and get to answering or admit you don't have a clue.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Texas Teach
Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007
|
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2011,18:28) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,16:44) | It looked like another of his vague but sneaky illusions |
The only one with a track record of dishonesty here is you. I think i'll write that on my staff so future generations will know. |
Careful. You're starting to sound like k.e.
What? Oh...that kind of staff? Nevermind.
-------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,18:27) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,17:31) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:26) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 19 2011,12:23) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,00:14) | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
Why little bunny, that would depend on the mechanism, and intensity of cosmic rays (charged particles), whether they are primary or secondary, a simple list would suffice to support the claim that you made, and how you get that AR-40 into the rock being dated. EPIC FLAIL. :O |
Thats a small start but that I aint buying |
No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites? |
You mean one article
|
ORLY? All I see is more FAIL on your part. Failure to come up with a paper showing Ar-40 being made cosmogenically on earth, much less in a terrestrial rock that would be Sr-Ar datable.
Quote | and it doesnt seem to favor your argument. Plus with your attitude no one will ever investigate it
"It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. "
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry
|
Wasn't it you trying to cite papers of people investigating changing decay rates, AKA testing it? Yes it was. Forastero - soopergenius!
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Farmer Bill says: Goodnight Little Bunny.
Mrs. Farmer Bill says: Goodnight, Little Bunny.
No one expects little creo-bunnies to mount honest arguments, respond to difficult questions, or address the inescapable entailments of their assertions. We expect them to run as fast as their fat little bunny legs will carry them, to hide quaking in the briar patch, and to stay very still.
You don't disappoint.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reed
Posts: 274 Joined: Feb. 2008
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,14:44) | Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 19 2011,16:14) | Also, RE: Math Exactly how much larger is the growth rate in the formula P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N when compared with P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N? Show your work. |
It looked like another of his vague but sneaky illusions |
I was about to criticize y'alls choice of chew toy, on account of it being incoherent, repetitive and boring... then out pops this nugget of solid gold! Well done, carry on.
|
|
|
Quack
Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote | I am telling you that things aint as stable as you think and are probably getting more unstable as are so many of the world's cycles. |
Now you have got me scared, how much time is left before the end? You know, when both the things you have in your mind, and the world's cycles that you also have in your mind become too unstable? What do you think, might 12:12:12 GMT, 12.12.2012 CE fit what you have in your mind? Please tell.
-------------- Rocks have no biology. Robert Byers.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,19:43) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,17:24) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:24) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,08:42) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,01:14) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 18 2011,06:54) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 17 2011,23:34) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 17 2011,06:56) | 87Sr is stable. It does not change back int 87Rb or or into any other isotope of Sr.
85Sr is not used in Rb-Sr isochron dating.
Irrelevant. Not terrestrial. |
You said the following was an excellent table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rontium Well look at the daughter isotopes of 87Sr
85Sr is used in isochron dating |
Nope. No mention of isochron dating at your reference. Who says 85Sr is used in isochron dating? Quote | Cosmic rays do effect terrestrial isotopes |
Some terrestrial isotopes, yeah. But cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes relevant to isochron dating |
Yeah see table 1. 85Sr <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Broken link. Simple. You don't have a clue and you can't read for comprehension.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
Notice the label above the second column? 87mSr is an excited state which requires significant energy input to achieve. Once it is created, it decays with a half-life of 2.815 hours. It almost always decays back to 87Sr but occasionally decays to 87Rb.
Does this happen in nature? I don't know. But:
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Sr has no effect on the isochron age.
- Any excited 87mSr that decays back to 87Rb would increase the numerator of the X coordinate and decrease the numerator of the Y coordinate in the isochron diagram, which would decrease the indicated age, which is derived from the slope. IOW, if you want to argue that this excitation happens in nature, you're arguing that Rb-Sr isochrons underestimate the real age.
- Finally, if you are going to argue that this happens in terrestrial nature, you need to provide evidence for it and an explanation for why Rb-Sr isochrons agree with so many other methods. And "They're all lying" isn't an explanation.
Quote | Here are a few cosmogenic isotopes used in isochron dating 39K, 39Ar, 10Be, 26Al, 3 He, 40K, 33Ar, 36Ar, 37Ar, 38Ar, and 41Ar
Here are just a few quick searches
http://www.ajsonline.org/content....bstract |
Interesting. I didn't know about that one. But in that case it's known that the isotopes are cosmogenic and the method takes advantage of the fact. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error. Gee, another interesting one. But again, they are taking advantage of the cosmogenic nuclide to determine an age. If you are trying to argue that isochron dating dating is in error, you need to show how cosmogenesis causes error. Huge error.
So I have to modify my statement. Cosmic rays do not affect any terrestrial isotopes in a manner that cause errrors in isochron dating. No mention of cosmogenesis or any cosmogenic nuclides. No mention of cosmogenesis or cosmogenic nuclides. Yeah, as it says an Ar-Ar isochron can be constructed. It seldom is; an age spectrum diagram is far more common: Quote | The series of ages from an incremental heating experiment are most often plotted as a function of the percent of the 39Ar released. This type of diagram is called an age spectrum or an Ar-release diagram. For an ideal, undisturbed sample, the calculated ages for the successive gas increments are all the same, and the age spectrum is a horizontal line at the value corresponding to the age of the rock (Fig. 3.11a). These same data can also be plotted on an 40Ar/39Ar isochron or correlation diagram (Fig. 3.11b) and will fall on a straight line whose slope is equal to the ratio 39Ar/40Ar in Equation 3.20 and whose intercept is the 39Ar/40Ar ratio of nonradiogenic, or air, Ar. The only difference between the age spectrum and isochron diagrams is that the isochron treatment does not require any assumption about the composition of nonradiogenic Ar; otherwise, the two diagrams are just two methods of visually displaying the same data. |
Dalrymple, G. Brent. "The Age of the Earth". Stanford University Press, 1991, p112. Quote | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
No, you tell me how 40K is cosmogenic on Earth. In space there's a tremendously different intensity and energy distribution of radiation. Buried rocks are shielded to some extent, even more than solar wind/magnetosphere/atmospheric shielding. You made the claim, let's see your support. |
Here is the 85 Sr in table 1 again <a href="" target="_blank">ftp://ftp.geo.uib.no/pub....f</a> |
Still broken. This board mungs URLs all the time. Try making it small at http://tinyurl.com/....url....url.com
Quote | Hey now dont go shifting goal posts again
I was merely showing you how cosmogenic isotopes like 39K, 36 Ar, 39Ar, etc... etc... are used in isochron dating. |
Well, it certainly seemed to me that you were implying that cosmogenic isotopes cause errors in isochron dating. If you weren't, well, then it appears you don't have a point or any suggestion of a mechanism for errors in dating.
Quote | Oh and as far as 87mSr and 87Sr, thanks but thats about what I was saying |
IOW you were babbling about radioactive 87Sr for no reason whatsoever.
Do you have any evidence that 87mSr or 40K are formed in terrestrial conditions?
Do you understand the effect if 87mSr is formed in terrestrial conditions?
So do you have a point about radiometric dating? Do you accept the results? Or do you reject the results for any rational reason?
Have you figured out how sedimentary layers are dated?
Do you still think Rb-Sr isochron dating is the most widely used method? |
Are you actually saying that it wouldnt effect isochron dating if true |
I assume you're referring to 87mSr? Why, yes, I am saying it wouldn't affect isochron dating significantly if it were created in nature. I already pointed out above how Rb-Sr isochron dating would be affected if 87mSr were created in nature (it's the opposite of what you want it to be), and I have no reason to believe that 87mSr is created in nature. The use of cosmogenic isotopes as cosmogenic isotopes in isochron dating means that such dating would not be affected by cosmogenic isotopes.
{ABE} Of course, I do have some reason to believe that 40K and 87mSr are not created on Earth in any significant quantities; the consistency between K-Ar/Ar-Ar dates, Rb-Sr dates, and the various dates that cannot be affected by cosmogenic isotopes: U-Pb concordia-discordia, SM-Nd, ...{/abe}
What you seem to want to do is argue that errors are introduced in isochron dating by the fact that some cosmogenic isotopes might possibly be created on Earth and those cosmogenic isotopes are not accounted for. Or that errors are introduced in isochron dating by the fact that some methods of isochron dating explicitly take advantage of the existence of cosmogenic isotopes. If it's the latter, WTF? If it's the former, your first step (which you haven't taken yet) is to demonstrate that relevant cosmogenic isotopes exist on Earth.
(There's a lot of steps you haven't even thought of after that, but let's start simple).
Quote | I am telling you that things aint as stable as you think and are probably getting more unstable as are so many of the world's cycles. Besides, your and Tracy's insistence that cosmic rays have different powers in different places only strengthens that argument. |
Ah, the ol' vague "maybe someday somewhere something will be discovered that overturns everything, therefore we know nothing". What you attempt to tell us is only relevant when you include evidence. Nobody cares what your unsupported opinion is.
Physicists know a lot about nuclei and why they decay or don't decay. Things are exactly as stable as we think.
Quote | I didnt realize that the dating sedimentary rocks via igneous rocks were so extensive and these debates have left me even more suspicious of it . |
With, of course, no rational reason for that.
Quote | Sb-Sr is definitely the most popular for sedimentary rocks but I do agree with you now that its not the most popular for other rocks |
Well, you haven't supported your claim the Rb-Sr is the most popular for sedimentary rocks, but it hardly matters because such a small percentage of all dating is done on sedimentary rocks.
Quote | As for the link below, there is a full PDF on google |
Then post the link or post the search terms that bring it up. You can try posting the link in code tags: click the "Code" button in the compose window.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,19:27) | Quote (JonF @ Nov. 19 2011,17:31) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,17:26) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 19 2011,12:23) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,00:14) | Oh and please do tell me how 40K is only cosmogenic off earth |
Why little bunny, that would depend on the mechanism, and intensity of cosmic rays (charged particles), whether they are primary or secondary, a simple list would suffice to support the claim that you made, and how you get that AR-40 into the rock being dated. EPIC FLAIL. :O |
Thats a small start but that I aint buying |
No, you're selling, and doing a poor job of it. Did you wonder why all the Google results for "cosmogenic 40K" involve meteorites? |
You mean one article and it doesnt seem to favor your argument. Plus with your attitude no one will ever investigate it |
I saw far more than one article on cosmogenic 40K in meteorites, and they are all irrelevant to my argument.
Quote | "It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. "
http://io9.com/5619954....emistry |
I really don't like it when people use the word "assumption" in connection with constancy of radioactive decay rates. It's the wrong word. Constancy of radioactive decay rates (with some small exceptions that are well-understood) is a conclusion gleaned from thousands of experiments and theoretical analyses.
Radioactive decay is actually an "umbrella term" covering many very different and independent processes. For YEC to be true these rates would all have to be changed in concert by exactly the same amount. No YEC has ever proposed a possible mechanism for that other than magic.
Radioactive decay processes are aspects of some very fundamental parts of the Universe, and are linked to all sorts of things that you wouldn't expect without some serious study.
At The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, physicist Steve Carlip wrote:
Quote | Frankly, physicists are not, for the most part, interested in silly creationist arguments. But they are interested in basic questions such as whether physical constants or laws change in time -- especially if such changes are proposed by such a great physicist as Dirac. As a result, there has been a great deal of experimental effort to search for such changes. A nice (technical) summary is given by Sisterna and Vucetich, Physical Review D41 (1990) 1034 and Physical Review D44 (1991) 3096; a more recent reference is Uzan, Reviews of Modern Physics 75 (2003) 403, available electronically at http://arxiv.org/abs........205340. Among the phenomena they look at are:
- searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
- searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
- ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
- data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
- observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
- the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
- experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
- absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
- laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle;
- searches for geological evidence of "exotic" decays, such as double beta decay of Uranium 238 or the decay of Osmium to Rhenium by electron emission, which are impossible with the present values of basic physical constants but would become possible if these changed;
- laboratory comparisons of atomic clocks that rely on different atomic processes (e.g., fine structure vs. hyperfine transitions);
- analysis of the effect of varying "constants" on primordial nucleosynthesis in the very early Universe.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.
The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.
The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about a part in 10^11 per year. There are some recent, controversial claims of observational evidence for changes in certain constants (notably the "fine structure constant") in the early Universe, but these are tiny, and would have minimal effects on radioactive decay rates.
So the idea that decay rates could vary enough to make a significant difference to measurements of ages is ruled out experimentally. |
See also The Constancy of Constants.
The possible variations that have been discussed earlier in this thread are not sufficient to make any significant difference in our determined ages, especially since the effect doesn't compound. (Do you still think that the effect would compund? Hee hee hee hee!)
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 20 2011,08:15) |
I assume you're referring to 87mSr? Why, yes, I am saying it wouldn't affect isochron dating significantly if it were created in nature.
Quote | I am telling you that things aint as stable as you think and are probably getting more unstable as are so many of the world's cycles. Besides, your and Tracy's insistence that cosmic rays have different powers in different places only strengthens that argument. |
Ah, the ol' vague "maybe someday somewhere something will be discovered that overturns everything, therefore we know nothing". What you attempt to tell us is only relevant when you include evidence. Nobody cares what your unsupported opinion is.
Physicists know a lot about nuclei and why they decay or don't decay. Things are exactly as stable as we think.
|
Sr-87 m probably can't be formed from Rb-87 because of the first law of thermodynamics.
As far as the IDiotic statements "stable isotopes aren't as stable cycles blah, blah, blah" neutron activation changes stable isotopes to radioactive isotopes, that doesn't mean that they are not stable with respect to spontaneous decay.
Whatta maroon!
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Does "neutron activation" mean hitting the nucleus with a neutron so that it absorbs it? (Course, that would change it to a different isotope if that's what the phrase means.)
Henry
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
fourass, you sure are getting your ass handed to you on PT. what is it that makes you want to troll every science board you can find?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2011,11:07) | Does "neutron activation" mean hitting the nucleus with a neutron so that it absorbs it? (Course, that would change it to a different isotope if that's what the phrase means.)
Henry |
Yes - I just looked it up and it's what I always referred to as "neutron capture". Isotope + n -> heavier isotope -> decay or fission
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 21 2011,10:34) | Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 20 2011,11:07) | Does "neutron activation" mean hitting the nucleus with a neutron so that it absorbs it? (Course, that would change it to a different isotope if that's what the phrase means.)
Henry |
Yes - I just looked it up and it's what I always referred to as "neutron capture". Isotope + n -> heavier isotope -> decay or fission |
forastero's speech is almost like real science... fiction that is.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
Quote | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. Quote | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| |
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
Quote | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused? Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
Quote | Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not. The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average. Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
“Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
Quote | In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise. Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
And yes, those links do propose prehistoric exponential growth and the one by devout evolutionist Jeffrey Mckee has a real Mein Kampf to it; and how fitting that this Mckee fellow learned under apartheid South Africa, with its NeoNazi control of the fossil records. He goes on and on about the assumed overkill via Native Americans, Africans Aborigines, etc….Its a shame that he wont even consider the Biblical explanation of the overkill and how it occurred before the Flood
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Quote | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
Quote | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda. Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24).
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
So what?
In the paper you cite, they are looking at carbon dating of charcoal from various sites. They produce a range of possible dates.
The range is generally 200-400 years, which ought to be pretty good at 4000 years ago.
Out of all the calibrated date data, there are none that are more than 1000 years off the historical range date (at greater than 80% probability). And most of them are exactly within the historical range.
Also note the ones with the largest discrepancies have the label "younger sample" meaning that they KNOW the carbon date data will be inaccurate as to the age of the structure.
Anyway, how does this help you with either your massive historical inaccuracy OR your population issue.
Tell us when The Flood was. If, by my rough estimate, the timeline for the Flood was about 4,000 years ago, then you have cultures all over the world to deal with; China, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Japan, etc. If it was 5000 years ago, then you have Viet Nam, China, Europe, Egypt, Sumer, and, of course, the germination of the oldest known tree in existence.
BTW: RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,20:32) | First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways. |
Except when they aren't.
These questions flow directly from your own assertions. They are on point and are the next step in what seemed to be an exchange in which we were briefly engaged, prior to your creationist flight from the discussion, and from your own assertions:
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?
Your studied non-response to the above conforms closely to the stereotype to which you refer.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,00:53) | forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak. |
Look for that 227,000/1 ratio.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2011,23:53) | forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak. |
Oops..here it is http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home....ex.html
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,20:44) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
So what?
In the paper you cite, they are looking at carbon dating of charcoal from various sites. They produce a range of possible dates.
The range is generally 200-400 years, which ought to be pretty good at 4000 years ago.
Out of all the calibrated date data, there are none that are more than 1000 years off the historical range date (at greater than 80% probability). And most of them are exactly within the historical range.
Also note the ones with the largest discrepancies have the label "younger sample" meaning that they KNOW the carbon date data will be inaccurate as to the age of the structure.
Anyway, how does this help you with either your massive historical inaccuracy OR your population issue.
Tell us when The Flood was. If, by my rough estimate, the timeline for the Flood was about 4,000 years ago, then you have cultures all over the world to deal with; China, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Japan, etc. If it was 5000 years ago, then you have Viet Nam, China, Europe, Egypt, Sumer, and, of course, the germination of the oldest known tree in existence.
BTW: RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? |
Yet you wont dare question why very few mummies are carbon dated are DNA tested or where all the desert trees to make all that mortar and metallurgy, came from? Tree identification from charcoal has been done for a while now, yet nothing yet on Giza that I know of. Plus the Sahara desert was supposedly lush 5000 years ago. Maybe a lot of the wood needed to process all that mortar came from that desertification and who knows how long it sat there before it was picked up?
On the other hand, I showed you that a 2560 BC date for the great pyramid poses no problem for the timing of the Flood, so what is your point?
Btw, I already explained to you that your own Big Bang links believed it was an explosion, one of which indicated a nuclear one
|
|
|
Quack
Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote | On the other hand, I showed you that a 2560 BC date for the great pyramid poses no problem for the timing of the Flood, so what is your point? |
I know it is of no use but anyway: Timing of the flood is no problem, put it wherever you like. Evidence of the world wide flood, however, needs to be shown. As well as a probability study, a feasibility study of the constrution, building, equippiong, loading, floating, maintaining, survival of both crew and animals.
Logistics, feeding and waste disposal. Sources of of water, where did it come from, where did it go? The list of unanswered questions is endless.
Not only is evidence of the flood absent, there is a lot of evidence that the follod myth is a myth created from a real flooding event - biut not of global proportions. That is the flooding of the Black Sea around 8000BCE. Hints may be found in the Gilgamesh epic (use of stones in navigating the Bosporus) , evidence of eruption of Etna and ensuing tsunami.
You are such a smart guy, why don't you come up with a realistic account of how it all might have happend? From the building of the Ark until the rains started? I haven't been able to see how the claim that a myth was a historical event may be salvaged.
-------------- Rocks have no biology. Robert Byers.
|
|
|
Indiumas
Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009
|
If I may, I would like to comment a bit on the population dynamics issue discussed here. I have been discussing similar things with some local creationists here a few years ago. Poplulation dynamics can be modelled with simple exponential growth only when the population is much smaller than the maximum value that can be sustained in a given environment. Once populations get closer to the maximum capacity the rate of change drops, eventually even to or below zero. This is also true for our times. See this report, for example.
Populations can be much better modelled using logistic functions with time varying capacities. Sometimes there might also be feedback loops between the number of people and the quality of the environment, or predator/prey relationships which further complicate matters. But the main point stands: For each environment and technological level there will be a maximum sustainable population.
Hunter and gatherer populations are estimated to have a maximum density of about 1-100/100km^2. Africa, for example, has an area of about 30 million km^2. Estimated historical populations are in good agreement with these numbers. Over long periods of time there was no possibility of exponential growth simply because the maximum carrying capacity was more or less reached. Only when humans invented a new technology that improved the maximum sustainable population (agricultuture, industrial revolution), there was/is a short period of exponential growth.
So, forastero, go away with your stupid exponential growth equations. As documented in this thread are not even able to handle the extremely simple mathematics behind them anyway.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,02:36) | No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date. |
Don't flatter yourself. Nothing you've said is original.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,20:32) | First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because [creationists] are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways. |
Run like the wind, Little Bunny!
Because your running is a beautiful real-time demonstration of a creationist's ability to state something that is obviously and patently contradicted by the facts.
Here are the questions you are unwilling to confront "in scientific and logical ways":
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?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,03:21) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,20:44) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
So what?
In the paper you cite, they are looking at carbon dating of charcoal from various sites. They produce a range of possible dates.
The range is generally 200-400 years, which ought to be pretty good at 4000 years ago.
Out of all the calibrated date data, there are none that are more than 1000 years off the historical range date (at greater than 80% probability). And most of them are exactly within the historical range.
Also note the ones with the largest discrepancies have the label "younger sample" meaning that they KNOW the carbon date data will be inaccurate as to the age of the structure.
Anyway, how does this help you with either your massive historical inaccuracy OR your population issue.
Tell us when The Flood was. If, by my rough estimate, the timeline for the Flood was about 4,000 years ago, then you have cultures all over the world to deal with; China, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Japan, etc. If it was 5000 years ago, then you have Viet Nam, China, Europe, Egypt, Sumer, and, of course, the germination of the oldest known tree in existence.
BTW: RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? |
Yet you wont dare question why very few mummies are carbon dated are DNA tested or where all the desert trees to make all that mortar and metallurgy, came from? Tree identification from charcoal has been done for a while now, yet nothing yet on Giza that I know of. Plus the Sahara desert was supposedly lush 5000 years ago. Maybe a lot of the wood needed to process all that mortar came from that desertification and who knows how long it sat there before it was picked up?
On the other hand, I showed you that a 2560 BC date for the great pyramid poses no problem for the timing of the Flood, so what is your point?
Btw, I already explained to you that your own Big Bang links believed it was an explosion, one of which indicated a nuclear one |
So, a worldwide flood occurred in 2560BC?
Let's see: (from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....600_BC)
Quote | c. 2570 BC: Khafra started to rule in Ancient Egypt. c. 2566 BC: Pharaoh Khufu dies (other date is 2578 BC). c. 2558 BC: Pharaoh Khafra starts to rule (other date is 2570 BC). c. 2550 BC: Estimated date of completion of the Great Pyramid of Giza. c. 2550 BC: Egyptian rulers contact Western Desert oases, such as Dakhla Oasis. c. 2550 BC: About this time, Mesannepada is king of Ur (followed by his son, A-annepadda) who founds the First dynasty of Ur and overthrows the last king of Uruk, as well as Mesalim of Kish. [Roux 1980] c. 2550 BC – 2400 BC: Great Lyre with bull's head, from the tomb of King Meskalamdug, Ur (modern Muqaiyir, Iraq, is made. It is now kept at University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. c. 2544 BC: Khafra died. c. 2533 BC: Menkaura started to rule in Ancient Egypt. c. 2532 BC: Pharaoh Khafra dies (other date is 2544 BC). c. 2532 BC: Pharaoh Menkaura starts to rule (other date is 2533 BC). c. 2515 BC: Menkaura died. c. 2510 BC – 2460 BC: Ti watching a hippopotamus hunt, tomb of Ti, Saqqara, Fifth dynasty of Egypt, is made. Discovered by French archeologist Auguste Mariette in 1865. c. 2503 BC: Pharaoh Menkaura dies (other date is 2515 BC). c. 2500 BC: The legendary line of Sanhuangwudi rulers of China is founded by Huang Di. c. 2500 BC: the construction of the stone circle at Stonehenge begins and continues for the next five hundred years. |
Pharaoh Khafra appears to have survived the flood.
You might want to take a crack at explaining how the 20,000 to 30,000 people it took to build a pyramid over a few decades could have done so during and immediately after a Global Flood that destroyed all but 8 people on the planet.
Don't forget the Longshan culture in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshan_culture) that survived the Flood.
And the Middle to Late Jomon period in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dmon_period#Early_to_Final_J.C5.8Dmon_.284000_.E2.80.93_300_BC.29)
How is it that these guys were not destroyed by the flood?
Seriously, even if you use the extreme ends of the date ranges given in the article you quoted. No date is off by even 1000 years. The cultures I mentioned were in existence both before and after the Flood, even assuming a possible range of 1000 years in each direction.
Again, speaking without thinking. It's a bad habit.
Let's go back to the Big Bang. Once again I will ask you, (because you obviously aren't getting it)... How in the fuck can you have a nuclear explosion WHEN THERE ARE NO ATOMS IN EXISTENCE?!?!?!?!?!?
I mean really, is this your level of 'research', taking peoples quotes and saying that they are fact? Has it ever occurred to you that the website you are getting all this from is lying? Has it ever occurred to you to actually study the subjects that you are blathering on about?
To you this is true
quote = 1000s of articles of peer-reviewed research
Actually this appears to be true too
quote > 1000s of articles of peer-reviewed research
quote > evidence
evidence < what forastero says
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Say, Fory My Main Man,
Have you had time to work up that growth rate derivation yet? I know it's tough, but since I asked you the first time I've managed to memorize 2 shows, go on a couple of auditions, finish a film shoot, make an entire batch of cilantro bitters, and developed a pretty tasty riff on the classic margarita with them (the bitters, not the shows).
You haven't even managed to come up with a lie about why you have no idea where this number you use comes from.
Does that seem about right to you?
edited to add: also benched 600 lbs, and ate some watermelon ticks
-------------- 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
|
|
|
jeffox
Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
forastero wrote:
Quote | The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. The geological maps used for propaganda are called geologic columns
|
REALLY???!!!??
You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . .
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 23 2011,11:53) | forastero wrote:
Quote | The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. The geological maps used for propaganda are called geologic columns
|
REALLY???!!!??
You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . . |
or any real capitalists
-------------- 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
|
|
|
paragwinn
Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008
|
Written on the staff of forastero: Quote | The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. |
IMMORTALIZED
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,02:36) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2011,23:53) | forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak. |
Oops..here it is http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home.......ex.html
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date. |
You seem to be down to slinging word salad. Your final sentence is leafy and green, but without substantive content.
As I said, you have reading comprehension problems. Mark Isaak wrote the preponderance of items in the Index to Creationist Claims. Yes, I am familiar with his effort on that project. I'm the guy who suggested it to him.
Mark nowhere says that he only wrote six of the items in the Index.
From the first page you linked, and then re-cited:
Quote | (See the linked pages for the really interesting stuff. [...]
|
Mark's home page is pointing out particularly interesting things that he has written on creation/evolution. One of the links points to the entire Index. The other five links are not items within the Index.
The other link you originally provided, the one listing authorship of individual items within the Index, demonstrates dramatically just how wrong your claim was.
I haven't seen anything that you've come up with that hasn't already been addressed ad nauseam. Though I doubt you'll be any quicker on the uptake concerning that bit of reality than on anything else that has been pointed out.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Just to drive the point home, let me excerpt a selection from within the Index to Creationist Claims authorship page:
Quote |
[...]
CB601.3: Mark Isaak CB601.4: Mark Isaak CB610: Mark Isaak CB620: Mark Isaak CB621: Mark Isaak CB621.1: Mark Isaak CB630: Mark Isaak CB701: Mark Isaak CB701.1: Mark Isaak CB704: Mark Isaak CB710: Mark Isaak CB731: Mark Isaak CB732: Mark Isaak CB751: Mark Isaak CB801: Mark Isaak, John S. Wilkins CB805: John Harshman CB810: Mark Isaak CB811: Mark Isaak CB821: Mark Isaak CB822: Mark Isaak CB901: Mark Isaak CB901.1: Mark Isaak CB901.2: Mark Isaak CB901.3: Mark Isaak CB902: Mark Isaak CB902.1: Mark Isaak CB902.2: Mark Isaak CB904: Mark Isaak CB910: Mark Isaak CB910.1: Mark Isaak CB910.2: Mark Isaak CB920: Mark Isaak
[...]
|
CB620 is, of course, the item at issue concerning arguments regarding human population, and it plainly shows Mark Isaak as the sole individual author. The remainder of the excerpt should demonstrate vividly that anyone claiming that Mark Isaak wrote only six of the individual items in the Index is egregiously wrong.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,17:15) | Just to drive the point home, let me excerpt a selection from within the Index to Creationist Claims authorship page:
Quote |
[...]
CB601.3: Mark Isaak CB601.4: Mark Isaak CB610: Mark Isaak CB620: Mark Isaak CB621: Mark Isaak CB621.1: Mark Isaak CB630: Mark Isaak CB701: Mark Isaak CB701.1: Mark Isaak CB704: Mark Isaak CB710: Mark Isaak CB731: Mark Isaak CB732: Mark Isaak CB751: Mark Isaak CB801: Mark Isaak, John S. Wilkins CB805: John Harshman CB810: Mark Isaak CB811: Mark Isaak CB821: Mark Isaak CB822: Mark Isaak CB901: Mark Isaak CB901.1: Mark Isaak CB901.2: Mark Isaak CB901.3: Mark Isaak CB902: Mark Isaak CB902.1: Mark Isaak CB902.2: Mark Isaak CB904: Mark Isaak CB910: Mark Isaak CB910.1: Mark Isaak CB910.2: Mark Isaak CB920: Mark Isaak
[...]
|
CB620 is, of course, the item at issue concerning arguments regarding human population, and it plainly shows Mark Isaak as the sole individual author. The remainder of the excerpt should demonstrate vividly that anyone claiming that Mark Isaak wrote only six of the individual items in the Index is egregiously wrong. |
But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Texas Teach
Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 23 2011,17:30) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,17:15) | Just to drive the point home, let me excerpt a selection from within the Index to Creationist Claims authorship page:
Quote |
[...]
CB601.3: Mark Isaak CB601.4: Mark Isaak CB610: Mark Isaak CB620: Mark Isaak CB621: Mark Isaak CB621.1: Mark Isaak CB630: Mark Isaak CB701: Mark Isaak CB701.1: Mark Isaak CB704: Mark Isaak CB710: Mark Isaak CB731: Mark Isaak CB732: Mark Isaak CB751: Mark Isaak CB801: Mark Isaak, John S. Wilkins CB805: John Harshman CB810: Mark Isaak CB811: Mark Isaak CB821: Mark Isaak CB822: Mark Isaak CB901: Mark Isaak CB901.1: Mark Isaak CB901.2: Mark Isaak CB901.3: Mark Isaak CB902: Mark Isaak CB902.1: Mark Isaak CB902.2: Mark Isaak CB904: Mark Isaak CB910: Mark Isaak CB910.1: Mark Isaak CB910.2: Mark Isaak CB920: Mark Isaak
[...]
|
CB620 is, of course, the item at issue concerning arguments regarding human population, and it plainly shows Mark Isaak as the sole individual author. The remainder of the excerpt should demonstrate vividly that anyone claiming that Mark Isaak wrote only six of the individual items in the Index is egregiously wrong. |
But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world. |
But he also thinks that (1.005) =/= (1 + .005), but is a vague, sneaky illusion. That tells us something, but it makes my brain hurt to try to figure out what.
-------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,16:57) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,02:36) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2011,23:53) | forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak. |
Oops..here it is http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home.......ex.html
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date. |
You seem to be down to slinging word salad. Your final sentence is leafy and green, but without substantive content.
As I said, you have reading comprehension problems. Mark Isaak wrote the preponderance of items in the Index to Creationist Claims. Yes, I am familiar with his effort on that project. I'm the guy who suggested it to him.
Mark nowhere says that he only wrote six of the items in the Index.
From the first page you linked, and then re-cited:
Quote | (See the linked pages for the really interesting stuff. [...]
|
Mark's home page is pointing out particularly interesting things that he has written on creation/evolution. One of the links points to the entire Index. The other five links are not items within the Index.
The other link you originally provided, the one listing authorship of individual items within the Index, demonstrates dramatically just how wrong your claim was.
I haven't seen anything that you've come up with that hasn't already been addressed ad nauseam. Though I doubt you'll be any quicker on the uptake concerning that bit of reality than on anything else that has been pointed out. |
All those pages say "edits". His home page shows he "wrote" six. Oh and the page in question is real shabby. I will have to read the rest some day.
Why are you avoiding the real issues?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 23 2011,11:55) | Quote (jeffox @ Nov. 23 2011,11:53) | forastero wrote:
Quote | The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. The geological maps used for propaganda are called geologic columns
|
REALLY???!!!??
You don't know any real geologists, do you, Forastero. . . |
or any real capitalists |
So lets see these depth maps and how deep they actually go
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 23 2011,18:11) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 23 2011,17:30) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,17:15) | Just to drive the point home, let me excerpt a selection from within the Index to Creationist Claims authorship page:
Quote |
[...]
CB601.3: Mark Isaak CB601.4: Mark Isaak CB610: Mark Isaak CB620: Mark Isaak CB621: Mark Isaak CB621.1: Mark Isaak CB630: Mark Isaak CB701: Mark Isaak CB701.1: Mark Isaak CB704: Mark Isaak CB710: Mark Isaak CB731: Mark Isaak CB732: Mark Isaak CB751: Mark Isaak CB801: Mark Isaak, John S. Wilkins CB805: John Harshman CB810: Mark Isaak CB811: Mark Isaak CB821: Mark Isaak CB822: Mark Isaak CB901: Mark Isaak CB901.1: Mark Isaak CB901.2: Mark Isaak CB901.3: Mark Isaak CB902: Mark Isaak CB902.1: Mark Isaak CB902.2: Mark Isaak CB904: Mark Isaak CB910: Mark Isaak CB910.1: Mark Isaak CB910.2: Mark Isaak CB920: Mark Isaak
[...]
|
CB620 is, of course, the item at issue concerning arguments regarding human population, and it plainly shows Mark Isaak as the sole individual author. The remainder of the excerpt should demonstrate vividly that anyone claiming that Mark Isaak wrote only six of the individual items in the Index is egregiously wrong. |
But remember, to forastero 6 = 45,000,000 so, he's right... in his own little (very tiny) world. |
But he also thinks that (1.005) =/= (1 + .005), but is a vague, sneaky illusion. That tells us something, but it makes my brain hurt to try to figure out what. |
1.005 does equal (1 + .005)
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 23 2011,10:06) | Say, Fory My Main Man,
Have you had time to work up that growth rate derivation yet? I know it's tough, but since I asked you the first time I've managed to memorize 2 shows, go on a couple of auditions, finish a film shoot, make an entire batch of cilantro bitters, and developed a pretty tasty riff on the classic margarita with them (the bitters, not the shows).
You haven't even managed to come up with a lie about why you have no idea where this number you use comes from.
Does that seem about right to you?
edited to add: also benched 600 lbs, and ate some watermelon ticks |
I expected much less ad hominens from a site like this but it cries more than any site I have ever been on.
benching 600 pounds dont mean squat here or the street
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 23 2011,08:40) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,03:21) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 22 2011,20:44) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
So what?
In the paper you cite, they are looking at carbon dating of charcoal from various sites. They produce a range of possible dates.
The range is generally 200-400 years, which ought to be pretty good at 4000 years ago.
Out of all the calibrated date data, there are none that are more than 1000 years off the historical range date (at greater than 80% probability). And most of them are exactly within the historical range.
Also note the ones with the largest discrepancies have the label "younger sample" meaning that they KNOW the carbon date data will be inaccurate as to the age of the structure.
Anyway, how does this help you with either your massive historical inaccuracy OR your population issue.
Tell us when The Flood was. If, by my rough estimate, the timeline for the Flood was about 4,000 years ago, then you have cultures all over the world to deal with; China, Denmark, Greece, Egypt, Japan, etc. If it was 5000 years ago, then you have Viet Nam, China, Europe, Egypt, Sumer, and, of course, the germination of the oldest known tree in existence.
BTW: RE: Big Bang What exploded? You said that explosions create disorder (we'll deal with your pathetic understanding of entropy and thermodynamics later). What exploded?
RE: The Flood What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? |
Yet you wont dare question why very few mummies are carbon dated are DNA tested or where all the desert trees to make all that mortar and metallurgy, came from? Tree identification from charcoal has been done for a while now, yet nothing yet on Giza that I know of. Plus the Sahara desert was supposedly lush 5000 years ago. Maybe a lot of the wood needed to process all that mortar came from that desertification and who knows how long it sat there before it was picked up?
On the other hand, I showed you that a 2560 BC date for the great pyramid poses no problem for the timing of the Flood, so what is your point?
Btw, I already explained to you that your own Big Bang links believed it was an explosion, one of which indicated a nuclear one |
So, a worldwide flood occurred in 2560BC?
Let's see: (from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......600_BC)
Quote | c. 2570 BC: Khafra started to rule in Ancient Egypt. c. 2566 BC: Pharaoh Khufu dies (other date is 2578 BC). c. 2558 BC: Pharaoh Khafra starts to rule (other date is 2570 BC). c. 2550 BC: Estimated date of completion of the Great Pyramid of Giza. c. 2550 BC: Egyptian rulers contact Western Desert oases, such as Dakhla Oasis. c. 2550 BC: About this time, Mesannepada is king of Ur (followed by his son, A-annepadda) who founds the First dynasty of Ur and overthrows the last king of Uruk, as well as Mesalim of Kish. [Roux 1980] c. 2550 BC – 2400 BC: Great Lyre with bull's head, from the tomb of King Meskalamdug, Ur (modern Muqaiyir, Iraq, is made. It is now kept at University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia. c. 2544 BC: Khafra died. c. 2533 BC: Menkaura started to rule in Ancient Egypt. c. 2532 BC: Pharaoh Khafra dies (other date is 2544 BC). c. 2532 BC: Pharaoh Menkaura starts to rule (other date is 2533 BC). c. 2515 BC: Menkaura died. c. 2510 BC – 2460 BC: Ti watching a hippopotamus hunt, tomb of Ti, Saqqara, Fifth dynasty of Egypt, is made. Discovered by French archeologist Auguste Mariette in 1865. c. 2503 BC: Pharaoh Menkaura dies (other date is 2515 BC). c. 2500 BC: The legendary line of Sanhuangwudi rulers of China is founded by Huang Di. c. 2500 BC: the construction of the stone circle at Stonehenge begins and continues for the next five hundred years. |
Pharaoh Khafra appears to have survived the flood.
You might want to take a crack at explaining how the 20,000 to 30,000 people it took to build a pyramid over a few decades could have done so during and immediately after a Global Flood that destroyed all but 8 people on the planet.
Don't forget the Longshan culture in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longshan_culture) that survived the Flood.
And the Middle to Late Jomon period in Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C5%8Dmon_period#Early_to_Final_J.C5.8Dmon_.284000_.E2.80.93_300_BC.29)
How is it that these guys were not destroyed by the flood?
Seriously, even if you use the extreme ends of the date ranges given in the article you quoted. No date is off by even 1000 years. The cultures I mentioned were in existence both before and after the Flood, even assuming a possible range of 1000 years in each direction.
Again, speaking without thinking. It's a bad habit.
Let's go back to the Big Bang. Once again I will ask you, (because you obviously aren't getting it)... How in the fuck can you have a nuclear explosion WHEN THERE ARE NO ATOMS IN EXISTENCE?!?!?!?!?!?
I mean really, is this your level of 'research', taking peoples quotes and saying that they are fact? Has it ever occurred to you that the website you are getting all this from is lying? Has it ever occurred to you to actually study the subjects that you are blathering on about?
To you this is true
quote = 1000s of articles of peer-reviewed research
Actually this appears to be true too
quote > 1000s of articles of peer-reviewed research
quote > evidence
evidence < what forastero says |
Where did anyone say that?
Btw, you have havent provided any proof so you are just conforming like Kermit
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Isn't it sort of like he can't see the forastero for the trees?
Or am I going out on a limb saying that?
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
all quotes by forastero
Quote | Why are you avoiding the real issues? |
We aren't. There are no 'real' issues. There are only issues that you have made up (or cribbed from a creationist site). These 'issues' have been settled, some of them for well over a hundred years.
Have you ever wondered why engineers, in their research papers, don't have to derive the formula for angular momentum or show experimental evidence for the value of the acceleration due to gravity on Earth (allowing for local changes)?
It's because those values and knowledge are so confirmed that no one rejects them anymore.
What absolutely hilarious is that you put things like evolution and geology in a category of unproven, yet those things have literally a hundred years (or more) evidential support than most of modern science. Oh wait, that's right, you don't think that any modern science works. Isn't it curious how, if you changed the fundamental laws of the universe (like you want to) little things... like computers... wouldn't work anymore.
