RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,06:04   

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-fűrm)
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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,06:06   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,07:27   

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?

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,07:33   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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-fűrm)
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

(Permalink) Posted: 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-fűrm)
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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,08:16   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,08:19   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,08:21   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,10:43   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,11:02   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,11:18   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
"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

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

--------------
"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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,14:18   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,14:32   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,15:34   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,16:46   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 09 2011,20:46   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,10:13   

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?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,10:15   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,10:25   

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

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 10 2011,10:36   

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

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < ... 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]