The things you are saying don't work have so much supporting evidence for so many decades that they aren't even discussed in the literature anymore. It's basic material that you should have learned in high school or freshman biology at college. The fact that you didn't and you refuse to educate yourself is not our problem... it's a fundamental problem with you and we can't fix that.
Quote | So lets see these depth maps and how deep they actually go |
Sure, go to any geology site and they will show you. Better yet, go see the real dang thing. Go to the Grand Canyon.
How deep do they go? In general, they go all the way to the Earth's core. In specific, they go as deep as that particular area has been core sampled.
I note that you have completely failed to refute (or even comment on) the procedures and sites I have directed you to. I also note that except for your own personal disbelief, which I assure you is not evidence, that you have not said anything substantive about the 16 locations on the Earth that have complete geologic columns.
Quote | 1.005 does equal (1 + .005) |
Then why did you get upset when JonF(I think) said it? You freaked out, saying it was sneaky?
Or was it a simple knee-jerk reaction that everything someone who is knowledgeable about science says is wrong?
I'm betting on that. You can't stand it that your personal worldview is being destroyed by science, because you cannot change it from "This mythical document MUST be literally true or my life has no meaning" to "here's a notion on how to live a good life".
Quote | I expected much less ad hominens from a site like this but it cries more than any site I have ever been on.
benching 600 pounds dont mean squat here or the street |
from Wikipedia Quote | An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. |
An ad hominem argument isn't even an insult. It is saying that because you are a believer in the Flood, then your argument about the relative merits of chocolate chip cookies is obviously wrong.
We are insulting you. That's not an ad hominem.
We are ALSO refuting every single argument you make that attempts to support your position. That's not an ad hominem either.
Just think of the insults as a little bonus for you.
We're not crying... trust me... we're laughing. When you get your 2350BC date of the Global Flood of Noah published in a peer-reviewed geology journal... then we'll be crying. Not because you are right and we're wrong, but because the standards of peer-reviewed journals has fallen so low.
Quote | Where did anyone say that?
Btw, you have havent provided any proof so you are just conforming like Kermit |
Where did anyone say 'what'? You made the following claim Quote | Btw, I already explained to you that your own Big Bang links believed it was an explosion, one of which indicated a nuclear one |
I asked you to support that claim. You have yet to do so. I asked you "What exploded to cause the Big Bang"?
You have refused to answer that question. You obviously think something exploded because you keep comparing the Big Bang to C-4 or something... saying how it always causes disorder.
Then you avoid answering my question by referring back to a quote of someone. Was this quote in a peer-reviewed paper? Who said it? In what context? And no, I'm not going to go back and look it up.
This all could have been avoided for the last 20 odd pages of posts by you just answering the question and discussing it in good faith.
You claim that something exploded to cause the Big Bang. I'm asking you what exploded. If you say, as you must, "I don't know", then your arguments comparing the Big Bang to modern chemical, nuclear, and subnuclear explosions are invalid.
And again, I don't have to provide 'proof' of anything. That's not even possible in science... just shows you have another fundamental misunderstanding about science.
I am with the majority of scientists. You are the one making extraordinary claims, you are the one that needs to provide evidence of your claims.
So far, the only thing you have even attempted to offer evidence for is that it may be possible, under some conditions, for some nuclear decay systems to slightly alter their rate of decay. The evidence is very flimsy and disputed by other researchers, so the question is not settled yet. Offering that as your evidence is silly since the issue is still in doubt.
Further, even if it was true, the 0.5% change that was observed will not help you in any significant way, changing the date of the earliest rocks on Earth from 4.5 billion years to about 4.38 billion years and the deaths of the majority of dinosaurs from 65 mya to 64.8 mya.
You have utterly failed to support your claim.
Further, you engage in cute little rhetorical tricks like "I never said that" to get out of our rebuttals of your comments. That's not how a real person engaged in definitive discussion acts. They state their claims, lay out the evidence (including definitions of words that might be misunderstood), and then they ask for criticism. They also accept that criticism and either make a rebuttal using additional evidence or revise their notions.
Again, we could have dealt with most of these issues 20-10 pages ago.If you had simply answered questions that were asked of your notions and dealt with the issues as they came up. Also, a real scientist knows that it's OK to say "I don't know"*
Finally, I notice that you have totally failed to comment on any of the substance of any of the comments made here. Everyone one of your replies is a waste of bandwidth.
But it's still funny so keep going. ___ *Unless they are being asked where the grant money went.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,19:51) | Quote (blipey @ Nov. 23 2011,10:06) | Say, Fory My Main Man,
Have you had time to work up that growth rate derivation yet? I know it's tough, but since I asked you the first time I've managed to memorize 2 shows, go on a couple of auditions, finish a film shoot, make an entire batch of cilantro bitters, and developed a pretty tasty riff on the classic margarita with them (the bitters, not the shows).
You haven't even managed to come up with a lie about why you have no idea where this number you use comes from.
Does that seem about right to you?
edited to add: also benched 600 lbs, and ate some watermelon ticks |
I expected much less ad hominens from a site like this but it cries more than any site I have ever been on.
benching 600 pounds dont mean squat here or the street |
Um...what? Really, what the hell are you talking about?
My previous comment included zero ad hominens (sic). In fact, it included zero attacks on you at all (a basic requirement of an ad hominem one would think). The comment did include a couple of questions however--ones that you ignored. Why was that? (Oh, shit all up in here is that an ad hominem?)
Summing up:
1. I asked you if you had come up with a derivation of the growth rate in your population equation. (Foshizzle, I up and ad homishizzled you there!)
2. I mentioned that you had not only not answered the above question, but you hadn't even come up with a lie about it yet. (True, but The Man is beatin' yo ass down by playin' the truth card and ain't yo fault that He can't see what you be layin' down).
3. I asked if you agreed with my assessment. (Dumbass clown be in yo grill with ad hominens, bitch!)
So, any idea where that growth rate in your population equation comes from?
edited to fix the grammars
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,20:43) | Why are you avoiding the real issues? |
LOL!!
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 23 2011,04:57) | If I may, I would like to comment a bit on the population dynamics issue discussed here. I have been discussing similar things with some local creationists here a few years ago. Poplulation dynamics can be modelled with simple exponential growth only when the population is much smaller than the maximum value that can be sustained in a given environment. Once populations get closer to the maximum capacity the rate of change drops, eventually even to or below zero. This is also true for our times. See this report, for example.
Populations can be much better modelled using logistic functions with time varying capacities. Sometimes there might also be feedback loops between the number of people and the quality of the environment, or predator/prey relationships which further complicate matters. But the main point stands: For each environment and technological level there will be a maximum sustainable population.
Hunter and gatherer populations are estimated to have a maximum density of about 1-100/100km^2. Africa, for example, has an area of about 30 million km^2. Estimated historical populations are in good agreement with these numbers. Over long periods of time there was no possibility of exponential growth simply because the maximum carrying capacity was more or less reached. Only when humans invented a new technology that improved the maximum sustainable population (agricultuture, industrial revolution), there was/is a short period of exponential growth.
So, forastero, go away with your stupid exponential growth equations. As documented in this thread are not even able to handle the extremely simple mathematics behind them anyway. |
US scholar Albert Bartlett pointed out the difficulty to grasp ramifications of exponential growth, stating: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."[1] and what you and others apparently fail to understand is that any steady percentage growth is an exponential function and therefore an exponential curve. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....2rkpBSY
Using your numbers, 100/100km breaks down to about one person / .5 miles^2 and if Africa is 30 million km^2 or 11583064 mi^2 then that would leave room for the exponential growth of over 23166128 hunter gatherers.
Carrying capacity augmented by agriculture is a good point and just one more reason why humans and animals cant be easily compared. The problem with evolutionism is that assumes fellows like erectus were brutes, when in reality; he hunted big game, was very adept to exploring both land and sea. There has always been both hunter gatherer and farmer and there always will be. Heck, its now known that even the tropical rainforests have been heavily manipulated by prehistoric hunter gatherers who practiced agroforestry. The Bible tells us that Adam’s children were agriculturist. Modern archeological and ethnohistoric evidence indicates that Prehistoric Amerindians, aborigines, etc... experienced exponential growth. I also provided several links that disagree with you.
The U.N. is the epitome of corrupt big government and directly funds (UNFPA) various programs within the totalitarian Chinese government, which controls family planning (forced abortions and infanticide), church, and the teaching of human evolution with a politically biased slant?
The only reason that the U.N. makes the claim of stabilization is so certain sheople will believe that their brand of education and family planning is actually working. “China has had the most successful family planning policy in the history of mankind in terms of quantity and with that, China has done mankind a favour,” said United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) representative Sven Burmester
The U.N. claims that Co2 breathing is an environmental tax that needs to be controlled via what amounts to climate colonialism?
Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, adviser to President Barack Obama for Science and Technology. In fact, Holdren’s ideas pre-date the inception of China’s one child policy by two years
To The Global Elite The Math Is Simple: Human Overpopulation Is Causing Climate Change So The Solution To Climate Change Is Population Control http://thetruthwins.com/archive....control
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....-WMZuw0 This dude covers it in a nutshell pretty well
The U.N. lust for Africa's unique resources, flora, fauna and thus blames its population for Saharan desertification. The U.N. propaganda is full of charts and images showing how African population levels are responsible for European heat waves, sandstorms and dust clouds that supposedly leads to everything from global warming to European forest fires to a global spread of pathogens.
.The Zero Population Growth movement that is alive and well within the United Nations and NASA, upheld Margret Sanger, Rachel Carson, Margaret Mead, and Marie Equi as their idols. These and other all radical antichristian were hell bent on population control with actions that lead to hundreds of millions of deaths and murders-- mostly Africans and Afroamericans and Latinos. Sanger's Planned Parenthood, for instance has its origins in racists motivated eugenics and abortion and it still is.
http://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2011.......control http://www.humanevents.com/article....d=26220 http://www.christianexaminer.com/Art..._....08.html
And is alive and well with with the United Nations, NASA, and Obama http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger0....03.html http://www.freerepublic.com/focus....ts http://www.aei.org/issue....47 http://thetruthwins.com/archive....control http://www.winonadailynews.com/news....86.html http://www.prisonplanet.com/nasa-gl....de.html
Rachel Carson sounded the initial alarm against DDT, but represented the science of DDT erroneously in her 1962 book Silent Spring. The EPA banned DDT in 1972 . This same inept EPA that Obama has recently given total environmental sway in the U.S. and even much of the world with its overpopulation equals CO2 induced global warming. Since the EPA banned DDT, an estimated 15 billion cases of malaria have caused immense suffering and poverty in the developing world. Of these largely avoidable cases, over 101 million people died. the World Health Organization (WHO) believed that the only alternative to the overpopulation problem was to assure that 40% of the children in poor nations would die of malaria. An official of the Agency for International Developmenteven stated,"Rather dead than alive and riotously reproducing." Desowitz, RS; 1992; Malaria Capers. Alexander King, co-founder of theClub of Romesaid (9),"In Guyana...it [DDT] had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time, the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT in hindsight is that it greatly added to the population problem."
In his Environmentalism as a Religion, Michael Crichton stated:"I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn’t carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn’t give a damn." http://climaterealists.com/index.p....id=2049
The Lies of Rachel Carson http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/article....on.html
Green Hands Dipped In Blood: The DDT Genocide http://www.lifesite.net/ldn....6a.html
Finally an End to Massive Genocide Caused by Environmental Extremists’ DDT Ban http://www.lifesite.net/ldn....09.html
Call for DDT Opponents to be Held Accountable for Millions of Preventable Malaria Deaths http://www.lifesite.net/ldn....7a.html
50-80 Million Deaths Blamed On Environmental Extremists’ DDT Ban http://www.lifesite.net/ldn....01.html
U.N. TREATY RESTRICTIONS CRIPPLE FIGHT AGAINST MALARIA http://www.lifesite.net/ldn....01.html
Tierney Takes on Rachel Carson and ‘Silent Spring’ DDT Ban http://newsbusters.org/node....69
|
|
|
Wolfhound
Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008
|
Yes, fucktard, the Bible also tells us that donkeys and snakes talk, people turn into minerals, men live hundreds and hundreds of years, long hair is magical, and numerous other ridiculous things, not the least of which is a global flood that left no evidence. Oh, and a human/god scapegoat that rose from the dead. Musn't forget that particular whopper.
Also, your links...BWAH-HA-HA!!! Christian Examiner? Free Republic? The Truth Wins? Lifesite? Prison-Fucking-Planet? Sorry, you've been careless; now we KNOW you're a Poe.
-------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Obvious troll could at least re-write his copy and paste a little. At this point you are as relevant and topical as the spammer who was advertising shoes here.
http://infowars.net/article....ion.htm
Quote | Forced abortions, mass sterilization and a“Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.
In fact, Holdren's ideas pre-date the inception of China's one child policy by two years.
In the United Kingdom, top government aides have lauded China's method of population control, ignoring the fact that it has been the primary source of the most human rights abuses of any government policy on the planet. |
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Indiumas
Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009
|
Forastero: Quote | Using your numbers, 100/100km breaks down to about one person / .5 miles^2 and if Africa is 30 million km^2 or 11583064 mi^2 then that would leave room for the exponential growth of over 23166128 hunter gatherers.
|
Forastero, thanks for the calculation. Now you yourself have demonstrated that for the largest part of human history, the maximum population was limited to up about 20 Million people! No room for exponential growth once this number has been reached -> stable average population size of large periods of time -> no argument left for you.
On average, the number of humans will of course have been much much lower, because on average the carrying capacity is much lower than the maximum value you assumed for your calculation. See this article for some real numbers. For thousands of years a more realistic number would have been 1 Million humans maximum based on average carrying capacities of about 5/100km^2. But it´s not worth arguing this point. Your maximum number is good enough to show that you are completely and utterly wrong to assume an unlimited exponential growth when in effect human populations have lived in a stable equilibrium with their environment.
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 24 2011,01:46) | Oh, and a human/god scapegoat that rose from the dead. Musn't forget that particular whopper. |
I'm kind of partial to "Invisible Haploid Zombie Who Lives in the Sky and Watches Me Masturbate", but to each her own.
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
|
You confuse spewage with argument. I'm rebutting a bad SciCre argument, and you are dredging up irrelevancies.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
|
Sorry, you haven't demonstrated any misrepresentation on my part. I've documented several lapses in even minimal understanding of the topic on your part.
I was quite careful in my rebuttal of the SciCre population argument exemplified by Williams to show that each element of the argument was actually what he intended to convey.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. Quote | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| |
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
|
I haven't seen you "using science". I have seen you make egregiously erroneous claims about stuff that you don't begin to understand. I do vociferously resist untruths.
If you think I have a double standard about quote mining, feel free to show anytime, anywhere that I've quoted someone where I've failed to note relevant context. Go ahead, we'll wait ... forever, I think.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused?
|
Science is not a kind profession to liars and frauds. Basically, science operates on trust. Violate that trust, and one will find it hard to practice science anywhere. This isn't limited to purveyors of antievolution falsehoods, so it shouldn't be a surprise if a default stance of conditional trust is withdrawn when that expectation is violated. Science does enforce personal accountability, so maybe the lack of that in their previous experience makes them expect to be coddled even if what they claim is plainly false.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
|
I just said that I didn't go looking for Williams, it was thrust upon me by a SciCre advocate. How could that possibly be "cherry-picking"?
Let's stay topical here. I have a rebuttal of a SciCre argument. You have nothing, apparently, to say about the substance of that.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
|
As already documented, you were quite mistaken about Mark Isaak's level of contribution.
Most of the material on the TOA went through a comment period in the talk.origins newsgroup, which included antievolution advocates as participants.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not. The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
|
The formula for doubling time is simple. You have a number for the initial population, a number for the final population, a number for the doubling period, and a number for elapsed time from initial population to final population. Fix any three of these, and the fourth is completely determined. Williams fixed his initial population (the "unity of the race"), his final population as 1.8 billion as of 1925, 5177 years as the time elapsed from initial population to final population, and got the only doubling time figure it was possible for him to get.
Demonstrate how you think Williams was wrong with math. Go to it.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
|
The empty set. Finally, forastero gets something right.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average.
|
What, according to you? Pardon me if I find J. Random Troll's opinion on this less than compelling.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
|
Really? Let's see some examples, with citations of the published scientific work and links to the antievolution guff. You claimed it, you get to back it up.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
|
Poppycock. You are assuming what you have to prove.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
|
Uh, no, that isn't true.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | “Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yeah, let's look at that link.
Quote | In addition, there is abundant evidence that human populations waxed and waned over times, perhaps crashing to near-extinction during temporarily unfavorable climatic conditions in the late Pleistocene through early Holocene (from 100,000 through 10,000 B.P.; Harpending et al., 1993; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Hole, 1994). McNeil (1974) documents some of the innumerable epidemics that resulted in short-term population losses of 50 to 90 percent. In the early existence of our species, the population may have doubled and halved many times before reaching any net doubling. Population growth has not been consistent or monotonic.
|
You seem to be having reading comprehension issues again.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
|
Because we are currently in an exponential growth phase. That doesn't mean that human population has always been an exponential growth phase with the same parameters applying.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
|
I'm sorry, you seem to have let the cat play with the keyboard. Can you type something that parses next time?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
|
I doubt it. In the context of the current exponential growth phase, Richard likely knows the meaning of "lag phase", which I'm sorry to say that you apparently do not. The graph also is likely too smooth in its depiction of early human population fluctuations, which would have had a number of growth phases and population declines.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype
|
So saying that you have been arguing that everything is always in exponential growth is a misrepresentation?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise.
|
You can say that all you want. Your only method of attempting to demonstrate that, though, simply reduces to the same argument Williams made. And that argument doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
|
Sorry, that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Williams' argument, and thus isn't topical.
Referring back to the link you gave previously, where the author actually notes that populations rose and fell over time, would indicate that one should find early periods of exponential growth. Those periods just aren't continuous with our current period of exponential growth.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
|
Your opinion again. You know how much that is worth, right?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda.
|
I'm taking the SciCre argument as it was given and pointing out why it is a bad argument. Yes, I'm using the exact model I oppose for the purpose of deriving numbers. And, no, it isn't "my agenda" to use a final population. That is an intrinsic part of the SciCre argument. Like I said, if you don't like, get after them to up their game.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
|
Huh? I don't recall that. Can you explain what "correlation" you are blithering about now?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yes, Hern, who single-handedly undercut your whole premise by saying that early human population fluctuated and isn't well-modeled by continuous constant exponential growth. Whether total population was 900 million, 1.8 billion, or 3.6 billion in 1925 would not salvage Williams' argument, and nobody is claiming that the population figure was off by a factor of 2.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
|
If you posit a doubling time value suitable to populate the world between Noah and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you will get completely counterfactual and ridiculous values for a current population of the world, the same sort of numbers that Williams claimed ruled out an evolutionary history of mankind. If you set a doubling time based on current populations, you get ridiculously small population values at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid and other historical dates. If you admit that the doubling time or growth rate could change in between the two, you have forfeited the argument that evolutionary deep time could not possibly exist based on the human population argument.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
|
Again, changes in population growth rates invalidate the argument from human population size.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
C14 is not the only clue to the date of the Great Pyramid's construction. Egypt has a written historical record that, while not absolutely fixed, documents clearly the antiquity of the Great Pyramid. It doesn't really matter since the constant growth so vital to the argument from human population size will still give ridiculous values for historical dates without the ambiguity of the construction of the Great Pyramid.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,19:43) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 23 2011,16:57) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 23 2011,02:36) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 22 2011,23:53) | forastero:
Quote | Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them.
|
Documenting your issues with reading comprehension? You are doing quite the job.
Index to Creationist Claims Authors, cited by you as if it supported your claim. Or maybe "six" means "several hundred" in forastero-speak. |
Oops..here it is http://www.curioustaxonomy.net/home.......ex.html
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
No Wesley, but I bet my creationist claims that receive no debate will be mined for your archive on a later date. |
You seem to be down to slinging word salad. Your final sentence is leafy and green, but without substantive content.
As I said, you have reading comprehension problems. Mark Isaak wrote the preponderance of items in the Index to Creationist Claims. Yes, I am familiar with his effort on that project. I'm the guy who suggested it to him.
Mark nowhere says that he only wrote six of the items in the Index.
From the first page you linked, and then re-cited:
Quote | (See the linked pages for the really interesting stuff. [...]
|
Mark's home page is pointing out particularly interesting things that he has written on creation/evolution. One of the links points to the entire Index. The other five links are not items within the Index.
The other link you originally provided, the one listing authorship of individual items within the Index, demonstrates dramatically just how wrong your claim was.
I haven't seen anything that you've come up with that hasn't already been addressed ad nauseam. Though I doubt you'll be any quicker on the uptake concerning that bit of reality than on anything else that has been pointed out. |
All those pages say "edits". His home page shows he "wrote" six. Oh and the page in question is real shabby. I will have to read the rest some day.
Why are you avoiding the real issues? |
Like I said, you are having difficulty with reading comprehension.
Unfortunately, it does not appear that you are capable of learning in what way your comprehension is inadequate.
From the "Authorship" page:
Quote | The editor of the Index to Creationist Claims is Mark Isaak, who is ultimately responsible for any errors. Individual authors are listed below. In addition, many, many posters to the talk.origins newsgroup have contributed useful information.
|
Mark Isaak edits the entire index. He also happens to have written most of the individual items himself. He does not say anywhere that he only wrote six of the individual items.
You haven't done anything to show that Mark's item on the population argument is "shabby". But you have demonstrated that for your cognitive processes.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Texas Teach
Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007
|
The only thing that would make Wes' take down above better is if he'd signed it "Summer Glau".
-------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 24 2011,04:55) | Forastero: Quote | Using your numbers, 100/100km breaks down to about one person / .5 miles^2 and if Africa is 30 million km^2 or 11583064 mi^2 then that would leave room for the exponential growth of over 23166128 hunter gatherers.
|
Forastero, thanks for the calculation. Now you yourself have demonstrated that for the largest part of human history, the maximum population was limited to up about 20 Million people! No room for exponential growth once this number has been reached -> stable average population size of large periods of time -> no argument left for you.
On average, the number of humans will of course have been much much lower, because on average the carrying capacity is much lower than the maximum value you assumed for your calculation. See this article for some real numbers. For thousands of years a more realistic number would have been 1 Million humans maximum based on average carrying capacities of about 5/100km^2. But it´s not worth arguing this point. Your maximum number is good enough to show that you are completely and utterly wrong to assume an unlimited exponential growth when in effect human populations have lived in a stable equilibrium with their environment. |
You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,09:32) | Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 24 2011,04:55) | Forastero: Quote | Using your numbers, 100/100km breaks down to about one person / .5 miles^2 and if Africa is 30 million km^2 or 11583064 mi^2 then that would leave room for the exponential growth of over 23166128 hunter gatherers.
|
Forastero, thanks for the calculation. Now you yourself have demonstrated that for the largest part of human history, the maximum population was limited to up about 20 Million people! No room for exponential growth once this number has been reached -> stable average population size of large periods of time -> no argument left for you.
On average, the number of humans will of course have been much much lower, because on average the carrying capacity is much lower than the maximum value you assumed for your calculation. See this article for some real numbers. For thousands of years a more realistic number would have been 1 Million humans maximum based on average carrying capacities of about 5/100km^2. But it´s not worth arguing this point. Your maximum number is good enough to show that you are completely and utterly wrong to assume an unlimited exponential growth when in effect human populations have lived in a stable equilibrium with their environment. |
You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present |
Provide evidence for the earliest date and location for agriculture. In other words, support your claims.
BTW: You still have a list of unanswered question from me. As has been shown, we could avoid a lot of pain and suffering on everyone's parts if you just deal with the questions as they come up. Providing evidence as you go.
heh... I crack me up... what are the odds?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Indiumas
Posts: 12 Joined: Aug. 2009
|
Quote | Forastero: You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present |
No, I am not. This has been independently determined, see for example this paper and the references therein. Of course you can easily prove me (and all those stupid scientists working in this field) wrong: Show me that agriculture has been a major factor more than let´s say 15000 years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that according to you, humans don´t even have a history that goes back 15000 years! :D So, when you demonstrate that humans had a thriving agriculture 15000 years ago, be sure to point out that you actually don´t mean 15000 years but 6000 years, which would of course make your point invalid again. I can´t even begin to imagine how you can cope with mental dissonances like this.
Also, I am not assuming that carrying capacity is "uniformitarian", whatever you mean by that anyway. I even mentioned that a better model should reflect that the carrying capacity can be time-dependent. Do you actually read what people write?
So, you are wrong on both accounts.
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
I'm sorry, I must have missed it again. To completely understand the population equation under discussion, we would need to understand all of the variables.
How was your growth rate determined again? You keep avoiding this, but in any rational discussion of an equation, one needs to understand all the variables (note this is not the same as knowing the value of said variables). So, how about it fory baby?
This is about the easiest question you've been asked here. It should only take you 2ish minutes to answer. In fact, anything longer than that and you're obviously stalling.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Run, Little Bunny, run!
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2011,07:27) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
|
You confuse spewage with argument. I'm rebutting a bad SciCre argument, and you are dredging up irrelevancies.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
|
Sorry, you haven't demonstrated any misrepresentation on my part. I've documented several lapses in even minimal understanding of the topic on your part.
I was quite careful in my rebuttal of the SciCre population argument exemplified by Williams to show that each element of the argument was actually what he intended to convey.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. Quote | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| |
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
|
I haven't seen you "using science". I have seen you make egregiously erroneous claims about stuff that you don't begin to understand. I do vociferously resist untruths.
If you think I have a double standard about quote mining, feel free to show anytime, anywhere that I've quoted someone where I've failed to note relevant context. Go ahead, we'll wait ... forever, I think.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused?
|
Science is not a kind profession to liars and frauds. Basically, science operates on trust. Violate that trust, and one will find it hard to practice science anywhere. This isn't limited to purveyors of antievolution falsehoods, so it shouldn't be a surprise if a default stance of conditional trust is withdrawn when that expectation is violated. Science does enforce personal accountability, so maybe the lack of that in their previous experience makes them expect to be coddled even if what they claim is plainly false.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
|
I just said that I didn't go looking for Williams, it was thrust upon me by a SciCre advocate. How could that possibly be "cherry-picking"?
Let's stay topical here. I have a rebuttal of a SciCre argument. You have nothing, apparently, to say about the substance of that.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
|
As already documented, you were quite mistaken about Mark Isaak's level of contribution.
Most of the material on the TOA went through a comment period in the talk.origins newsgroup, which included antievolution advocates as participants.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not. The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
|
The formula for doubling time is simple. You have a number for the initial population, a number for the final population, a number for the doubling period, and a number for elapsed time from initial population to final population. Fix any three of these, and the fourth is completely determined. Williams fixed his initial population (the "unity of the race"), his final population as 1.8 billion as of 1925, 5177 years as the time elapsed from initial population to final population, and got the only doubling time figure it was possible for him to get.
Demonstrate how you think Williams was wrong with math. Go to it.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
|
The empty set. Finally, forastero gets something right.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average.
|
What, according to you? Pardon me if I find J. Random Troll's opinion on this less than compelling.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
|
Really? Let's see some examples, with citations of the published scientific work and links to the antievolution guff. You claimed it, you get to back it up.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
|
Poppycock. You are assuming what you have to prove.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
|
Uh, no, that isn't true.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | “Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yeah, let's look at that link.
Quote | In addition, there is abundant evidence that human populations waxed and waned over times, perhaps crashing to near-extinction during temporarily unfavorable climatic conditions in the late Pleistocene through early Holocene (from 100,000 through 10,000 B.P.; Harpending et al., 1993; McCorriston & Hole, 1991; Hole, 1994). McNeil (1974) documents some of the innumerable epidemics that resulted in short-term population losses of 50 to 90 percent. In the early existence of our species, the population may have doubled and halved many times before reaching any net doubling. Population growth has not been consistent or monotonic.
|
You seem to be having reading comprehension issues again.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
|
Because we are currently in an exponential growth phase. That doesn't mean that human population has always been an exponential growth phase with the same parameters applying.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
|
I'm sorry, you seem to have let the cat play with the keyboard. Can you type something that parses next time?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
|
I doubt it. In the context of the current exponential growth phase, Richard likely knows the meaning of "lag phase", which I'm sorry to say that you apparently do not. The graph also is likely too smooth in its depiction of early human population fluctuations, which would have had a number of growth phases and population declines.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype
|
So saying that you have been arguing that everything is always in exponential growth is a misrepresentation?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise.
|
You can say that all you want. Your only method of attempting to demonstrate that, though, simply reduces to the same argument Williams made. And that argument doesn't stand the slightest scrutiny.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
|
Sorry, that has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of Williams' argument, and thus isn't topical.
Referring back to the link you gave previously, where the author actually notes that populations rose and fell over time, would indicate that one should find early periods of exponential growth. Those periods just aren't continuous with our current period of exponential growth.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
|
Your opinion again. You know how much that is worth, right?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Quote | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda.
|
I'm taking the SciCre argument as it was given and pointing out why it is a bad argument. Yes, I'm using the exact model I oppose for the purpose of deriving numbers. And, no, it isn't "my agenda" to use a final population. That is an intrinsic part of the SciCre argument. Like I said, if you don't like, get after them to up their game.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
|
Huh? I don't recall that. Can you explain what "correlation" you are blithering about now?
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
|
Yes, Hern, who single-handedly undercut your whole premise by saying that early human population fluctuated and isn't well-modeled by continuous constant exponential growth. Whether total population was 900 million, 1.8 billion, or 3.6 billion in 1925 would not salvage Williams' argument, and nobody is claiming that the population figure was off by a factor of 2.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
|
If you posit a doubling time value suitable to populate the world between Noah and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you will get completely counterfactual and ridiculous values for a current population of the world, the same sort of numbers that Williams claimed ruled out an evolutionary history of mankind. If you set a doubling time based on current populations, you get ridiculously small population values at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid and other historical dates. If you admit that the doubling time or growth rate could change in between the two, you have forfeited the argument that evolutionary deep time could not possibly exist based on the human population argument.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
|
Again, changes in population growth rates invalidate the argument from human population size.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,19:32) | The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
C14 is not the only clue to the date of the Great Pyramid's construction. Egypt has a written historical record that, while not absolutely fixed, documents clearly the antiquity of the Great Pyramid. It doesn't really matter since the constant growth so vital to the argument from human population size will still give ridiculous values for historical dates without the ambiguity of the construction of the Great Pyramid. |
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | The formula for doubling time is simple. You have a number for the initial population, a number for the final population, a number for the doubling period, and a number for elapsed time from initial population to final population. Fix any three of these, and the fourth is completely determined. Williams fixed his initial population (the "unity of the race"), his final population as 1.8 billion as of 1925, 5177 years as the time elapsed from initial population to final population, and got the only doubling time figure it was possible for him to get.
Demonstrate how you think Williams was wrong with math. Go to it. |
Just google population + "decreasing doubling times" and you'll see why you and Williams are both wrong. For instance:
Quote | "One cannot reject the hypothesis of superexponential growth with decreasing doubling times. Furthermore, one of the simplest functional forms one can fit to such data is the hyperbola leading to a finite time singularity (which is also a better fit to the historical data than Kurzweil’s double exponential more often than not" http://singularityhypothesis.blogspot.com/2011.......on.html |
and
Quote | With decreasing doubling times and increasing rates of population growth over the past several thousand years, the human species has shown increasing parallels with a malignant growth. The number of doublings reached by the human population is 32.38, with the 33rd doubling expected at about 2013. This observation permits a more precise calculation of the total number of human beings who have ever lived (about 42 billion), and proportion of human beings who have ever lived who are alive today (about 13%). http://www.popline.org/ics-wpd....Display |
and
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) |
You seem to be having reading comprehension issues again. Yeah, let's look at that link. |
I have already mentioned that population waxed and waned globally during the Flood and partially during the tectonic fall of Babel. I see that you also willfully ignored the authors chart and following quote from that article:
Quote | For the sake of examining this question and illustrating the answer, I have constructed a table based on estimates from paleontological and archeological studies, beginning with the approximate time when Homo habilis existed (Table 1) with N = 1 and ending with 1998 when the human population was estimated to have reached approximately 6.0 billion (U.S. Census Bureau, 1998). |
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Referring back to the link you gave previously, where the author actually notes that populations rose and fell over time, would indicate that one should find early periods of exponential growth. Those periods just aren't continuous with our current period of exponential growth. |
Again, the quote just above shows that you didnt read the article very carefully. Moreover, if you believe that the earth's population drastically rose and fell so many times, what is your explanation for our great human diversity from so many drastic bottlenecks? And try to make sure its not some pseudophylogenetic response
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Because we are currently in an exponential growth phase. That doesn't mean that human population has always been an exponential growth phase with the same parameters applying. |
I clearly said that the archeological studies were on prehistoric Amerindian and Aboriginal exponential growth.
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Your opinion again. You know how much that is worth, right? |
Isnt it a bit numb of you to scoff at our doubt of all this DNA surviving over so called deep evolutionary time?
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Yes, Hern, who single-handedly undercut your whole premise by saying that early human population fluctuated and isn't well-modeled by continuous constant exponential growth. Whether total population was 900 million, 1.8 billion, or 3.6 billion in 1925 would not salvage Williams' argument, and nobody is claiming that the population figure was off by a factor of 2. |
How? The guy is a devout evolutionists who compares humans to cancers yet he clearly disagrees with your premise when he quotes and graphs exponential growth rates from a small group of H. Hablis to modern population; so who are you trying to fool? If its that you are having trouble understanding itm just look at table 1 here http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | If you posit a doubling time value suitable to populate the world between Noah and the construction of the Great Pyramid, you will get completely counterfactual and ridiculous values for a current population of the world, the same sort of numbers that Williams claimed ruled out an evolutionary history of mankind. If you set a doubling time based on current populations, you get ridiculously small population values at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid and other historical dates. If you admit that the doubling time or growth rate could change in between the two, you have forfeited the argument that evolutionary deep time could not possibly exist based on the human population argument.
Again, changes in population growth rates invalidate the argument from human population size. |
Again, your model doesnt recognize a global Flood or Babel vicariance, or huge preexisting genetic diversity as does mine. Since you dont believe the first humans started small, your model seems to assume some sort of parallel evolution where apes mutated into homos at various times and then slowly evolved genetic diversity.
However, evolutionists tend to disagree with you. For instance, the following book is another of many that describes small group of first humans growing exponentially with decreasing doubling times. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
...and the article that you claim "undercuts my whole premise" says:
Quote | But we may be reasonably sure that the first doublings, at some time lost to history, was when the number of humans, however defined, went from one to two and from two to four, and so forth. Given our mechanisms of reproduction, the impossibility of defining the “first human being” at any point in time due to the overlapping and simultaneously evolving hominid species from 3.5 to 1.5 million years ago, an actual starting point for the doubling of the human population is only a theoretical construct. At some point, we became interbreeding members of a single biological species, and we cannot determine with any precision when that occurred....The 32nd doubling was reached in 1976, unless we start counting with “Adam and Eve,” the point at which there were two members of the Homo genus, in which case the 31st doubling was reached in 1976. This is not a trivial difference, but the speculative nature of the enterprise, the difficulty of defining the first human among the various competing hominid species, and the time spans between early doublings makes this point moot and irrelevant. What matters is the number present now, and that number means that 32.5 doublings have occurred. |
Bottom line is that even though the estimates are always rough and populations suffer perturbations (as seen in modern developing countries), population always grows as a whole, unless of course you include the global Flood
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 24 2011,10:42) | Quote | Forastero: You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present |
No, I am not. This has been independently determined, see for example this paper and the references therein. Of course you can easily prove me (and all those stupid scientists working in this field) wrong: Show me that agriculture has been a major factor more than let´s say 15000 years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that according to you, humans don´t even have a history that goes back 15000 years! :D So, when you demonstrate that humans had a thriving agriculture 15000 years ago, be sure to point out that you actually don´t mean 15000 years but 6000 years, which would of course make your point invalid again. I can´t even begin to imagine how you can cope with mental dissonances like this.
Also, I am not assuming that carrying capacity is "uniformitarian", whatever you mean by that anyway. I even mentioned that a better model should reflect that the carrying capacity can be time-dependent. Do you actually read what people write?
So, you are wrong on both accounts. |
Like I said agroforastry is part of all modern hunter gatherer societies and is known to be a very extensive part of prehistoric hunter gatherers, which included intensive manipulation of rainforests.
I you were basing your carrying capacity numbers on modern ecologies. If not I would appreciate a source, if you havnt already provided it.
Btw, I do appreciate your style and the interesting sources
I will have to get back on this one though cause I have to go gather some fowl
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
So why don't you propose a better way to date things?
Oh, you don't have one?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
fnxtr
Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 24 2011,11:34) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
So why don't you propose a better way to date things?
Oh, you don't have one? |
Match.com? E-Harmony?
-------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory
"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:32) | I have already mentioned that population waxed and waned globally during the Flood and partially during the tectonic fall of Babel. I see that you also willfully ignored the authors chart and following quote from that article: |
There is a lot here, but I'd just like to comment on the above little piece.
You are wrong, the human population could not have waxed during a Global Flood. It crashed. It indeed crashed to unsustainable levels.
You, forastero, claimed that the Flood occurred in 2350BC (actually you said you had no problem with that date... which is effectively the same as claiming it).
So, the flood happened then. However, there were multiple cultures DURING that year. You are the one who has to explain where the 20k - 30k people that build the Kafre pyramid came from... and the people that made up the Chinese culture of the time... and the people that made up the Japanese culture of the time... and the people that started building Stonehinge at about that same time... and all the people of the Mesopitamian region and the Mediteranian region, etc. etc. etc.
All from 8 people who were alive at the end of the flood.
It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed. You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these.
It doesn't matter if it was a 1000 years after the Flood, you cannot produce a population growth rate that is in any way connected to reality that produces the millions of people on the planet that have to be in all these cultures.
Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures. Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed). Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc.
You can't do it. It's simply not possible for these to happen without a miracle. But the second you appeal to miracles, you lose all hope of your claims be supported. So go ahead.
BTW: What exploded to cause the Big Bang? You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded?
Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata? How do you know?
What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? Run away Bun-bun... run away from these statements that totally refute your worldview.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Quack
Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007
|
It is not possible to believe in the flood without ignoring all the evidence for Africa as the origins of all humans alive on this planet today. The migrations and the routes taken, the Neandertal and Denisovan hominins;, what is the creationist theory of how the continents were populated after the flood?
That is, if we really are stupid enough to believe we need consider the flood anything but a myth. Come on, creationists, a feasibility study shows that there isn't a chance in hell that the history about a family of eight on an impossible 'boat' ship in an impossible flood can be true.
Creationism is an insult to the human intellect. Intellectual catalepsy, a pathological worldview. There ain't no cure for stupidity.
-------------- Rocks have no biology. Robert Byers.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
And yet you haven't provided any rational reason / evidence for not agreeing. The only reason you have is you don't like it.
Reality doesn't care what you like or dislike.
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,13:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
That, and some of your other comments, calls to mind some questions I've been mulling over. But I'll go ahead and share them with you.
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?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Doc Bill
Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007
|
Quote | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You, sir, are an ignoramus wrapped in a thick layer of moron. Your level of education as demonstrated by your inane postings is zero. And you are stupid, to boot.
You can't agree nor disagree with "radiometric dating" because you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
What you can say is that you don't "like" radiometric dating because it conflicts with your opinion.
And, to be clear, your opinion is like an asshole. Everybody has one but nobody gives a rat's ass about yours.
I would suggest you quit this thread and devote your time to Internet Porn.
|
|
|
Stephen Elliott
Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy.
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
On the radiometric dating thing, one could also point out that even if radiometric dating were inadequate for whatever reason, it isn't the only way of estimated age of things - geologists can estimate how long it would take to form the formations they study, and that too points to a really really old earth, even if way less precise than radio-dating stuff. (I suppose the lack of precision is due to fact that a geological feature might just sit there for a while without changing much, so they could easily underestimate time spans.)
Then there was somebody's (Kelvin?) calculation on how long it would take Earth to cool from molten to present temperature. Even without knowledge of radioactive heating of Earth's interior, he still got twenty something million years, IIRC. That's three point something orders of magnitude more than the YEC position, even if 2 point something orders less than the reality.
Henry
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2011,18:35) | On the radiometric dating thing, one could also point out that even if radiometric dating were inadequate for whatever reason, it isn't the only way of estimated age of things - geologists can estimate how long it would take to form the formations they study, and that too points to a really really old earth, even if way less precise than radio-dating stuff. (I suppose the lack of precision is due to fact that a geological feature might just sit there for a while without changing much, so they could easily underestimate time spans.)
Then there was somebody's (Kelvin?) calculation on how long it would take Earth to cool from molten to present temperature. Even without knowledge of radioactive heating of Earth's interior, he still got twenty something million years, IIRC. That's three point something orders of magnitude more than the YEC position, even if 2 point something orders less than the reality.
Henry |
Yes, forastero, you have yet to explain the Green River formation. 6 million years of biannual sedimentary layers that must form only in still and/or stagnant water.
If we compress that to your belief system, then we would have to create some 43 unique layers of rock per day.
That's on the question list BTW... not that you can deal with it.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Cubist
Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy. |
This point cannot be emphasized enough. It's one thing when two Real Scientists date the same rock, and Dr. Fred comes up with an age-of-rock of 1.46 billion years, whilst Dr. Harry comes up with an age-of-rock of 1.39 billion years... but it's something else entirely when "Doctor" Y. E. C. Biblethumper "dates" that same rock and comes up with an age-of-rock in the neighborhood of one thousand years. With Drs. Fred and Harry, the 5% difference between their two age-of-rock figures could plausibly be the result of a minor error that one of the two committed; but "Doctor" Biblethumper's age-of-rock figure is six orders of magnitude different from either Dr. Fred's or Dr. Harry's age-of-rock figure. Six. Fucking. Orders. Of. Magnitude. According to this website, the distance between New York City, NY and San Francisco, CA is 2570 miles. Could that website be wrong? Sure it could! But for that website to be wrong by six fucking orders of magnitude, the true distance between New York and San Francisco would have to be (2570 miles / 1,000,000 =) thirteen and a half feet. Or, if you think that website might be off by six fucking orders of magnitude in the other direction, the true distance between New York and San Francisco would have to be (2570 miles * 1,000,000 =) 2,570,000,000 miles, a distance so great that it would take light itself, traveling at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, more than three hours fifty minutes to cover that distance. So when you YECs make noise about don't believe those so-called 'scientists' when they speak of billions of years, the real age of the Earth is just a few thousand years, you are, whether you know it or not... whether you want to know it or not... in exactly the same position as someone who insists that New York is only thirteen feet away from San Francisco. And when you YECs bring up utter fucking bullshit 'arguments' in 'support' of your position, arguments whose intrinsic FAIL means that they could only be raised by a goddamn liar (if the YEC raising said arguments knows how false said arguments are) or a total fucking ignoramus (if the YEC raising said arguments is mindlessly parroting something they got from a YEC data-source), you only reinforce the impression that YECs must be stupid and/or ignorant and/or fucking insane. Personally, I don't mind it when YECs make themselves look like ignorant, deranged morons, which is exactly and precisely what you've been doing here. But if you mind it when you make YECs look like ignorant, deranged morons, you might want to consider learning some real science, forastero. In particular, you might want to learn what science really has to say about evolution and the age of the Earth and yada yada yada. Because there are unanswered questions; real science doesn't have all the answers. If, after you learn what science really does say about the topics you're interested in, you still think YECism is right, fine; you'll be in the same boat as Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood, both of whom are YECs, both of whom are quite well-informed about the science, and neither of whom would ever be caught dead making the kind of bullshit "San Francisco is thirteen feet from New York"-type errors you've made and continue to make. And if you learn about real science, you'll be able to use that knowledge to raise valid arguments against evolution, assuming there are any such. Of course, you can continue to mindlessly regurgitate bullshit YEC propaganda. You absolutely can do that if you like. But if you do that, you're not gonna convince any non-YEC that YEC might be valid, and you won't make any non-YEC think YECs are anything less than stupid and/or ignorant and/or insane. The choice is yours, forastero. It's forever and inescapably your choice. Choose wisely.
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,03:05) | Six. Fucking. Orders. Of. Magnitude...
So when you YECs make noise about don't believe those so-called 'scientists' when they speak of billions of years, the real age of the Earth is just a few thousand years, you are, whether you know it or not... whether you want to know it or not... in exactly the same position as someone who insists that New York is only thirteen feet away from San Francisco. |
Which was the point of my earlier questions: Quote | 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. |
As well as the above, from which Little Bunny continues to hide:
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? Quote | Personally, I don't mind it when YECs make themselves look like ignorant, deranged morons, which is exactly and precisely what you've been doing here. |
Forastero apparently believes that by determinedly avoiding uttering aloud the ridiculous entailments of his position (relative to which his strenuous, and baseless, cheeseparing vis this or that dating method is utterly irrelevant) he avoids creating that impression. But he is mistaken. Others can extrapolate those entailments for themselves, which are plain and inescapable; to that he adds the indelible display of his abandonment of his own convictions.
-------------- 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
|
Quote | If, after you learn what science really does say about the topics you're interested in, you still think YECism is right, fine; you'll be in the same boat as Dr. Kurt Wise and Dr. Todd Wood, both of whom are YECs, both of whom are quite well-informed about the science, and neither of whom would ever be caught dead making the kind of bullshit "San Francisco is thirteen feet from New York"-type errors you've made and continue to make. |
Would forastero consider the wisdom of taking his cue from Dr. Wise:
"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand."
All it takes is doublethink! Asking a Christian friend of mine who also accept all of science, I got the reply: I am a Christian with one half of my brain, the other half is atheist.
Edit: slight rephrasing.
-------------- Rocks have no biology. Robert Byers.
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
But San Fran and New York are 13 feet apart... on a really big map...
And that's what forastero and other YECs do to. They conflate things that have nothing to do with each other. As has been shown here several times.
27 pages worth of material and forastero has made fewer than 5 claims. Sure, he's been arguing against science (poorly), but he hasn't ever actually said anything that he can be held responsible for.
Even with the date of the Flood at 2350BC, what he actually said was "I would be OK with that date". He never said that was the date.
The intellectual coward is too chicken to even state his own position. He's too scared to allow us to pick on his notions as he picks on science.
Which leads me to one conclusion. forastero has a very, very weak faith. He knows, somewhere in his mind, that he is promoting utter BS. And he is so scared of acknowledging the fact that it is utter BS, that he doesn't dare ever let his notions see the light of day.
forastero, if your notions are so powerful, then why don't you state them?
Heck, he's halfway to being an atheist. He's just too scared to take that step.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2011,19:35) | Then there was somebody's (Kelvin?) calculation on how long it would take Earth to cool from molten to present temperature. Even without knowledge of radioactive heating of Earth's interior, he still got twenty something million years, IIRC. That's three point something orders of magnitude more than the YEC position, even if 2 point something orders less than the reality. |
Kelvin indeed, modified a few times. There were many scientific estimates of the age of the Earth before radiometrics, and all were much larger than 6,000 years.They were also all over the map, since none of the methods were precise.
Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 22 2011,20:32) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,21:04) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 19 2011,05:09) | You seem to be having extreme difficulty coming to terms with very simple concepts.
Williams uses "doubling time". The formula for population growth via doubling time is standard and can be seen here. I don't have to present it, anybody who knows the slightest thing about the topic already knows it, and anyone else can locate it without difficulty.
The numbers I presented are based upon what Williams gave, not Morris.
Again, I am not Mark Isaac. But I'll note that if one works it using the equation you provided and the years and population that Williams provided, one finds that the growth rate resulting is about 0.0037217261 (given initial population of 8, final population of 1.8 billion, and interval of 5,177 years). Plugging that into the calculator you linked yields 969,787 for the population in AD 1, which isn't all that much different than the 655,683 interpolated based on Williams' numbers, and it is still plainly nonsensical, just as I had asserted. Again, you seem to be incompetent at this. |
Again, population doubling times have been decreasing exponentially since the time of Christ, so why would I use these obscure numbers ? More importantly, why do you base your whole premise here on steady doubling rates while denying exponential growth?
|
Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally.
First, it is not my premise. I've documented that it is Williams' premise that a fixed, continuous, constant exponential doubling rate is an adequate basis to overthrow evolution.
Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game.
Third, I have not denied that exponential growth occurs. What I've disputed is the assertion that exponential growth at a constant rate, as Williams and other SciCre advocates use, properly characterizes human population size in deep time.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | I am going to point out some problems with the SciCre population argument.....I am only interested in the anti-evolutionary components of the SciCre population argument; use of the population argument in apologetics is not something I care about. I don't think that anyone can demonstrate that real population dynamics disbar Global Flood scenarios, so if use in apologetics is all that is intended from some source, I have no real beef with it. |
So too bestow the role of the mellow hero, you proclaim "no beef" with SciCre as long as they conform to the Scopes monkey trial? Yet, in melodramatic fashion you scoured the web for some obscure paper from 1925 in order to falsely stereotype SciCre? Plus, your many posts here prove your boundless beefs with SciCre
|
SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | We will be more generous in our calculations and start with eight people in 2350 B.C.E. (a traditional date for the Flood) |
Again, how are you being generous to Henry Morris when his 'Genesis Record ' tells in at least three places that the Flood could have appeared 2459 BC to 7459 BC?
|
Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | No, my "model" is that there has not been a continuous, constant exponential growth of human population, thus no such conclusion follows. You really are reading-comprehension challenged, aren't you?
"There is no particular reason to choose a population growth rate of 0.5 percent for the calculation. The population growth from 1000 to 1800 has been closer to 0.1227 percent per year (Encyclopaedia Britannica 1984). At that rate, the population would have grown to its present size from the eight Flood survivors in 16,660 years." |
Again, you insist that I provide sources for my numbers yet here you are writing dogmatic articles based on a 1984 Britannica. Furthermore, I provided all kinds of scholarly books that disagree with your dogma but of course you didnt accept them.
|
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip.
I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim.
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 19 2011,15:26) | Quote | The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Human history does not record a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Human history is continuous through the times proposed for a global flood. Geological evidence shows no sign of a global flood. |
Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. See these receding seas
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Although the fail to understand the power of oral traditions, the following site contains several of the Flood stories from around the world http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......hs.html |
I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
Quote | I notice that you completely failed to address my point. I take that you have abandoned your claim. |
Sorry if I missed something. I’ll try to be more thorough on this interesting topic.
Quote | Second, I play SciCre balderdash where it lies. And it lies a lot. If you don't like the quality of the argument in question, get after the SciCre advocates to up their game. |
First of all you are misrepresenting and/or stereotyping creationists because when it comes right down to it, a huge proportion from diverse religions are extremely interested in discussing their belief in creation in scientific and logical ways.
Quote | I will add a fifth point, really a corollary to the first point. The SciCre argument is self-contained, and deliberately ignores all other sources of information. Quote | Creationists are inspired by the natural and spirit world so your "self contained" is an obvious projection. In fact, the earliest histories are all about the Flood and the spirit worlds. Quote | I see that you don't comprehend what "self-contained" means. I think I could have guessed that without confirmation. |
| |
Hmm...you knock us for not using science but get vociferously resistant when we do. And all this rage about our so called quote mining is a real double standard.
Quote | SciCre is not science. I will vociferously resist advocates who insist that other people have to accord it status as science. If they don't insist that public policy be amended to privilege their falsehoods, I don't have much motivation to go after them. I've been quite consistent about this distinction over the years. |
You don’t mean the so called Totalitarian Scientific Inquisition ready for even militant intolerance of whom it deems as heretics, marked by the severity of questioning and punishment and lack of any academic freedom afforded to the accused? Quote | SciCre Population Dynamics: An Exercise in Selective and Misleading Use of Data Williams is not obscure. I did not go seeking Williams' prose; it was brought into a discussion by a SciCre advocate as an authoritative, mathematical "disproof of evolution". I responded to it and made that response available generally. |
There are much more well known versions that would have seemed less cherry picked than this one. Btw, from what feedback did TalkOrigins fill their archives?
Quote | Again, I am not Mark Isaak. You are quoting text that Mark Isaak wrote. I realize that you are cognitively challenged, but I've specifically pointed this out in at least two previous posts. Do you have some timetable for when the dead glowworm that serves as your mental light bulb might switch on? My critique was of the argument provided by Williams.
Once again, you are falsely attributing to me work done by Mark Isaak. Get a grip. |
Ok sorry but your name was the one highlighted on the page. Plus, Mark Isaak edits all of TalkOrigin’s archive of Creationist Claims but according to his website, he has only wrote on six of them. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....ex.html http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....rs.html You would know this since: “In 1995, Vickers established an easily browsed site, coded a feedback system, and handled all the updates to the Archive from 1995 to 2001. In 2001, Vickers transferred the TalkOrigins Archive to Wesley R. Elsberry, since Vickers's work demanded much of his attention, leaving little time to maintain the web site. Elsberry organized a group of volunteers to handle the maintenance of the Archive, now including Mark Isaak, etc…etc….In 2004, Kenneth Fair incorporated the TalkOrigins Foundation as a Texas 501©(3) non-profit organization.[1] The Foundation's purposes include funding and maintaining the TalkOrigins Archive and holding copyrights to Archive articles, thereby simplifying the process of reprinting and updating those articles. The copyright issue has posed a particular problem since the FAQs started off as a small collection with little thought given to copyright but have since mushroomed. In 2005, the Foundation was granted tax-exempt status by the IRS.[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Archive
Btw, were creationists ever allowed to edit this “archived feedback” over at the TalkOrigins forum ?
Quote | Certain proponents of "scientific creationism" (SciCre) have put forward an argument that humans could not have evolved, simply because human population size shows that humans have only been around a few thousand years. Those putting forward the argument tie the original population size to either two (sometimes Adam and Eve, sometimes Noah and his wife) or eight (Noah's immediate family), note a current population figure, and derive a rate of increase by use of some Biblical chronology to either creation, Noah's birth, or The Flood. It should be noted that biblically, what should be argued is either descent from two (Adam and Eve) or from six (Noah's sons and their wives). While some admit up front that the calculation of rate of increase yields an average value and that the actual rate of increase varies, many do not. The argument assumes what it is supposed to prove. |
Secondly, Williams simply had the doubling times too small but you deny it to a point that disagrees even with most evolutionists.
Thirdly, all of these beefs that you have with Williams are exactly what your EvoCre preaches. For instance:
Fourthly, evolutionism is riddled with assumptions, abides less with Occam’s razor, and is much more pseudoscientific on average. Fifthly, most scientific models start out with either two or small band of individuals and often with the same rates that creationists use..
Sixthly, evolutionists base many of their chronologies on phylogenetic assumptions known to be racked with fraud and calibrated to radiometric dating, which also has been suspect.
Quote | While I worked from Williams' example, any similar argument will produce a similar set of counter-factual intermediate values. What the real values tell us is that human population does not always increase exponentially, and thus current population cannot tell us an initial population time.
Final population size is an unreliable indicator of initial population time. This is really a reiteration of the last point. There is no general means of inferring a history of population sizes from a current population size. Attempting to do so coupled with the claim that such attempts disprove evolution shows both ignorance and hubris. |
Unless there is a global event like the Flood, it does.
“Rough estimates of population growth rates are derived from the doubling time interval estimates……The simplest arithmetical way to count the number of doublings is to start with 1 and continue with a doubling until one passes the current population level” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Ethnohistorical approaches to population rates do depend on primary variables like final populations. Archaeological approaches often do not use it but I have been reading that even this approaches with Aborigine and Native American population rates conclude with exponential growth patterns
Quote | The crux of the argument comes when they use the derived rate of increase for comparison to the deep time that evolutionary timetables give. The numbers of humans that would be present, they say, were evolution true, would be far greater than what we observe today, and thus evolution of humans must be false.
In recent times, human population growth has been exponential, but this does not mean that the human population has been growing exponentially for all its residence time.
|
With your brand of deep time, no rate of increase seems to fit even uniformitarianism because there is no evidence for the kind of chronic perturbations needed to account for all the missing bodies. I mean it would have to have been vastly more plagued or volcanic than places in historical Africa or Asia whose population growth rates are soaring even amongst rampant AIDS, malaria, poverty, etc…
Most, including your own Richardhughes, who posted the above chart, would seem to agree that even the first band of humans grew exponentially.
Exponential Doubling times chart http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/history/world-population-growth.htm
Quote | In no case do exponentially reproducing populations "take over the world" as SciCre'ists assure us would be the case if evolution were true.
None of your links show anyone thinking that continuous, constant exponential growth is an expected feature of any population. Why would you? |
This is another gross misinterpretation and/or stereotype We simply say the population of living and dead don’t support your premise. Creationist don’t worry about overpopulation, but rather over exploitation by the oligarchy, with their survival of the fittest philosophies. On the other hand there has been a powerful population control and eugenics lobby by influential evolutionist for over a century now. They implement Darwin’s double edged “wedge” (also known as biological replacement, survival of the fittest, Malthusian death struggle, etc) as a law that must be harnessed by the academic aristocracy.
And yes, those links do propose prehistoric exponential growth and the one by devout evolutionist Jeffrey Mckee has a real Mein Kampf to it; and how fitting that this Mckee fellow learned under apartheid South Africa, with its NeoNazi control of the fossil records. He goes on and on about the assumed overkill via Native Americans, Africans Aborigines, etc….Its a shame that he wont even consider the Biblical explanation of the overkill and how it occurred before the Flood
http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
Quote | Fossil evidence indicates that mankind is far more ancient than SciCre'ists would admit. None of this evidence goes away or is addressed by the population argument. |
Yeah bones last and/or fossilize but preserved DNA? Imo, the abundance of soft tissue and DNA in these fossil humans and animals is the strongest case against the deep ages required by evolution.
Quote | But let's take your asserted oldest date for Morris' estimate of The Flood as 7459. With an initial population of 8 (this is also generous) and 9384 years to 1925 with its 1.8 billion people, you will find a growth rate of about 0.00205. Plugging that in for the interval from 7459 to 2566 BCE, one gets an estimated total world population of about 181,000 at the time of the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, which still isn't looking good for SciCre population dynamics. |
Again, your premise is based on the very model that you are apposing, which is the “use of a final population” when it fits your own agenda. Likewise, you like to compare human population rates to bacteria or correlate fossil apes with humans or dinosaurs with birds, etc…etc…but when a creationist correlates ancient humans to modern humans, you cry foul.
However, due to the many human errors in estimating the current population, one can only get a rough estimate on population rates of the past. “One of the sources of errors in official estimates is that some of the highest fertility in developing countries is occurring outside the scope of official census observations (Hern, 1977), an observation made by Pearl in 1939 (1939, p. 253)… The demographers use an accurate number for the previous population base – since it was collected ten years ago and now we know that it was higher than we thought – and an inaccurate, falsely low estimate for the current (today’s) population, giving again a falsely low official estimate of growth rate.” http://www.drhern.com/pdfs.......ing.pdf
Getting back to your question, Noah had at least 16 grandchildren with only the most prominent recorded. That is a 4.5 % growth rate, which is about the same as some modern African countries; so there definitely would have been no shortage of people at the pyramid era. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......th_rate
However there were tectonic upheavals one to two hundred years during the fall of Babel, which may have lead to widespread bottlenecks.
The Great Pyramid is the oldest, largest and most complex. pyramid in Giza Egypt. Egyptologists believe that the pyramid and Sphinx were built for fourth dynasty Egyptian Pharaoh Khufu (Cheops in Greek) over an approximately 20 year period concluding around 2560 BC. However, C14 dating of the pyramid and Sphinx has been discordant due to the necessity of dating charcoal that was used to process the pyramid’s gypsum mortar. This charcoal, it is believed, came from differently aged trees that could have sat in the desert for ages. Recycling of wood and other materials was a common practice in Egypt. Not only because of desertification and heavy consumption, but possibly because Pharaohs felt a need to make a conscious connection with their ancestors. Bonani G, Haas H, Hawass Z, Lehner M, Nakhla S, Nolan J, Wenke R, Wölfli W. “Radiocarbon Dates of Old and Middle Kingdom Monuments in Egypt,” Radiocarbon 43, No. 3 (2001), 1297-1320(24). |
OMG YES I IT LIKE ELEVEN TIMES
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 24 2011,15:17) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:32) | I have already mentioned that population waxed and waned globally during the Flood and partially during the tectonic fall of Babel. I see that you also willfully ignored the authors chart and following quote from that article: |
There is a lot here, but I'd just like to comment on the above little piece.
You are wrong, the human population could not have waxed during a Global Flood. It crashed. It indeed crashed to unsustainable levels.
You, forastero, claimed that the Flood occurred in 2350BC (actually you said you had no problem with that date... which is effectively the same as claiming it).
So, the flood happened then. However, there were multiple cultures DURING that year. You are the one who has to explain where the 20k - 30k people that build the Kafre pyramid came from... and the people that made up the Chinese culture of the time... and the people that made up the Japanese culture of the time... and the people that started building Stonehinge at about that same time... and all the people of the Mesopitamian region and the Mediteranian region, etc. etc. etc.
All from 8 people who were alive at the end of the flood.
It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed. You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these.
It doesn't matter if it was a 1000 years after the Flood, you cannot produce a population growth rate that is in any way connected to reality that produces the millions of people on the planet that have to be in all these cultures.
Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures. Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed). Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc.
You can't do it. It's simply not possible for these to happen without a miracle. But the second you appeal to miracles, you lose all hope of your claims be supported. So go ahead.
BTW: What exploded to cause the Big Bang? You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded?
Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata? How do you know?
What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata (thanks JonF)? Run away Bun-bun... run away from these statements that totally refute your worldview. |
I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Been out of town so I just got a chance to read your paper by Belovsky. He claims that there is little evidence that hunter gathers will take measures against overkill and the last sentence of his paper says: “Therefore, humans will always hunt their prey to extinction in these models: there is no other alternative.”
Belovsky fails to understand the power of traditional knowledge. The Koihsan people are great agrforesters with vast knowledge about animals and hundreds of different plants. Like the Aborigines, The Khoisan really are keystones to improving desert fertility and production via planting, transplanting, crossbreeding, amending, irrigating etc. etc.. etc…. They have great respect for the animals they hunt that includes a deeply spiritual understanding of cause and effect. This can also be said about so many other indigenous peoples around the world. In fact the most biodivers regions on earth are known to have undergone thousands of years of human manipulation.
Humans have indeed caused mass overkill but archeology shows that it was a time before indigenous people such as the Native Americans, Aborigines and Khoisan—groups who suffered from the same survival of the fittest greed, genocide and predator control, etc.. that are leading to ecocide as we speak.
Modern evolutionists still cook up phylogenies and and IQ scores to project people like the Kung Bushmen as the epitome of prehistoric man and/or missing link between modern society and chimpanzee clans. Pygmies, Khoisan, and and Indians with so called archaic features were exhibited with zoo animals but little did the mob mentality realize the great variability, complexities, knowledge, and individualism of these people. Heck, I personally know several a so called primitive who have fit right into modern society. Indigenous people who stick with their traditional ways do so because they love it and because it affords the more free time to be with the people they love and laugh with. Throughout time individuals and groups specialize in either hunting, fishing, pastoralism or swidden yet they have always had a symbiotic trade with each other. This trade has always been observed even among the khoisan and Pygmies and archeology shows that even their supposed sangoan ancestors domesticated melons, used grain-grindstones and exploited cattle; as did those cultures who inhabited the Sarah before it became a desert.
Moreover technology and invention most often builds upon itself and once severe perturbations cause man to become separated from their technical society, he often finds himself less technical than the seasoned hunter gatherer. For example, the golden ages of most empires had pretty much degraded its ecology and society out of a lust for power and materials, and thus in great part, often broke up into relatively unknown tribes. In cases like this, its the so called barbarians whom have been living off the land and collecting the endlessly vast knowledge of nature who end up as the dominant social force. So dont be so quick to diss indigenous knowledge. Yes, kingdoms come and go and you really dont know the ancient history of the pygmy or San or aborigine, etc… Facts are stranger than fiction.
Belovsky is also in error in his failure to consider fisheries, especially when most of Africa’s human populations have always straddled oceans, lakes, rivers and swamps. Even the Kung often favor the Okavango swamps. Concerning population rates, he is also wrong to put so much weight on nursing mothers because agroforestry people are all about community and family time that often includes communal child care.
Oh and exponential growth among Indians, Aborigines, and Khoisan . http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract http://www.pnas.org/content....53.long http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstre....uence=1
Of course there has been some some drift and genocide via the progressive retrogressive social Darwinist
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,09:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
This isn't going to work, muppet, no matter how long you wait before posting. You can only get away with saying "I have already explained all that" if you've, well, already explained all that. A difficult concept I know, but why not give it a try?
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,11:42) | I have already explained all that |
Then link to it.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
Have you already responded to this?
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?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Forastero, Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.
http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit
As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,11:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,09:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
This isn't going to work, muppet, no matter how long you wait before posting. You can only get away with saying "I have already explained all that" if you've, well, already explained all that. A difficult concept I know, but why not give it a try? |
Well maybe you should elaborate on exactly which of his topics I havnt detailed. Otherwise, you yourself are merely projecting a mob conforming muppet mentality
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,12:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
Have you already responded to this?
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? |
Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion
Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:19) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,11:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,09:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
This isn't going to work, muppet, no matter how long you wait before posting. You can only get away with saying "I have already explained all that" if you've, well, already explained all that. A difficult concept I know, but why not give it a try? |
Well maybe you should elaborate on exactly which of his topics I havnt detailed. Otherwise, you yourself are merely projecting a mob conforming muppet mentality |
OK, muppet. Here you go.
You haven't explained/answered this: Quote | It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed. You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these. |
Or this: Quote | Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures. Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed). Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc. |
Or this: Quote | What exploded to cause the Big Bang? You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded? |
Or this: Quote | Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata? How do you know? |
Or this: Quote | What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no) |
Or this: Quote | Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood? |
Or this: Quote | Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood? |
Or this: Quote | Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata? |
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote | Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now |
Perhaps give a specific example for the dinosaur soft tissue? If you have already, sorry, please repeat it if you'd be so kind.
How long should human DNA last, by the way? What's the limit?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) | A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.
You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.
You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.
You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis. You have six.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2011,12:14) | Forastero, Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.
http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit
As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them. |
Funny how both lawyers and criminals will regress to repeating a questions over and over again when things are not going their way.
but anyway its to bad we dont have a good keyword search tool
|
|
|
Southstar
Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:28) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 02 2011,12:14) | Forastero, Not sure if you noticed, but if you click on your own name to the left of each message everything you've ever written is displayed.
http://antievolution.org/feature....=Submit
As such it's easy to find posts that answer specific points, if you claim to have answered them already, and provide links (the permalink icon) to them. |
Funny how both lawyers and criminals will regress to repeating a questions over and over again when things are not going their way.
but anyway its to bad we dont have a good keyword search tool |
Now see if somebody askes you something it is good that you answer. If you don't answer it means you are either:
1) Ignorant 2) Stupid 3) or you missed the question (that's why it's repeated).
Please select which one of the above represents your case so that the people of this forum may treat you accordingly.
Marty
Ps you may choose more than one option.
-------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:19) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,11:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,09:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
This isn't going to work, muppet, no matter how long you wait before posting. You can only get away with saying "I have already explained all that" if you've, well, already explained all that. A difficult concept I know, but why not give it a try? |
Well maybe you should elaborate on exactly which of his topics I havnt detailed. Otherwise, you yourself are merely projecting a mob conforming muppet mentality |
OK, muppet. Here you go.
You haven't explained/answered this: Quote | It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed. You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these. |
Or this: Quote | Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures. Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed). Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc. |
Or this: Quote | What exploded to cause the Big Bang? You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded? |
Or this: Quote | Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata? How do you know? |
Or this: Quote | What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no) |
Or this: Quote | Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood? |
Or this: Quote | Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood? |
Or this: Quote | Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata? |
|
Quote | It doesn't matter WHEN these cultures existed. You have to explain all of them coming from 10 people when a Global Flood wiped away every other living thing on the planet at some time close to these. |
Even further, you MUST have massive mutational rates to develop the unique genetic traits of these various cultures. Or perhaps you should explain which of Noah's daughters-in-law was Chinese, which was Greek, and which was Egyptian... and which was Sumerian and Vietnamese and English and Dutch (giving the current names for the region in which these people's existed). Heck, North American Indian, South American Indian, etc. etc. etc.[/quote]
Yeah I did when I linked to the Table of Nations. if, your wondering how, it had nothing to do with mutations but rather human genotypic diversity, phenotypic diversity and skeletal diversity being vastly greater among the early ancestors
Quote | What exploded to cause the Big Bang? You seem to think that the scientists saying something actually exploded are literally correct... so, in your own words... what exploded? |
I have already said that no one has yet been able to explain this supernatural explosion but proved to Ogre that his own links disagree with him in that they convey an explosion of one type or another. Now he is simply spins the goal posts and asks "What exploded"
Quote | Which strata are pre-Flood and post-Flood strata? How do you know?
What is a layer of flood deposits? You said the entire Carboniferous is the deposit from The Flood. Do you still stand by this? (yes or no)
Was the Tarim Basin canyon formed in The Flood?
Was the Green River formation formed in The Flood?
Were ALL sedimentary formations formed in The Flood? If this is the case, then where (and what) are the pre-Flood strata? |
I dont think there is a preFlood layer because everything that still exists from then is within the Flood strata; for the "earth was destroyed". I guess that the mantle and core perhaps could be considered as a preFlood layer but even they were altered.
Again, most fossil formations are miraculous preservations that testify to the glory of our Creator. The demonically influenced overkill of Megafaunal is also preserved.
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. Recent fossil fuels are sometimes formed but not on such a grand scale as represented by the so called Carboniferous period jungles. The same goes with the other so called periods, which actually represent distinct ecozones laid down hydrologically during The Flood 99.9% of the time.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy. |
Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2011,16:16) | It is not possible to believe in the flood without ignoring all the evidence for Africa as the origins of all humans alive on this planet today. The migrations and the routes taken, the Neandertal and Denisovan hominins;, what is the creationist theory of how the continents were populated after the flood?
That is, if we really are stupid enough to believe we need consider the flood anything but a myth. Come on, creationists, a feasibility study shows that there isn't a chance in hell that the history about a family of eight on an impossible 'boat' ship in an impossible flood can be true.
Creationism is an insult to the human intellect. Intellectual catalepsy, a pathological worldview. There ain't no cure for stupidity. |
Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical the other pantheistic creation myths
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion |
Bullshit. You've steadfastly ignored these questions, and never pretended to make a response, although I've posed them to you countless times over several weeks.
Nor is this a response. Here are the questions again, for your reference.
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?
Run hard now, Little Bunny!
-------------- 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
|
|
|
nmgirl
Posts: 92 Joined: Sep. 2009
|
"I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 24 2011,16:16) | It is not possible to believe in the flood without ignoring all the evidence for Africa as the origins of all humans alive on this planet today. The migrations and the routes taken, the Neandertal and Denisovan hominins;, what is the creationist theory of how the continents were populated after the flood? |
What a joke. Decades ago, while y'all were calling and depicting neanderthals as apes and later as closest to Africans, we creationists were calling him and erectus fully human. You scoffed at us as usual even though you straggle behind in every aspect.
Btw, there has only been one Denisovan found but all the evidence points to him being H. erectus.
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata |
You haven't detailed anything. Just asserted.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Indiumas @ Nov. 24 2011,10:42) | Quote | Forastero: You are assuming there was no agriculture and you are assuming that the carrying capacity in uniformitarian terms. Your assumptions are wrong because the evidence shows that Africa's carrying capacity was much stronger in the past and agriculture was present |
No, I am not. This has been independently determined, see for example this paper and the references therein. Of course you can easily prove me (and all those stupid scientists working in this field) wrong: Show me that agriculture has been a major factor more than let´s say 15000 years ago. The funny thing, of course, is that according to you, humans don´t even have a history that goes back 15000 years! :D So, when you demonstrate that humans had a thriving agriculture 15000 years ago, be sure to point out that you actually don´t mean 15000 years but 6000 years, which would of course make your point invalid again. I can´t even begin to imagine how you can cope with mental dissonances like this.
Also, I am not assuming that carrying capacity is "uniformitarian", whatever you mean by that anyway. I even mentioned that a better model should reflect that the carrying capacity can be time-dependent. Do you actually read what people write?
So, you are wrong on both accounts. |
Been out of town so I just got a chance to read your paper by Belovsky. He claims that there is little evidence that hunter gathers will take measures against overkill and the last sentence of his paper says: “Therefore, humans will always hunt their prey to extinction in these models: there is no other alternative.”
Like most evolutionist, he stereotypes prehistory stereotypical rationalizations on some Kung people
Belovsky fails to understand the power of traditional knowledge. The Koihsan people are great agrforesters with vast knowledge about animals and hundreds of different plants. Like the Aborigines, The Khoisan really are keystones to improving desert fertility and production via planting, transplanting, crossbreeding, amending, irrigating etc. etc.. etc…. They have great respect for the animals they hunt that includes a deeply spiritual understanding of cause and effect. This can also be said about so many other indigenous peoples around the world. In fact the most biodivers regions on earth are known to have undergone thousands of years of human manipulation.
Humans have indeed caused mass overkill but archeology shows that it was a time before indigenous people such as the Native Americans, Aborigines and Khoisan—groups who suffered from the same survival of the fittest greed, genocide and predator control, etc.. that are leading to ecocide as we speak.
Modern evolutionists still cook up phylogenies and and IQ scores to project people like the Kung Bushmen as the epitome of prehistoric man and/or missing link between modern society and chimpanzee clans. Pygmies, Khoisan, and and Indians with so called archaic features were exhibited with zoo animals but little did the mob mentality realize the great variability, complexities, knowledge, and individualism of these people. Heck, I personally know several a so called primitive who have fit right into modern society. Indigenous people who stick with their traditional ways do so because they love it and because it affords the more free time to be with the people they love and laugh with. Throughout time individuals and groups specialize in either hunting, fishing, pastoralism or swidden yet they have always had a symbiotic trade with each other. This trade has always been observed even among the khoisan and Pygmies and archeology shows that even their supposed sangoan ancestors domesticated melons, used grain-grindstones and exploited cattle; as did those cultures who inhabited the Sarah before it became a desert.
Moreover technology and invention most often builds upon itself and once severe perturbations cause man to become separated from their technical society, he often finds himself less technical than the seasoned hunter gatherer. For example, the golden ages of most empires had pretty much degraded its ecology and society out of a lust for power and materials, and thus in great part, often broke up into relatively unknown tribes. In cases like this, its the so called barbarians whom have been living off the land and collecting the endlessly vast knowledge of nature who end up as the dominant social force. So dont be so quick to diss indigenous knowledge. Yes, kingdoms come and go and you really dont know the ancient history of the pygmy or San or aborigine, etc… Facts are stranger than fiction.
Belovsky is also in error in his failure to consider fisheries, especially when most of Africa’s human populations have always straddled oceans, lakes, rivers and swamps. Even the Kung often favor the Okavango swamps. Concerning population rates, he is also wrong to put so much weight on nursing mothers because agroforestry people are all about community and family time that often includes communal child care.
Oh and exponential growth among Indians, Aborigines, and Khoisan . http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract http://www.pnas.org/content....53.long http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstre....uence=1
Of course there has been some some drift and genocide via the progressive retrogressive social Darwinist
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) | A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.
You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.
You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.
You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis. You have six. |
Ah, The IDiot is back.
Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to. Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases). Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae).
-------------- "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
|
|
|
nmgirl
Posts: 92 Joined: Sep. 2009
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days?
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,13:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
It took a while for the flood waters to vanish to who-knows-where after the rain stopped, so this all happened in about a year.
Not 40 days - that would be silly.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,14:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
I have already detailed how the Cambrian was a benthic system that exploded in biodiversity often if not usually found over your so called younger strata |
Are you sure you want to make this claim? We are NOT talking about fossils here, we are talking about the rocks.
Do you stand by your claim (in regards to OUR discussion, not what you think the discussion is about) that ALL rocks that are Cambrian in age are benthic?
Now, let me repeat this, because you aren't understanding this.
You claimed that many, many scientists say something exploded to cause the Big Bang. Since you must have read these scientists' papers or books... I want you to tell me WHAT EXPLODED TO CAUSE THE BIG BANG?
I don't give a rat's left testicle about your philosophy or your pathetic attempts to turn this around.
Here, I'll help you... what do the scientists say exploded?
I promise there's a real lesson here. You probably won't get it though.
Now, on to the flood deposits.
Your claim (at this point) is that all rock above the upper mantel is flood or post-flood deposits? (yes/no if no, then please elaborate on your claim so that I understand you.)
Stayed tuned folks, it's getting good.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Stephen Elliott
Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,14:45) | Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy. |
Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again |
You say that, and yet GPS navigation only works by allowing for the different rates that Earth-bound and satellite clocks run. Predicted with astounding precision by physics.
You post on a computer connected to the internet; both developed because of science. You probably use modern medicine developed by scientists. Plate tectonics has been measured and things like the Hubble telescope works.
You are barking mad, ignorant or just winding people up. That is not an exclusive or BTW.
|
|
|
Texas Teach
Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007
|
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Dec. 02 2011,17:26) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,14:45) | Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,09:39) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 24 2011,12:48) | Oh and of course, I dont agree with the radiometric dating system |
You know, for your contentions to be right, just about all of science has to be wrong? Not just a little wrong, flat out bollocks. This includes physics, geology, biology and astronomy. |
Yep and history of such psuedoscientific bullocks has repeated itself again and again |
You say that, and yet GPS navigation only works by allowing for the different rates that Earth-bound and satellite clocks run. Predicted with astounding precision by physics.
You post on a computer connected to the internet; both developed because of science. You probably use modern medicine developed by scientists. Plate tectonics has been measured and things like the Hubble telescope works.
You are barking mad, ignorant or just winding people up. That is not an exclusive or BTW. |
Not nearly a high enough dose.
-------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr
"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:45) | Been out of town so I just got a chance to read your paper by Belovsky. He claims that there is little evidence that hunter gathers will take measures against overkill and the last sentence of his paper says: “Therefore, humans will always hunt their prey to extinction in these models: there is no other alternative.”
Belovsky fails to understand the power of traditional knowledge. The Koihsan people are great agrforesters with vast knowledge about animals and hundreds of different plants. Like the Aborigines, The Khoisan really are keystones to improving desert fertility and production via planting, transplanting, crossbreeding, amending, irrigating etc. etc.. etc…. They have great respect for the animals they hunt that includes a deeply spiritual understanding of cause and effect. This can also be said about so many other indigenous peoples around the world. In fact the most biodivers regions on earth are known to have undergone thousands of years of human manipulation.
Humans have indeed caused mass overkill but archeology shows that it was a time before indigenous people such as the Native Americans, Aborigines and Khoisan—groups who suffered from the same survival of the fittest greed, genocide and predator control, etc.. that are leading to ecocide as we speak.
Modern evolutionists still cook up phylogenies and and IQ scores to project people like the Kung Bushmen as the epitome of prehistoric man and/or missing link between modern society and chimpanzee clans. Pygmies, Khoisan, and and Indians with so called archaic features were exhibited with zoo animals but little did the mob mentality realize the great variability, complexities, knowledge, and individualism of these people. Heck, I personally know several a so called primitive who have fit right into modern society. Indigenous people who stick with their traditional ways do so because they love it and because it affords the more free time to be with the people they love and laugh with. Throughout time individuals and groups specialize in either hunting, fishing, pastoralism or swidden yet they have always had a symbiotic trade with each other. This trade has always been observed even among the khoisan and Pygmies and archeology shows that even their supposed sangoan ancestors domesticated melons, used grain-grindstones and exploited cattle; as did those cultures who inhabited the Sarah before it became a desert.
Moreover technology and invention most often builds upon itself and once severe perturbations cause man to become separated from their technical society, he often finds himself less technical than the seasoned hunter gatherer. For example, the golden ages of most empires had pretty much degraded its ecology and society out of a lust for power and materials, and thus in great part, often broke up into relatively unknown tribes. In cases like this, its the so called barbarians whom have been living off the land and collecting the endlessly vast knowledge of nature who end up as the dominant social force. So dont be so quick to diss indigenous knowledge. Yes, kingdoms come and go and you really dont know the ancient history of the pygmy or San or aborigine, etc… Facts are stranger than fiction.
Belovsky is also in error in his failure to consider fisheries, especially when most of Africa’s human populations have always straddled oceans, lakes, rivers and swamps. Even the Kung often favor the Okavango swamps. Concerning population rates, he is also wrong to put so much weight on nursing mothers because agroforestry people are all about community and family time that often includes communal child care.
Oh and exponential growth among Indians, Aborigines, and Khoisan . http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....bstract http://www.pnas.org/content....53.long http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstre....uence=1
Of course there has been some some drift and genocide via the progressive retrogressive social Darwinist |
haha this motherfucker's an anthropologist now too!
for fucks sake bozo what are you doing off the BW at PT? get tired of running away screaming everytime Mike tried to get you to take his entropy quiz? what a sad sack of shit you are. i suggest trying the ricin.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,12:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
Have you already responded to this?
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? |
Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion
Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now |
muppet you should, when boning up for your entropy quiz, learn the difference between additive and multiplicative.
and... then.... swallow the whole bottle of pills. it will be easier this way than the alternatives... say getting beat down by campus security at some redneck arkansas college, podunk school with podunk faculty that doesn't know what they are missing by turning down an offer to invite you personally to moo from a podium with their department footing the power bill and lemonade and cookies.
right? i mean for fucks sake
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) | A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.
You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.
You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.
You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis. You have six. |
Ah, The IDiot is back.
Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to. Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases). Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae). |
All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not?
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:11) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) | A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.
You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.
You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.
You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis. You have six. |
Ah, The IDiot is back.
Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to. Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases). Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae). |
All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis |
Please explain, in detail, how each of these things can alter the rate of decay of radioactive elements.
Please explain how all of these elements combined results in a 22,700x difference in the correct age of the Earth.
Please explain how all of these changes would give the same age of the Earth, given all of the changes you specify in response to the first sentence.
Support your work.
BTW: What do you say exploded to cause the Big Bang? What do scientists say exploded to cause the Big Bang?
and we haven't even gotten to his ridiculous understanding of entropy yet
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? |
Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'? Pretty please.
I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!!
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 02 2011,20:56) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,12:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,12:42) | I have already explained all that but you are being willfully obtuse and dishonestly putting words in my posts |
Have you already responded to this?
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? |
Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion
Now when you going to finally explain how all that dinosaur soft tissue lasted for millions of years or how that human DNA has lasted for tens of thousands of years? I have only asked y'all about ten times now |
muppet you should, when boning up for your entropy quiz, learn the difference between additive and multiplicative.
and... then.... swallow the whole bottle of pills. it will be easier this way than the alternatives... say getting beat down by campus security at some redneck arkansas college, podunk school with podunk faculty that doesn't know what they are missing by turning down an offer to invite you personally to moo from a podium with their department footing the power bill and lemonade and cookies.
right? i mean for fucks sake |
Hmm, why is it that Canadians get all ethnist on Arkansas when getting mad at gringos?
But then why do those who refuse to debate also vent fighting words from afar?
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,19:24) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? |
OK, got it. Underwater forest growth in about a year. Makes perfect sense to me.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? |
Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'? Pretty please.
I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!! |
well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion.
However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics?
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) | All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis |
All very interesting. But on reflection, the following questions occur to me:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Dr.GH
Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002
|
Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?
He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.
I don't see the attraction.
-------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."
L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) | Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?
He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.
I don't see the attraction. |
OTOH, he's not that much work. Since he hasn't the stones to answer questions, simply repeating same establishes the quality to which you refer.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 02 2011,22:19) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) | All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis |
All very interesting. But on reflection, the following questions occur to me:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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? |
Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues and are not young?
Geologists Find First Clue To Tyrannosaurus Rex Gender In Bone Tissue
Bits of Triceratops Gene Extracted
Dinosaur mummy yields organic molecules
Proteins have been successfully extracted from the fossil vertebra of a 150-million-year-old sauropod dinosaur ("Seismosaurus")
Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope (not a heading but a statement)
Preservation of the bone protein osteocalcin in dinosaurs
DNA and protein isolation from the 290 million year-old amphibian Discosauriscus austriacus and applications of biotechnology in palaeontology
In the March 25, 2005, issue of Science, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer and her co-authors reported the discovery of intact blood vessels and other soft tissues in demineralized bone from a 65- million-year–old specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex housed at the Museum of the Rockies (MOR). This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years
How do you know that these unmineralized fossils are to old to be dated directly. That’s circularly SSIK
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:57) | This is an extremely controversial result, because most scientists think that nucleic acids (the organic material that DNA and RNA are made of) will not survive intact for over 100,000 years |
Quote | “I have no idea. But since we don’t know very much about why things become fossils in the first place, that’s not surprising. What we do know is that this particular fossil is 65 million years old.” |
Yawn.
We do know one thing for sure. It's much much older then 6000 years...
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,23:57) | Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues and are not young? |
Because we read more than the headlines, Tardbucket. You should try it sometime.
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,23:57) | Why do y'all insist that the following article headings are not dealing with dinosaur soft tissues ... <snip further evasions> |
You've lost the thread of our exchange. Due to your evasiveness, there really isn't much to it.
A month ago I asked for a clarification concerning a contradiction between your cite of events ("explosions") that purportedly occurred during various ecological eras and epochs, and your implied assertion that these eras never occurred at all: Quote | Is it your belief that these geological eras occurred, complete with exploding diversity, but that dinosaurs did not live during those eras? Is it therefore your belief that the evidence (the geological column, radiometric dating, etc.) in fact correctly establishes the existence of those eras, yet the evidence that associates dinosaurs with those eras - grounded in the same geology and physics - is completely mistaken? |
You denied the reality of those epochs, repeating something about "eco zones," some of which existed before and some after the flood. Because you anchored your description of these "eco zones" to "the flood," I asked for a further clarification: Quote | Entering your frame of reference, when was the flood, relative to which these eras were 'ante' and 'post'? |
You ignored/evaded this question, asked in various forms for a many days, and never did give a straight answer. But at long last you did mutter: Quote | I answered honestly the question about the date of the Flood when I said no human really knows until he gets to heaven. Its and inhouse debate but I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old |
In response to your reported belief that the world is probably under 20,000 years old, and recalling your earlier assertions regarding errors in radiometric dating, I then asked: Quote | 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? |
You ignored and evaded this question for many more days and countless further repetitions. At long last you mumbled: Quote | Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off. |
I now ask, for perhaps the 20th time:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:07) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? |
Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'? Pretty please.
I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!! |
well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion.
However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics? |
So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark?
So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? Quote | So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) |
That's where you want to go with this? If not, then you need to try explaining yourself. One line answers are not explanations.
Since this isn't really a discussion, I am compelled to ask you what you think exploded and what scientists think exploded?
Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words. But you can't because you're scared. It's OK.
edit to add reference
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) | Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?
He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.
I don't see the attraction. |
he's like a pet, maybe.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2011,08:31) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) | Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?
He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.
I don't see the attraction. |
he's like a pet, maybe. |
One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) | So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? |
What about those blokes who "went" to Mars then? Sort of a boat. They don't seem to have come back as long lived giants!
-------------- 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
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 03 2011,09:16) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) | So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? |
What about those blokes who "went" to Mars then? Sort of a boat. They don't seem to have come back as long lived giants!
:p |
I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:11) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 02 2011,15:21) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,12:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,10:34) | A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
That's not an explanation, it's handwaving.
You've presented no evidence that contamination can occur without being recognised as such.
You've presented no evidence that decay rates can change substantially.
You don't have "many millenia" to work with under your hypothesis. You have six. |
Ah, The IDiot is back.
Rates don't get contaminated, since they are not a physical object to add extraneous material to. Samples can get contaminated (changing amount of parent or daughter), or rates can be changed (by external influences in a few cases). Neither of which he can do any "formula waving" for, but handwaving aplenty (the radiodating based on a physcial mechanism and quantification is "magic" yet handwaving is rigorous - on planet Htrae). |
All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... |
Sounds like somebody is singing "We didn't start the fire", and is even less coherent.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) | All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis |
Not according to the scientists who have actually studied such things. You're trying to claim that some effects make radiometric dating wildly inaccurate, by six orders of magnitude, under terrestrial conditions. Asserting that this happens is just BS; let's see the evidence.
Of course, you have no evidence. You think radiometric dating is wrong solely because you don't like the results.
Again, reality doesn't care what you like or don't like.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,07:10) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:07) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 02 2011,21:31) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,21:24) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,15:46) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 02 2011,15:05) | Quote (nmgirl @ Dec. 02 2011,12:53) | "I dont think there is a preFlood layer because .......
Most of the Carboniferous formations are due to The Flood and its many after affects. ....... "
So what about the formations that are older than the Carboniferous: cambrian, ordovician and silurian? Do those rocks just not exist in your world? |
The muppet said here that they'res all flood strata - at least down to the mantle. So the sequence of events leading to coal deposits was presumably: 1. Rain. 2. Flooding. 3. Rapid sediment deposits. 4. Sediment deposition stops for a while. 5. Forests grow underwater. 6. More sediment deposits.
4, 5 and 6 get repeated a few times, with additional undersea deposition of riverbeds, lakebeds, sand dunes, footprints etc. |
all in 40 days? |
They were on the Ark for over a year. It rained for 40 days but you are forgetting vapor canopy collapse, fountains of the deep, volcanic vapor, etc.
Anyway hating on these positive stories is bad for the environment, whether you believe it or not? |
Can we PLEASE get into 'kinds'? Pretty please.
I'll quit bugging you about the Big Bang if you start talking about kinds and the ark... pretty please!!! |
well I tried to get you to accept epigenetics at the beginning of this thread but you insisted on talking about how the Big bang wasnt an explosion.
However, if you have really had a change of heart, what would you like to know about epigenetics? |
So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark?
So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? Quote | So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) |
That's where you want to go with this? If not, then you need to try explaining yourself. One line answers are not explanations.
I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse.
One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room.
Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words. But you can't because you're scared. It's OK.
edit to add reference |
Actually I mentioned multiple epigenetic phenomena over several pages so why the one little snippet?
A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem.
you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,13:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Can you explain the observed data in terms of a 6000 year old universe then?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:48) | A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects |
So therefore how long, according to you, until they revert back to the biblical cat "kind"?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Which doesn't respond to my questions. But here is a new question for you to evade, which we will add to the others:
How many millions of years must pass to culminate in the radiometric "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. |
No, you have not even attempted to cite proof that contamination is a problem. Measurements, sonny-boy, Data. The dreaded mathematical analysis. That's what's required. Not vague allegations without support.
Plus, anyone claiming that contamination is a problem has to explain the big picture; the consilience between wildly different methods, radiometric and non-radiometric. Oh, "They're all liars in a world-wide conspiracy" isn't an explanation.
Quote | you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
{ETA} You haven't cited any instances of decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions. All the physics we know, and it's a lot, tells us that there has been no noticeable, much less significant, change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years.
"Perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links?
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly.
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:48) | So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark?
So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? Quote | So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) |
That's where you want to go with this? If not, then you need to try explaining yourself. One line answers are not explanations.
I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse.
One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room.
Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words. But you can't because you're scared. It's OK.
edit to add reference[/quote] Actually I mentioned multiple epigenetic phenomena over several pages so why the one little snippet?
A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects |
Can you PLEASE focus. Geez, you're worse than actually herding cats (and I've actually done it).
We're not talking about all your previous stuff on epigenetics. We are looking at a SPECIFIC claim that you JUST made.
Your claim is that all[/] variation in [b]every population of organisms on the planet is based on epigenetics.
Since, by definition, epigenetics is reversible, then we must be able to go from any modern species back to the Noah's ark version.
This is simply a requirement of your claim... unless you would like to modify your claim at this time... please answer it.
Now, you have one huge, epic issue that you cannot explain with epigenetics.
The 673 HLA-A alleles in the human species. These are known to be non-epigenetic. These are different alleles, not different interpretations of alleles because of environmental factors.
You said you were happy with 2250BC as the date of Noah's flood.
You absolutely must explain how the entire human population added 1 new allele every 7 years (roughly). Begin.
BTW: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,11:02) | Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
Thou shalt not asketh too mucheth!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation:
where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science.
(Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.)
And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian.
But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years?
10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years.
100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity.
Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Quote | 100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity. |
Ah, but as long as the heat intensity stays below the melting point of the material in that rock, then... !!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) | Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation:
where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science.
(Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.)
And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian.
But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years?
10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years.
100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity.
Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)
|
This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Wolfhound
Posts: 468 Joined: June 2008
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2011,09:31) | Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 02 2011,23:20) | Are you guys really so bored that you would bother with his nitwit?
He isn't as crazy as Robert, nor as stupid-fat guy-tuffie like Joe G. He isn't smart, or well informed enough to be difficult to rebut.
I don't see the attraction. |
he's like a pet, maybe. |
-------------- I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,21:57) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) | Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation:
where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science.
(Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.)
And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian.
But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years?
10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years.
100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity.
Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)
|
This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. |
I suppose I could do the numbers for your scenario, but IMHO it's not worth it. The typical creo "scenario" for accelerated nuclear decay is fast decay before life is created, normal decay between the creation of life and Noye's Fludde, accelerated decay during the Fludde (when the water would supposedly shield the animals on ye arke), then normal decay thereafter. There's an infinite number of versions of that scenario. And it is contradicted by the fact that radiometric ages match the deeper-is-older rule ... all the flood strata (presumably all the strata above the initial Fludde stratum) should date to the same age.
The other interesting problem with that scenario is that we have an eentsy-weentsy amount of 40K in our bodies. Any accelerated decay sufficient to make a lot of the post-Cambrian strata into Fludde strata would kill all the animals from inside. From the RATE group, Summary of Evidence for a Young Earth from the RATE Project:
Quote | However, at second glance there is a problem. It turns out shielding from the increased radiation dose from outside the Ark is not sufficient. Noah and his family may have had sources of radiation within their own bodies. For example, plants and animals today contain 40K, which is radioactive. If nuclear decay rates were accelerated to the levels the RATE group believes occurred during the Genesis Flood, the radiation dose from similar levels of 40K within Noah’s body likely would have been lethal. One solution has been offered that possibly could mitigate this problem—namely, that the 40K we measure in plants and animals today is the result of the Genesis Flood itself. The RATE team believes an attempt should be made to test for 40K in the bodies of pre-Flood insects which were trapped in amber during the Genesis Flood and were thereby protected from subsequent contamination. |
Talk about an ad-hoc-hypothesis! No 40K in living creatures before the Fludde! Of course, nobody's done such a study, bet they know what it would show.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Oops.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem.
you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
I've got a little free time waiting for something to finish .... let's take a look at all the messages from ol' forastero which contain the word "contamination".
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,04:40) | Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,04:10) | Its pseudoempericism to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years. Plus, please tell me how this type of radiometric dating{sic} |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 05 2011,05:20) | You didnt read my position carefully, dinosaurs and mammals may have often lived in much different niches but when they are found in the same vicinity its their strata are automatically separated or referred to as contamination |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) | Oh and contamination is also still a problem |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 07 2011,20:37) | Contamination is a big problem but I'll also pick on your best Cyclostratigraphy |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 08 2011,11:58) | Then on top of this, you have all the contamination and calibration problems of radiometric dating |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,00:14) | Btw, according to "geologists" nuclear decay is most always defined as random as is often the case with fluctuations in solar flares, the magnetic field, cosmic rays, isotope contamination by flash floods, quantum tunneling, radioisotopic substitutions, etc.. etc.. etc... |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,01:55) | Isochron is a dating method based on radioisotpic decay and why have you continually avoided answering how on earth it is calibrated and avoids contamination? |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:02) | Oh so thats why you you feel the need to focus "only" on this problem while ignoring the contamination and calibration problems that I keep asking you about |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 10 2011,13:38) | Btw 2, you also seem to be projecting your own inabilities to put arguments in your own words? Isochron dating is taking several measurements from several surrounding samples with several radioisotopes. It doesnt mean though those surrounding rocks were not all drenched and for millennia by the same radioisotopic contamination. It also doesnt dismiss the fact that scientists have such a bias that they throw out any estimates that dont fit their preconceived agendas. Agendas further verified by all the the recent brouhaha about fluctuating decay fluctuations. |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15) | Finally, not only does your Isochron dating (like with your Argon) dating suffer contamination from various sources before and during crystallization, but igneous rocks have unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios. |
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 Its proven though that Radiometric dating has much greater problems than fluctuating decay rates. For instance the dinosaur soft tissues. The calibrating errors and circular reasoning involved in calibration. Fluctuating production of radioisotopes. Contamination from various sources. Igneous rocks having unknown magma ratios of radioisotopes that can produce wide discrepancies in post crystallization ratios. Sedimentary rocks, which contain most fossils are even more prone to unknown mixing, contamination, and ratios. |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:19) | Again, the fluctuations, assumptions, circular calibrations, contaminations, religious fervor, etc etc etc make your radiomagic dating a joke |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,12:07) | So called millions of years of sedimentary and magma mixing, flooding, erosion, and uplift, yet no contamination in the rocks? Nah, just more more radiomagic formula waving from crony academicism. |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 15 2011,15:56) | 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 |
Quote (forastero @ Nov. 16 2011,12:21) | 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? |
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. Thats what happens when you make science your religion |
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,22:11) | All kinds of nuclear interactions, transmutations,, substitutions, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates , occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... Its the quantum tunneling we were talking about last week. Its like what Ogre’s own link was referring to when the author talked about Big Bang deuterium Fusion and Nuclearsynthesis |
So, sonny boy, which one of those messages is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? I don't see a single piece of data or cite of any study in the whole shebang.
Wotta maroon!!
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
But of course contamination is a problem - why else would the EPA have been created?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,15:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. |
No, you have not even attempted to cite proof that contamination is a problem. Measurements, sonny-boy, Data. The dreaded mathematical analysis. That's what's required. Not vague allegations without support.
Plus, anyone claiming that contamination is a problem has to explain the big picture; the consilience between wildly different methods, radiometric and non-radiometric. Oh, "They're all liars in a world-wide conspiracy" isn't an explanation.
Quote | you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
{ETA} You haven't cited any instances of decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions. All the physics we know, and it's a lot, tells us that there has been no noticeable, much less significant, change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years.
"Perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links?
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly. |
See how y'all just sweep the good stuff under the rug to sensationalize your psuedososcience.
Here's some more to sweep
Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics “ knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. “That’s what I suggested. And that’s what we have done.” http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin....lements
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rate Astroparticle Physics Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010 Stanford University Ra decay reported by an experiment performed at the Physikalisch–Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany. All three data sets exhibit the same primary frequency mode consisting of an annual period. Additional spectral comparisons of the data to local ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, Earth–Sun distance, and their reciprocals were performed. No common phases were found between the factors investigated and those exhibited by the nuclear decay data. This suggests that either a combination of factors was responsible, or that, if it was a single factor, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234
Purdue paediatrician Ephraim Fischbach. “What our data are showing is that the half lives, or the decay constants, are apparently not fundamental constants of nature, but appear to be affected by solar activity,” “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.” http://physicsworld.com/cws....08
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach Purdue University http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3283
“[Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).” http://physicsworld.com/cws....08
Jenkins et al. found fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3283
“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).” http://physicsworld.com/cws....08
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry http://io9.com/5619954....emistry “It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.”
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN DISTANCE? Submitted on 26 Aug 2011 Abstract Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%
Cosmic-ray-induced fission of heavy nuclides: Possible influence on apparent 238U-fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples Abstract The rates of cosmic-ray-induced fission of U, Th, Bi, Pb, and Au in mineral samples as a function of burial depth in the lunar surface layer are calculated using the available experimental particle flux and cross section data. Theoretical correction factors are given for apparent fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples of different burial depths which were exposed to cosmic rays for various time fractions of their solidification age. Samples having typical lunar heavy element contents can yield apparent fission track ages which are too high by a factor of up to ?13 due to cosmic-ray-induced fission. The interference may be neglected, if the ratio of exposure age to solidification age remains ? 5 × 10?3. The calculations show, that the induced fission of Bi, Pb, and Au which are known to have high meteoritic abundances may dominate spontaneous 238U-fission in long-time exposed meteorites of low U and Th contents.
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate (Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), Abstract: It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi....29 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.
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:04) | See how y'all just sweep the good stuff under the rug to sensationalize your psuedososcience. |
I lifted the rug, and found these:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to culminate in the radiometric "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
Hippity hop.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,20:57) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) | Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation:
where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science.
(Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.)
And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian.
But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years?
10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years.
100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity.
Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)
|
This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. |
Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:54) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point? |
My point is that--including this comment--you have never told us how the growth rate was derived. Are you going to actually do that at any time? My point is that you have no idea what the growth rate used in your equation means. You have no idea where it came from. Yet this hasn't stopped you from backing your equation. It hasn't stopped you from saying that your equation (and specifically, the growth rate) is a very fair representation of reality. It's hard to imagine that this assessment can be true when you have no idea where it came from.
So, instead of telling us that you you have no idea what the exact growth rate was at the beginning of time, why don't you actually answer the question that was asked? Are you ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three?
I don't care what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I never asked you what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I don't believe anyone here has claimed to know what the growth rate at the beginning of time was.
So instead of sidestepping very easy questions that you have no answer for, how about trying to address things as they come?
Again, in the equation that you used, how was the growth rate derived? Why did you use that particular number? It's really a very easy question, almost trivial.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,16:06) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:48) | So, is it your claim that all modern organisms are just epigenetic changes from the 'kinds' on the Noah's ark?
So, if the environment changes, say, from our modern world to living in a small boat for a year, then ANY organism I put in the condition of living in a small boat for a year will revert back to it's Noah flood form? Quote | So what is epigenetics? An epigenetic system should be heritable, self-perpetuating, and reversible (Bonasio et al., p. 612) |
That's where you want to go with this? If not, then you need to try explaining yourself. One line answers are not explanations.
I kept six cats in an apartment for 7 years (including one round of kittens)... they still were very diverse.
One should never invite a dog named 'puddles' into one's living room.
Go, you can answer those two questions in less than 4 words. But you can't because you're scared. It's OK.
edit to add reference |
Actually I mentioned multiple epigenetic phenomena over several pages so why the one little snippet?
A year on a nice big boat probably wouldnt have much effect but hoarding six cats and a litter in a apartment probably would trigger enough stress hormones to make lasting epigenetic effects[/quote] Can you PLEASE focus. Geez, you're worse than actually herding cats (and I've actually done it).
We're not talking about all your previous stuff on epigenetics. We are looking at a SPECIFIC claim that you JUST made.
Your claim is that all[/] variation in [b]every population of organisms on the planet is based on epigenetics.
Since, by definition, epigenetics is reversible, then we must be able to go from any modern species back to the Noah's ark version.
This is simply a requirement of your claim... unless you would like to modify your claim at this time... please answer it.
Now, you have one huge, epic issue that you cannot explain with epigenetics.
The 673 HLA-A alleles in the human species. These are known to be non-epigenetic. These are different alleles, not different interpretations of alleles because of environmental factors.
You said you were happy with 2250BC as the date of Noah's flood.
You absolutely must explain how the entire human population added 1 new allele every 7 years (roughly). Begin.
BTW: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded? |
Hmm...your incessant attempt to pigeonhole my posts could be desperation.
I said Henry Morris wrote that the Flood could be around 2250BC to 7250BC
I said the that epigenetics does depend greatly upon ancestral phenotypes but its common sense that those phenotypes are sometimes lost due genetic damage over time. But to answer your question more precisely, yes many critters do revert to what seems to be a bauplan even after eons of vicariance. Oh and good geneticists will tell you that the more ancient the critter, the more ancestral alleles it has
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,11:24) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,20:57) | This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. |
Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug |
So you are suggesting that a fundamental law of physics is pretty much random over any period of time? Because that is what you are saying.
Just out of curiosity, would you care to explain why the massive variation that this requires has stopped within the last few hundred years and hasn't been seen since we've had instruments to measure it?
The problem is that you have zero evidence for anything that suggests decay rates are changing. The one reference you cited has been nullified by the simple fact that no one else can get the same oscillating signal.
You have to give us a mechanism for a 100,000% change in decay rates over the last 6,000 years.
But not only that, the decay rates for all the different radioisotopes must not be different, but must vary at different rates so that they all point at the same date that they do now. In other words, you have to explain why all of the different dating methods point to the same date.
I guess you have abandoned your Noah's Flood/kinds/epigenetics plot line. Probably for the best. Chemistry is not your friend.
Heh, here, explain this one goldenville strata. That's 16,500 feet of sedimentary rock and in places it goes to 29,000 feet of hardened sedimentary rock.
Just for reference, that's a little more than 5 miles of compacted and lithified sedimentary rock. So, your Flood has to carry all of that material (since there is no pre-Flood strata and the Earth was carved all the way down to the mantle).
Tell me all about the saltwater aquarium system on the Ark? As someone who keeps saltwater fish and corals, you have a lot of very delicate creatures that require very specific conditions and there is absolutely no way that they could survive in a global flood. Therefore they were on the ark.
Would like to talk about the epigenetics that results in river dolphins, manatees, orcas, and blue whales all arising from the same 'kind' that was small enough to fit on the ark in a mere 6000 years (which, BTW is less time than scientists say that dogs have been diversifying... and they are all still the same species).
Actually that's a pretty good question... why are dogs still dogs? You creationists keep saying that dogs aren't an example of evolution because they are still dogs. But your system suggests that diversity is extremely rapid. Such that, given some changes, why haven't dogs diversified radically in a few thousand years (yes, the history of several breeds goes back a long way). So, why did they stop?
Would you care to tackle the epigenetics of flounder, clown fish, angler fish, and sea horses? How about large polyp stony corals, small polyp stony corals, jellies, and medusa? Are those one kind or multiple kinds? How do you know?
Seriously, just admit that there is no way that the Flood or the Ark could have happened and walk away. It will feel very good to quit lying to yourself.
edit to add the obligatory: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2011,11:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:54) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point? |
My point is that--including this comment--you have never told us how the growth rate was derived. Are you going to actually do that at any time? My point is that you have no idea what the growth rate used in your equation means. You have no idea where it came from. Yet this hasn't stopped you from backing your equation. It hasn't stopped you from saying that your equation (and specifically, the growth rate) is a very fair representation of reality. It's hard to imagine that this assessment can be true when you have no idea where it came from.
So, instead of telling us that you you have no idea what the exact growth rate was at the beginning of time, why don't you actually answer the question that was asked? Are you ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three?
I don't care what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I never asked you what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I don't believe anyone here has claimed to know what the growth rate at the beginning of time was.
So instead of sidestepping very easy questions that you have no answer for, how about trying to address things as they come?
Again, in the equation that you used, how was the growth rate derived? Why did you use that particular number? It's really a very easy question, almost trivial. |
In that case your point is pointless because unlike your religion, The Bible clearly tells us the original population of 8, over 16 grandchildren, a rough time chronology death rate etc. etc..
Only a psuedoempericist believes that can cook up exact specific birth and death rates especially with the so called millions years that you esteem
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,11:54) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,11:24) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,20:57) | This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. |
Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug |
So you are suggesting that a fundamental law of physics is pretty much random over any period of time? Because that is what you are saying.
Just out of curiosity, would you care to explain why the massive variation that this requires has stopped within the last few hundred years and hasn't been seen since we've had instruments to measure it?
The problem is that you have zero evidence for anything that suggests decay rates are changing. The one reference you cited has been nullified by the simple fact that no one else can get the same oscillating signal.
You have to give us a mechanism for a 100,000% change in decay rates over the last 6,000 years.
But not only that, the decay rates for all the different radioisotopes must not be different, but must vary at different rates so that they all point at the same date that they do now. In other words, you have to explain why all of the different dating methods point to the same date.
I guess you have abandoned your Noah's Flood/kinds/epigenetics plot line. Probably for the best. Chemistry is not your friend.
Heh, here, explain this one goldenville strata. That's 16,500 feet of sedimentary rock and in places it goes to 29,000 feet of hardened sedimentary rock.
Just for reference, that's a little more than 5 miles of compacted and lithified sedimentary rock. So, your Flood has to carry all of that material (since there is no pre-Flood strata and the Earth was carved all the way down to the mantle).
Tell me all about the saltwater aquarium system on the Ark? As someone who keeps saltwater fish and corals, you have a lot of very delicate creatures that require very specific conditions and there is absolutely no way that they could survive in a global flood. Therefore they were on the ark.
Would like to talk about the epigenetics that results in river dolphins, manatees, orcas, and blue whales all arising from the same 'kind' that was small enough to fit on the ark in a mere 6000 years (which, BTW is less time than scientists say that dogs have been diversifying... and they are all still the same species).
Actually that's a pretty good question... why are dogs still dogs? You creationists keep saying that dogs aren't an example of evolution because they are still dogs. But your system suggests that diversity is extremely rapid. Such that, given some changes, why haven't dogs diversified radically in a few thousand years (yes, the history of several breeds goes back a long way). So, why did they stop?
Would you care to tackle the epigenetics of flounder, clown fish, angler fish, and sea horses? How about large polyp stony corals, small polyp stony corals, jellies, and medusa? Are those one kind or multiple kinds? How do you know?
Seriously, just admit that there is no way that the Flood or the Ark could have happened and walk away. It will feel very good to quit lying to yourself.
edit to add the obligatory: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded? |
People with common sense and the guts to not conform to silly pantheism dont say manatees and orcas are the same kind and You have no proof whatsoever that this evolution has occurred even after billions of dollars of experimentation. Dogs breeds have diversified quickly due to inbreeding a diversity of wild and domestic dogs. All animals share the same genes yet your priest del academia cant even turn a bear into a dog.
Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. Any concordance can easily be explained by the integrity and psuedoscience exemplified by Pand's thumb forum--a microcsm of evolutionary thought.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,11:50) | But to answer your question more precisely, yes many critters do revert to what seems to be a bauplan even after eons of vicariance. |
For example?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:17) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2011,11:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:54) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point? |
My point is that--including this comment--you have never told us how the growth rate was derived. Are you going to actually do that at any time? My point is that you have no idea what the growth rate used in your equation means. You have no idea where it came from. Yet this hasn't stopped you from backing your equation. It hasn't stopped you from saying that your equation (and specifically, the growth rate) is a very fair representation of reality. It's hard to imagine that this assessment can be true when you have no idea where it came from.
So, instead of telling us that you you have no idea what the exact growth rate was at the beginning of time, why don't you actually answer the question that was asked? Are you ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three?
I don't care what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I never asked you what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I don't believe anyone here has claimed to know what the growth rate at the beginning of time was.
So instead of sidestepping very easy questions that you have no answer for, how about trying to address things as they come?
Again, in the equation that you used, how was the growth rate derived? Why did you use that particular number? It's really a very easy question, almost trivial. |
In that case your point is pointless because unlike your religion, The Bible clearly tells us the original population of 8, over 16 grandchildren, a rough time chronology death rate etc. etc..
Only a psuedoempericist believes that can cook up exact specific birth and death rates especially with the so called millions years that you esteem |
So? Still no idea where it came from? Why did you use the number you used? Any idea at all? Babbling about me doesn't even begin to address the question I asked. How about now; do you have any idea where the growth rate came from?
I find it hilarious that I specifically told you that I wasn't asking for a specific growth rate, nor did I care what it was an then you answered with this:
"Only a psuedoempericist believes that can cook up exact specific birth and death rates"
Are you insane?
How about that growth rate derivation? Any time soon?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:42) | Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug[/quote] So you are suggesting that a fundamental law of physics is pretty much random over any period of time? Because that is what you are saying.
Just out of curiosity, would you care to explain why the massive variation that this requires has stopped within the last few hundred years and hasn't been seen since we've had instruments to measure it?
The problem is that you have zero evidence for anything that suggests decay rates are changing. The one reference you cited has been nullified by the simple fact that no one else can get the same oscillating signal.
You have to give us a mechanism for a 100,000% change in decay rates over the last 6,000 years.
But not only that, the decay rates for all the different radioisotopes must not be different, but must vary at different rates so that they all point at the same date that they do now. In other words, you have to explain why all of the different dating methods point to the same date.
I guess you have abandoned your Noah's Flood/kinds/epigenetics plot line. Probably for the best. Chemistry is not your friend.
Heh, here, explain this one goldenville strata. That's 16,500 feet of sedimentary rock and in places it goes to 29,000 feet of hardened sedimentary rock.
Just for reference, that's a little more than 5 miles of compacted and lithified sedimentary rock. So, your Flood has to carry all of that material (since there is no pre-Flood strata and the Earth was carved all the way down to the mantle).
Tell me all about the saltwater aquarium system on the Ark? As someone who keeps saltwater fish and corals, you have a lot of very delicate creatures that require very specific conditions and there is absolutely no way that they could survive in a global flood. Therefore they were on the ark.
Would like to talk about the epigenetics that results in river dolphins, manatees, orcas, and blue whales all arising from the same 'kind' that was small enough to fit on the ark in a mere 6000 years (which, BTW is less time than scientists say that dogs have been diversifying... and they are all still the same species).
Actually that's a pretty good question... why are dogs still dogs? You creationists keep saying that dogs aren't an example of evolution because they are still dogs. But your system suggests that diversity is extremely rapid. Such that, given some changes, why haven't dogs diversified radically in a few thousand years (yes, the history of several breeds goes back a long way). So, why did they stop?
Would you care to tackle the epigenetics of flounder, clown fish, angler fish, and sea horses? How about large polyp stony corals, small polyp stony corals, jellies, and medusa? Are those one kind or multiple kinds? How do you know?
Seriously, just admit that there is no way that the Flood or the Ark could have happened and walk away. It will feel very good to quit lying to yourself.
edit to add the obligatory: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded?[/quote] People with common sense and the guts to not conform to silly pantheism dont say manatees and orcas are the same kind and You have no proof whatsoever that this evolution has occurred even after billions of dollars of experimentation. Dogs breeds have diversified quickly due to inbreeding a diversity of wild and domestic dogs. All animals share the same genes yet your priest del academia cant even turn a bear into a dog.
Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. Any concordance can easily be explained by the integrity and psuedoscience exemplified by Pand's thumb forum--a microcsm of evolutionary thought. |
So you had to have a proto-manatee AND a proto-orca on the ark as separate kinds.
I think that's the most information we've EVER gotten about a kind.
What about the jelly, SPS, LPS, medusa? Is that multiple kids or one kind?
How about the trout, flounder, clownfish, seahorse? multiple kinds or one kind?
Just out of curiosity, was the proto-manatee a salt (a-la Trichechus manatus or freshwater only (a-la Trichechus inunguis) or is that an epigenetic change? What about the Dugong dugon and the Hydrodamalis gigas? Are those the same kind as the manatees or are they different?
So, a single manatee eats about 10% of its body mass per day. When born a baby masses about 30 kilos, a full adult can range from 500 kilos to over 1700 kilos. Let's assume that Noah took juveniles that are not full grown, but would be when about the time they disembarked... I'll be generous and say 100 kilos. So a pair is eating 20 kilos of plant material per day (assuming that they don't grow during the trip).
That's 20*365 = 7300 kilos or 7 metric tons of fresh plant matter over the year long ark 'journey'.
That is just one 'kind' and, for all intents and purposes, not a very important 'kind'.
BTW: Just out of curiosity, what do you say exploded to cause the Big Bang and what do scientists say exploded to cause the Big Bang?
The really sad part is it takes less than 5 seconds to look this up, but he won't do it, because it will instantly show him he is WRONG... can't have that. Like the old saying, "It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Quote | BTW: Just out of curiosity, what do you say exploded to cause the Big Bang and what do scientists say exploded to cause the Big Bang? |
It was big, and it went bang. What else does one need to know?
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"?
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:04) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,15:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,12:02) | ? Quote (forastero @ Dec. 02 2011,13:34) | Yeah about five times now but here it goes again: A little contamination here and a little change in decay rates there day after day over many millennia leads to exponential inaccuracies and radiomagic dating. |
Nope, if there were changes in radioactive decay rates they would not compound. As proven by the simple first-year algebra that I posted and you were unable to understand.
And contamination is not a problem in the vast majority of methods in use over the last few decades, because if it exists it is detected as part of the method.
Before you criticize, you need to learn what you are criticizing. |
I have already cited you proof that contamination is a major problem. |
No, you have not even attempted to cite proof that contamination is a problem. Measurements, sonny-boy, Data. The dreaded mathematical analysis. That's what's required. Not vague allegations without support.
Plus, anyone claiming that contamination is a problem has to explain the big picture; the consilience between wildly different methods, radiometric and non-radiometric. Oh, "They're all liars in a world-wide conspiracy" isn't an explanation.
Quote | you and reciprocal Bill under the impression that this small percentage change is a single event but I cited findings of multiple changes in decay rates occurring even within one week's time. Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
{ETA} You haven't cited any instances of decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions. All the physics we know, and it's a lot, tells us that there has been no noticeable, much less significant, change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years.
"Perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links?
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly. |
See how y'all just sweep the good stuff under the rug to sensationalize your psuedososcience.
Here's some more to sweep
Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics “ knew from long experience that the intensity of the barrage of neutrinos the sun continuously sends racing toward Earth varies on a regular basis as the sun itself revolves and shows a different face, like a slower version of the revolving light on a police car. His advice to Purdue: Look for evidence that the changes in radioactive decay on Earth vary with the rotation of the sun. “That’s what I suggested. And that’s what we have done.?� http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breakin....lements
Power spectrum analyses of nuclear decay rate Astroparticle Physics Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2010 Stanford University Ra decay reported by an experiment performed at the Physikalisch–Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) in Germany. All three data sets exhibit the same primary frequency mode consisting of an annual period. Additional spectral comparisons of the data to local ambient temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, Earth–Sun distance, and their reciprocals were performed. No common phases were found between the factors investigated and those exhibited by the nuclear decay data. This suggests that either a combination of factors was responsible, or that, if it was a single factor, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....0001234
Purdue paediatrician Ephraim Fischbach. “What our data are showing is that the half lives, or the decay constants, are apparently not fundamental constants of nature, but appear to be affected by solar activity,?� “To summarize, what we are showing is that the decay constant is not really a constant.?� http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
Evidence for Correlations Between Nuclear Decay Rates and Earth-Sun Distance Jere H. Jenkins, Ephraim Fischbach Purdue University http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283
“[Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).?� http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
Jenkins et al. found fluctuations in radium, which is a popular dating isotope and often used with lead and a daughter element of uranium http://arxiv.org/abs........08.3283
“They [Jenkins et al.] discovered that a spike in X-ray flux associated with the flare roughly coincided with a dip in the manganese’s decay rate. Two days later, an X-ray spike from a second solar flare coincided with another, though very faint, dip. Then, on 17 December, a third X-ray spike accompanied yet another dip, which was more prominent (see above figure).?� http://physicsworld.com/cws........s....08
The Sun is changing the rate of radioactive decay, and breaking the rules of chemistry http://io9.com/5619954....emistry “It's one of the most basic concepts in all of chemistry: Radioactive elements decay at a onstant rate. If that weren't the case, carbon-14 dating wouldn't tell us anything reliable about the age of archaeological materials, and every chemotherapy treatment would be a gamble. It's such a fundamental assumption that scientists don't even bother testing it anymore. That's why researchers had to stumble upon this discovery in the most unlikely of ways……That's when they [Purdue University] discovered something strange. The data produced gave random numbers for the individual atoms, yes, but the overall decay wasn't constant, flying in the face of the accepted rules of chemistry.?�
DO RADIOACTIVE HALF-LIVES VARY WITH THE EARTH-TO-SUN DISTANCE? Submitted on 26 Aug 2011 Abstract Recently, Jenkins, Fischbach and collaborators have claimed evidence that radioactive half-lives vary systematically over a ?0.1% range as a function of the oscillating distance between the Earth and the Sun, based on multi-year activity measurements. We have avoided the time-dependent instabilities to which such measurements are susceptible by directly measuring the half-life of 198Au (t1/2 = 2.695 d) on seven occasions spread out in time to cover the complete range of Earth-Sun distances. We observe no systematic oscillations in half-life and can set an upper limit on their amplitude of ?0.02%
Cosmic-ray-induced fission of heavy nuclides: Possible influence on apparent 238U-fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples Abstract The rates of cosmic-ray-induced fission of U, Th, Bi, Pb, and Au in mineral samples as a function of burial depth in the lunar surface layer are calculated using the available experimental particle flux and cross section data. Theoretical correction factors are given for apparent fission track ages of extraterrestrial samples of different burial depths which were exposed to cosmic rays for various time fractions of their solidification age. Samples having typical lunar heavy element contents can yield apparent fission track ages which are too high by a factor of up to ?13 due to cosmic-ray-induced fission. The interference may be neglected, if the ratio of exposure age to solidification age remains ? 5 × 10?3. The calculations show, that the induced fission of Bi, Pb, and Au which are known to have high meteoritic abundances may dominate spontaneous 238U-fission in long-time exposed meteorites of low U and Th contents.
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate (Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), Abstract: It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. |
Sorry, I should have written "You haven't cited any instances of significant decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions." It's questionable whether those perturbations really exist, scientists are still investigating. But if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that they do exist, they're insignificant. There's lots of good reasons I've already cited for believing that there has been no significant change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years. You can't extrapolate those perturbations over eight or more orders of magnitude without ignoring a vast body of evidence. Of course, that's what you do, but the reality-based community is different.
Again, "perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links? Guess not.
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly, as I've proven using very basic mathematics. A junior high student should be able to comprehend it. Guess you can't.
Screaming "Perturbations!" over and over again isn't going to make your fantasy real. In the real world we deal with evidence, and we deal with all the evidence.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:24) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2011,20:57) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 03 2011,19:52) | Let's get down and dirty! Let's do some numbers!
We just dug up a fine, pristine sample of subaerial (solidified in the air) lava and we want to know how old it is. We'll use K-Ar dating because the equations are simple, although probably too complex for our friend. So we take it to the lab, and they do the measurements and report the the 40Ar/40K ratio is 0.036738. So we plug that value in our age equation:
where lambda is the total decay constant of 40K, 0.0000000005543 per year according to mainstream science.
(Oohh! Scary!1!!one!! An equation!! with a Greek letter1!!!1one And a natural logarithm11!!!!1111one11!!ONE1. It's OK, forastero, we know you can't handle such complexity.)
And the answer is ..... 542,000,000 years! Just at the beginning of the Cambrian.
But our ol' pal forastero tells us that rock is less than 6,000 years old. And that the decay constant isn't really constant. So let's investigate that. Assume the decay constant was something else when the rock solidified, and just changed to the modern value a few hundred years ago when we wouldn't notice. What change in the decay constant would produce a rock with a 40Ar/40K ratio of 0.036738 in less than 6,000 years?
10,000,000 percent. I.e., the decay constant would have to be 100,000 times larger to produce that ratio in less than 6,000 years. To be exact, in 5,420 years.
100,000 times the radiation intensity. 100,000 times the heat intensity. And that's spreading out the change over all 5,420 years. If forastero wants the change to be over a shorter period of time ... well ... even more radiation and heat intensity.
Here's a plot of how the age of my hypothetical rock would be affected by changes in the decay constant, spread out over the entire life of the rock. (Forastero: it's a log-log plot so the result is a nice straight line. I realize you don't understand any of that.)
|
This is a nit, but what if we suppose that the change in decay is a constant rate change over time. The reason I suggest this is because a constant rate change is easier to explain than a massive decrease in a very short time. (Forastero doesn't have an explanation or even the beginnings of a plan for figuring either one out, but that's not unexpected.)
For about 50-60 years it has been constant as far as we can tell, but we've only had really, really good measurements for what, 20-30 years?
So let's use forastero's number of 0.5% and say that's the change over 50 years? Everyone OK with that?
I, however, refuse to delve into the calculus this would require. I have had a horrible row with my child and I don't feel like it.
Regardless, I can make some predictions. Since the rate now is very slow, then the rate must have been even higher than JonF's calculated value when the rock was formed.
So, I would actually think that JonF's calculated percentage change would be the median point (roughly) and when the rock was formed the decay constant would have to be like 100,000,000 times larger and has been slowly over time.
And, at the rate we're going now, it'll only be a few more decades before the decay constant is zero and radiation will stop. We should probably alert the NRA (no, not that NRA, the Nuclear Regulatory Agency) and tell them it's pretty much futile to build anymore fission reactors. And tritium watches and sights... useless in just a few short decades... and you can forget about radiation therapy and radiation-based medical imaging.
Wow. Scary stuff...
But even weirder will be when the decay rate goes negative and atoms that previously underwent nuclear fission start fusing with random alpha, beta, and gamma particles. That's gonna be creepy as hell.
Then, I guess that since the universe will have to have negative entropy as a whole at this point, the expansion will stop and the Big Crunch will begin. In fact, in just another 6000-7000 years, the entire universe will be crunched beyond the point where physics can predict what's going on.
All because some clown couldn't accept that radioactive decay really is a constant.
I just thought of something else... that would explain a lot. Since the decay rate was effectively infinite at the time of the Big Bang, then all the matter and energy in the universe was actually bound up into a single nucleus of nearly infinite proportions. The Big Bang really was a fission explosion.
The sad part is, except for the complete lack of evidence, this actually makes more sense than what forastero has been preaching. |
Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug |
Nobody's interested in meaningless mumbo-jumbo. "Vast variables and catalysts"?? Sheesh, are you really that brain damaged?
Cosmic rays have more effect out in space than they do on Earth, behind the solar wind and magnetosphere and atmosphere. That's irrelevant to radiometric dating.
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected?
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Voyager 1 has three Multihundred-Watt radioisotope thermoelectric generators (MHW RTG). Each RTG has 24 pressed plutonium oxide spheres; the heat from the spheres generates approximately 157 watts of power (at launch) - 470 watts total from the three RTGs. The power output of the RTGs declines over time, but Voyager 1's RTGs will allow operations to continue until at least 2025. (from wikipedia Voyager 1
Here's your chance foraster. What do you predict the change in lifespan of the RTGs on Voyager 1 will be? Use whatever method you like, but show your work.
Your 0.5% estimated difference would result in the lifespan of the RTGs being off by 3 months.
To meet the requirements of changing the age of the universe to under 10,000 years would mean that the RTGs actually ran out of power 3 hours after launch.
You keep complaining that we assume that constants are constant and rates of change are constant and that things work the same way now as they did a hundred years ago.
You, however, are a hypocrite... because you believe all that too. You don't pray that gasoline is still combustible in the morning when you start your car. You don't worry about whether copper is still a conductor when you flip your computer on in the morning. You think nothing of subjecting yourself to a dental X-ray that, by your thinking, could melt your entire skull.
But when science disagrees with your beliefs, science has to go. Which is the height of stupidity. Science and the assumption that physics and chemistry work the same way all the time all over the universe is so fundamental, it's not an assumption. It's a fact. If those things weren't the same, then we would be living in a crap shoot every second of our lives. What if oxygen atoms suddenly had a much higher or weaker electronegativity? What if all the radioactives in the Earth's core suddenly ramped back up to your 100,000% decay rate? What if...
We don't have to worry about them. Because it won't happen.
But here's your chance, show your work and calculate, based on all the various complaints you've made so far, the remaining lifespan of the Voyager RTGs.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Yeah, yeah, whatever. The real question is Who was carrying all the goddamned VD on the ark???
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 04 2011,19:44) | Yeah, yeah, whatever. The real question is Who was carrying all the goddamned VD on the ark??? |
Maybe it was the ark-nemesis?
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 04 2011,20:44) | Yeah, yeah, whatever. The real question is Who was carrying all the goddamned VD on the ark??? |
Ooo... oooh.. me... me... me...
All the VDs were caused by epigenetics when Lot slept with his own daughters... because that's just not right... unless you're from Vidor, TX... where foreplay is "Hey sis, you awake?"
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 04 2011,22:35) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 04 2011,19:44) | Yeah, yeah, whatever. The real question is Who was carrying all the goddamned VD on the ark??? |
Maybe it was the ark-nemesis? |
LOLOMG this is one of the dumbest creobots evar
hey fourassoclast maybe you should submit a paper to a tropical agrobionomics journal on how during special non-materialist miracle instances humans can withstand enormous pathogen loads, truly with the hand of teh lard man is a fricking antiobiotic machine. for real, YHWH is like "Fucking pow" and all of a sudden each moffocka on the ark is a vector for fifty or a hundred VDs each, sometimes they have the same shit different strain namsayin, little frontpantsloading of diversity to fuck with athiest drawinists in a few score centuries hehehehehe that crazy baby jesus
shit sounds like science to me troll-pus
-------------- 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
|
why is this not this muppets avatar is what i wanna 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2011,15:20) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:42) | Again, your so caught up in psuedouniformitarianism that you insist that even the unsteadyness is steady. The fact of the matter though is that varying alterations have been found just days apart. heck you and tracy even admitted last week or so that cosmic rays have different influences in different places. The reason for these differences is due to vast variables and catalysts
The problem is that every time these decay oscillation are rediscovered, they get swept back under the rug |
So you are suggesting that a fundamental law of physics is pretty much random over any period of time? Because that is what you are saying.
Just out of curiosity, would you care to explain why the massive variation that this requires has stopped within the last few hundred years and hasn't been seen since we've had instruments to measure it?
The problem is that you have zero evidence for anything that suggests decay rates are changing. The one reference you cited has been nullified by the simple fact that no one else can get the same oscillating signal.
You have to give us a mechanism for a 100,000% change in decay rates over the last 6,000 years.
But not only that, the decay rates for all the different radioisotopes must not be different, but must vary at different rates so that they all point at the same date that they do now. In other words, you have to explain why all of the different dating methods point to the same date.
I guess you have abandoned your Noah's Flood/kinds/epigenetics plot line. Probably for the best. Chemistry is not your friend.
Heh, here, explain this one goldenville strata. That's 16,500 feet of sedimentary rock and in places it goes to 29,000 feet of hardened sedimentary rock.
Just for reference, that's a little more than 5 miles of compacted and lithified sedimentary rock. So, your Flood has to carry all of that material (since there is no pre-Flood strata and the Earth was carved all the way down to the mantle).
Tell me all about the saltwater aquarium system on the Ark? As someone who keeps saltwater fish and corals, you have a lot of very delicate creatures that require very specific conditions and there is absolutely no way that they could survive in a global flood. Therefore they were on the ark.
Would like to talk about the epigenetics that results in river dolphins, manatees, orcas, and blue whales all arising from the same 'kind' that was small enough to fit on the ark in a mere 6000 years (which, BTW is less time than scientists say that dogs have been diversifying... and they are all still the same species).
Actually that's a pretty good question... why are dogs still dogs? You creationists keep saying that dogs aren't an example of evolution because they are still dogs. But your system suggests that diversity is extremely rapid. Such that, given some changes, why haven't dogs diversified radically in a few thousand years (yes, the history of several breeds goes back a long way). So, why did they stop?
Would you care to tackle the epigenetics of flounder, clown fish, angler fish, and sea horses? How about large polyp stony corals, small polyp stony corals, jellies, and medusa? Are those one kind or multiple kinds? How do you know?
Seriously, just admit that there is no way that the Flood or the Ark could have happened and walk away. It will feel very good to quit lying to yourself.
edit to add the obligatory: What exploded? What do scientists say exploded?[/quote] People with common sense and the guts to not conform to silly pantheism dont say manatees and orcas are the same kind and You have no proof whatsoever that this evolution has occurred even after billions of dollars of experimentation. Dogs breeds have diversified quickly due to inbreeding a diversity of wild and domestic dogs. All animals share the same genes yet your priest del academia cant even turn a bear into a dog.
Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. Any concordance can easily be explained by the integrity and psuedoscience exemplified by Pand's thumb forum--a microcsm of evolutionary thought.[/quote] So you had to have a proto-manatee AND a proto-orca on the ark as separate kinds.
I think that's the most information we've EVER gotten about a kind.
What about the jelly, SPS, LPS, medusa? Is that multiple kids or one kind?
How about the trout, flounder, clownfish, seahorse? multiple kinds or one kind?
Just out of curiosity, was the proto-manatee a salt (a-la Trichechus manatus or freshwater only (a-la Trichechus inunguis) or is that an epigenetic change? What about the Dugong dugon and the Hydrodamalis gigas? Are those the same kind as the manatees or are they different?
So, a single manatee eats about 10% of its body mass per day. When born a baby masses about 30 kilos, a full adult can range from 500 kilos to over 1700 kilos. Let's assume that Noah took juveniles that are not full grown, but would be when about the time they disembarked... I'll be generous and say 100 kilos. So a pair is eating 20 kilos of plant material per day (assuming that they don't grow during the trip).
That's 20*365 = 7300 kilos or 7 metric tons of fresh plant matter over the year long ark 'journey'.
Tell me all about the saltwater aquarium system on the Ark? As someone who keeps saltwater fish and corals, you have a lot of very delicate creatures that require very specific conditions and there is absolutely no way that they could survive in a global flood. Therefore they were on the ark.
That is just one 'kind' and, for all intents and purposes, not a very important 'kind'.
BTW: Just out of curiosity, what do you say exploded to cause the Big Bang and what do scientists say exploded to cause the Big Bang?
The really sad part is it takes less than 5 seconds to look this up, but he won't do it, because it will instantly show him he is WRONG... can't have that. Like the old saying, "It is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." |
First of all, your interpretations of the Bible is as limited as your science. Aquatic animals were not on the ark.
Secondly, secondly scientists believe most aquatic animals began in freshwater and acquired a tolerance for saltwater as the oceans slowly built up salinity. Btw, this ocean formation seems in good harmony with the Flood. Science also tells us that animals in the past were much more genetically diverse so it is my belief that the first aquatic animals were euryhaline and lost some of there. As they say, if you dont use it you loose it.
As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
No STDs on the ark in my opinion but it is very possible since sin and bestiality was rampant that even some of the animals could have been carrying them.
On the other hand many so called blood sucking pests have adapted from nectar to blood due to perturbations in their ecology but that might not be all bad since mosquitoes probably immunize us a bit.
On a side note, there is some recent evidence of STDs spreading from blood sucking insects
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2011,14:35) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,12:17) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2011,11:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,12:54) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2011,10:13) | Something else you've never answered:
How did you derive the growth rate in your population equation? Surely you've had enough time to figure that out by now. If not, there are only a couple of conclusions to reach:
1. you have no idea where it came from so are blindly touting an equation that you don't know the meaning of.
2. you do know how it was derived and won't tell us because you think it might destroy your argument, but you think that pretending you're correct is more important than actually being correct.
Which is it? |
I dont pretend to know the exact growth rate at the beginning of time time as do the psuedoemperical evolutionists but I did provide growth rates estimated by these same evolutionists so what is your point? |
My point is that--including this comment--you have never told us how the growth rate was derived. Are you going to actually do that at any time? My point is that you have no idea what the growth rate used in your equation means. You have no idea where it came from. Yet this hasn't stopped you from backing your equation. It hasn't stopped you from saying that your equation (and specifically, the growth rate) is a very fair representation of reality. It's hard to imagine that this assessment can be true when you have no idea where it came from.
So, instead of telling us that you you have no idea what the exact growth rate was at the beginning of time, why don't you actually answer the question that was asked? Are you ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three?
I don't care what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I never asked you what the growth rate was at the beginning of time. I don't believe anyone here has claimed to know what the growth rate at the beginning of time was.
So instead of sidestepping very easy questions that you have no answer for, how about trying to address things as they come?
Again, in the equation that you used, how was the growth rate derived? Why did you use that particular number? It's really a very easy question, almost trivial. |
In that case your point is pointless because unlike your religion, The Bible clearly tells us the original population of 8, over 16 grandchildren, a rough time chronology death rate etc. etc..
Only a psuedoempericist believes that can cook up exact specific birth and death rates especially with the so called millions years that you esteem |
So? Still no idea where it came from? Why did you use the number you used? Any idea at all? Babbling about me doesn't even begin to address the question I asked. How about now; do you have any idea where the growth rate came from?
I find it hilarious that I specifically told you that I wasn't asking for a specific growth rate, nor did I care what it was an then you answered with this:
"Only a psuedoempericist believes that can cook up exact specific birth and death rates"
Are you insane?
How about that growth rate derivation? Any time soon? |
Fyi, I used growth rates that evolutionists use for early man but you hastily dismiss it merely because you thought it came from me
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded
As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. .
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253....ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Forastero, as you are discussing dating techniques, and you are Bilblical warrior, a veritable caged Kong with the logos, I know you are eager to respond to the following:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to culminate in the radiometric "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevent to radiometric dating.
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
hey bunglouse i hear the Journal of International Aquarist Pathology and Charcoal Filtering is soliciting submissions for papers that prove that natural selection is a tautology and that erect penises have more entropy than a throbbing hole, i am sure that with your level of scholarship they may give you a whole special issue
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:10) | First of all, your interpretations of the Bible is as limited as your science. Aquatic animals were not on the ark.
Secondly, secondly scientists believe most aquatic animals began in freshwater and acquired a tolerance for saltwater as the oceans slowly built up salinity. Btw, this ocean formation seems in good harmony with the Flood. Science also tells us that animals in the past were much more genetically diverse so it is my belief that the first aquatic animals were euryhaline and lost some of there. As they say, if you dont use it you loose it.
As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you used a different Bible than most other Christian religions.
Genesis 7 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You might claim the water animals might have been exempted. However, my interpretation is that "Every living thing" was "wiped from the earth". And only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You may disagree with my interpretation. However, that just shows how the Bible is open to interpretation.
The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific.
Oh, BTW: Since, on the order of 5 miles worth of compacted rock was deposited during this flood, I think it safe to assume that NOTHING that wasn't on the ark could have survived. Again, your only recourse is to appeal to a miracle.
In fact, for every single point about the Flood, you MUST appeal to a miracle. That's the only way you can 'support' any claims.
Quote | As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
You are an idiot. You really think that the links I forwarded to you make the claim that the Big Bang was a fusion event? I would like you to quote an actual cosmologist in an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes this claim. I dare you.
Did you happen to read the part where I told you that protons didn't even exist for the first three minutes AFTER the Big Bang?
Of course you didn't.
I'm really curious. Do you honestly believe that you are making valid points here? Really?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.
First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.
As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.
Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much
-------------- "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
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.
First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.
As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.
Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much |
That's a really good question.
Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?
Cherry picking much?
Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:23) | {snip all kinds of drivel}
Fyi, I used growth rates that evolutionists use for early man but you hastily dismiss it merely because you thought it came from me |
I haven't dismissed anything at all. In fact, I'm asking you how your number was derived. Since you've never answered this question (including now), there is nothing for me to dismiss.
So, how about it? How was the growth rate in your population equation derived?
I'll keep asking as long as you keep not answering; you seem not to believe me on this point. Oh well.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Richardthughes
Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Bonus:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011....ce.html
-------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
That's some serious hardcore TARD there dude.
Did you notice that every single person on that thread has totally ignored the one post that discredits VD's original post anyway?
That the article in question claimed that gravity was both influencing distant galaxies and not-influencing distant galaxies.
If you make two contradictory claims to support your work... it's pretty much over before the ink is dry.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded |
I checked and actually you're the one who claimed isochrons are calibrated by Milankovitch cycles, in two identical messages: Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) | A popular argument for old earth is the Milankovitch cycle theory. The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.
Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said: “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”
First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely. Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html
In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores. Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning |
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Oops...
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 06 2011,14:01) | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) | Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely. Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles... |
|
Another logical ouroboros of the sort forastero so loves.
Multiple 100 year cycles are seen throughout the last 100,000 Milankovich year cycle. Therefore 100,000 year Milankovich cycles could easily be just 100 year oscillations.
But then, having shrunk the last Milankovich cycle to 100 years (if you dont, just one such cycle is already 5x the age of forastero's earth), wouldn't each of the many "100 year cycles" contained therein then have lasted about five weeks? But if that were the case wouldn't...
Not unlike: Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Forastero, how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
ETA: corrected arithmetic.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific. |
And here's the cool part about this. You don't even have to take Ogre's word for it. You don't even have to know shit about biology.
Set up a salt-water fish tank at your house. Get some lovely salt-water fish going in it. Dump a shit-load of rain water into the tank. Watch the fish die.
It's straight-up chemistry. Osmosis will cause the fresh water you dumped into the tank to rush into the bodies of the fish to try and equalize the solute concentration between inside and outside the fish bodies. The fish will bloat and die right in front of you.
Try it, Tardbucket. Don't take my word for it. Go WATCH what would happen to the fish if your story book were true with your own eyes.
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
Kristine
Posts: 3061 Joined: Sep. 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2011,12:36) | Try it, Tardbucket. |
Sigworthy!
-------------- Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?
AtBC Poet Laureate
"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive
"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2011,13:36) | Try it, Tardbucket. Don't take my word for it. Go WATCH what would happen to the fish if your story book were true with your own eyes. |
and then fuck off, for good
-------------- 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
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2011,12:36) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific. |
And here's the cool part about this. You don't even have to take Ogre's word for it. You don't even have to know shit about biology.
Set up a salt-water fish tank at your house. Get some lovely salt-water fish going in it. Dump a shit-load of rain water into the tank. Watch the fish die.
It's straight-up chemistry. Osmosis will cause the fresh water you dumped into the tank to rush into the bodies of the fish to try and equalize the solute concentration between inside and outside the fish bodies. The fish will bloat and die right in front of you.
Try it, Tardbucket. Don't take my word for it. Go WATCH what would happen to the fish if your story book were true with your own eyes. |
But didn't the rate of osmosis change over time or salt was different then or evilutionist fishes have thinner skin or I don't know...fuck it....
-------------- 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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,17:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:10) | First of all, your interpretations of the Bible is as limited as your science. Aquatic animals were not on the ark.
Secondly, secondly scientists believe most aquatic animals began in freshwater and acquired a tolerance for saltwater as the oceans slowly built up salinity. Btw, this ocean formation seems in good harmony with the Flood. Science also tells us that animals in the past were much more genetically diverse so it is my belief that the first aquatic animals were euryhaline and lost some of there. As they say, if you dont use it you loose it.
As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you used a different Bible than most other Christian religions.
Genesis 7 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You might claim the water animals might have been exempted. However, my interpretation is that "Every living thing" was "wiped from the earth". And only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You may disagree with my interpretation. However, that just shows how the Bible is open to interpretation.
The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific.
Oh, BTW: Since, on the order of 5 miles worth of compacted rock was deposited during this flood, I think it safe to assume that NOTHING that wasn't on the ark could have survived. Again, your only recourse is to appeal to a miracle.
In fact, for every single point about the Flood, you MUST appeal to a miracle. That's the only way you can 'support' any claims.
Quote | As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
You are an idiot. You really think that the links I forwarded to you make the claim that the Big Bang was a fusion event? I would like you to quote an actual cosmologist in an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes this claim. I dare you.
Did you happen to read the part where I told you that protons didn't even exist for the first three minutes AFTER the Big Bang?
Of course you didn't.
I'm really curious. Do you honestly believe that you are making valid points here? Really? |
Even secular Bible scholars understand that Genesis 7:8 speaks of land animals that creepeth upon the earth, which btw were being devastated by the demonically influenced men or Nephilim.
Again, no one believes that waters that came up from the deep oceanic ridge and the waters that came from rain and comets were salty? No scientist believes the oceans originated as saltwater either. Salt water didt appear in huge quantities until it was leached from rocks into ocean basins over thousands of years. This why saltwater plants and animals have freshwater representatives.
Of course, I believe in miracles. Millions of born again Christian testify to them, including the ones scurrying all around us in and those that God would miraculously preserve for us as both fossils and on the Ark
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:29) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.
First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.
As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.
Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much |
That's a really good question.
Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?
Cherry picking much?
Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down. |
Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.
Here is another one
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate (Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2008 (this version, v2)) It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
In other words, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. More c14 at the time of death could in turn make them look make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older.
Some scientists believe the problem runs far deeper than this, as the following quote shows:
"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as "proof" for their beliefs... Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates....[Some authors have said] they were "not aware of a single significant disagreement" on any sample that had been dated at different labs. Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that "no gross discrepancies are apparent". Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better--both to the layman and professional not versed in statistics--than complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. "Absolute" dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely useful in bolstering weak arguments... No matter how "useful" it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read."
Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf
U-Pb isochron dating methods depend upon major assumptions. 1. the lead isotopes were originally uranium but there is no way to know if some of the lead was already in the rock when it was formed--making it appear much older than it really is. Its a closed system but in reality floods are known to leach uranium out of rocks quite readily, which again makes the rock appear much older than it is. The same goes for other isotopes like potassium, which often makes modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient
Some problems with the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Standard Intercalibration In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1). Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS). Decay Constants Another issue affecting the ultimate precision and accuracy of the 40Ar/39Ar technique is the uncertainty in the decay constants for 40K. This uncertainty results from 1) the branched decay scheme of 40K and 2) the long half-life of 40K (1.25 billion years). As technology advances, it is likely that the decay constants used in the 40Ar/39Ar age equation will become continually more refined allowing much more accurate and precise ages to be determined. J Factor Because the J value is extrapolated from a standard to an unknown, the accuracy and precision on that J value is critical. J value uncertainty can be minimized by constraining the geometry of the standard relative to the unknown, both vertically and horizontally. The NMGRL does this by irradiating samples in machined aluminum disks where standards and unknowns alternate every other position. J error can also be reduced by analyzing more flux monitor aliquots per standard location. 39Ar Recoil The affects of irradiation on potassium-bearing rocks/minerals can sometimes result in anomalously old apparent ages. This is caused by the net loss of 39ArK from the sample by recoil (the kinetic energy imparted on a 39ArK atom by the emission of a proton during the (n,p) reaction). Recoil is likely in every potassium-bearing sample, but only becomes a significant problem with very fine grained minerals (e.g. clays) and glass. For multi-phase samples such as basaltic wholerocks, 39ArK redistribution may be more of a problem than net 39ArK loss. In this case, 39Ar may recoil out of a low-temperature, high-potassium mineral (e.g. K-feldspar) into a high-temperature, low potassium mineral (e.g. pyroxene). Such a phenomenon would great affect the shape of the age spectrum.
Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement.
References 1. McDougall, I., and Harrison, T.M., 1999, Geochronology and thermochronology by the 40Ar/39Ar method: New York, Oxford University Press, xii, 269 p. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs....me.html
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 06 2011,13:01) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded |
I checked and actually you're the one who claimed isochrons are calibrated by Milankovitch cycles, in two identical messages: Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) | A popular argument for old earth is the Milankovitch cycle theory. The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.
Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said: “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”
First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely. Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html
In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores. Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning |
|
So because it proves your hasty outburst incorrect you took to taking my posts out of context, leaving out headings, and the very relevant part I responded to, and the references?
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi....bstract
http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:41) | Sorry, I should have written "You haven't cited any instances of significant decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions." It's questionable whether those perturbations really exist, scientists are still investigating. But if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that they do exist, they're insignificant. There's lots of good reasons I've already cited for believing that there has been no significant change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years. You can't extrapolate those perturbations over eight or more orders of magnitude without ignoring a vast body of evidence. Of course, that's what you do, but the reality-based community is different.
Again, "perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links? Guess not.
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly, as I've proven using very basic mathematics. A junior high student should be able to comprehend it. Guess you can't.
Screaming "Perturbations!" over and over again isn't going to make your fantasy real. In the real world we deal with evidence, and we deal with all the evidence. |
Quantum physics reveals constant nuclear exchange-interactions, substitutions, tunneling, fusions, transmutations, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates, occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc...
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,17:03) | Quote | As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
You are an idiot. You really think that the links I forwarded to you make the claim that the Big Bang was a fusion event? I would like you to quote an actual cosmologist in an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes this claim. I dare you.
Did you happen to read the part where I told you that protons didn't even exist for the first three minutes AFTER the Big Bang?
Of course you didn't.
I'm really curious. Do you honestly believe that you are making valid points here? Really? |
Hmm ...I notice you wont post your links for us so I can show you were you misinterpreted them
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,06:16) | Hmm ...I notice you wont post your links for us so I can show you were you misinterpreted them |
says the festering shit stain who refuses to show us those complicated maths that make the world 227000 times younger than the empirical evidence suggests.
hey fourass did you ever find out which ONE of those 227000 dicks was yours? probably NONE of them
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,04:30) | Of course, I believe in miracles. |
That's good. Because obtaining a straight answer to a straight question from creationists of your ilk generally requires a miracle.
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,03:30) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,17:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:10) | First of all, your interpretations of the Bible is as limited as your science. Aquatic animals were not on the ark.
Secondly, secondly scientists believe most aquatic animals began in freshwater and acquired a tolerance for saltwater as the oceans slowly built up salinity. Btw, this ocean formation seems in good harmony with the Flood. Science also tells us that animals in the past were much more genetically diverse so it is my belief that the first aquatic animals were euryhaline and lost some of there. As they say, if you dont use it you loose it.
As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you used a different Bible than most other Christian religions.
Genesis 7 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.”
23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You might claim the water animals might have been exempted. However, my interpretation is that "Every living thing" was "wiped from the earth". And only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.
You may disagree with my interpretation. However, that just shows how the Bible is open to interpretation.
The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific.
Oh, BTW: Since, on the order of 5 miles worth of compacted rock was deposited during this flood, I think it safe to assume that NOTHING that wasn't on the ark could have survived. Again, your only recourse is to appeal to a miracle.
In fact, for every single point about the Flood, you MUST appeal to a miracle. That's the only way you can 'support' any claims.
Quote | As for Big Bang, your own links that you send me to assume nuclearsynthesis. In my opinion, it was a supernatural explosion that is still beyond human understanding. |
You are an idiot. You really think that the links I forwarded to you make the claim that the Big Bang was a fusion event? I would like you to quote an actual cosmologist in an actual peer-reviewed paper that makes this claim. I dare you.
Did you happen to read the part where I told you that protons didn't even exist for the first three minutes AFTER the Big Bang?
Of course you didn't.
I'm really curious. Do you honestly believe that you are making valid points here? Really? |
Even secular Bible scholars understand that Genesis 7:8 speaks of land animals that creepeth upon the earth, which btw were being devastated by the demonically influenced men or Nephilim.
Again, no one believes that waters that came up from the deep oceanic ridge and the waters that came from rain and comets were salty? No scientist believes the oceans originated as saltwater either. Salt water didt appear in huge quantities until it was leached from rocks into ocean basins over thousands of years. This why saltwater plants and animals have freshwater representatives.
Of course, I believe in miracles. Millions of born again Christian testify to them, including the ones scurrying all around us in and those that God would miraculously preserve for us as both fossils and on the Ark |
As usual, lots of claims, but no evidence. Show me evidence of
1) miracles 2) references to scientists who think that the ocean became salty in just a few thousand years 3) references to scientists who think that all marine life was originally freshwater
Again, your references to the Bible just show how untrustworthy that document is.
There are plenty of studies that show just how untrustworthy witness testimony is. Just because someone is a Christian doesn't mean that they aren't liars... or can't be lied to.
Let me ask you a serious question. Given that you are purporting that all science is wrong. The science that gives you all the tools of your modern life. Can you prove that all the revelation, the Bible, and everything else that your religion is based on is NOT the work of satan rather than god?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa?
{ETA} But see the next page ... they did really mean correlation.
Quote | U-Pb isochron dating methods depend upon major assumptions. 1. the lead isotopes were originally uranium but there is no way to know if some of the lead was already in the rock when it was formed--making it appear much older than it really is. Its a closed system but in reality floods are known to leach uranium out of rocks quite readily, which again makes the rock appear much older than it is. The same goes for other isotopes like potassium, which often makes modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient |
As I've pointed out many times, these are not problems with modern methods which detect such issues and often produce a valid age in spite of them
Quote | Some problems with the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Standard Intercalibration In order for an age to be calculated by the 40Ar/39Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by 40Ar/39Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and 40Ar/39Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1). Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the 40Ar/39Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the 40Ar/39Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the 40Ar/39Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).
|
So what? This is talking about improving the precision of the method. The errors are still not significant, not by many orders of magnitude, in the context of YEC.
K-Ar is not the sole method of dating the primary standard.
Newsflash: there are uncertainties in radiometric dates, as there are in any physical measurement.
Quote | Decay Constants Another issue affecting the ultimate precision and accuracy of the 40Ar/39Ar technique is the uncertainty in the decay constants for 40K. This uncertainty results from 1) the branched decay scheme of 40K and 2) the long half-life of 40K (1.25 billion years). As technology advances, it is likely that the decay constants used in the 40Ar/39Ar age equation will become continually more refined allowing much more accurate and precise ages to be determined. |
Yup. So what? They are just talking about reducing the already small uncertainty.
Quote | J Factor Because the J value is extrapolated from a standard to an unknown, the accuracy and precision on that J value is critical. J value uncertainty can be minimized by constraining the geometry of the standard relative to the unknown, both vertically and horizontally. The NMGRL does this by irradiating samples in machined aluminum disks where standards and unknowns alternate every other position. J error can also be reduced by analyzing more flux monitor aliquots per standard location. |
Yup. So what? They are just talking about reducing the already small uncertainty. Quote | 39Ar Recoil The affects of irradiation on potassium-bearing rocks/minerals can sometimes result in anomalously old apparent ages. This is caused by the net loss of 39ArK from the sample by recoil (the kinetic energy imparted on a 39ArK atom by the emission of a proton during the (n,p) reaction). Recoil is likely in every potassium-bearing sample, but only becomes a significant problem with very fine grained minerals (e.g. clays) and glass. For multi-phase samples such as basaltic wholerocks, 39ArK redistribution may be more of a problem than net 39ArK loss. In this case, 39Ar may recoil out of a low-temperature, high-potassium mineral (e.g. K-feldspar) into a high-temperature, low potassium mineral (e.g. pyroxene). Such a phenomenon would great affect the shape of the age spectrum. |
Yup. So what? They are just talking about reducing the already small uncertainty.
Quote | Problems and Limitations of the K/Ar dating technique Because the K/Ar dating technique relies on the determining the absolute abundances of both 40Ar and potassium, there is not a reliable way to determine if the assumptions are valid. Argon loss and excess argon are two common problems that may cause erroneous ages to be determined. Argon loss occurs when radiogenic 40Ar (40Ar*) produced within a rock/mineral escapes sometime after its formation. Alteration and high temperature can damage a rock/mineral lattice sufficiently to allow 40Ar* to be released. This can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be younger than the "true" age of the dated material. Conversely, excess argon (40ArE) can cause the calculated K/Ar age to be older than the "true" age of the dated material. Excess argon is simply 40Ar that is attributed to radiogenic 40Ar and/or atmospheric 40Ar. Excess argon may be derived from the mantle, as bubbles trapped in a melt, in the case of a magma. Or it could be a xenocryst/xenolith trapped in a magma/lava during emplacement. |
All of those problems are possible, and are some of the reasons that K-Ar dating isn't used much anymore. Some of those problems are obviated by rational sample selections and processing. Of course, dates can be checked by comparing with other independent methods, and those checks indicate that he possible problems are rare.
In 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Dalrymple tested whether 26 very young lava flows had excess argon. 18 of them did not. 8 of them had detectable excess argon, but only one had enough to affect an age of a few million years:
"With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks."
So excess argon is rare.
You need to demonstrate that the possible problems are near universal and, if you can do that, explain the consilience between different radiometric techniques and non-radiometric techniques. For example, Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? (his source is available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publica....86110).
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:46) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 06 2011,13:01) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never responded |
I checked and actually you're the one who claimed isochrons are calibrated by Milankovitch cycles, in two identical messages: Quote (forastero @ Nov. 06 2011,03:45) | A popular argument for old earth is the Milankovitch cycle theory. The theory has necessitated the belief in multiple ice ages and of late has been incorporated toward everything from climate change to Isochon dating.
Famous astronomer Fred Hoyle once said: “If I were to assert that a glacial condition could be induced in a room liberally supplied during winter with charged night-storage heaters simply by taking an ice cube into the room, the proposition would be no more unlikely than the Milankovitch theory.”
First of all, the changes in summer sunshine postulated by the theory are too small to generate an ice age. Several other problems also render these cycles unlikely. Ice-core samples reveal multiple, rapid oscillation (usually 100 year cycles) throughout the last Milankovitch period (100,000 years) those so called 100,000 year Milankavich cycles that they claim they see in the cores could just as easily represent 100 year oscillation cycles. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html
In order to revamp support for the theory, evolutionists garnered supporting evidence from deep-sea and ice cores. Sediment cores older 40,000 years old are very often dated using isochon methods. Isochon dating is in turn calibrated by these core sediments. Obviously this can be very circular in reasoning |
|
So because it proves your hasty outburst incorrect you took to taking my posts out of context, leaving out headings, and the very relevant part I responded to, and the references?
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi........bstract
http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html |
Whoops, I missed the link that Glen provided. I apologize.
Still waiting for evidence that contamination is a problem.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,06:13) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:41) | Sorry, I should have written "You haven't cited any instances of significant decay rates changes under terrestrial conditions." It's questionable whether those perturbations really exist, scientists are still investigating. But if, for the sake of argument, we suppose that they do exist, they're insignificant. There's lots of good reasons I've already cited for believing that there has been no significant change in decay rates over the last 13-ish billion years. You can't extrapolate those perturbations over eight or more orders of magnitude without ignoring a vast body of evidence. Of course, that's what you do, but the reality-based community is different.
Again, "perturbations" of the magnitude your fantasy requires would leave traces, such as a barren Earth sterilized twice over by radiation and heat. Even the few creationists who understand the issue admit this: RATE in Review: Unresolved Problems.
And, as I have pointed out before, "perturbations" well under a percent would leave traces that we've looked for and haven't seen: The Constancy of Constants, The Constancy of Constants, Part 2. Got the stones to read and comprehend those links? Guess not.
Finally, your idiotic idea that small changes in radioactive decay rates would have a large effect on our dates is, well, idiotic. A 1% change in decay rate would yield approximately a 1% change in the calculated age. Your compounding idea is just silly, as I've proven using very basic mathematics. A junior high student should be able to comprehend it. Guess you can't.
Screaming "Perturbations!" over and over again isn't going to make your fantasy real. In the real world we deal with evidence, and we deal with all the evidence. |
Quantum physics reveals constant nuclear exchange-interactions, substitutions, tunneling, fusions, transmutations, contamination, oscillations in energy states and rates, occur via various catalyses due to changes in temperature, radioactive emissions, electricity, cosmic ray spallation , Photodisintegration, radioisotopic mixing and substitutions, chemicals etc... |
Bafflegab. No evidence of any significant change in decay rates under terrestrial conditions. Indeed, no evidence at all. OTOH, I've already provided lots of evidence that there has been no significatn change in decay rates in the last few 13-ish billion years.
Repeating jabberwocky doesn't make you fantasy true.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | The same goes for other isotopes like potassium, which often makes modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient |
Oh, and the only sources I know of for "modern lava flows are often dated as very ancient" are creationists obviously picking invalid samples (which is why I referred to "rational sample selection" above). And I don't mean picking samples from known-modern lava flows, I mean picking samples that are known-invalid for any flow. Such as Snelling's Ngauruhoe fraud in which he purposefully picked samples containing xenoliths.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | the lead isotopes were originally uranium but there is no way to know if some of the lead was already in the rock when it was formed--making it appear much older than it really is. |
To expand a little on this usual creo idiocy:
The vast majority of U-Pb dates are not isochrons, they are concordia-discordia. And the vast, vast majority of concordia-discordia analyses are performed on zircons. There's several reasons for this, one of which is the fact that zircon easily takes up uranium and strongly rejects lead at solidification. It's almost impossible to get a significant amount of lead into a zircon at solidification. Even those few YECs who understand radiometric dating acknowledge this:
"Samples 1 through 3 had He retentions of 58, 42, 27, and 17%. 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 Pb physically present in the zircons, about 1.5 billion years worth—at today’s rates— of nuclear decay occurred. Supporting that, sample 1 still retains 58% of all the a-particles (the He) that would have been deposited in the zircon during this decay of U and Th to Pb. "
(Humphreys, Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay. Emphasis in original.)
Finally, not all lead isotopes are radiogenic. This is significant in U-Pb dating.
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
fourass is THIS bullshit what you think you are going to take to the Evolution meeting and use to change the world?
LMFAO
you better look for some antipodean aboriginal journal of medieval english poetry to bury this latest steampile of refuse and offal
"darwin was wrong the sonnets prove it, so"
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,03:51) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:29) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.
First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.
As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.
Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much |
That's a really good question.
Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?
Cherry picking much?
Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down. |
Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.
|
We knew that, IDiot. That is why I said "First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it. "
Quote |
Here is another one
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate (Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2008 (this version, v2)) It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
In other words, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. More c14 at the time of death could in turn make them look make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older.
|
Neutrinos don't affect c-14 production. This is an unpublished crank paper. Neutrinos are not cosmic rays, that is your IDiotic mistake.
C-14 production in the upper atmosphere varies with changes in cosmic ray intensity and the magnetic field around the earth since cosmic rays are charged particles (neutrino comes from neutral). We all know that, have known it for decades. C-14 levels from the past atmospheres are calibrated from multiple other methods, not just the most commonly known one (tree rings).
Imagining that this is support for cosmogenetic influences on radiodating in general without specifics of mechanism and quantification (formula waving - I love it so!) is what we expect from IDiots. As well as fundamental mistakes and errors of judgement (can't tell well established science from speculative) which you deliver on a regular basis.
-------------- "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
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,10:53) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,03:51) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:29) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,15:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
Ah, more cut and paste with no understanding.
First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it.
As far as differences between terrestrial and space - Duh! That is why a quantitative argument (formula waving) needs to be done. Not so common (i.e. never) on your part.
Mechanism - that is what is needed to be present in an argument of IF radioactive decay rates change and by how much |
That's a really good question.
Forastero, why do you ignore thousands of papers that disprove your points and only accept those few papers (that are flawed) that support your point of view?
Cherry picking much?
Oh wait, that's right you believe all those scientists who make in excess of $32,000 per year are all in a conspiracy to keep home boy down. |
Actually that study was done by Dr. David A. Juckett from the Barros Research Institute at Michigan State University.
|
We knew that, IDiot. That is why I said "First forastero uncritically quotes someone who claims to correlate cosmic ray intensity with mortality with impossible precision. Yet another example of where a single person puts out a few articles, it draws little attention, so forastero thinks there must be something to it. "
Quote |
Here is another one
Implications for C-14 Dating of the Jenkins-Fischbach Effect and Possible Fluctuation of the Solar Fusion Rate (Submitted on 28 Aug 2008 (v1), last revised 29 Aug 2008 (this version, v2)) It has long been known that the C-14 calibration curve, which relates the known age of tree rings to their apparent C-14 ages, includes a number of "wiggles" which clearly are not experimental errors or other random effects. A reasonable interpretation of these wiggles is that they indicate that the Sun's fusion "furnace" is pulsating, perhaps for reasons similar to that of the Cepheid variables, albeit under a very different regime of pressure and temperature. If this speculation is correct, we are seeing the heartbeat of the Sun-the C-14 calibration curve is the Sun's "neutrino-cardiogram." Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere, which would make biological samples that were alive during the surge appear to be "too young" (2) depletion of C-14 in the biotic matter already dead at the time of the surge; this is a consequence of the recently discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect, which is an observed correlation between nuclear decay rates and solar activity or Earth-Sun distance. In addition, the precise value at any given time of the "half-life" of any unstable isotope-including C-14-must now be considered in doubt, since the Jenkins-Fischbach effect implies that we may no longer view the decay rate of an isotope as intrinsically governed and therefore a constant of Nature.
In other words, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. More c14 at the time of death could in turn make them look make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older.
|
Neutrinos don't affect c-14 production. This is an unpublished crank paper. Neutrinos are not cosmic rays, that is your IDiotic mistake.
C-14 production in the upper atmosphere varies with changes in cosmic ray intensity and the magnetic field around the earth since cosmic rays are charged particles (neutrino comes from neutral). We all know that, have known it for decades. C-14 levels from the past atmospheres are calibrated from multiple other methods, not just the most commonly known one (tree rings).
Imagining that this is support for cosmogenetic influences on radiodating in general without specifics of mechanism and quantification (formula waving - I love it so!) is what we expect from IDiots. As well as fundamental mistakes and errors of judgement (can't tell well established science from speculative) which you deliver on a regular basis. |
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production but neutrinos are generated by cosmic rays http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
“neutrinos generated in the Earth's atmosphere by cosmic rays will increase in number during these times.” http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~lms....no.html
And there is lots of evidence of solar influences including neutrinos on decay rates
http://redshift.vif.com/Journal....FAL.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs....06.5732 http://arxiv.org/abs....07.3318 http://arxiv.org/abs....05.1335 http://arxiv.org/abs....06.2374 http://arxiv.org/abs....08.3156 http://arxiv.org/abs....06.2295 http://arxiv.org/abs....10.3265
In December of 2006 a major solar flare occurred. While studying manganese-54, Jere Jenkins, another Perdue University physicist, noticed a sudden drop in decay rate. What's more, the drop began the evening before the solar flare. Jenkins lab was faced away from the Sun meaning if solar particles were affecting his isotope they had to first pass through the Earth to reach his lab…The obvious culprit seemed to be neutrinos, an elementary particle which travels at near light speed. Neutrinos are nearly massless, which enables them to travel so fast, much like Electrons. http://questional.com/blog....riangle
The sun link was made even stronger when Peter Sturrock, Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics, suggested that the Purdue scientists look for other recurring patterns in decay rates. As an expert of the inner workings of the sun, Sturrock had a hunch that solar neutrinos might hold the key to this mystery. http://news.discovery.com/space....le.html
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevent to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination. Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time.
Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. More c14 at the time of death could in turn make samples appear younger but then surges are known to deplete C14 from biotic matter after death; thus making them appear older. Interestingly, tap water accounts for 80% of the cancer risks from radioisoptopes, which to me means that water is also a big time source of contamination in fossils. Even more well known is water leaching radioisotopes from rocks. 14C is also found throughout the earth’s soil and like most radioisotopes, it reacts with other radioisotopes. Heat, carbonates, acids, changes in the magnetic field, and other factors can affect the ratio of C12 to C14. Microbic decomposers are often found in prehistoric bones and thus can also contaminate samples.
The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,14:36) | Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
So write a paper on your amazing discovery. Get it published. Find out what if feels like for a person such as yourself to stand on the shoulders of giants for once.
It's the only way to correct such issues, posting on backwater internet forums ain't gonna fix it none.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,14:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration? |
Possibly and someday means not done yet, so you cannot speak of this process being done in the present or past. JonF even bolded it for you.
Of course I had to leave in the incredible stupidity of accusing somebody else of saying isochrons were calibrated with Milankovitch cycles when it was himself.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating".
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:42) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevant to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination. Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time. |
The various creationist claims about 14C in coal and dinosaur fossils and diamonds have been solidly refuted. (e.g. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? and Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.) But I'm talking about geologic dating methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and Rb-Sr and the like. So let's see some evidence for contamination being a problem in those methods.
Although I'm mostly interested in geologic dating, I'll take a few moments to correct some of your many errors.
Quote | Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. |
Gosh, you got something right! Now you need to figure out why this is not a problem.
{snip}
Quote | The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. |
Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. Quote | Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? |
Why, yes, we do.
Quote | Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
Quote | Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. |
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
Quote | Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample. |
Dating multiple samples avoids that problem.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:24) | All of those problems are possible, and are some of the reasons that K-Ar dating isn't used much anymore. Some of those problems are obviated by rational sample selections and processing. Of course, dates can be checked by comparing with other independent methods, and those checks indicate that he possible problems are rare.
In 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Dalrymple tested whether 26 very young lava flows had excess argon. 18 of them did not. 8 of them had detectable excess argon, but only one had enough to affect an age of a few million years:
"With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks."
So excess argon is rare.
You need to demonstrate that the possible problems are near universal and, if you can do that, explain the consilience between different radiometric techniques and non-radiometric techniques. For example, Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? (his source is available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publica....86110).
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
What do you mean its not used much any more? The paper says its always used with 40Ar/39Ar,
Oh and btw, just how do you believe isochrons are calibrated?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:44) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:42) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevant to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination. Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time. |
The various creationist claims about 14C in coal and dinosaur fossils and diamonds have been solidly refuted. (e.g. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? and Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.) But I'm talking about geologic dating methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and Rb-Sr and the like. So let's see some evidence for contamination being a problem in those methods.
Although I'm mostly interested in geologic dating, I'll take a few moments to correct some of your many errors.
Quote | Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. |
Gosh, you got something right! Now you need to figure out why this is not a problem.
{snip}
Quote | The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. |
Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. Quote | Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? |
Why, yes, we do.
Quote | Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
Quote | Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. |
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
Quote | Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample. |
Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
I will read those non-peer reviewd papers when I get back but in the mean time how about some proof on your other hasty dismissives?
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along...
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:44) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:24) | All of those problems are possible, and are some of the reasons that K-Ar dating isn't used much anymore. Some of those problems are obviated by rational sample selections and processing. Of course, dates can be checked by comparing with other independent methods, and those checks indicate that he possible problems are rare.
In 40Ar/36Ar analyses of historic lava flows, Dalrymple tested whether 26 very young lava flows had excess argon. 18 of them did not. 8 of them had detectable excess argon, but only one had enough to affect an age of a few million years:
"With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks."
So excess argon is rare.
You need to demonstrate that the possible problems are near universal and, if you can do that, explain the consilience between different radiometric techniques and non-radiometric techniques. For example, Are Radioactive Dates Consistent With The Deeper-Is-Older Rule? (his source is available at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publica....86110).
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
What do you mean its not used much any more? The paper says its always used with 40Ar/39Ar, |
No, the paper that you qouted earlier says that "The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. " "Most commonly" is not "always". Why is it that YECs have so much difficulty in distinguishing between "some" and "all"?
K-Ar dating studies have been and are performed on the standards used to calibrate Ar-Ar dating. The number of such stiudies is small compared to the number of Ar-Ar studies and very small compared to the number of U-Pb studies. For some discussion of the various methods used for Ar-Ar standards see How Serious are Errors in Ar40-Ar39 Dates and How Good are Their Monitoring Standards? and the references contained therein and, for example, Fission-track dating calibration of the fish canyon tuff standard in French reactors and A method for intercalibration of U-Th-Pb and 40Ar-39Ar ages in the Phanerozoic. there are lots of others.
Quote | Oh and btw, just how do you believe isochrons are calibrated? |
Well, the validity of the methods themselves are "calibrated" by the well-known and well-established laws of physics and chemistry. (Even if the variations you are so fond of posting do actually exist, they do not affect the accuracy of radiometric methods significantly.) There are various tests and physical standards that laboratories interchange to ensure that they are implementing the methods consistently.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:50) | I will read those non-peer reviewd papers when I get back but in the mean time how about some proof on your other hasty dismissives? |
I've provided quite a bit of evidence for many of my claims, while you have provided little for yours. Such as evidence for your oft-repeated claim of contamination being a problem ( in a discussion of geologic dating).
I'll be glad to provide evidence for any specific claims you are having trouble with if you tell me what they are.
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:31) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates |
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a confused mess.
"Cosmic rays which both surge" - cosmic rays are one thing, not two. The crank paper you quoted was talking about increased C-14 production, not decreased decay rates. You do realize that accelerated decay would lead to a decline in C-14, not a surge? Probably not, because you are an IDiot.
From the crank paper: Quote | In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C. |
-------------- "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
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,23:50) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:44) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:42) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevant to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination. Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time. |
The various creationist claims about 14C in coal and dinosaur fossils and diamonds have been solidly refuted. (e.g. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? and Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.) But I'm talking about geologic dating methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and Rb-Sr and the like. So let's see some evidence for contamination being a problem in those methods.
Although I'm mostly interested in geologic dating, I'll take a few moments to correct some of your many errors.
Quote | Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. |
Gosh, you got something right! Now you need to figure out why this is not a problem.
{snip}
Quote | The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. |
Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. Quote | Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? |
Why, yes, we do.
Quote | Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
Quote | Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. |
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
Quote | Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample. |
Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
I will read those non-peer reviewd papers when I get back but in the mean time how about some proof on your other hasty dismissives? |
The imbicile doesn't understand irony.
Hey 4-ass educate yourself look up gormless.
...dickhead...
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) | I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation? If so, I'm sorry could you please link? |
I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark. The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died.
Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock.
Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,18:41) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:31) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates |
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a confused mess.
"Cosmic rays which both surge" - cosmic rays are one thing, not two. The crank paper you quoted was talking about increased C-14 production, not decreased decay rates. You do realize that accelerated decay would lead to a decline in C-14, not a surge? Probably not, because you are an IDiot.
From the crank paper: Quote | In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C. |
|
Again, it is a fact that cosmic rays do surge during solar flares and they do generate both 14C and neutrinos.
Plus, I finally found the whole article and found that you left out the part about decay, which btw, best corresponds to the article's title and conclusion.
"the newly-discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect may force reconsideration of the role of neutrinos in nuclear decays and, possibly, other nuclear processes. In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C.....A surge in neutrino flux would have two effects: It would cause excess decays of the 14C isotopes in all dead biota (via the Jenkins- Fischbach effect), thus increasing their apparent ages as indicated by their “14C ages......It would produce excess atmospheric 14C for a brief period, thus causing the biotic matter formed during the surge to look anomalously young—perhaps by very large amounts (which may have led to unwarranted discarding of good data)."
Since 24c is a cosmogenic (caused by cosmic rays) isotope, it makes more sense to me that the solar flare perturbations leading to Jenkins-Fischbach decay oscillations are more likely the effect of surges in cosmic rays; which are known to surge during solar flares.
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,08:02) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,18:41) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:31) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates |
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a confused mess.
"Cosmic rays which both surge" - cosmic rays are one thing, not two. The crank paper you quoted was talking about increased C-14 production, not decreased decay rates. You do realize that accelerated decay would lead to a decline in C-14, not a surge? Probably not, because you are an IDiot.
From the crank paper: Quote | In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C. |
|
Again, it is a fact that cosmic rays do surge during solar flares and they do generate both 14C and neutrinos.
Plus, I finally found the whole article and found that you left out the part about decay, which btw, best corresponds to the article's title and conclusion.
"the newly-discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect may force reconsideration of the role of neutrinos in nuclear decays and, possibly, other nuclear processes. In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C.....A surge in neutrino flux would have two effects: It would cause excess decays of the 14C isotopes in all dead biota (via the Jenkins- Fischbach effect), thus increasing their apparent ages as indicated by their “14C ages......It would produce excess atmospheric 14C for a brief period, thus causing the biotic matter formed during the surge to look anomalously young—perhaps by very large amounts (which may have led to unwarranted discarding of good data)."
Since 24c is a cosmogenic (caused by cosmic rays) isotope, it makes more sense to me that the solar flare perturbations leading to Jenkins-Fischbach decay oscillations are more likely the effect of surges in cosmic rays; which are known to surge during solar flares. |
...erm as I say to people who mistake belief for objective truth.
Belief is that Adam and Eve were the first two people on Earth
WTF do you know about radioactivity?
That's an easy question, sweet fucking a.
Nobody here gives two hoots for your blathering bible boy.
You and your crazy fundie Stupid America crakers are no better than the Talibhan. You both promote ignorance and obscurantism because you fear science will destroy 'god'.
Too late suckers.[I][/I]
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 07 2011,13:36) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 05 2011,18:03) | The simple fact is that pure salt water creatures cannot change to survive in fresh or brackish water in 40 days. Pure fresh water creatures cannot change to survive in brackish or salt water in 40 days. There are a FEW specialized fish that can make the transition (salmon... once) and a few others. However, it is a simple fact that most cannot.
The only recourse you have to require a miracle. This is totally non-scientific. |
And here's the cool part about this. You don't even have to take Ogre's word for it. You don't even have to know shit about biology.
Set up a salt-water fish tank at your house. Get some lovely salt-water fish going in it. Dump a shit-load of rain water into the tank. Watch the fish die.
It's straight-up chemistry. Osmosis will cause the fresh water you dumped into the tank to rush into the bodies of the fish to try and equalize the solute concentration between inside and outside the fish bodies. The fish will bloat and die right in front of you.
Try it, Tardbucket. Don't take my word for it. Go WATCH what would happen to the fish if your story book were true with your own eyes. |
DO IT!
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along...
Well, the validity of the methods themselves are "calibrated" by the well-known and well-established laws of physics and chemistry. (Even if the variations you are so fond of posting do actually exist, they do not affect the accuracy of radiometric methods significantly.) There are various tests and physical standards that laboratories interchange to ensure that they are implementing the methods consistently. |
That is also incorrect. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....bstract
All kinds of 14C correction attempts are made to agree with independent calibrations, yet you confidently claim that radioisotopes with huge half-lives are accurately calibrated by their own so called laws of decay. Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,04:00) | A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory |
When you use words that you did not write and do not indicate it's a quote that is very telling as to your intent here.
http://tinyurl.com/cj23ob9....cj23ob9
Amusingly you've started to rewrite your quotes just a little from the original since I first pointed out your little game but as you don't understand what it is you are writing you are not able to rephrase it in an original way.
And anyway, therefore the earth is 6000 years old?
Hardly.....
-------------- 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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2011,22:56) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) | I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation? If so, I'm sorry could you please link? |
I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark. The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died.
Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock.
Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific. |
Lake Baikal
All kinds of marine representatives are found in the World's freshwater seas and great lakes, including sponges jellyfish, coral-like creatures, seahorses, seals, fish etc...And a lot of them have just been found recently. The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges
Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along... |
Looks like you overlooked the following:
Finally, 40Ar/39Ar ages of ash layers within tuned sapropel-bearing sections have been used to intercalibrate the independent radiometric and astronomical dating methods and to establish an astronomical age for mineral dating standards used in 40Ar/39Ar dating (Kuiper et al. 2004). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic.
Inter-a prefix means “between,” “among,” “in the midst of,” “mutually,” “reciprocally,” “together,” “during” ( intercept; interest ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words. Thus,in this case, intercalibrate means to calibrate each other. The two articles below also confirm the use of this calibration is due to the limits of radiometric and Milankovich techniques by themselves.
“This database will allow a rigorous and direct intercalibration of radio-isotopic and astronomical time with the aim to provide an independent test of the accuracy of conventional K/Ar ages of mineral dating standards and to investigate the potential of providing an astronomically dated 40Ar/39Ar standard. On the other hand, a rigorous intercalibration over an extended segment of the time scale will serve in the future as an independent test for the reliability of the astronomical tuning for older intervals. In a broader perspective, intercalibration of isotopic and astronomical time scales will allow precise (40Ar/39Ar) dating of volcanic layers that cannot be dated directly with the astronomical time scale.The factors presently limiting the accuracy in 40Ar/39Ar dating are the age uncertainty of the neutron fluence monitors (mineral dating standards) and uncertainties in decay constants (e.g., Min et al., 2000 and references therein). These uncertainties outweigh typical analytical errors of modern 40Ar/39Ar analytical systems by at least one order of magnitude. “http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/people/Klaudia/Thesis_Kuiper.pdf
“New 40Ar/39Ar geochronology and global cyclostratigraphic calibration provide high-resolution insights into the timing of geochemical fluctuations… We apply new 40Ar/39Ar geochronologic, geochemical, geophysical,biostratigraphic, and sedimentary data1 across the OAE II from a complete Canadian section (Well 6-34-30-8W4: ‘‘Youngstown-core’’; contains OAE II) of the Western Interior Seaway of North America to calibrate and correlate Milankovitch cycles across the Atlantic.” http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....ull.pdf
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Good morning Forastero. He also kept Little Bunnies, for our entertainment.
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) 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?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/50th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here?
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2011,22:56) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) | I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation? If so, I'm sorry could you please link? |
I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark. The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died.
Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock.
Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific. |
Lake Baikal
All kinds of marine representatives are found in the World's freshwater seas and great lakes, including sponges jellyfish, coral-like creatures, seahorses, seals, fish etc...And a lot of them have just been found recently. The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges
Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
jeannot
Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Sorry if this has been asked before, but I'm curious about the rise of sea level during the flood. Say it went up 4000m. In 40 nights and days, that would require a rainfall of 4000mm (approx) per hour, on average. The world record is 305 mm. And you know what a hard rain means. Not the most favorable time for a handful of people to carry out a major rescue operation at a global scale.
Where did the water come from and were did it go? Surely, AIG has answers to this.
Arguing against YECs is like arguing against Flat-Earthers.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along...
Well, the validity of the methods themselves are "calibrated" by the well-known and well-established laws of physics and chemistry. (Even if the variations you are so fond of posting do actually exist, they do not affect the accuracy of radiometric methods significantly.) There are various tests and physical standards that laboratories interchange to ensure that they are implementing the methods consistently. |
That is also incorrect. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....bstract |
Whoopty doo. OK, there are cases of cyclostratigraphy calibrated by radiometric methods. So what? Radiometric methods aren't calibrated by cyclostratigraphy, or is all cycolstratigraphy calibrated by radiometric methods.
Quote | All kinds of 14C correction attempts are made to agree with independent calibrations, yet you confidently claim that radioisotopes with huge half-lives are accurately calibrated by their own so called laws of decay. |
That's because 14C dating is fundamentally different from U-PB, Ar, Ar, Sr-Rb, SM-Nd dating.
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,07:04) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along... |
Looks like you overlooked the following:
Finally, 40Ar/39Ar ages of ash layers within tuned sapropel-bearing sections have been used to intercalibrate the independent radiometric and astronomical dating methods and to establish an astronomical age for mineral dating standards used in 40Ar/39Ar dating (Kuiper et al. 2004). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic. |
Nope, in fact I quoted it. "Possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating" means maybe someday in the future, not now.
Quote | Inter-a prefix means “between,” “among,” “in the midst of,” “mutually,” “reciprocally,” “together,” “during” ( intercept; interest ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words. Thus,in this case, intercalibrate means to calibrate each other. |
Sorry, sonny, does not follow. As is obvious from the context of the papers. I know context is anathema to YECs, but it still is what it is.
Quote | The two articles below also confirm the use of this calibration is due to the limits of radiometric and Milankovich techniques by themselves.
“This database will allow a rigorous and direct intercalibration of radio-isotopic and astronomical time with the aim to provide an independent test of the accuracy of conventional K/Ar ages of mineral dating standards and to investigate the potential of providing an astronomically dated 40Ar/39Ar standard. On the other hand, a rigorous intercalibration over an extended segment of the time scale will serve in the future as an independent test for the reliability of the astronomical tuning for older intervals. In a broader perspective, intercalibration of isotopic and astronomical time scales will allow precise (40Ar/39Ar) dating of volcanic layers that cannot be dated directly with the astronomical time scale.The factors presently limiting the accuracy in 40Ar/39Ar dating are the age uncertainty of the neutron fluence monitors (mineral dating standards) and uncertainties in decay constants (e.g., Min et al., 2000 and references therein). These uncertainties outweigh typical analytical errors of modern 40Ar/39Ar analytical systems by at least one order of magnitude. “http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/people/Klaudia/Thesis_Kuiper.pdf |
As is obvious from the context, they are comparing the two independent methods and raising the possibility of calibrating one from the other someday.
Quote | “New 40Ar/39Ar geochronology and global cyclostratigraphic calibration provide high-resolution insights into the timing of geochemical fluctuations… We apply new 40Ar/39Ar geochronologic, geochemical, geophysical,biostratigraphic, and sedimentary data1 across the OAE II from a complete Canadian section (Well 6-34-30-8W4: ‘‘Youngstown-core’’; contains OAE II) of the Western Interior Seaway of North America to calibrate and correlate Milankovitch cycles across the Atlantic.” http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....ull.pdf |
Hee hee hee. Didn't actually read beyond the first page, did you? Bet you just searched for "calibrate"! Let's see your analysis of what was used to calibrate what in that paper, complete with quotes from the text..
Where's all o' dem references on contamination being a problem in geologic radiometric dating? You sure are digging up lot o' stuff that has noting to do with your assignment. One might almost think you've given up and hope I'll forget.ve given up and hope I
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,08:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. |
not only did he save the little bastards, he sorted them phylogenetically into global provinces.
I imagine this like a big floppy gay angel fairy, bearded and toga-less, wine drunk and giddy, yet cleverly sorting taxa onto either side of Wallace's Line as if were second nature, like fondling the room service boy.
the deity of fourass is the kind of god who would be watching a duel to the death from abalcony suite where within sight (and touch and fluid drip) of the Father Of The Universe a debauched orgy raged on for hours, yet this melancholy sky father could only half-heartedly participate, lamenting his universal powers, idly factoring infinite order polynomials while murmuring to unholy carnal relations with angels, demons, deities, nephilim, whatever, while simultaneously getting a pedicure and a rim wax
fourass, this is what you should be talking about Evolution. No more, no less. And you have to realize that continuing to talk about "what if" terrorist scenarios at scientific conferences gets you put in jail, shit aint funny motherfucker
-------------- 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
|
hasn't your ignorant ass learned anything from your fellow traveller and scientific superior David Mabus? you should fuck off
-------------- 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
|
who knew the stretcher of the heavens, cosmogenic manipulator of interstellar radiocarbon, hair counter sparrow holder you-in-the-womb-former and universal sexual orientation polarizer was also a big fucking eeyore.
no wonder he sent himself to die he was tired of being such a huge pussy
-------------- 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
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2011,22:56) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) | I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation? If so, I'm sorry could you please link? |
I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark. The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died.
Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock.
Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific. |
{snip picture and words that don't really say what you would like them to}
Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Did you also provide a derivation of the growth rate in that population equation of yours? If so, could you point it out? 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
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,05:27) | Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
I don't uderstand this either, Lou. There comes a point when you've tossed out so much science* that POOF! is a more plausible explanation. Given that YECs all believe in a POOFing deity, why not just stick with that?
* And now he's having to add bits to the bible** as well - "aquatic refuges" for fuck's sake.
** For thus it is written in the Book of Muppet.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
it helps to consider that from his perspective, it's just trolling
this fuckface knows it's poof all the way down he is just wanking on and on about it in a really boring way
-------------- 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
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 09 2011,10:51) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,05:27) | Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
I don't uderstand this either, Lou. There comes a point when you've tossed out so much science* that POOF! is a more plausible explanation. Given that YECs all believe in a POOFing deity, why not just stick with that?
* And now he's having to add bits to the bible** as well - "aquatic refuges" for fuck's sake.
** For thus it is written in the Book of Muppet. |
He's already pretty much said everything will have to have been miracles.
Here's an interesting question...
How do you know that they miracle worker who destroyed the Earth with the Flood was God? You yourself have admited to there being many other flood myths... why couldn't it have been a Sumerian god and your 'god' is just taking credit?
BTW: I think I saw this in the flood (hah!) of inanity, but I think you said that the world wide flood could have been as little as a few millimeters, while the majority of the water was in Judea.
If that's the case, then how in the hell did those 17,000 feet of sediment that is on top of 5,000 feet of limestone happen in China... remember the Earth was nothing but mantle at one point in the Flood.
Let me ask you this... given that the Earth was nothing but mantle (i.e. no crust) at some point in the flood. What would you estimate the majority of the rock covering the planet would be? We've established that it takes a long time and very specific conditions for limestone and other seds (Green River Formation... still waiting...) to form.
But rapidly cooling magma would produce a very specific kind of rock... here's another chance to use your science knowledge.
Predict what type of rock should be covering the majority of the Earth in your scenario. Research the percentage of the Earth that rock actually is. Compare. Place your results here.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,00:02) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,18:41) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:31) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates |
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a confused mess.
"Cosmic rays which both surge" - cosmic rays are one thing, not two. The crank paper you quoted was talking about increased C-14 production, not decreased decay rates. You do realize that accelerated decay would lead to a decline in C-14, not a surge? Probably not, because you are an IDiot.
From the crank paper: Quote | In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C. |
|
|
Who was it who said this: "No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production" Oh, yeah, you did. That statement still lays there like a turd on a hot sidewalk.
Quote | Again, it is a fact that cosmic rays do surge during solar flares and they do generate both 14C and neutrinos.
Plus, I finally found the whole article and found that you left out the part about decay, which btw, best corresponds to the article's title and conclusion.
"the newly-discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect may force reconsideration of the role of neutrinos in nuclear decays and, possibly, other nuclear processes. In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C.....A surge in neutrino flux would have two effects: It would cause excess decays of the 14C isotopes in all dead biota (via the Jenkins- Fischbach effect), thus increasing their apparent ages as indicated by their “14C ages......It would produce excess atmospheric 14C for a brief period, thus causing the biotic matter formed during the surge to look anomalously young—perhaps by very large amounts (which may have led to unwarranted discarding of good data)."
|
LOL, neutrinos cause increased C-14 production and increased decay, but somehow this increases new C-14 production only in the atmosphere and increases C-14 decay only in old material!
Quote |
Since 24c is a cosmogenic (caused by cosmic rays) isotope, it makes more sense to me that the solar flare perturbations leading to Jenkins-Fischbach decay oscillations are more likely the effect of surges in cosmic rays; which are known to surge during solar flares. |
The doofuses you are quoting do not correlate the decays and production with solar flares and cosmic rays, but with ORBIT (smaller solid angle when earth is further away, so neutrino flux is lower). And the neutrinos they are discussing are those from the sun, not the puny amount arising from cosmic rays. 0:82 x10^-2 particles per square centimeter per second per steradian is the standard flux for cosmic rays , neutrino flux from the sun is 6.5 x 10^10 per square cm per second.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. |
Lou, it is staffs in all cultures that record history! Of course forastero hasn't been able to find even one staff, even if he were to use both hands.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation?
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 09 2011,11:51) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,05:27) | Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
I don't uderstand this either, Lou. There comes a point when you've tossed out so much science* that POOF! is a more plausible explanation. Given that YECs all believe in a POOFing deity, why not just stick with that?
* And now he's having to add bits to the bible** as well - "aquatic refuges" for fuck's sake.
** For thus it is written in the Book of Muppet. |
"Aquatic refuges"
baaaahaahahahahaha fourass "has a good mind to show up to Evolution and heckle every speech until the cops are called"
baaahahahaha
are you going to heckle aquatic ecology and evolution presentations with bullshit about aquatic refuges? that will be rich as balls i can't wait
-------------- 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
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote | No results found for "aquatic refuges" "global flood". |
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Cubist
Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 09 2011,10:51) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,05:27) | Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
I don't uderstand this either, Lou. There comes a point when you've tossed out so much science* that POOF! is a more plausible explanation. Given that YECs all believe in a POOFing deity, why not just stick with that? |
I blame cognitive dissonance, myself. On the one hand, it's patently bleeding obvious that Science Works, Bitches; on the other hand, Creationists like forastero absolutely, positively, need to believe that the Bible is 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT. So when Science demonstrates that the Bible is, in fact, not 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT... well, when that happens, Creationists like forastero have themselves a serious problem. They can't just deny science, because they damn well know that Science Works, Bitches. But they also can't accept that the Bible is anything other than 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT, because they absolutely, positively, need to believe that. Which means they absolutely, positively must believe that Science supports Creationism. This is why forastero keeps on tryna argue that his Creationism is scientific rather than just shrugging his shoulders and saying "eh, miracles, okay?" He's caught between the rock of "science works, bitches", and the hard place of "the Bible must be 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT", and the resulting real-science-supports-Creationism posturing we've seen from him is forastero's way of squaring that particular circle. I expect that at least one or two other people have reached conclusions similar to what I described above, but I figured it was worth mentioning anyway...
|
|
|
fnxtr
Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote | I blame cognitive dissonance, myself. On the one hand, it's patently bleeding obvious that Science Works, Bitches; on the other hand, Creationists like forastero absolutely, positively, need to believe that the Bible is 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT. So when Science demonstrates that the Bible is, in fact, not 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT... well, when that happens, Creationists like forastero have themselves a serious problem. They can't just deny science, because they damn well know that Science Works, Bitches. But they also can't accept that the Bible is anything other than 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT, because they absolutely, positively, need to believe that. Which means they absolutely, positively must believe that Science supports Creationism. This is why forastero keeps on tryna argue that his Creationism is scientific rather than just shrugging his shoulders and saying "eh, miracles, okay?" He's caught between the rock of "science works, bitches", and the hard place of "the Bible must be 1000% flawlessperfectspiffyCORRECT", and the resulting real-science-supports-Creationism posturing we've seen from him is forastero's way of squaring that particular circle. I expect that at least one or two other people have reached conclusions similar to what I described above, but I figured it was worth mentioning anyway... |
I'd never actually seen it articulated this way before, but it makes sense.
1. Science works. 2. The Bible is INFALLIBLE. 3. Therefore, science supports the Bible.
(psst: except it doesn't.)
-------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory
"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
Surely you're knot saying that pie isn't 3, bats isn't really birds, rabbits don't chew there cuds, and grasshoppers has more than fore legs?
|
|
|
Cubist
Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 09 2011,17:26) | Surely you're knot saying that pie isn't 3, bats isn't really birds, rabbits don't chew there cuds, and grasshoppers has more than fore legs? |
Don't call me Shirley.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination?
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,10:13) | Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? |
If only there was some way to work how how often such things happen and perhaps even to find a way around it?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:08) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? |
awwww it had a feel do you like that feel fourass
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:44) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:42) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:36) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 04 2011,19:52) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 04 2011,19:25) | There's no evidence that either can produce the effects you want , but let's suppose you can pin your hopes on cosmic rays and/or distance to the Sun affecting decay rates in the way you'd like:
How much life would survive if the cosmic-ray flux at the Earth's surface was 100,000 times higher?
How much life would survive if the Earth was 100,000 times, or even 100 times, closer to the sun?
Why did the radioisotope power plants on the Galileo and Cassini probes work as expected? |
I wonder if the nitwit knows that a manned mission to Mars is not feasible because the cosmic rays in space are extremely likely to cause cancer, down here not so much. |
Cancer Rates Rise and Fall with Cosmic Rays http://www.universetoday.com/12253......ic-rays
...and its also common knowledge that cosmogenic radioisotope accumulate at at different rates in terrestrial time and space |
All irrelevant to radiometric dating.
Still waiting for some evidence that contamination is a problem. |
Do you ever wonder why mummies are hardly ever dated with 14C? They are worried about contamination. Funny how you shout contamination when similar amounts of 14C is found in all the coal, uranium and dinosaur bones, etc.. which btw suggests that all eras formed quickly and the organisms found within them all lived at the same time. |
The various creationist claims about 14C in coal and dinosaur fossils and diamonds have been solidly refuted. (e.g. RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? and Radiocarbon Dates for Dinosaur Bones.) But I'm talking about geologic dating methods, Ar-Ar and U-Pb and Rb-Sr and the like. So let's see some evidence for contamination being a problem in those methods.
Although I'm mostly interested in geologic dating, I'll take a few moments to correct some of your many errors.
Quote | Of course its relevant because in carbon dating, more cosmic rays mean more c14 production, which should mean more C14 entering the bodies of living things. |
Gosh, you got something right! Now you need to figure out why this is not a problem.
{snip}
Quote | The 12C to 14C ratio is trillion (some documents say two trillionths) to one is not constant today and rates are changing due to various sources of production as we speak. Nuclear weapons and the burning of fossil fuels have also altered this ratio. |
Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. Quote | Thus, do we really know if prehistoric animals consumed the same ratio of 14C? |
Why, yes, we do.
Quote | Different plants and animals ingest, absorb, and excrete 12C and 14C differently as do different body parts. |
Ther's a small effect. Not very much.
Quote | Plus, many animals go days without food and gorge themselves so there is no way to know how much radioactive daughter elements are actually in the sample at death. |
Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant.
Quote | Moreover, carbon dating often allows only a small sample to be estimated taken so there is no way to know if the ratio correlates with the quantities of the whole sample. |
Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Hmm lots of arrogant double standards, especially in light of all the fresh dinosaur flesh but the guy does seem to agree that these radioisotopes often contaminate everything? And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon.
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. |
Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.
Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944 and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.
Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently. I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Ther's a small effect. Not very much. Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant. Why, yes we do.
|
That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats.
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,10:08) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? |
But you said that none of that could exist, since all the land was taken down to the mantle.
But then you said it wasn't necessary because the flood might have only been a few millimeters deep in some areas.
So, which is it?
I'm fairly certain that in reality one event didn't occur for the rocks and a different event occurred for the marine organisms (again, you need to justify your interpretation of 'all life on the Earth destroyed'... once you do that, then we can start examining the other parts of the bible that might be interpreted).
Speaking of the Bible, I guess I can see where you get this idea that two things that are mutually impossible can both happen... since it happens in the Bible in several places.
Is that how you think? Your Holy Book is so important to you that if defines how you think, even when two things you say must have happened are mutually contradictory?
Dude, really, you need to seriously reconsider your worldview here.
BTW: You haven't talked about kinds after the initial discussion. Since you seem to think that all changes are epigenetic, then what are the ancestral organisms and how can we expect to get them back?
That would be a fantastic example of the predictive power of your notions. Let's start with the research... just tell us what things are in the same 'kind' and how to reverse those epigenetic traits.
Now we're getting into some falsifiable areas here...
oh wait, that's why you don't want to talk about it anymore.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. |
Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.
Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944 and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.
Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently. I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Ther's a small effect. Not very much. Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant. Why, yes we do.
|
That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats. |
We're discussing geologic radiometric dating and I'm waiting for you to come up with support for your claims.
WHen you've learned enough about 14C dating to have a meaningful discussion about it, I'll be glad to discuss these issues. File them away until then.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. |
I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer.
No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? |
Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? |
Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. |
We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook.
Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why.
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? |
I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating.
How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods.
From your own reference:
"The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals.
{big snip}
Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr."
You need a lot more data to support your contention.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,11:10) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. |
I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer.
No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th. |
Hmm sounds more grandiose closed system assumptions on your part. Again it can mess with the isochron ratio, which plots the ratio of radiogenic isotopes to non-radiogenic isope against the ratio of the parent isotope.
Btw, water diffuses into magma all the time. The following is a common problem from of hydrothermal contamination.
"In some cases, gain or loss of Rb and Sr from the rocks is so regular that a linear array can be produced on the conventional isochron diagram and a biased isochron results from the altered rocks to give spurious age and initial Sr-87/Sr-86 estimates,"..... "As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system. "..."In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting Sr-87/Sr-86 vs. 87Rb/Sr-86. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying the Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods." Zheng, Y.F., "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity," Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section), vol. 80, pp. 1-16, 1989.
"Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D. Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118
And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle?
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:34) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? |
I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating.
How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods.
From your own reference:
"The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals.
{big snip}
Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr."
You need a lot more data to support your contention. |
Ha..so much for the double-blind bias. You keep telling me that you dont have the article yet here you are snipping out little chunks of it. Hmm...and I wonder what chunks you are not showing us?
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? |
Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. |
We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook.
Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why. |
More sweeping under the rug on you part because all of those keywords are all common knowledge in quantum physics and anyone can google them to find a multitude of articles of their vast effects on decay nuclear decay perturbations. Plus I have posted lots of articles that you just ignore
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? |
I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 09 2011,07:31) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 08 2011,22:56) | Quote (blipey @ Dec. 08 2011,22:43) | I'm sorry, did I miss the comment where you explained the derivation of the growth rate in your population equation? If so, I'm sorry could you please link? |
I'm still waiting to find out if manatees and dugongs are the same kind and where, exactly, where they in the ark. The Bible is pretty damned specific for being fiction and all... EVERYTHING not on the ark died.
Isn't amazing how corals that die without sunlight for 5-7 days and must have very specific temperatures can survive for a year in freshwater, no light, and sediment so think it can create over 5 miles of compacted rock.
Make no mistake, that is what you believe to be true forastero and no amount of BS apolgetics will ever make any of that scientific. |
Lake Baikal
All kinds of marine representatives are found in the World's freshwater seas and great lakes, including sponges jellyfish, coral-like creatures, seahorses, seals, fish etc...And a lot of them have just been found recently. The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges
Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up. |
30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor.
Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:05) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? |
I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
OK, muppet. Fine.
How do you explain it, given the earth is <10000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all?
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:05) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? |
I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
Actually, you said "I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old."
So you can't even quote yourself accurately, or, apparently, accurately report your own beliefs. However, since you are now stating "less than 10,000 years," I will adjust my questions accordingly. You will display your integrity in the discussion in your usual manner:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,10:08) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? |
Does any of that even come close to addressing the question Lou asked of you? At all? Do you even know what the question was? Are you familiar with punctuation? Or English? Or, um...anything?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:57) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:34) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:13) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Hmm why do you insist that initial isotope variation isnt also often due to contamination? |
I think that contamination is something that happens after the rock forms. But whatever you call it, I'll acknowledge that initial isotopic inhomogeneity can be an issue in isochron dating.
How much of a problem is it? Your reference gives no indication. But we do have data. The consilience (I know how you hate that word, being a YEC, you never want to look at the big picture) between isochron methods and methods which don't depend on initial isotope homogeneity, such as Ar-Ar and Up-Pb concordia-discordia, demonstrates that initial isotope inhomogeneity is not a common and significant problem for isochron methods.
From your own reference:
"The case of the Taylor Creek feldspars raises the question of whether initial ratio data for ancient rock components can be extricated from isochrons and subsequently used to gain additional constraints on processes such as contamination that may have occurred during magma differentiation. For the Taylor Creek Rhyolite, high-quality argon isotope data giving a younger age allow us to conclude that the isochron is fictitious and, therefore, that initial heterogeneity in 87Sr/86Sr ratios characterizes the feldspar crystals.
{big snip}
Isotope data from two or more systems are useful in this regard; it is highly unlikely that open-system processes acting to produce a range in. for example. 87Sr/86Sri and 143Nd/144Ndi ratios would produce identical isochron ages, given the different respective half-lives of 87Rb and 147Sm as well as the different fractionation behaviors of Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd. Petrographic criteria such as mineral disequilibrium and trace element indicators of contamination should be used in conjunction with the isotopic data in assessing the degree to which the 87Sr/86Sri ratio reflects primary open-system magma behavior versus postcrystallization ingrowth of 87Sr."
You need a lot more data to support your contention. |
Ha..so much for the double-blind bias. You keep telling me that you dont have the article yet here you are snipping out little chunks of it. Hmm...and I wonder what chunks you are not showing us? |
I didn't have it at the time. I have it now. It cost me 15 bucks. You can have it too, if you go to the MIT Library site and buy it.
Now we know you haven't read it.
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:05) | I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
6000/10000 not much difference. But that was not the question I asked.
I note you say "probably". So you are not sure. Can you think of a way that you could reduce your uncertainty? Something that you could do that would allow you to be more accurate then "probably"? You know, reduce those error bars a little? You say "probably" but is that like a 1 in 2 chance, 1 in 5, what exact probability and how are you calculating that probability?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:08) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? |
Damn, dude.
It completely sucks to be you, doesn't it? Does it hurt to be that stupid?
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:40) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,11:10) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | And if huge reserves of oil are similarly contaminated by radioactive isotopes of the uranium-thorium decay, then surely whole isochron samples are also uniformly contaminated and/or leached. Same with all the excess Argon. |
I will respond to this part. You are an incredible over-generalizer.
No, contamination of oil and coal by goundwater or radioactive isotopes has no connection to U/Th/Pb dating or K-Ar or Ar-Ar or isochron methods in general. In case you haven't noticed, groundwater does not flow into the interior of a rock, from which we extract samples. None of the radioisotopes used in geologic dating are produced by particles produced by the decay of any radioisotopes, as 14C is produced from 14N by the alpha particles from decay of U and Th. |
Hmm sounds more grandiose closed system assumptions on your part. Again it can mess with the isochron ratio, which plots the ratio of radiogenic isotopes to non-radiogenic isope against the ratio of the parent isotope.
Btw, water diffuses into magma all the time. The following is a common problem from of hydrothermal contamination.
"In some cases, gain or loss of Rb and Sr from the rocks is so regular that a linear array can be produced on the conventional isochron diagram and a biased isochron results from the altered rocks to give spurious age and initial Sr-87/Sr-86 estimates,"..... "As it is impossible to distinguish a valid isochron from an apparent isochron in the light of Rb-Sr isotopic data alone, caution must be taken in explaining the Rb-Sr isochron age of any geological system. "..."In conclusion, some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define a valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental data points is obtained in plotting Sr-87/Sr-86 vs. 87Rb/Sr-86. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying the Sm-Nd and U-Pb isochron methods." Zheng, Y.F., "Influences of the nature of the initial Rb-Sr system on isochron validity," Chemical Geology (Isotope Geoscience Section), vol. 80, pp. 1-16, 1989.
|
We've made a lot of progress since 1989, but I keep telling you that Ar-Ar and U-Pb are where it's at.
Quote | "Certain assumptions presupposes that the concentration of uranium in any specimen has remained constant over the specimen's life...groundwater percolation can leach away a proportion of the uranium present in the rock crystals. The mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of a rock formation is being improvised another part can become abnormally enriched. Such changes can also take place at relatively low temperatures." J.D. Macdougall, “SHIFTY URANIUM”, Scientific American, Vol.235(6):118 |
Exactly what assumptions is he referring to? How does this pose a problem for U-Pb concordia-discordia dating? Or are you just pulling this quote from some creo site without understanding it?
I know where I'd put my money ...
Quote | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
I already did, a few pages ago. Do at least try to keep up. We know that excess argon is rare because of that consilience that scares you so much, and because Ar-Ar is not affected by excess argon, and because Dalrymple studied historic lava flows and found that one out of 26 had enough excess argon to affect a K-Ar date of a few million years (and that sample contained xenoliths which any geologist would recognize as making dating problematic) and 18 of the 26 had no excess argon at all. Case closed.
Remember, if one geologic radiometric date is correct, your fantasy is refuted. You need to show that every single date ever produced is incorrect.
A little free info from Dalrymple:
"The results (table 1) show that 18 of the samples have 40Ar/36Ar values that are not significantly different from atmospheric argon. The total amounts of 40Ar found for the samples are, in most cases, much larger than the average extraction line blank, which indicates that most of the argon comes from the samples and not the equipment. For the 21 samples that have 40Ar/36Ar ratios less than 300, it is possible to calculate 95% confidence limits for the presence of excess 40Ar. If excess 4OAr is present in any of these 21 samples, it should be less than the amounts shown in fig. 1. These upper limits are comparable to those calculated for seven Holocene sanidine samples from the Mono Craters [6] and more than two orders of magnitude less than excess 40Ar from intrusive and metamorphic rocks [1, 2]. Of the eight samples with anomalous argon compositions, five have 40Ar/36Ar ratios greater than atmospheric argon and three less. The calculated amounts of excess argon and the resulting apparent potassiumargon ages are given in table 2. Duplicate analyses of both the Hualalai and Sunset Crater flows give repeatable amounts of excess 40Ar despite the fact that different amounts of atmospheric argon contamination in the experiments resulted in different values for 40Ar/36Ar (table 1). The occurrence of excess 40Ar in the Hualalai flow is not surprising, because this flow is noted for its abundance and variety of ultramafic xenoliths. Naughton et al. [10] and Funkhouser [11] found ages as high as 3.0 × 109 years for xenoliths from this flow and reported that fluid inclusions with a high 40Ar content are common in minerals in the xenoliths. The consistent excess 40Ar values for the Hualalai and Sunset Crater flows suggests that large single inclusions are not directly responsible for the excess argon in these flows, but instead that the 40Ar is distributed more uniformly throughout the samples. Whether the 40Ar resides in fluid inclusions or in mineral lattices is not known, although fluid inclusions are not apparent in the samples analyzed. ...
With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years old or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks. "
{emphasis added}
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:02) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,12:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:47) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? |
Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. |
We're looking for evidence here, sonny-boy, not incoherent unfounded gobbledygook.
Radioactive decay is well understood, especially from a quantum mechanics viewpoint. The rates are constant, and we know why. |
More sweeping under the rug on you part because all of those keywords are all common knowledge in quantum physics... |
Stringing randomly selected keywords together produces incoherent unfounded gobbledygook, no matter whether or not those keywords exist. Quote | ... and anyone can google them to find a multitude of articles of their vast effects on decay nuclear decay perturbations |
Vast effects, hum? Gee, since it's so easy to find such articles, why haven't you posted links to them?
Oh, and WTF are "decay nuclear decay perturbations"?
Quote | Plus I have posted lots of articles that you just ignore |
You've posted the same few articles many times, most of which refer to the same experiments. But we haven't ignored them. We've looked at them, evaluated them, and determined that they are not relevant to radiometric dating because even if the effects actually do exist (and that's far from settled) they are too small to account for any significant added uncertainty in radiometric dates. They're too small by a factor of 100,000,000 to produce the effects you are so desperately seeking.
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:47) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,13:21) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) |
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please??re right |
|
Forastero is in frantic make bullshit up mode now.
The pulse control reference is for a coherent source (something lacking in any external influence of nuclear decay) of electromagnetic radiation (which interacts with the nucleus - how exactly, what energy is required, and what would be the effect?). The pulse is a physical perturbation, and is treated by perturbation theory, where the first order correction is an integral of the unperturbed wave function and the time dependent pertubation term in the electronic Hamiltonian operator. The pulse is also characterized by its own wavefunction, which adds to the chemical system wave function.
Forastero's argument seems to be lacking: A physical perturbation term for the Hamiltonian oh, yeah, any kind of Hamiltonian wave function describing the external particles wave function of the system he claims is perturbable calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus befor perturbation (the zero order solution) calculation of quantized energy levels in the nucleus after the first order correction. We won't insist upon second order corrections, since that may be too difficult for forastero to "formula wave".
And I second the request about "vibrations". Does this mean you are going to include harmonic oscillator functions (here is a little QM test, is the total wavefunction the sum or product of these functions?), and is that for the nuclear motion or electromagnetic radiation? |
Oh and yes cosmic rays muons and neutrinos can quantum tunnel, decay, and fusion all kinds of things and dont forget cosmic ray vacuum and spallation decay. |
Grade:0
Bonus question: In quantum tunneling is the energy of the partcile the same before and after tunneling?
-------------- "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
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:13) | Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up.[/quote] 30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor.
Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting |
No, 30 million years old from multiple lines of evidence. That annoying trait that science has of having multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing at the same number.
You must, as has been said a million times before, show that every single dating system is wrong AND that they are all wrong to the same degree, to produce the date you prefer.
You have to disprove, not just object to, everything from Carbon-14 (which you aren't doing so hot with), geomagnetic studies, borehole data, phylogenetic studies, etc. You simply must show that every single one of these methods is not only wrong, but wrong to the same percentage.
On the rifting: Quote | Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. |
So, now your problem is even worse. You have to explain where 5 miles of rock came from AND another 4 miles of sediment AND that all this has rifted (we're talking literally continental masses of rock here) in your less than 4,200 years since da Flood.
Quote | United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.
Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake.
Seismic and sediment core analyses are used to fix future drilling sites in Lake Baikal.
Ice-based drilling operations begun in early 1993 are providing longer (over 100 meters in length) cores of Baikal sediments. Analyses of these cores are expected to reveal the climatic, environmental, and geological history of the region as far back as 5 million years. Seismic data will be tied to cores and drill samples to estimate rates of climate change and to map the history of the lake and rift. Very deep drilling in Lake Baikal remains technologically challenging; therefore, the deepest deposits of the rift are not likely to be sampled soon. However, the potentially very long record of sedimentation in Lake Baikal provides unique opportunities to understand the Cenozoic climate history of the Earth and to describe how continents begin to break apart, giving rise to new ocean basins. |
Both from : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sh....l
Peer-reviewed research on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content....w38m2nm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....8015432 http://www.agu.org/pubs....8.shtml http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....6000273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....4001099
BTW: You still haven't answered those questions about your 'interpretation' of the Bible and the 'kinds' questions I asked.
Here we go again, I'll keep asking and you'll keep ignoring until another 5 pages go by and then you'll say "What questions" and "I answered that" and you will be proven to be wrong... again. Look, a discussion is much easier when you answer questions.
Perhaps, you should take a moment, write-up a full post outlining your entire chronology (that means what happened when) and how you determined this information. Then we don't have to wonder what dates you use... because apparently they are variable.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Just tossing this out there
Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) | The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. |
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,21:05) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? |
I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
OK great,
.... so when did god write the bible?
Before or after the moon was part of Earth.
You hopeless twit.
Fundies are so brain dead its a wonder they can even look themselves in a mirror.
ETA.
You realize it was the monkey question Behe fucked up on the stand in Dover that caused Judge Jones to get onto the cover of Time mag?
...right? 4ass?
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,15:16) | Just tossing this out there
Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) | The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. |
|
That is why 'Darwinism' is a complete anathma to creationists.
They know that it is one of the greatest advertisments for the scientific method.
The test for truth which they can not stomach.
What they don't realize is that they are the greatest advertisment against xstainity.
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 10 2011,14:17) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,14:05) | Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,12:42) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,12:40) | And how do you explain the well founded "excess argon problem" welling up from the earth's mantle? |
How do you explain it, given the earth is <6000 years old according to you? Why is it happening at all? |
I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
Actually, you said "I feel most of the evidence that I have provided reveals a fairly young earth and probably under 20,000 years old."
So you can't even quote yourself accurately, or, apparently, accurately report your own beliefs. However, since you are now stating "less than 10,000 years," I will adjust my questions accordingly. You will display your integrity in the discussion in your usual manner:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age? |
Fourass, imagine there is a disease that causes extra penises to protrude fromthe afflicted. Could you tell the difference between subjects with, respectively, 227000 extra penises and 445000 extra penises sticking out from all over their bodies?
Could you tell the difference between these subjects and a human with only one penis?
Then why are you so fucking stupid when it comes to rates? Did your seventh grade science teacher not teach you how to calculate exponential fucking decay?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 10 2011,14:54) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:05) | I have told you many times probably less than 10000 years old but then this site is a microcosm of the integrity of evolutionism |
6000/10000 not much difference. But that was not the question I asked.
I note you say "probably". So you are not sure. Can you think of a way that you could reduce your uncertainty? Something that you could do that would allow you to be more accurate then "probably"? You know, reduce those error bars a little? You say "probably" but is that like a 1 in 2 chance, 1 in 5, what exact probability and how are you calculating that probability? |
Well in all fairness, creating the world 6,000-10,000 years ago isn't bad for a god that wasn't even invented until about 1,000 BCE. (That's about 3,000 years before last Thursday, for the forhysterical mathematically challenged.)
Edited by Lou FCD on Dec. 11 2011,13:15
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
fnxtr
Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,14:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Erm.. only if the rate of new tree growth balances the rate of carbon released by burning them. Is that happening right now?
-------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory
"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night." Joe G
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
this sombitch is even dumber than you can 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
|
|
|
khan
Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,16:57) | this sombitch is even dumber than you can know |
Ignorant beyond all comprehension.
-------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall
That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad
Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,07:04) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along... |
Looks like you overlooked the following:
Finally, 40Ar/39Ar ages of ash layers within tuned sapropel-bearing sections have been used to intercalibrate the independent radiometric and astronomical dating methods and to establish an astronomical age for mineral dating standards used in 40Ar/39Ar dating (Kuiper et al. 2004). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic. |
Nope, in fact I quoted it. "Possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating" means maybe someday in the future, not now.
Quote | Inter-a prefix means “between,” “among,” “in the midst of,” “mutually,” “reciprocally,” “together,” “during” ( intercept; interest ); on this model, used in the formation of compound words. Thus,in this case, intercalibrate means to calibrate each other. |
Sorry, sonny, does not follow. As is obvious from the context of the papers. I know context is anathema to YECs, but it still is what it is.
Quote | The two articles below also confirm the use of this calibration is due to the limits of radiometric and Milankovich techniques by themselves.
“This database will allow a rigorous and direct intercalibration of radio-isotopic and astronomical time with the aim to provide an independent test of the accuracy of conventional K/Ar ages of mineral dating standards and to investigate the potential of providing an astronomically dated 40Ar/39Ar standard. On the other hand, a rigorous intercalibration over an extended segment of the time scale will serve in the future as an independent test for the reliability of the astronomical tuning for older intervals. In a broader perspective, intercalibration of isotopic and astronomical time scales will allow precise (40Ar/39Ar) dating of volcanic layers that cannot be dated directly with the astronomical time scale.The factors presently limiting the accuracy in 40Ar/39Ar dating are the age uncertainty of the neutron fluence monitors (mineral dating standards) and uncertainties in decay constants (e.g., Min et al., 2000 and references therein). These uncertainties outweigh typical analytical errors of modern 40Ar/39Ar analytical systems by at least one order of magnitude. “http://www.geo.uu.nl/~forth/people/Klaudia/Thesis_Kuiper.pdf |
As is obvious from the context, they are comparing the two independent methods and raising the possibility of calibrating one from the other someday.
Quote | “New 40Ar/39Ar geochronology and global cyclostratigraphic calibration provide high-resolution insights into the timing of geochemical fluctuations… We apply new 40Ar/39Ar geochronologic, geochemical, geophysical,biostratigraphic, and sedimentary data1 across the OAE II from a complete Canadian section (Well 6-34-30-8W4: ‘‘Youngstown-core’’; contains OAE II) of the Western Interior Seaway of North America to calibrate and correlate Milankovitch cycles across the Atlantic.” http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....ull.pdf |
Hee hee hee. Didn't actually read beyond the first page, did you? Bet you just searched for "calibrate"! Let's see your analysis of what was used to calibrate what in that paper, complete with quotes from the text..
Where's all o' dem references on contamination being a problem in geologic radiometric dating? You sure are digging up lot o' stuff that has noting to do with your assignment. One might almost think you've given up and hope I'll forget.ve given up and hope I |
Of coarse those quotes request the need for a independent calibration--a need that was insisted upon in the early days of radiometric dating but that has become desensitized among the sheople. Again, the following quote was was linked in this very thread to defend radiometric dating so you should really debate it with him but then I also realize its obvious taboo when y'all have such a dangerous creationist on your hands.
"Finally, 40Ar/39Ar ages of ash layers within tuned sapropel-bearing sections have been used to intercalibrate the independent radiometric and astronomical dating methods and to establish an astronomical age for mineral dating standards used in 40Ar/39Ar dating (Kuiper et al. 2004)."
Your incessant insistance that the above quote doesnt mean that Milankovich cycles and 40Ar/39Ar have intercalibrated each other merely proves how your fervor is not about real science but pseudoscience and fudging facts. But then, Panda Thumb makes it obvious that the real motive behind evolutionism is a diabolic hate for anything about God.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 09 2011,07:46) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,05:00) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:52) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,16:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,15:27) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,08:49) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 08 2011,09:24) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,05:26) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:13) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 05 2011,16:28) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 04 2011,18:33) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 04 2011,13:42) | Likewise, your isochrons are based on psuedocalibrations that dont exists and probably why JonF refuses to answer my long question about There are countless cases of discordance. |
I haven't seen any such question. You did ask how isochrons work and I pointed out that this is a terrible medium for teaching such things, and gave links (several times) to excellent explanations.
How ya doin' on telling me which of those quotes is your "cited ... proof that contamination is a major problem"? |
Arnt you the same fella that insisted that isochrons are calibrated with Milankovitch cycles? I dismissed it twice but you never respondeds |
No, I'm not that fellow. I don't know how isochrons correlate with Milankovitch cycles, but that correlation has nothing to do with contamination. And isochrons certainly aren't calibrated with Milankovitch cycles.
Quote | As for contamination here is a good but I will look for some more Mineral isochrons and isotopic fingerprinting: Pitfalls and promises Geology; January 2005; v. 33; no. 1; p. 29-32; 2005 Geological Society of America http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi........i....29 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. . |
Still not contamination. Note that "Nevertheless, it is possible for initial isotope ratio variation to be obscured in a statistically acceptable isochron." Note also that almost all isochron dating is consilient with other methods such as U-Pb concordia-discordia, by far the most widely used method, and with Ar-Ar, probably the second most widely used method.
If you had any idea of how isochron dating works, you would know that errors due to initial isotope ratio mismatches are rare and why that is so.
You are wasting your time with isochrons. They have their uses, but if you want to discredit radiometric dating you need to be talking U-Pb and Ar-Ar.
I don't have a subscription to Geology, and they don't offer the option of purchasing a single article. Will you send me the PDF of the whole thing? I assume you're not just blindly copying what some creo website has to say ... hee hee hee. |
Of course they calibrate isochrones with Milankovich cycles and vice verse. From your very own Glen Davidson
http://www.schweizerbart.de/resourc....690.pdf |
Goodness me, there is an actual mention of calibration of Ar-Ar from Milankovitch cycles! I suspect that they really meant correlation. But how about the vice-versa? |
And on further investigation I was right, they did really mean correlation. From the full paper at Cyclostratigraphy – concepts, definitions, and applications:
"Despite these caveats, the cyclostratigraphic method has great potential. Major advantages and applications are: ... {long snip} ...
Intercalibration with radiometric dating methods. Comparison and intercalibration with independent radio-isotopic dating methods is fundamentally important. For example, new radiometric age dating recently challenged the up to then widely accepted cyclostratigraphical interpretation of the Middle Triassic Latemar platform in Italy (e. g., Goldhammer et al. 1987, Hinnov & Goldhammer 1991, Brack et al. 1996, Egenhoff et al. 1999, Zühlke 2004). At the Tortonian GSSP at Monte dei Corvi (Italy), however, new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating (Kuiper et al. 2005). Nevertheless, a detailed comparison of the astronomical and 40Ar/39Ar ages reveals a rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%, the astronomical ages being older (Kuiper 2003). This study provides an astronomical age for mineral dating standards and opens the possibility for the introduction of an astronomically dated standard in 40Ar/39Ar dating. An accurate and precise intercalibration is especially important by providing tight constraints for the astronomical tuning when it is extended into the Mesozoic."
(bold added). So it's obvious that they cleared up a discrepancy and think that cyclostratigraphy could possible be used to calibrate Ar-Ar dates someday. We're back to no evidence of calibration of one by the other. |
Oh so now intercalibration doesnt mean calibration?
Plus its as clear as day that they are calibrating isochrones with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons. Typical circular fervor evocreo |
My my, you're right! Intercalibration does not mean calibration, at least not in that paper! If A is calibrated by B, then if for some reason B changes than A also changes. That's not the case with cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar dating. It's clear that in that paper "intercalibration" means agreement between independent results. If the underlying calibration of cyclostratigraphy changed, we wouldn't change the results of Ar-Ar analysis and vice versa. If the results of cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis don't agree, that's a problem that needs investigating.
No, it's not "clear as day that they are calibrating isochrons with Milankovich cycles and Milankovich cycles with isochrons." It's clear as day that the are comparing the results of the two different and independent methods and they are glad that they agree closely, but they're a little bothered by a "rather consistent offset of ~ 0.8%". 0.8% when you are looking for 10,000,000%! Hee hee hee ...
In fact, they explicitly say that Ar-Ar is not calibrated by cyclostratigraphy and do not hint anywhere that cyclostratigraphy is calibrated by Ar.Ar. Comparison is not calibration. End of story.
Bottom line: cyclostratigraphy and Ar-Ar analysis agree closely but are not used to calibrate each other.
How 'bout dem references for "contamination is also a problem"? How ya comin' on that search? |
yeah, when they wrote: "new 40Ar/39Ar ages essentially confirm the cyclostratigraphic dating". |
So what? Confirm does not mean calibrate.
con·firm (kn-fûrm) tr.v. con·firmed, con·firm·ing, con·firms 1. To support or establish the certainty or validity of; verify. 2. To make firmer; strengthen: Working on the campaign confirmed her intention to go into politics. 3. To make valid or binding by a formal or legal act; ratify. 4. To administer the religious rite of confirmation to.
cal·i·brate (kl-brt) tr.v. cal·i·brat·ed, cal·i·brat·ing, cal·i·brates 1. To check, adjust, or determine by comparison with a standard (the graduations of a quantitative measuring instrument): calibrate a thermometer. 2. To determine the caliber of (a tube). 3. To make corrections in; adjust: calibrated the polling procedures to ensure objectivity.
See both definitions numbered 1. The agreement between the two independent methods confirms the accuracy of the newer one. No calibration going on here, nothing to see here, move along...
Well, the validity of the methods themselves are "calibrated" by the well-known and well-established laws of physics and chemistry. (Even if the variations you are so fond of posting do actually exist, they do not affect the accuracy of radiometric methods significantly.) There are various tests and physical standards that laboratories interchange to ensure that they are implementing the methods consistently. |
That is also incorrect. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content....bstract |
Whoopty doo. OK, there are cases of cyclostratigraphy calibrated by radiometric methods. So what? Radiometric methods aren't calibrated by cyclostratigraphy, or is all cycolstratigraphy calibrated by radiometric methods.
Quote | All kinds of 14C correction attempts are made to agree with independent calibrations, yet you confidently claim that radioisotopes with huge half-lives are accurately calibrated by their own so called laws of decay. |
That's because 14C dating is fundamentally different from U-PB, Ar, Ar, Sr-Rb, SM-Nd dating.
Quote | Actually isochrones depend upon all kinds of assumptions. Assumption that are very unlikely when one considers things like quantum tunneling .
The favorite isochron dating method is Uranium-lead (238U /206Pb) where alpha particles tunnel from 238U nuclei through Coulomb barriers of the Thorium nucleus and eventually into 206Pb by a process of eight alpha-decay steps and six beta-decay steps. Quantum tunneling can be suppressed or accelerated by using perturbation pulses and vibrations. A rigorous theoretical analysis based on perturbation theory to first order in the control pulse fields showed that sufficiently frequent perturbation pulses suppress quantum tunneling whereas trains of pulses separated by finite time intervals accelerate tunneling relative to spontaneous decay. Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations.
http://www.chem.yale.edu/~batist....SB5.pdf http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses....ing.pdf http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false |
However, those who actually understand quantum mechanics and have analyzed radioactive decay rates realize that the rate of tunneling is predictable by some rather complex mathematics, and the rate is constant. E.g. Quantum Mechanics of Alpha Decay:
"Quantum mechanical basis for the Geiger-Nuttal Law. dtermination of the half-lives of several species in the Uranium, Thorium and Actinium series through the use of a scintillator, solid-state detector and coincidence circuitry. The half-lives of Po218, Rn222 and Po214 are determined at 181 ± 5 s, 4.49 ± .01 days and 163 ± 1 ?s, respectively. Verification of the theoretical relationship between half-life and alpha particle energy, with a 2 of 1.1. Qualitative investigation of modeling decay dynamics with the Bateman equations."
See also One hundred years after the discovery of radioactivity, page 32.
All the tunneling-waving you can do doesn't change the fact that no significant change in the decay rate of any relevant radioactive isotope under terrestrial conditions has ever been observed, despite many efforts. G. T. Emery, Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 22, pg 165 (1972).
Quote | Another problem is mechanical oscillation due to vibrations. |
Oh, baby, I gotta see a citation for that one. Pretty please?? |
Quote | Classical mechanics has no elegant explanation for how an alpha particle overcomes the energy barrier, so we turn to a wave mechanical description of the situation to provide one.
to determine the constancy of decay rates calculating the half-lives of Radon-222 and its daughter Polonium-218
We cannot observe radon-222 directly in the spectrum data, and must therefore use the activity curve of Polonium-218 as an indicator of its half-life. Since we are considering the evolution over many hours, the small half-life of polonium-218 makes this a good approximation.
Polonium-218, which is initially absent in a prepared scintillator vial, has a much shorter half-life than radon-222, which is initially present in large quantities. Thus, (8) is an appropriate approximation of its activity over time. Fitting to this, we obtain a value for the half-life of polonium-218
However, our value for radon-222 deviates from the accepted value of 3.8 days by many standard deviations. Possible causes for this include careless modeling of (8), or the fact that we did not obtain readings of the polonium-218 activity over long enough periods of time.
Our experimentally determined values of the half-lives of polonium-218 and polonium-214 are in excellent agreement with the literature.
Since decaying is a Poisson process, we expect the distribution of times until decay occurs to fall off as a negative exponential with the same parameter as the decay. Fitting to this, we obtain a value for the half-life of polonium-214
Due to malfunctioning equipment and scheduling difficulties with the other lab groups, we were unable to acquire a reasonable value for the half-life of polonium-212. |
Wow! Peer reviewed Uranium and Thorium decay constants are concluded via a dubiously assumed decay rate of a very short-lived (7 days) parent isotope that is based entirely upon the “approximated” decay rate of its three-minute-half-life daughter isotope; all observed over just a few hours of time and finally plugged into a statistical formula that is based on a wave theory.
Thank you!
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,12:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,00:02) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,18:41) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 08 2011,15:31) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 08 2011,15:08) | Quote | Quote | Elevated neutrino flux during a relatively brief period would have two effects: (1) a surge in C-14 fraction in the atmosphere.
|
No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production |
Forastero did (quoting a crank paper), have a talk with him and maybe you two can get your story straight. |
A multitude of crank papers because they question your dogma?
Of course there is a surge in both Neutrinos and 14C production because they are both generated by cosmic rays which both surge during solar flares but the point on neutrinos is their effect decay rates |
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! What a confused mess.
"Cosmic rays which both surge" - cosmic rays are one thing, not two. The crank paper you quoted was talking about increased C-14 production, not decreased decay rates. You do realize that accelerated decay would lead to a decline in C-14, not a surge? Probably not, because you are an IDiot.
From the crank paper: Quote | In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C. |
|
|
Who was it who said this: "No one said that neutrinos effect c14 production" Oh, yeah, you did. That statement still lays there like a turd on a hot sidewalk.
Quote | Again, it is a fact that cosmic rays do surge during solar flares and they do generate both 14C and neutrinos.
Plus, I finally found the whole article and found that you left out the part about decay, which btw, best corresponds to the article's title and conclusion.
"the newly-discovered Jenkins-Fischbach effect may force reconsideration of the role of neutrinos in nuclear decays and, possibly, other nuclear processes. In particular, neutrinos in large numbers may now be attractive candidates for either initiating the reaction of Eq. 2 or otherwise producing 14C.....A surge in neutrino flux would have two effects: It would cause excess decays of the 14C isotopes in all dead biota (via the Jenkins- Fischbach effect), thus increasing their apparent ages as indicated by their “14C ages......It would produce excess atmospheric 14C for a brief period, thus causing the biotic matter formed during the surge to look anomalously young—perhaps by very large amounts (which may have led to unwarranted discarding of good data)."
|
LOL, neutrinos cause increased C-14 production and increased decay, but somehow this increases new C-14 production only in the atmosphere and increases C-14 decay only in old material!
Quote |
Since 24c is a cosmogenic (caused by cosmic rays) isotope, it makes more sense to me that the solar flare perturbations leading to Jenkins-Fischbach decay oscillations are more likely the effect of surges in cosmic rays; which are known to surge during solar flares. |
The doofuses you are quoting do not correlate the decays and production with solar flares and cosmic rays, but with ORBIT (smaller solid angle when earth is further away, so neutrino flux is lower). And the neutrinos they are discussing are those from the sun, not the puny amount arising from cosmic rays. 0:82 x10^-2 particles per square centimeter per second per steradian is the standard flux for cosmic rays , neutrino flux from the sun is 6.5 x 10^10 per square cm per second. |
Also not true.
Evidence of Solar Influences on Nuclear Decay Rates Jere Jenkins and Ephraim Fischbach and Peter Sturrock http://moriond.in2p3.fr/J11....ach.pdf
"Perturbation of Nuclear Decay rates During the Solar Flare of 2006 December 13", J.H. Jenkins and E. Fischbach, Astropart. Phys. 31, 407-411 (2009). http://arxiv.org/ftp....156.pdf
As for the neutrinos producing 14C, its possible but not as sound as their effects on decay rates
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,12:49) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. |
Lou, it is staffs in all cultures that record history! Of course forastero hasn't been able to find even one staff, even if he were to use both hands. |
If you Google refugia and ocean you will find several. Off hand, the geothermal vent refugia comes to mind
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2011,10:37) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,10:08) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see.
Also, what is the point here, Tardbucket?
You're going to great lengths to try to use science (you're failing miserably, by the way) to support the authenticity of the Bible, but at every turn you come to something that contradicts everything we know about the universe and you must resort to "it must have been yet another miracle".
Why bother? Why not just start with the miracle and call it day?
Of course the simpler solution is that the Bible isn't actually true, but we all know you cannot possibly go there.
So again, what's the point here? |
Again, it was Satan and man had already pretty much destroyed the earth and they will again. The Hebrew word renes makes it clear that aquatic animals need not be brought upon the ark
Biologists recognize various marine refugia during a huge extinction event and have you ever seen all of the vast mountain ranges, valleys, caves, freshwater sinks, hydothermal vents, and even what appear to be beaches and oceans within oceans—made up of heavier waters within huge depressions? |
But you said that none of that could exist, since all the land was taken down to the mantle.
But then you said it wasn't necessary because the flood might have only been a few millimeters deep in some areas.
So, which is it?
I'm fairly certain that in reality one event didn't occur for the rocks and a different event occurred for the marine organisms (again, you need to justify your interpretation of 'all life on the Earth destroyed'... once you do that, then we can start examining the other parts of the bible that might be interpreted).
Speaking of the Bible, I guess I can see where you get this idea that two things that are mutually impossible can both happen... since it happens in the Bible in several places.
Is that how you think? Your Holy Book is so important to you that if defines how you think, even when two things you say must have happened are mutually contradictory?
Dude, really, you need to seriously reconsider your worldview here.
BTW: You haven't talked about kinds after the initial discussion. Since you seem to think that all changes are epigenetic, then what are the ancestral organisms and how can we expect to get them back?
That would be a fantastic example of the predictive power of your notions. Let's start with the research... just tell us what things are in the same 'kind' and how to reverse those epigenetic traits.
Now we're getting into some falsifiable areas here...
oh wait, that's why you don't want to talk about it anymore. |
Why do you keep insisting that I am talking about land when I said "marine refugia". Try Scuba diving, or Google Earth if you dont believe me
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,10:54) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. |
Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.
Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944 and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.
Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently. I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Ther's a small effect. Not very much. Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant. Why, yes we do.
|
That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats. |
We're discussing geologic radiometric dating and I'm waiting for you to come up with support for your claims.
WHen you've learned enough about 14C dating to have a meaningful discussion about it, I'll be glad to discuss these issues. File them away until then. |
Actually, tracy Hamilton and I were debating the constancy of 14c decay rates when you butted in with a long incorrect diatribe.
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 11 2011,14:01) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,14:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Erm.. only if the rate of new tree growth balances the rate of carbon released by burning them. Is that happening right now? |
It depends on the country. The widespread deforestation in the tropics is a problem, although the burning is not for energy but land clearing.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 11 2011,21:37) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 10 2011,10:54) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,11:36) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Yup, that's why we avoid anything after 1944 in 14C dating. |
Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal.
Secondly, carbon dating is measured using ratios after 1944 and Carbon-14 dating doesn’t directly measure a ratio in the body but rather assumes that the amount of 14C to 12C in organic samples is the same ratio as that assumed for the atmospheric ratio. Plus, 12C and 14C are independently derived and 12C is also produced from a number of different sources, some of which spew large volumes at a time.
Thirdly, I want to see these so called studies that measure those so called part per trillion ratio in the atmosphere, especially since these kinds of measurements were not even possible until recently. I mean the reason that 14C isnt used on all of the unmineralized dinosaur bones is supposedly due difficulties in measuring isotope ppt.
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Ther's a small effect. Not very much. Since 14C dating works with ratios, not quantities, this is irrelevant. Why, yes we do.
|
That seems a contradiction based on more of the same dogmatic radiomagic assumptions. If its not, then show me some studies that give the ratios of 14C to 12C sequestered in plants. Not only are there different metabolic absorptions and excretions among individual animals, its common knowledge that different trees sequester carbon at highly different rates and different animals consume different plants and different predators consume different plant eaters, etc...Plus, plant nutrition and biomass has been greatly reduced over time so metabolisms have surely correlated
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 05 2011,16:14) | Dating multiple samples avoids that problem. |
Not only is carbon dating expensive and time consuming, its destructive so I doubt many samples are used. And based all the grandiose assumptions concerning the ratios of 14c to 12c in the atmosphere, plants, and animals, evolutionism probably tends not to bother much with sample size or rigorous repeats. |
We're discussing geologic radiometric dating and I'm waiting for you to come up with support for your claims.
WHen you've learned enough about 14C dating to have a meaningful discussion about it, I'll be glad to discuss these issues. File them away until then. |
Actually, tracy Hamilton and I were debating the constancy of 14c decay rates when you butted in with a long incorrect diatribe. |
We are not having a discussion. You are making IDiotic statements and I am showing a small subset are IDiotic.
For example, C-14 does not have a variable decay rate, your quoting a crank paper notwithstanding.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 11 2011,21:29) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 09 2011,12:49) | Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 09 2011,07:14) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | The Lord is good and he surely kept aquatic refuges |
Really??? Where is *that* in the Bible?
I find it amazing that you have to postulate aquatic refuges because while your good god was committing global genocide, he took time to save the fish.
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 09 2011,06:58) | Btw, I have already provided secular references to worldwide flooding |
Oh really? I missed those. Can you provide a link, please? This I gotta see. |
Lou, it is staffs in all cultures that record history! Of course forastero hasn't been able to find even one staff, even if he were to use both hands. |
If you Google refugia and ocean you will find several. Off hand, the geothermal vent refugia comes to mind |
Let me amend my statement: "Forastero could not find a staff with two hands and a google search for refugia and ocean."
-------------- "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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2011,20:28) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:13) | Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up. |
30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor.
Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting[/quote] No, 30 million years old from multiple lines of evidence. That annoying trait that science has of having multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing at the same number.
You must, as has been said a million times before, show that every single dating system is wrong AND that they are all wrong to the same degree, to produce the date you prefer.
You have to disprove, not just object to, everything from Carbon-14 (which you aren't doing so hot with), geomagnetic studies, borehole data, phylogenetic studies, etc. You simply must show that every single one of these methods is not only wrong, but wrong to the same percentage.
On the rifting: Quote | Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. |
So, now your problem is even worse. You have to explain where 5 miles of rock came from AND another 4 miles of sediment AND that all this has rifted (we're talking literally continental masses of rock here) in your less than 4,200 years since da Flood.
Quote | United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.
Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake.
Seismic and sediment core analyses are used to fix future drilling sites in Lake Baikal.
Ice-based drilling operations begun in early 1993 are providing longer (over 100 meters in length) cores of Baikal sediments. Analyses of these cores are expected to reveal the climatic, environmental, and geological history of the region as far back as 5 million years. Seismic data will be tied to cores and drill samples to estimate rates of climate change and to map the history of the lake and rift. Very deep drilling in Lake Baikal remains technologically challenging; therefore, the deepest deposits of the rift are not likely to be sampled soon. However, the potentially very long record of sedimentation in Lake Baikal provides unique opportunities to understand the Cenozoic climate history of the Earth and to describe how continents begin to break apart, giving rise to new ocean basins. |
Both from : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sh....sh....l
Peer-reviewed research on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content....w38m2nm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....8015432 http://www.agu.org/pubs.......8.shtml http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....6000273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....4001099
BTW: You still haven't answered those questions about your 'interpretation' of the Bible and the 'kinds' questions I asked.
Here we go again, I'll keep asking and you'll keep ignoring until another 5 pages go by and then you'll say "What questions" and "I answered that" and you will be proven to be wrong... again. Look, a discussion is much easier when you answer questions.
Perhaps, you should take a moment, write-up a full post outlining your entire chronology (that means what happened when) and how you determined this information. Then we don't have to wonder what dates you use... because apparently they are variable. |
I tried to show tell you all about epigenetics but you insisted that it only had to do with diseases.
I tried to teach you about the endocrine system but you went on a tangent confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.
I tried to tell you about parental effects but you insisted there was no way.
I tried to explain to you phenotypic plasticity but you mumbled something about mutations and the Big bang
remember these?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=330
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past.
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 11 2011,22:09) | ...when y'all have such a dangerous creationist on your hands. |
Dangerous? Little Bunnies who run from questions are not dangerous. Questions such as:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
Where is the other 0.1% from?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
fourass just how stupid are you?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:13) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2011,20:28) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:13) | Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up. |
30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor.
Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting |
No, 30 million years old from multiple lines of evidence. That annoying trait that science has of having multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing at the same number.
You must, as has been said a million times before, show that every single dating system is wrong AND that they are all wrong to the same degree, to produce the date you prefer.
You have to disprove, not just object to, everything from Carbon-14 (which you aren't doing so hot with), geomagnetic studies, borehole data, phylogenetic studies, etc. You simply must show that every single one of these methods is not only wrong, but wrong to the same percentage.
On the rifting: Quote | Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. |
So, now your problem is even worse. You have to explain where 5 miles of rock came from AND another 4 miles of sediment AND that all this has rifted (we're talking literally continental masses of rock here) in your less than 4,200 years since da Flood.
Quote | United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.
Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake.
Seismic and sediment core analyses are used to fix future drilling sites in Lake Baikal.
Ice-based drilling operations begun in early 1993 are providing longer (over 100 meters in length) cores of Baikal sediments. Analyses of these cores are expected to reveal the climatic, environmental, and geological history of the region as far back as 5 million years. Seismic data will be tied to cores and drill samples to estimate rates of climate change and to map the history of the lake and rift. Very deep drilling in Lake Baikal remains technologically challenging; therefore, the deepest deposits of the rift are not likely to be sampled soon. However, the potentially very long record of sedimentation in Lake Baikal provides unique opportunities to understand the Cenozoic climate history of the Earth and to describe how continents begin to break apart, giving rise to new ocean basins. |
Both from : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sh....sh....l
Peer-reviewed research on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content....w38m2nm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....8015432 http://www.agu.org/pubs.......8.shtml http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....6000273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....4001099
BTW: You still haven't answered those questions about your 'interpretation' of the Bible and the 'kinds' questions I asked.
Here we go again, I'll keep asking and you'll keep ignoring until another 5 pages go by and then you'll say "What questions" and "I answered that" and you will be proven to be wrong... again. Look, a discussion is much easier when you answer questions.
Perhaps, you should take a moment, write-up a full post outlining your entire chronology (that means what happened when) and how you determined this information. Then we don't have to wonder what dates you use... because apparently they are variable.[/quote] I tried to show tell you all about epigenetics but you insisted that it only had to do with diseases.
I tried to teach you about the endocrine system but you went on a tangent confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.
I tried to tell you about parental effects but you insisted there was no way.
I tried to explain to you phenotypic plasticity but you mumbled something about mutations and the Big bang
remember these?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=330
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420 |
Forastero, really? Those are all you running from the questions that were asked in this thread.
And, note that you very carefully did NOT answer any further questions that have been asked of you.
Look, this current discussion is directly related to epigenetics. All you have to do is show that every 'kind' on the ark has diversified via epigenetics.
In other words, you have to show that every allele that is present in species today was also present in the ark AND show that purely environmental conditions are required for those alleles to be expressed.
I'm really curious as to the environmental conditions that will cause only 2 of 673 HLA-A alleles to be expressed in humans.
Since the human genome has been 100% sequenced, then you should be able to examine it for all 673 alleles. I'd get right on that if I were you.
It's the only positive evidence you can have. If you don't have any (which you don't) then you are just using tired and busted creationist arguments.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,09:13) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 10 2011,20:28) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 10 2011,13:13) | Lake Baikal is 30 million years old... neatly defeating your entire argument (are you sure you want to go this route?)
It was formed from a rift valley... how did that happen while all the rock from the upper mantle up was laid down during the flood. So, the sediment had to be laid, compacted, lithified, rifted, then filled with fresh water and all 'kinds' (hah) of organisms moved there.
Two thirds of the plant and animal species in the massive biodiversity of the lake are found nowhere else in the world... so, how did they diversify so rapidly in 4000 years? Or, how did they all end up in that one lake? Are the lake species the same 'kind' as the marine species?
BTW: You have a very unique interpretation of 'all life on the Earth was destroyed except what was in the ark'. Why is your interpretation correct? How do you know?
I know you'll get right on those.
Isn't it interesting how you say something and we provide information to you and ask questions, but never get answers. Why is that... oh yeah, you're just making shit up. |
30 million years old according to pseudoempiricm and with no Occam's razor.
Even your own priest say the lake initiated during the worldwide Carboniferous flooding and rapid rifting |
No, 30 million years old from multiple lines of evidence. That annoying trait that science has of having multiple, independent lines of evidence all pointing at the same number.
You must, as has been said a million times before, show that every single dating system is wrong AND that they are all wrong to the same degree, to produce the date you prefer.
You have to disprove, not just object to, everything from Carbon-14 (which you aren't doing so hot with), geomagnetic studies, borehole data, phylogenetic studies, etc. You simply must show that every single one of these methods is not only wrong, but wrong to the same percentage.
On the rifting: Quote | Sediments of Lake Baikal reach thicknesses in excess of 7 kilometers (4 miles), and the rift floor is perhaps 8 to 9 kilometers (more than 5 miles) deep, making it one of the deepest active rifts on Earth. |
So, now your problem is even worse. You have to explain where 5 miles of rock came from AND another 4 miles of sediment AND that all this has rifted (we're talking literally continental masses of rock here) in your less than 4,200 years since da Flood.
Quote | United States and Russian studies of sediment cores taken from Lake Baikal provide a detailed record of climatic variation over the past 250,000 years.
Much attention is focused on numerical models of climate change but there have been few means for reliably testing or modifying boundary conditions of general circulation models. Studies of sedimentary environments in Lake Baikal provide important opportunities to establish ground truth for general circulation models. Very little data exist for long-term climate change from continental interiors; most of the data record derives from the marine or maritime environments. Finally, studies of past environments contribute to understanding the extent to which human activity affects natural conditions in the lake.
Seismic and sediment core analyses are used to fix future drilling sites in Lake Baikal.
Ice-based drilling operations begun in early 1993 are providing longer (over 100 meters in length) cores of Baikal sediments. Analyses of these cores are expected to reveal the climatic, environmental, and geological history of the region as far back as 5 million years. Seismic data will be tied to cores and drill samples to estimate rates of climate change and to map the history of the lake and rift. Very deep drilling in Lake Baikal remains technologically challenging; therefore, the deepest deposits of the rift are not likely to be sampled soon. However, the potentially very long record of sedimentation in Lake Baikal provides unique opportunities to understand the Cenozoic climate history of the Earth and to describe how continents begin to break apart, giving rise to new ocean basins. |
Both from : http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sh....sh....l
Peer-reviewed research on the subject. http://www.springerlink.com/content....w38m2nm http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....8015432 http://www.agu.org/pubs.......8.shtml http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....6000273 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....4001099
BTW: You still haven't answered those questions about your 'interpretation' of the Bible and the 'kinds' questions I asked.
Here we go again, I'll keep asking and you'll keep ignoring until another 5 pages go by and then you'll say "What questions" and "I answered that" and you will be proven to be wrong... again. Look, a discussion is much easier when you answer questions.
Perhaps, you should take a moment, write-up a full post outlining your entire chronology (that means what happened when) and how you determined this information. Then we don't have to wonder what dates you use... because apparently they are variable.[/quote] I tried to show tell you all about epigenetics but you insisted that it only had to do with diseases.
I tried to teach you about the endocrine system but you went on a tangent confusing polyphenisms with polymorphisms.
I tried to tell you about parental effects but you insisted there was no way.
I tried to explain to you phenotypic plasticity but you mumbled something about mutations and the Big bang
remember these?
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=330
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=420 |
You tried to do what ass wipe?
You tried to to pass off a bunch of shit as science;
Can you tell Heaven from Hell,
Blue sky's from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
Can you tell a smile from a veil
You tried to pass off cold comfort for change
You tried to pass off a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage.
ass hat
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
better to be a cunt for jesus than just a cunt!
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.
As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,09:00) | As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
fourass's shtick is epic in the unremarkableness of his commentary, offered without solicitation as some sort of decoratory topping for this lump of offal mashed with predictable drollery, ignorant proclamation and casual lies, dropped from the slightly crusty lips of this banal buffoon like crumbs from a powdered donut.
for fucks sake a real Poe would at least try to get out of the sleeperhold RB has on him. fourass you are showing your true colors you pussy.
you have proven here now and forever that you can't go to any conference, not even one in redneck Arkansas anthropology department, hell not even a coffee break or lunchtime brownbag at either a real school or at liberty U, and say jackshit.
because you simply cannot tell the difference between 1 erect penis, 2.27E5 erect penises or 4.45E5 erect penises.
They are all the same to you. How can anyone at Evolution take your heckling seriously if you can't even be that much a judge of dicks?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,16:40) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,09:00) | As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
fourass's shtick is epic in the unremarkableness of his commentary, offered without solicitation as some sort of decoratory topping for this lump of offal mashed with predictable drollery, ignorant proclamation and casual lies, dropped from the slightly crusty lips of this banal buffoon like crumbs from a powdered donut.
for fucks sake a real Poe would at least try to get out of the sleeperhold RB has on him. fourass you are showing your true colors you pussy.
you have proven here now and forever that you can't go to any conference, not even one in redneck Arkansas anthropology department, hell not even a coffee break or lunchtime brownbag at either a real school or at liberty U, and say jackshit.
because you simply cannot tell the difference between 1 erect penis, 2.27E5 erect penises or 4.45E5 erect penises.
They are all the same to you. How can anyone at Evolution take your heckling seriously if you can't even be that much a judge of dicks? |
EASY HOMO!
HE DOESN'T HAVE 1!
4-ANUS CAN ONLY REPEAT THE 4 X FORESKINS WHO HAVE HAD HIM..
ANOTHER REASON REPENTERS NEED TO GIT OFF THIS FRIKEN PLANET.
PITY NASA's BUDGET IS BLOWN
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
hey you sexist you don't have to have a dick to be a judge of dicks. but this guys whole thing is predicated on being as big a dick as possible in the dumbest way he can imagine.
so how disappointing when we ask for his credentials on dickery and all he has is "i don't know i either have one or 227000 or 445000 i don't see why you think those numbers are reeeeeeealllly all that different except that you are evilutionist homogay hydrodynamic sorting ecozones pollen hitler savior makes me feel fulfilled i had no daddy"
-------------- 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
|
i'm sorry that is not sexism how silly
ahem
your unexamined morphological privilege is showing
porcupines etc
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Lou FCD
Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,00:00) | We are not having a discussion. You are making IDiotic statements and I am showing a small subset are IDiotic.
For example, C-14 does not have a variable decay rate, your quoting a crank paper notwithstanding. |
Allow me to reiterate. Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,08:16) | Just tossing this out there
Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) | The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. |
|
-------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?
Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 12 2011,04:21) | fourass just how stupid are you? |
Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993.
Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005
Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.
Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.
Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.
Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.
Stupid enough to think he's winning.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 12 2011,09:54) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,00:00) | We are not having a discussion. You are making IDiotic statements and I am showing a small subset are IDiotic.
For example, C-14 does not have a variable decay rate, your quoting a crank paper notwithstanding. |
Allow me to reiterate. Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 11 2011,08:16) | Just tossing this out there
Quote (Diethelm P. and McKee M. in the European Journal of Public Health @ (2009) 19 (1): 2-4) | The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules. |
|
|
Forastero is not going to learn a thing, that is a given. Forastero is incapable or unwilling to engage in discourse, that is evident from his actions.
This is for amusement purposes only, which is why I do keep asking about these staves the Flood are written on. As is finding self-contradictions. The main other thing I am interested in is the pathological science aspect, be it crank derived (neutrino affecting decay rates, I am not going to discuss real decay rate changes with forastero) or political spin (biomass produces more CO2 than coal - although I won't say much there, fxntr had a point, about deforestation, not "burning wood").
-------------- "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
|
|
|
Henry J
Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005
|
12.999999999999999999...
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.
As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal.
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.
As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.
Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
perhaps that's what did in Salvelinus agassizii motherfucking atmosphere sequestration something something refuge amen
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,15:17) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.
As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.
Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge. |
Forastero is merely alluding to the fact that around half of the CO2 excess is absorbed by the ocean short term. Nothing about fish, but being clear is not on its agenda.
-------------- "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
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) | fourass just how stupid are you? |
Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993.
Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005
Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.
Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.
Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.
Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.
Stupid enough to think he's winning. |
p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian
1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^
All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.
Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that
yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
-------------- 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
|
play us out, keyboard cat
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:45) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) | fourass just how stupid are you? |
Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993.
Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005
Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.
Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.
Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.
Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.
Stupid enough to think he's winning. |
p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian
1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^
All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.
Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that
yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not |
You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.
You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil? Really?
Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it.
You do understand how radioactive dating works right? Nevermind, you don't. In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it. A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter.
You should be in a text book.
BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon.
-------------- "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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
They all do
Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us.org
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,13:59) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. |
Thanks, Tracy. I learned something. As usual, not from the muppet.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,16:59) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. |
i wouldn't give this shitstain that much credit
-------------- 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
|
even a rock can occur in seconds every once in a while. this motherfucker don't even know what he copypasta
hey fourass tell us about how you met the Holy Spirit. did you speak in a foreign tongue?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) | You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. |
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote | Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate |
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:06) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
They all do
Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us....-us.org |
You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
paragwinn
Posts: 539 Joined: Mar. 2008
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,13:17) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,13:10) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,08:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,01:30) | Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 10 2011,16:55) | Quote | Fossil fuels have been burnt by humans for thousands of years, as has wood, which according to recent findings actually emits more carbon than coal. |
Oh, that takes a special brand of stupid to say.
Wood emits no net carbon as it is a renewable fuel. |
Burning wood releases Co2, which has carbon.
Ah so then you admit 99.9% fossil fuels are from a unique catastrophe in the past. |
and growing trees absorbs carbon, which absorbs CO2 which any middle schooler would understand as part of the carbon cycle. Forastero is not alone in his IDiocy of only considering just CO2 out, there are politicians who think they should stop breathing to emit CO2. I agree on the stop breathing part, but only because the world needs fewer people pandering to IDiots.
As far as catastrophic processes go, all I have seen is forastero's attempts to do whatever the hell it thinks it is doing. |
Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
This is why the muppet is entertaining - he tries to paraphrase things he doesn't understand, and ends up telling us that atmospheric carbon dioxide is sequestered in fish.
Maybe they're in an aquatic refuge. |
What else might have survived in those "aquatic refugia"?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 12 2011,15:59) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
The "are sequestering" is indeed a stupid, but the char refers to biochars, a quite feasible approach to sequestering carbon. |
Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon. Biochar is 80% carbon that both act as present sinks. And as I told Ogre a while back, they are probably both mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa....7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009....hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....w
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:16) | fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w |
They do? I thought they were only 4000 years old.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,16:50) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:06) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:10) | Yeah but beyond middle school and political correctness, you realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc...
Oh and trees also sequester the Co2 released from burning coal. |
"Are" sequestering?
Tell us, oh great sage, which fossil fuels are presently sequestering CO2 (yes, it is CO... Carbon Oxygen not Co... cobalt).
Char sequesters CO2? Really? Can you describe that chemical reaction please?
Does this mean my cola also sequesters CO2? What happens when I pop the top?
just wow |
They all do
Biochar nourishes soils, protects water quality, provides market value to biomass waste, creates clean energy, reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and sequesters CO2 for thousands of years! http://www.biochar-us.org/....-us....-us.org |
You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? |
Not much-just more politically correct. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,17:19) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:16) | fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w |
They do? I thought they were only 4000 years old. |
In this increasingly politically correct world, one must read between the lines
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:30) | Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old |
I thought sedimentary rocks were all formed in Teh Flud?
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
oldmanintheskydidntdoit
Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30) | Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old |
So how old is it?
You said 10000 years earlier? Stand by that? Why? How did you come to that figure.
It's easy to say what's wrong. What's right?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,15:55) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,15:45) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) | fourass just how stupid are you? |
Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993.
Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005
Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.
Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.
Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.
Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.
Stupid enough to think he's winning. |
p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian
1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^
All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations.
Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that
yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not |
You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005.
You really think you can get a isochron on a fossil? Really?
Hoo boy... home skillet has well and truly lost it.
You do understand how radioactive dating works right? Nevermind, you don't. In spite of multiple people trying to teach you, you still don't get it. A truly stunning display of Morton's Demon... and Dunning-Kruger for that matter.
You should be in a text book.
BTW: Which fossil fuels are currently sequestering CO2? |
Maybe you believe all that because you are pretending to be a scientist.
I have already shown that oil fields and coal sequester carbon.
I meant that they dont do isochrons on bones but then come to think about it, why not ?
Btw, you believe the favored isochron 238U always decay chains into lead but in fact it can directly transmutate into all kinds isotpes via al kinds of decay mechanisms. Some 238U has different barrier wall thickness and decays extremely fast.
So just imagine how variable the chain to lead must be
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2011,18:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30) | Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old |
So how old is it?
You said 10000 years earlier? Stand by that? Why? How did you come to that figure.
It's easy to say what's wrong. What's right? |
I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,16:45) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,10:33) | Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 12 2011,04:21) | fourass just how stupid are you? |
Stupid enough to think Darwin wrote a paper in 1993.
Stupid enough to think 1 + 0.005 ^= 1.005
Stupid enough to think all sedimentary rock is less than 5,000 years old.
Stupid enough to think small error bars on decay rate determinations are consistent with being off by a factor of ~200,000.
Stupid enough not to know the difference between crankery and science.
Stupid enough to think he's dangerous.
Stupid enough to think he's winning. |
p. 388 in Early life on earth, Bengston seems to quote Darwin's "Complete State" but gives no citation but actually, I gave much better quotes from Darwin concerning the Cambrian/preCambrian
1 + 0.005 ^ does = 1.005^
All kinds of things can catalyze tunneling, fission, fusion, etc.. which can be speed up or slowed down. |
Hee hee hee hee! Still no evidence!
Quote | Bottom line though is that evolutionism wont do isochron dating on bones, nor the rocks that the bones are in. They only do igneous rocks that are not associated with fossils and imo, because only those highly heated pressurized rocks give the extremely long ages that evolutionist claim to need if biodiversity sprang from random mutations. |
See below.
Quote | Crankery from even Ivy league schools, I'll agree with that
yeah I am stupid but the Holy Spirit that converted me is not |
Well you certainly are stupid, and incapable of figuring out the simplest parts of reality, Holy Spirit or not.
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) | I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth |
Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you?
If not, how old is it?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) | You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. |
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote | Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate |
|
I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) | I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth |
Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? |
Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000
why do y'all keep asking that?
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) | I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth |
Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? |
Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000
why do y'all keep asking that? |
You appeared to be equivocating.
Now that I have your kind attention:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) | You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. |
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote | Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate |
|
I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation. |
The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:09) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) | I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth |
Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? |
Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000
why do y'all keep asking that? |
You appeared to be equivocating.
Now that I have your kind attention:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age? |
Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from. Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what?
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33) | Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what? |
No. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.
currently as implied by your 'are' statement
sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 13 2011,03:04) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:11) | I said probably less than 10,000 year because I am not a pseudoempiricists and Bible chronology was not really meant for dating the earth |
Forastero, do you believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old (or 20,000 years, depending upon which Forastero we ask), or don't you? |
Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000
why do y'all keep asking that? |
Because it proves you are crazy and any evidence you gave in a court of law most places on earth would be dismissed as unreliable.
In otherwords your testimony is worthless.
Don't believe me?
Behe who possibly WAS a scientist told a court astrology was science.
You wouldn't even be called as a witness.
That's why.
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:19) | Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from. |
"Again?" You're joking, right?
The assertion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old comes from you. And surely you are not disputing that the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.
The ratios and percentages are ratios and percentages. They come from fourth grade arithmetic. Do you really need to have it all worked out for you?
In the event you do: Consider the (fictional) discovery that errors in radiometric dating have resulted in an overstatement of the age of the earth, such that the earth's actual age is just 10% of of 4.54 billion years (IOW, the actual age has been inflated by 1000%):
10% of 4.54 billion years is a mere 454 million years. 454 million years reflects the passage of 45,400 periods of 10,000 years. Ergo, even if the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth reflects a 1000% inflation of the actual number, corrected radiometric dating would indicate and earth that is 45,400x more ancient than your 10,000 year delusion. Quote | Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question. |
Here's a real question:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?
Here's another:
2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
And here's one more:
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?
[Edited for accuracy]
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33) | Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what? |
No. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.
currently as implied by your 'are' statement
sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one. |
Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
Quote | You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? |
Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth.
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:19) | Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from. Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question. |
this pustule
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:54) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33) | Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what? |
No. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.
currently as implied by your 'are' statement
sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one. |
Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
Quote | You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? |
Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. |
what, are you Dr Who or some shit?
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:54) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33) | Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what? |
No. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.
currently as implied by your 'are' statement
sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one. |
Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
Quote | You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? |
Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. |
Surprise surprise... not a single link works.
Dude, let me ask you. Is coal, actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now? Is the gasoline in my car actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now?
Because that's what you said. It's not my fault if you cannot speak clearly.
Let's be very clear... NONE of the methods you state actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Biochar is just a method for fixing the carbon already taken up by plants and then dumping it in the ground. It does not actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Again, you, perhaps, should review what you write before hitting the submit button.
As far as hounding... I think the record speaks for itself. If you would answer questions when asked, then the rest of us wouldn't have to ask you the same damn question for 20 pages.
Let's get one thing clear, you are not a scientist. You hate science, you think all science is wrong. You are the most hypocritical of creationists, one who uses the tools developed by science to try and convince others that science is wrong.
BTW: I'm still waiting for the discussion on kinds and your research proposal to look for the 673 alleles of HLA-A in the human genome.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,20:43) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:19) | Again you are not showing your work on where any of these numbers are coming from. |
"Again?" You're joking, right?
The assertion first that the earth is less than 10,000 years old comes from you. And surely you are not disputing that the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.
The ratios and percentages are ratios and percentages. They come from fourth grade arithmetic. Do you really need to have it all worked out for you?
In the event you do: From the (fictional) discovery that errors in radiometric dating have resulted in a number (4.54 billion years) that overstates the age of the earth by 90% it would follow that the earth is actually that just 10% the age indicated by that inflated figure.
10% of 4.54 billion years is a mere 454 million years. 454 million years reflects the passage of 45,400 periods of 10,000 years. Ergo, even if 90% of the current scientific estimate of the age of the earth resulted from error, and the actual figure is just 10% of that number, corrected radiometric dating would indicate and earth that is 45,400x more ancient than your 10,000 year delusion. Quote | Iow, if you you want an answer, you'll have to provide a real question. |
Here's a real question:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and 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 220,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 45,400x 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.
Here's another:
2) If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
And here's one more:
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age? |
Yeah just as you guys wont except my population rates even with vast reference, you should practice what you preach; especially with so much politically influenced crank science and the fact that most Americans dont believe you 1 %ers and since radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,21:02) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,20:54) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,20:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:33) | Hey ogre, you still working on those questions or what? |
No. I'm waiting for you to give me an example of a fossil fuel currently sequestering Carbon Dioxide.
currently as implied by your 'are' statement
sequestering the process of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
So, what fossil fuels are currently removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?
And you still have even given any examples of your other routes, other than the incorrect use of 'char' which is pretty different from 'biochar', but I'll give you a pass on that one. |
Again, not really-just more politically correct verbiage. Char is a broad term but char, charcoal and biochar are all carbon byproducts of pyrolysis. The only difference is that Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass. A vogue agroforestry technique is called slash-n-char. Most coal is about 75-90 percent carbon and Biochar is 80% carbon and both act as present sinks. And as I told you a few weeks back, fossil fuels may also be mostly made by pyrolysis. The same stuff that makes bio-char is also often used to make bio-oil, which is also used to sequester carbon.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
Quote | You didn't SAY biochar... you said 'char'. There's a big freaking difference.
Now, what fossil fuels are sequestering CO2?
Is this going to be another that I have to hound you on for pages and pages?
All fossil fuels are currently involved in sequestering carbon? Really? Everything? The gasoline in my car is currently sequestering carbon dioxide? |
Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. |
Surprise surprise... not a single link works.
Dude, let me ask you. Is coal, actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now? Is the gasoline in my car actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere right now?
Because that's what you said. It's not my fault if you cannot speak clearly.
Let's be very clear... NONE of the methods you state actually remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Biochar is just a method for fixing the carbon already taken up by plants and then dumping it in the ground. It does not actively remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Again, you, perhaps, should review what you write before hitting the submit button.
As far as hounding... I think the record speaks for itself. If you would answer questions when asked, then the rest of us wouldn't have to ask you the same damn question for 20 pages.
Let's get one thing clear, you are not a scientist. You hate science, you think all science is wrong. You are the most hypocritical of creationists, one who uses the tools developed by science to try and convince others that science is wrong.
BTW: I'm still waiting for the discussion on kinds and your research proposal to look for the 673 alleles of HLA-A in the human genome. |
Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa....7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009....hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied.
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Let's just take a quick look at all the carbon sequestration techniques shall we?
1) creation of new peat bogs 2) reforestation 3) agriculture 4) ranch management (a few techniques notably increasing ground cover and covering decaying material for carbon fixing bacteria) 5) iron fertilization 6) urea fertilization
These all have a similar theme... increasing plant growth.
7) Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) - which is basically running the emissions from power plants through plant mass 8) burial (of trees) 9) biochar - heating of carbon containing plant material in zero-oxygen conditions to fix carbon, then bury it 10) ocean storage - similar to iron and urea fertilization of oceans
Note that these all have a similar theme... increasing plant growth.
11) subterranean injection of CO2 gas 12) carbonate minerals (not very efficient) 13) Eco-cement - a modified cement that absorbs CO2 during the curing process 14) chemical scrubbers - usually based on making carbonates
Note that these all have a similar theme... removal of produced CO2 during manufacture of CO2 as a waste product... with the exception of the Eco-cement.
On this list, I do not see absorption by fossil fuels. In fact, I would absolutely love to see a chemical reaction that uses fossil fuels to absorb CO2. That would be an earth-shattering event.
In fact, the only truly useful way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is plant growth. Of course, as soon as the plant dies or is burned, then that CO2 is released. That's the entire point of biochar and burial. Take the carbon in the plant, fix it, then bury it.
If you read carefully that many biochar processes result in very, very useful fuels from charcoal to syngas. In this case, it would NOT be a sequestration technique, because as soon as you use the fuel, then the CO2 goes right back into the atmosphere.
In summary, biochar is not a method for absorbing CO2, it is a method for fixing it. Arguably, it is a sequestration method, but only when the resulting product is buried. If it is used as a fuel, then it it most definitely not a sequestration technique.
I'm still waiting on those fossil fuels that absorb CO2.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:54) | Hounding me in the name of science was common among the German SS, which developed out of primitive ego-defenses including, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists. Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury, a perceived threat to a narcissist’s self-esteem or self-worth. |
Plagiarized in part from here.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:16) | Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_
zsqNEXS5nlLuVWxOoEuGkdtIVWh1pTV4uRZGGuMZGJnfGxgnb1&sig=AHIEtbQmqDPYZZc-bu6IzsiVUK_gGWyHOQ]http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ[/URL]
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. |
Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?
Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT what you said...
forastero
Quote | ou realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... |
You said "are" as in right now. I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now.
Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Will you admit that this is true?
Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:18) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion |
I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.
You are obviously unable to do that.
I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.
You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.
And you stated: Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.
Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you.
-------------- 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
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:18) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion |
I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.
You are obviously unable to do that.
I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.
You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.
And you stated: Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.
Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you. |
Boom goes the dynamite
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,21:35) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:16) | Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_
zsqNEXS5nlLuVWxOoEuGkdtIVWh1pTV4uRZGGuMZGJnfGxgnb1&sig=AHIEtbQmqDPYZZc-bu6IzsiVUK_gGWyHOQ]http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ[/URL]
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. |
Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?
Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT what you said...
<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>
Quote | ou realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... |
You said "are" as in right now. I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now.
Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Will you admit that this is true?
Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology. |
Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:47) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:18) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion |
I haven't "assisted" upon anything. I've asked you to specify the magnitude of the errors YOU are alleging, and to support that allegation with reference to the literature you cite.
You are obviously unable to do that.
I've allowed you the hypothetical finding that radiometric dating has resulted in an figure (4.54 billion years) that was inflated by 1000% as a result of error. And I've asked, given the resulting corrected hypothetical finding that the earth is 45,400x the age of your Biblical surmise, whether would you conclude that such radiometric evidence would support your Biblical view of the age of the earth.
You can't or won't respond, for obvious reasons.
And you stated: Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
Which prompts me to ask how many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age.
Another question to which you can't respond, also for obvious reasons. Asserting that the errors you require would arise over millions of years through a fictional (and nonsensical) process of compounding doesn't help your case one whit. You need to demonstrate that those errors can accumulate in just 10,000 years - because that is all the time your Bible allows to you. |
Sorry but I have given several detailed descriptions that likely dismiss your question and you havnt responded to even one of them
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,21:35) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:16) | Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_
zsqNEXS5nlLuVWxOoEuGkdtIVWh1pTV4uRZGGuMZGJnfGxgnb1&sig=AHIEtbQmqDPYZZc-bu6IzsiVUK_gGWyHOQ]http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ[/URL]
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. |
Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?
Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT what you said...
<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>
Quote | ou realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... |
You said "are" as in right now. I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now.
Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Will you admit that this is true?
Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology. |
Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947 |
SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.
I'm just trying to confirm.
BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.
The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic.
Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
forastero
Posts: 458 Joined: Oct. 2011
|
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,22:08) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,21:35) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:16) | Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_
zsqNEXS5nlLuVWxOoEuGkdtIVWh1pTV4uRZGGuMZGJnfGxgnb1&sig=AHIEtbQmqDPYZZc-bu6IzsiVUK_gGWyHOQ]http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ[/URL]
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. |
Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?
Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT what you said...
<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>
Quote | ou realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... |
You said "are" as in right now. I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now.
Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Will you admit that this is true?
Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology. |
Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947 |
SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.
I'm just trying to confirm.
BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.
The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic.
Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2. |
Well if you let your car sit without starting it up, it could possibly sequester a bit of carbon through some tiny crevices but nothing like a reservoir of fossil fuels
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 12 2011,18:04) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:30) | Oh and no one believes that the world is 4000 years old |
So how old is it?
You said 10000 years earlier? Stand by that? Why? How did you come to that figure.
It's easy to say what's wrong. What's right? |
There is no way that an incredible 150% error can accumulate in the solid dating of 10,000 years and have it really be 4,000!
Nobody would be that stupid.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:11) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,22:08) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:58) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,21:35) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:16) | Well they worked when I gave them to you on the page just before this one but I am always one step ahead of this SS propaganda game.
Petroleum sequesters millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be vented into the atmosphere. http://www.spe.org/twa........7n2.pdf
coal sequesters 80% of the carbon dioxide; the other 20% goes into the atmosphere. http://www.linden-nj.org/city_cl....tes.pdf
Coal sequesters CO2, if coal is never mined [URL=http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:rqqxMFkJj3oJ:202.118.250.111:8080/com_student/baogao/kelly-2.ppt+%22coal+sequesters%22&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh6nyMy_QW9GlN83y4tcsXUDvmJ4wSj0WLme2MDxGhMUaoTP8RQ03WrWw23tZ8BWFvMj7liyDLtmPSY-WqOj_
zsqNEXS5nlLuVWxOoEuGkdtIVWh1pTV4uRZGGuMZGJnfGxgnb1&sig=AHIEtbQmqDPYZZc-bu6IzsiVUK_gGWyHOQ]http://docs.google.com/viewer?....gGWyHOQ[/URL]
Carbon can also be sequestered in soil in the form of carbon compounds such as humus, compost and other organic matter. The oceans sequester carbon in the water as carbonic acid, in marine life, and in deep sea sediments. Fossil fuels sequester carbon until they are burned. http://www.thegreenteam.org/Climate....e07.pdf
Fossil fuels equal stored solar energy and fossil fuels sequester carbon, http://peopleandresourcesfire.blogspot.com/2009.......hy.html fossil fuels sequester carbon dioxide molecules from the atmosphere for millions of years until we burn them, thus releasing the molecules back http://www.koofers.com/flashca....ca....w
I have answered your questions but your ego allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. |
Do you realize, that if you cannot successfully make coal in less than 100 years, then your entire timeline is impossible?
Yes, forastero, coal has sequestered carbon from millions to hundreds of millions of years ago. That is NOT what you said...
<a href="http://" target="_blank">forastero</a>
Quote | ou realize that fossil fuels are sequestering lots of Co2, as does char, lime stone, carbonate rocks, water etc...etc... |
You said "are" as in right now. I will admit that with a revised reading, we can say that fossil fuels are sequestering carbon, right now.
Carbon sequestration is 'removal' of CO2 from the atmosphere... fossil fuels DO NOT remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Will you admit that this is true?
Again, it's not my fault if you don't speak correctly and use correct terminology. |
Yes they are sequestering carbon as we speak just as does biochar but the whole point was that new finding show that burning wood may release more carbon coal, which is just one of many challenges to Jon's and Tracy's assertion that carbon ratio perturbations began after 1947 |
SO your claim is that the coal in the ground and the gas in my car are actively removing CO2 from the air... as we speak.
I'm just trying to confirm.
BTW: You still have an entire discussion on kinds you're running away from.
The whole point is your abysmal knowledge and logic.
Please, enlighten us with an example of a piece of coal absorbing CO2. |
Well if you let your car sit without starting it up, it could possibly sequester a bit of carbon through some tiny crevices but nothing like a reservoir of fossil fuels |
Ok, so you admit that fossil fuels are not 'right now' sequestering CO2. yes or no
Why not try actually answering questions for once?
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
blipey
Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:18) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion |
Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read here. That takes some doing; congratulations.
1. "assistance" instead of "insistence" 2. a complete lack of understanding of the question (a simple math problem) 3. "insisting" (I can uses teh Anglish) that he is correct on a young earth because the numbers work out when you take into consideration the billions of years it would take to happen....
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007
|
now, i can take this motherfucker into a coal mine now!
let's go fourass! we'll get you back in there in the blue diamond seam and see how much CO2 sequestration you measure in the middle of one of those 13 foot seams
you say dumber shit than i have heard retards say
-------------- 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
|
|
|
Cubist
Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,21:18) | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 12 2011,21:09) | We understand, Forastero. You can't answer my questions. Why not just admit it? |
I already told you that your assistance on little differences dont make sense because little differences build up Big Time when working with the age numbers needed for your religion |
Hmmm. According to you, forastero, the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old. Assuming you're right about that, there's only been 10-to-20 thousand years of time for stuff to have happened on Earth. So if some particular Thing X takes more than 20,000 years to occur, that means Thing X can't have occurred, because (still assuming you're right about the 10-to-20 millennia deal) there hasn't been enough time for it to have occurred. Now. Whatever "errors" may exist in radiometric dating, those "errors" cannot have been accumulating for a longer period of time than the Earth has existed, right? And according to you, the Earth has only existed for, at most, about 20,000 years. Which means that any "errors" which may exist in radiometric dating, cannot have been accumulating for more than the 20,000-year upper limit for the Earth's existence. It's all well and good to make noise about how badly a radiometric date can be distorted by millions of years' worth of accumulated "error"... but in order for such an argument to make sense, there has to be millions of years of time during which that "error" can accumulate. Because if the Earth is only 10-to-20 thousand years old, the absolute maximum amount of time during which any such "error" could accumulate, is 10-to-20 thousand years. With me so far, forastero? If you're right about the Earth being only 10-to-20 thousand years old... it doesn't matter whether or not a given "error" could, over a period of millions or billions of years, accumulate enough to make a 5-digit age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a 10-digit age-of-Earth. Because in order for that "error" to have actually had millions or billions of years to accumulate, the Earth must actually BE millions or billions of years old. So, forastero: You want to say that "errors" accumulate to make radiometric dates wrong? Fine. But if you're tryna make a case for YECism, you'd damn well better make sure you're talking about "errors" that accumulate over a time-period no longer than the amount of time you want to claim Earth has existed. Because if you make noise about "error" accumulating over millions or billions of years... well, put it this way: If your argument is Radiometric dating is wrong because it's full of errors, and if you let these errors accumulate for billions of years longer than the Earth has actually existed, the accumulated error is big enough to make the true 10Kyear age-of-Earth falsely appear to be a biased Darwinian multibillion-year age-of-Earth, just how many non-YECs are going to buy what you're selling?
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) | You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. |
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote | Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate |
|
I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation. |
The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong. |
Really? Not by you, at any rate.
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,23:02) | Sorry but I have given several detailed descriptions that likely dismiss your question and you havnt responded to even one of them |
No, you've remained completely silent as I repeated my questions for over a month, hoping that if you cowered long enough I would stop asking them. None of your sleeve-mutterings have been remotely responsive to my specific questions.
Here they are again:
1) Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth (such as the above) do NOT account for the entirety of the 454,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate of the age of the earth and your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?
Grow some stones and state a number or range of numbers. Cite literature that supports those numbers.
Remember, you must account for physical processes that inflate radiometric estimates of the age of the earth by a factor of 450,000 in less than 10,000 years (you don't have access to "millions of years" for those errors to magically compound), yet have escaped the notice of the entire edifice of contemporary physics.
2) If (fictional) corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is merely 45,400x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 03 2011,14:05) | Now imagine all the alterations that would occur from major perturbations over so called millions of years and you have an even more ridiculous psuedoscience than it already is. |
3) How many millions of years must pass to accumulate the "alterations" you allege - resulting in your conclusion that the earth is 1/100th of 1 million years in age?
If you believe you have responded to these questions, please provide links.
Time to squeeze the sac Forastero. Anything in there?
-------------- 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
|
|
|
noncarborundum
Posts: 320 Joined: Jan. 2009
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,19:16) | Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2011,19:00) | Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 12 2011,16:22) | Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 12 2011,13:55) | You were the one who freaked out when Jon (I think) said that 1 +0.005 was equal to 1.005. |
It was Wesley in a TalkOrigins article.
Here's the muppet's comment, in all its magnificence: Quote | Its silly imo to insist upon plugging in numbers to drawn out formulas when no one really knows what those prehistoric rates were, especially in this setting. However, if Copy&paste formulas impresses you so, then why arnt you using them in your two Bible date critiques? Moreover, the only formula you have, the Henry Morris exponential formula that you misconstrued here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc....20.html
Its supposed to look like this P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N but you wrote it like P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N and I'd say willfully so; and then you even said that you were doing us a favor by using the much larger growth rate |
|
I can't claim credit for the original, which is due to Mark Isaak. 'Forastero' incorrectly attributed it to me while taking exception to a perfectly well-formed mathematical equation. |
The point had to do with the deceptive tone of the whole article, which btw was easily proved wrong. |
Nonsense. The point had to do with your idiotic assertion that P(N) = 8 × (1.005)^N represented a "much larger growth rate" than P(n) = 8(1 + .005)^N. (If I wanted to demonstrate that a whole article was deceptive, I like to think I'd choose an illustration that was, you know, actually deceptive.)
You seem to think that a simple admission that you were wrong would damage your credibility. Trust me, in this case it would be the only way to salvage even a shred of it.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
JohnW
Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,17:04) | Again, I said below 20,000 and probably less than 10,000
why do y'all keep asking that? |
Because it's funny, muppet.
Especially when you say that 10000 years is sensible, but 6000 years is crazy talk.
-------------- 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"... Â The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
|
|
|
JonF
Posts: 634 Joined: Feb. 2005
|
Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07) | ... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread |
You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any.
|
|
|
OgreMkV
Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07) | ... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread |
You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any. |
0.5% in one series of trials that haven't been reproduced is 'vast'?
I have some stocks that will give you 'vast' gains. I'll give you the list for $45US. PM me for more information.
-------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
|
|
Tracy P. Hamilton
Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006
|
Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07) | ... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread |
You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any. |
Half-vast claims at that.
-------------- "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
|
|
|
k.e..
Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007
|
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Dec. 14 2011,05:19) | Quote (JonF @ Dec. 13 2011,17:50) | Quote (forastero @ Dec. 12 2011,22:07) | ... radiometric dating has been exposed to vast problems right here in this very thread |
You've made lots of claims but haven't substantiated any. |
Half-vast claims at that. |
Right so 0.1 assed claims binary then?
he's on a hiding to nothing.
-------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Southstar
Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011
|
Quote (k.e.. @ Dec. 13 2011,22:14) | |
For forestiero:
Would you be so kind as to answer the following two simple questions:
1) Do you think/believe/know that god is omnipotent? 2) Do you think/believe/know that god created man?
Please select the correct verb above in accordance with your line of reasoning and answer the question (yes/no answers will do just fine, and would be appreciated).
Cheers Marty
Ps:Let's let the man answer these pertinent questions ;)
-------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin
|
|
|
Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002
|
[sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX]
-------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
|
|
Reciprocating Bill
Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006
|
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2011,00:15) | [sound FX]Crickets chirping[/sound FX] |
I tole the cute Little Bunny not to jump into the rain barrel.
-------------- 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
|
|
|
[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]
|